Violating war graves

[Clio]

Question: 'What is the attraction of walking over a battlefield, sticking your head into a pillbox or exploring a trench system ?'

Answer: 1) Understanding an unfolding conflict within a defined topographical structure.

2) An act of Remembrance and for some seared by bereavement, a sacred pilgrimage

Question: 'Have you seen the damage that a mine makes in the hull of a merchant ship or the effects of depth charges on a submarine ? '

Answer: No, but my father has experienced both; the former on the Murmansk run, the latter in the Kattegat (very shallow).

I have only ever visited two British dive clubs. Both were full of items removed from wrecks (including U-boats and merchants sunk in wartime) These items were displayed in the manner of trophies (rather in the same manner as a fin de siecle big game hunter might display the heads of animals he had shot) There was no evidence of serious historical research and no reference to those who died. In fact it was depressingly remniscent of another 'dive' - Schier's place at Sanctuary Wood...

[grantowi]

Question: 'What is the attraction of walking over a battlefield, sticking your head into a pillbox or exploring a trench system ?'

Answer: 1) Understanding an unfolding conflict within a defined topographical structure.

2) An act of Remembrance and for some seared by bereavement, a sacred pilgrimage

Why do you think the same doesn't apply to an underwater wreck ?

I have only ever visited two British dive clubs. Both were full of items removed from wrecks (including U-boats and merchants sunk in wartime) These items were displayed in the manner of trophies (rather in the same manner as a fin de siecle big game hunter might display the heads of animals he had shot) There was no evidence of serious historical research and no reference to those who died. In fact it was depressingly remniscent of another 'dive' - Schier's place at Sanctuary Wood...

So these items were on display for all to see and not in some private hidden collection?, did you ask about the items? most divers can give you a history of most of the wrecks they have dived.

Which dive clubs did you visit ?

Funnily enough, I have seen peoples "collections" that they have "collected" from battlefield of have brought from other "collectors" who have found and then sold them. But you seem to think that this is normal and in not any sort of violation.

Why do you persiste in the belief that its OK to remove items from a battle site, but not from a ship wreck?

Grant

[George1916]

Sorry I don't know much about diving but isn't the fact that it is a 'War Grave' the issue. One very large sarcophagos or coffin. I don't think i have seen many posts on here telling people that they have violated a grave or a cemetery and removed items.

[bts1970]

The western Front, Gallipoli, even the Italian front ...... all one large sacred area some may call a War Grave, yet even last week on another thread someone posted up the hope of walking a field & finding a collar badge without the outcry created here. I fully appreciate the strong beliefs on both sides of this argument, it is wrong to remove any item from a site in an underhand manner ...... however, if they are to be conserved in a fitting manner in many years to come when the actual site from where they were removed is no longer distinguishable, there will still be something left for those to gain some ubderstanding of the past.

Bob

[Clio]

defined Topographical structure in open waters ? Now that would be really interesting.

Question: 'Why do you persiste in the belief that its OK to remove items from a battle site, but not from a ship wreck?'

Answer: I do not believe I have expressed any such view. Hence my jibe at Jaques Schier and his lamentable display.

Having highlighted my own hypocrisy in these matters, I am not really fit to comment further. All I can observe is that each case, whether on land or sea must be considered according to its own merits - or opprobrium. And the law of the land is the law of the land QED.

.

[grantowi]

Question: 'Why do you persiste in the belief that its OK to remove items from a battle site, but not from a ship wreck?'

Answer: I do not believe I have expressed any such view.

Nor have you been very vocal about all of the battlefields items that have been wrote about and displayed on this very forum, no shouts of violation, or grave robbers.

Having highlighted my own hypocrisy in these matters, I am not really fit to comment further. All I can observe is that each case, whether on land or sea must be considered according to its own merits - or opprobrium. And the law of the land is the law of the land QED.

The law states that it is legal to remove an item from a shipwreck provided it's not a designated protected wreck, that you have the owners permission where possible and that all items removed are reported to the reciever of wrecks. But the majority of divers will treat a wreck as with respect and leave it as they found it.

You didnt name the dive clubs full of looted items !

