Fears for bodies of the fallen Fromelles diggers

[dendonedid]

http://www.theage.com.au/national/fears-fo...90816-emcw.html

Am I being naive by being disturbed by the re-emergence of such "Fears" or are there genuine issues here?

I say naive because again it is Australian journalist & European correspondent Paola Totaro who is the author and there appear to be no other journalists or news agencies running with this story.

Last time concerns about the archaeological work at Fromelles were raised I experienced knee-jerk alarm and promptly wrote to the CWGC. I include an extract from their response:

"LGC Forensics is the largest independent supplier of forensic services to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, supporting law enforcement agencies including police forces and non-police organisations. They met all requisite international standards and provided a solution that met the project requirements [...] Please be assured that the entire project is on schedule and that all the work taking place is being carried out in a highly professional, sensitive and dignified way."

- Peter Francis, Head of External Communications CWGC.

Coincidentally on the 7th of June I met and spoke with Johan Vandewalle on his way into the Fromelles excavation site. He told me much of what Paola Totaro quotes him as saying in her article. later that day my partner & I were down on the fence line at the rear of the excavation site looking through a viewing rectangle (cut in the wood and shade cloth that otherwise obscures any view). One of the Oxford Archaeology people came over to speak with us. It was around the time of the last media fracas and he seemed to be checking to see if we were journalists. Once he was satisfied that we weren't we had a bit of a chat with him. He said they were "very hurt" by the suggestions of mis-management in the press. That the story was a beat-up and that there was no flooding of any of the excavation pits.

I just want to get the opinions of forum members before I decide whether or not I should be writing to my MP, CWGC & anyone else I can think of who might be concerned.

Cheers. Den

[auchonvillerssomme]

Something odd with that link, it has twice turned my PC off.

If you are uncomfortable then contact everyone you can think of, I'm not sure why the opinion of forum members should sway you. I for one would like to be satisfied so I will foward the article, if I can ever open it properly, to my MP.

Mick

[Staffsyeoman]

For Mick and in case anyone else could not access the link to the Totaro article in The Age:

Fears for bodies of the fallen Fromelles diggers

Paola Totaro

August 17, 2009

Diggers in the trenches at the battle of Fromelles. Photo: Courtesy Australian War Memorial

A BELGIAN World War I expert has described as a ''nightmare'' the methods used by an English archaeological firm to exhume the bodies of about 300 Australian and British soldiers left for 90 years in a mass grave in France.

Johan Vandewalle's chief anxiety is that the methods used to excavate - going deep into the centre of graves instead of working meticulously layer by layer - means there is no guarantee that every set of remains can be attributed to one individual and that they may be jumbled. He reported: ''I cannot believe they did not follow this archaeological procedure … they can show all sorts of sketches, provide all sorts of pictures, but I still ask why did they go straight to the bottom before finishing up the top?'' The Age contacted Mr Vandewalle but he would not comment, citing a confidentiality clause in his contract.

He said elsewhere: ''I do not want to create a problem. But these are young men, lying all together, alone. They have to be taken out slowly, you need time and you need feeling - without feeling you can't see it, you miss things. If you miss something, it is not respectful … this is the shame for me.''

The Age can reveal that Mr Vandewalle, who has more than 25 years' experience digging in the battlefields of the Western Front, was secretly seconded to Fromelles in June, when bad weather highlighted that the firm chosen to complete the dig, Oxford Archaeology, was not prepared to cope with rising groundwater and rainstorms. He has privately expressed concern that delays, the tight schedule and cost-cutting has turned an archaeological excavation project into a ''body recovery exercise''. Oxford Archaeology won the job by bidding almost half the price of its competitors.

Mr Vandewalle is the only independent witness to the exhumation, regarded by European historians as the most important World War I find in 80 years. Media have been banned from the site since May. He is seen briefly in a video on the project website but is not named or credited. Mr Vandewalle played a key role in the successful excavation and recovery of the remains of five Australian soldiers in Zonnebeke, Belgium, in 2006.

But Peter Barton, who was the official project historian and helped confirm the existence of the grave in the first place, has confirmed that Mr Vandewalle's concerns have now been reported formally to British and Australian authorities. Yesterday Mr Barton was dismayed that the project had seemingly moved from being an archaeological dig to a swift, cut-price recovery of remains. ''It seems bizarre that so much time, effort, care and money could be invested in the project to date only to downgrade requirements at the final, critical stage,'' he said.

The Age reported on July 6 that the entry of water threatened to derail the dig, compromising the men's remains. The Department of Defence denied that report. But remedial and emergency work led by Mr Vandewalle has included rerouting of groundwater and creation of adequate drainage, new buttressing of grave walls to protect sides from collapsing and sliding into the open pits, construction of wooden stairs and erection of a specialised marquee to prevent further water entry and damage. All these works were explicitly stated as pre-requisites in the tender document, a copy of which has been obtained by The Age.