Grant

[grantowi]

.

I don't doubt that there are many members on here whose Forefather, Father, Uncle, or Brother lie buried somewhere unknown in a field trapsed over by thousands people. Whose every day items are removed from the place where they died, by strangers and displayed or hoarded in private collections.

Grant

[peterhogg]

I think that the point voiced by our forum colleagues who are divers is a valid one.

The concern here goes beyond legal strictures, be they laws of the sea or land jurisdictions. The issue is a moral one. We accept as a given that grave-yards, be they on land or under the sea are sacred sites and that one should do no more than pay one's respects. Just as removing items from a CWGC cemetery would be offensive, so would removing items from what is in effect a CWGC equivalent on a sea-bed.

As I understand it, the criticism of the removal of items from wrecks is that they do or at least did contain the remains of those lost during wartime. I gather also that unlike a cemetery, shipwrecks may be untidy entities with bits and pieces of a vessel and its contents and remains spread about on the ocean floor and not restricted to a definable space such as a CWGC cemetery. I don't understand the critics of divers to be saying that the salvage actions being condemned are restricted to the actual vessel itself but rather the site of a wreck which may cover a larger area. (the Titanic wreck for example)

I don't think anyone in this Forum would argue that the CWGC comprise the only sacred ground. The various memorials to the missing simply confirm what we all know: the very fields many of us have trod upon time and again, be they at Redan Ridge, Death Valley, Gallipoli or the Salient constitute the top-soil to many a missing man's grave. No question, for example, the approaches to High Wood are one huge unmarked cemetery.

If on the one hand we are offended by the notion of people looting underwater grave-sites or grave-yards, we are hard-pressed to distinguish that sort of activity from people who remove items from the very fields we likewise hold sacred.

I honestly don't see alot of difference between taking something from a sea-bed near a wreck and taking a souvenir from a newly ploughed field. Who is to say whether the spot we find that much-sought cap badge or piece of a rifle or rusted piece of what have you would not reveal, with a little more digging some poor fellow's remains?

I must say I feel queasy from reflecting on this point. i am not a diver but as i write my bookcase does contain a collection of shrapnel balls, some nose-caps and a cap badge....

peter

[Clio]

It may be a moral issue but it is also an issue of LAW. And the LAW is carefully structured, phrased and defined - including the definition as to what constitutes a marine war grave. I leave this thread with one last thought.

The very fact that marine war graves have to be protected by legislation from divers, speaks eloquently for itself.

I have before me a photograph in a PDF format taken in a regional dive club. In the corner can be seen a periscope yanked from a UB boat (lost with all hands). Doubtless all done in the best possible taste and from the highest of motives...

Scene_inside_British_diving_club._Note_WW1_U_boat_periscope_in_corner.pdf

[peterhogg]

Hi Clio,

I didn't understand the earlier posters as denying that legislative schemes do govern any interference with designated ship wrecks.

But I gather think the wider point raised above by some poster is that the removal of souvenirs from the battlefields is likewise prohibited by law and that such activity is on a equal footing with that of taking items from a sea-wreck; that both amount to pillaging a sacred site and yet no one seems to want to address that issue.

For myself, at the moment I'm not sure if I can rationalize that there is a big difference between the two...

[Wrecktec]

Conner

I think the main issue here is the fact that the wreck of HM S/M H5 has been designated as a Protected War Grave and someone is offering for sale an artefact removed from that wreck.

The arguement about battlefields could go on forever, but I think if a person chipped a lump off a CWGC headstone and offered it for sale, a lot of people would be very unhappy and would expect that person prosecuted.

Cheers Ron

[MartH]

Just to add a few points to this thread.

My uncle was lost in a WW2 British Sub, discovered in 1995, and my father was very glad: that it was positively identified in 2003 by a professional dive, and the placing of a war memorial to the sub and crew, even though his name is at Gosport and on the memorial at Portsmouth. From reading the website of those involved it was done with the highest standards and respect.

Standards have changed over the years regarding the authorities view of the dead of the Great War, I regret to say that some of the time they where driven in part by economics. I once started a topic enquiring about how many bodies where found and then buried when the A19 motorway near Ieper was built. The sad fact is that this motorway that went through battlefields from 1914 to 1918, over some of the most contested ground, and should have yielded thousands, none where officially found, I regret to say it would have taken years to build if due consideration had been given to the dead. I was informed by pm and at the Ariane that the "diggers" were formed are a result of this "oversight". Thankfully times have changed and am I sure that today the building of the A19 would become a National act of Remembrance . It still worries me going along the road though, thinking how many men where bulldozed into the foundations.

[dycer]

I come from the school of thought that vessels containing graves should be left alone.

I saw a documentary recently where redundant American,Canadian and New Zealand Naval Vessels were deliberately scuttled,to enhance both marine life and to allow divers a safe experience,within the limitations,of being underwater.

I had mixed feelings about the Mary Rose,being raised,because of the war grave issues,but have been convinced that the historical importance of the wreck,and its artefacts,as an insight into 16th Century life,outweighs my concerns.

Assuming a WW1 Vessel is still intact,and can be salvaged 500 hundred years from now, as an example of its craft,with all its artefacts,as an insight into early 20th Century life,should we be concerned,assuming any human remains found are treated with dignity?

George

[grantowi]

It may be a moral issue but it is also an issue of LAW. And the LAW is carefully structured, phrased and defined - including the definition as to what constitutes a marine war grave. I leave this thread with one last thought.

The very fact that marine war graves have to be protected by legislation from divers, speaks eloquently for itself.

The same lays that you speak of, are also there to protect the dead buried in unknown graves (and their belongings) on the many battle fields, yet every year items are removed, you seem to be ok with that.

I have before me a photograph in a PDF format taken in a regional dive club. In the corner can be seen a periscope yanked from a UB boat (lost with all hands). Doubtless all done in the best possible taste and from the highest of motives...

Is this one of the dive clubs that you have visited but have so far failed to name?

How do you know that this periscope is not from a WW2 Uboat that was scuttled or used as target practice after the war?

In an early post - when you told of your visit to the two dive clubs - you said that there were loads of items on the wall with no historical information about them, seems that in your photo there are pictures and some information panels.

I have just watched a TV programe about an American salvage (treasure hunting) company, they have located a Cunard ship - RMS Laconia - that was carrying a fortune in gold and silver coin from USA to Britian in WW1, attacked and sunk by two torpedos 150 miles off the coast of Brittian in 1917. Two women died in the wreck (they even brought up a womens shoe to try and get an ID on the wreck),

Even though the wreck is belongs to the British taxpayer (the Goverment at the time, under some sort of insurance scheme paid the owners) the American courts have decided that this company can salvage the wreck. This will be carried out with little or no respect for the two dead women, but that is OK in your book because the ship isn't classed as a "war grave".

Grant

[peterhogg]

Grant,

I am interested in the fact that those condemning the removal of items from sea-wrecks/designated sea-graves seem unwilling to address the other issue of removing items from the battlefields which is likewise illegal.

peter

[auchonvillerssomme]

Is it illegal for me to remove an item from my garden? Is my garden a battlefield? I'm so confused!!! I have many bits found when digging holes in it, so if i remove it from the garden and place it on my mantlepiece (not likely, because my wife wouldn't let me) would i be breaking the law?

[peterhogg]

Worse for me, Auchonvillerssomme, I've taken stuff home to Canada!! may have to turn myself in. (last time customs only seized the cheeses and my muddy boots--mad cow concerns, you know.)

But seriously, I gather there are some laws with respect to removing items from the land. Perhaps not (?) But as you point out, there would have to be reasonable limits. Perhaps the case of a shipwreck is distinguishable in the sense that there would at least be some definable area in relation to the shipwreck and the immediate, contiguous area, whereas in the case of the battlefield, we are looking at huge swathes of territory, some public, some private owned. Anyway, i would think the garden is safe! and i have gone on too long on this thread.

cheers, peter

[dycer]

If we accept that a sunken Naval Vessel is to all intents and purposes a CWGC Cemetery,which will contain contain many artefacts of interest to a Historian/Military Collector.

Are we suggesting that CWGC Cemetery Graves be opened to fuel this passion?

Assuming not,then why are wrecks fair game?Unless they must be entered,with dignity,to remove items of value e,g gold or materials of danger to the environment e.g. oil or unexploded ammunition.

By their nature the old Battlefields still contain items of personal equipment e.g. Cap Badges,unexploded ammunition,etc.Clearly the latter should be removed and one can argue that Cap Badges,etc should also be removed as they may pose a danger to wildlife,or to farming,building equipment.

In the sea it's a thin line and I'm not sure where sensitive clearing ends and grave robbing begins.

Georg

[Clio]

A given 20thc battlefield may or may not be defined as such in French or Belgian law. Verdun is afforded a certain amount of national protection but by contrast the area of say the 1918 Battle of the Lys, is not. A known battlefied may have the status of a site of historical interest, it does not however, hold the status of a war grave. Definitions as to what constitutes a war grave in international law are freely available on the web sites of CWGC, SSG and VDK. The fact that people may have died within the confines of a battlefield is classed as incidental in law. Therefore the removal of artefacts from a battlefied, as opposed to a war grave maintained under the aegis of one of the bodies listed above, is invariably a civil matter between the landowner and the culprit removing said item.

Protected marine war graves are classed as graves per se. The extent of this protection is defined, phrased and enshrined in law and it is the duty of enforcement bodies to uphold this law.

QED.

[ph0ebus]

Hi all,

If I may add two cents to my original two cents...bear in mind I am not an archaeologist by profession, though I do have some education and field experience in this area. The discussion seems to be hinging on two very important and sometimes competing (and occasionally contradictory) concepts: law and morality. That act which is legal may not necessarily be seen by some as moral and that act which may be seen by some as moral may not be legal. I do not know the law as it pertains to British soil but I know a bit about the law as it pertains to recognized battlefields here in the US. Here, the rule of thumb is that the unsanctioned removal of an artifact from a recognized and protected battlefield is a crime. Finding and removing an item on one's own personal property is not a crime per se, but as I said previously, the find may have historic significance that could be later questioned, if not lost when removed from its original context.

A simple example. You walk a battlefield and find a cap badge. Cool! You take it and bring it home. But, were the following questions asked: was there a disintegrated cap that went with that badge, and a body with that cap? Depending on how much time has elapsed, the soil conditions and chemistry, exposure to the elements, etc. there may be little left of the human remains other than a stain in the earth. Was the soil artificially disturbed in the proximity of the badge? Only by carefully examining the surrounding earth might one ascertain that the badge was in a burial. A technique often used by archaeologists, when deciding where to dig, is analysis of surface artifact concentrations (meaning if there is an identified cluster of artifacts on the surface, something might be buried beneath the surface there). If 50 people all pick up one of 50 artifacts off the surface, the visible clues of a burial might be lost.

I took part in a dig in Mississipi where we did surface collection in a plowed section of soybean field. Given all the artifacts had been plowed out of their original contexts, the items themselves lost some context-related info but the concentrations of artifacts on the surface still hinted at an 18th century buried structure beneath the surface that those jumbled surface artifacts helped us to locate.

Getting back to the cap badge, maybe it is from a unit that is well known and documented to have operated in that area at the time. Or, maybe that badge may re-write history, as it is from a unit that was previously not known to have operated there. If I may be so bold as to use a non-Great War example of how one find can change the knowledge and understanding of a people in a point of history, read about the discovery of the Calf Creek Arrowhead, here:

http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/pdf/308_arrow.pdf

One 'find' changed our understanding of the Calf Creek people because the fellow who found the arrowhead kept track of where he found it and showed it to someone who recognized it for what it was and knew its significance.

Of course, you can sometimes find things lying around that clearly have no war-related casualty associated with them. A few years back I stepped on something in the surf at a public beach out on Long Island, NY; it was a WWII-era (?) British Officer's cap badge...it says "Hindoostan" above a tiger and "Leicestershire" below. I was pretty confident there was no battle on Long Island involving this badge, but I kept track of where I found it nonetheless, and after showing to our local museum, was told they had no explanation as to how the badge may have gotten there and was informed I could keep it. I am still puzzling over how it got there. You can see a picture of the badge here:

http://ph0ebus13.googlepages.com/militaria

So, I guess to summarize, obey the pertinent laws (on land as well as at sea), and if you find something, show it (perhaps via a photograph, still in its context, if possible) to someone who might know what its significance is. If it is not historically significant, perhaps you will get to keep it and not have to worry that it was inadvertantly plucked from someone's long-lost grave.

-Daniel

[Wrecktec]

Hi Daniel,

The law for the wrecks around GB are pretty similar in a way; you can remove almost anything from a shipwreck providing the article/s is/are reported to the Receiver of Wreck soon after being recovered, which all divers are, or should be well aware of. You have to fill forms in to say when it was found, where and what wreck they were removed from and your letter is acknowledged. Then the Receiver attempts to find out who the owner is/was. If the owner is located, they are asked if they want the item/s returned, for which the diver will be paid some expenses. If the owner cannot be traced (and most of them are not), then generally you are allowed to keep the item/s, but that process could take over a year and the said item has to be placed in a safe place during that period.

However, if the article has been removed from a recognosed and protectd war grave, the person will usually be prosceuted. Also, all Royal Navy ships/boats have a known owner (the Admiralty), so acquiring objects from those ships/boats will be rather frowned upon to say the least, even if it was not a war grave.

Cheers Ron;)

[dycer]

Protected marine war graves are classed as graves. The extent of this protection is defined, phrased and enshrined in law and it is the duty of enforcement bodies to uphold this law.

Clio,

I agree, 20th Century Marine wrecks are War Graves,and should be protected,just because they are graves,of men who died in service of their Country.

In a perfect Society, Countries of the Commonwealth would have enough policemen available,to ensure the Laws of Countries,in the Commonwealth,would ensure that none of their War wrecks are never molested.

That is impossible,so it is beholden,upon sports Divers,to view,respect,report but not retrieve,anything belonging to or attached to the wreck.

George

[Clio]

Question: 'How do you know that this periscope is not from a WW2 Uboat that was scuttled or used as target practice after the war?'

Answer: Because its precisely my job to know things like that.

For what it is worth, one of the leading lights in this particular diving club was the subject of a 'World in Action' documentary expose following his skilled handiwork on a UC boat (also a war grave) in the same region back in the 1980s.

And you will find the answer to its location on the front page of the Independent newspaper which appeared on the 11th November 1999

[Wrecktec]

Interestingly, I have the full details of over 400 ships and boats that have been sunk, wrecked or lost between Whitby, in Yorkshire and the Scottish Border at Berwick on the UK east coast and the list of crewmen who died runs into the 100s. Yet there are only about a dozen ships and boats that would be looked on as war graves. The reason being, is that the remainder were merchantmen and trawlers and, for some unknown reason, those are not looked on as war graves, even though lots of brave men died with/on them???

That said, even the dozen or so 'war graves' have been shown no proper respect, because all but two that I know of, (British submarines HM S/M UNITY and HM S/M J6) have been pillaged and blown up with explosives to get at the bronze propellers and valuable artefacts that sell openly for huge sums of money. Many divers already know what the German U-boat wrecks look like these days, most of the artefacts and propellers being long gone.

The authorities are well aware of it and that is one of the reasons why certain wrecks were designated as protected sites, not to be even visitied without specially permission; one of those being H5, so well done Cleo.

Ron

[dycer]

Ron,

If a Man goes to Sea,as a fisherman,merchantman and the Sea claims his life,so be it.

Someone who goes to Sea, as an experienced seaman,or a novice and loses his life,at Sea,through War,should be afforded the courtesy of a Grave.

I fully accept that the majority of the wrecks,you have researched foundered because of weather,bad seamanship,etc and Families,at Home,appreciated these dangers,but allowed their men-folk to go to sea.

War wrecks are slightly different.Not only did they have to survive the elements,bad seamanship,they succumbed to enemy action.

Why is it,and I do not include you personally,that trophies from War wrecks are more highly prized than from wrecks lost in peacetime?

George