The men were buried by the Germans after the horrific Battle of Fromelles on July 19, 1916, in which 5533 Australians from the 5th Division were either killed, wounded or reported missing in action, making it the worst casualty rate in Australian military history. The 61st British Division suffered losses of 1547 killed, wounded, taken prisoner or missing. Almost 170 Australian and British remains have been recovered from the mass grave site since excavation began in May. Descendants of soldiers have been urged to register with the army.

The Age reported last month that the losing tenders, Birmingham University and the Glasgow University teams, both estimated the cost of the project to be more than £2.4 million ($A4.7 million). Oxford Archaeology won the bid promising to complete the five-month project for about £1.4 million.

[auchonvillerssomme]

Thanks for that.

Mick

[Terry_Reeves]

I find parts of the article rather odd. It says that Mr Vandewalle was "secretly seconded to Fromelles in June" which begs the question "by whom and why?" It appears he has some sort of contract according to the article, which would suggest some sort of official position, but we are really non the wiser. It then goes on to say "He is seen briefly in a video on the project website but is not named or credited." which appears to be a criticism. If his secondment is meant to be a secret, that is hardly suprising. My comments are not intended to denigrate Mr Vandewalle, but rather more to draw attention to the some of the weakness's of the publication's reporting.

TR

[auchonvillerssomme]

Heres another link.

 

 

[John_Hartley]

Den

Am I right in recalling that Totaro has been involved in "mixing it" with an earlier story - I think you are hinting at that in your opening remarks about her?

Her story, above, reports "Oxford Archaeology, was not prepared to cope with rising groundwater and rainstorms." Was that not totally disproved when someone else (described by another GWF member as a conspiracy theorist) tried to suggest the same thing - an attempt that resulted in a fullsome apology from the news source to Oxford Archaeology?

That said, if you feel uncomfortable about things then, of course, you should raise your concerns with CWGc, your MP or whoever, as appropriate.

John

[dendonedid]

John Hartley said:

Den

Am I right in recalling that Totaro has been involved in "mixing it" with an earlier story - I think you are hinting at that in your opening remarks about her?

Her story, above, reports "Oxford Archaeology, was not prepared to cope with rising groundwater and rainstorms." Was that not totally disproved when someone else (described by another GWF member as a conspiracy theorist) tried to suggest the same thing - an attempt that resulted in a fullsome apology from the news source to Oxford Archaeology?

That said, if you feel uncomfortable about things then, of course, you should raise your concerns with CWGc, your MP or whoever, as appropriate.

John

John,

Of the articles I've seen alleging 'Problems' at the excavation site about 90% have come from Totaro (The Age & SMH).

Member Chalkie has posted some follow up perspective:

As you suggest though: I think her original article claiming flooding was roundly rejected in the UK and in Australia. I don't know about totally disproved however. The process is a bit less transparent than I would think it should be.

[Peter and Ellen]

I can vouch that Johan was asked to attend to the site in June as a specialist advisor. He told me so himself and that it was in relation to concerns about how to best deal with the the soil/clay on the site. I was discussing some unrelated issues with Lambis when he came down the walking track looking for entry onto the site.

I have been informed that there is to be a press gathering at the site tomorrow (Tuesday) but I don't know what time.

Paola seems fair enough as a reporter but if this is what Johan has said, then this is very dissappointing. I will disuss it with Johan when I am next talking with him.

I must admit though, I was surprised the other day when I noted that the forensic teams were at some depth in Pit 5 when they had only just recently opened it. It was untouched one day and about four days later you could see that they were at around chest-height. Pit 5 is supposed to have had the highest concentration of remains and as such should have been progressing rather slowly.

Even though I spent many days in the Media Tent during last year's site investigation with Paola last year on the site, in a way, I hope what she has reported is not true, for the sake of the "Boys".

Regards, Peter

[John_Hartley]

Digger Den said:

As you suggest though: I think her original article claiming flooding was roundly rejected in the UK and in Australia. I don't know about totally disproved however.

Den

I was referring to this earlier thread.

In particular see the links on post #26 and the subsequent rebuttals and apologies in the link on post #35.

John

[MelPack]

The report in the Sydney Herald seems to be a little better edited:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/revealed-digge...90816-emen.html

and a rebuttal already appears in the Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...8-26040,00.html

Mel

[dendonedid]

Den

I was referring to this earlier thread. http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...27591&st=25

In particular see the links on post #26 and the subsequent rebuttals and apologies in the link on post #35.

John

Thanks John.

[J Banning]

I was referring to this earlier thread. http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...27591&st=25

In particular see the links on post #26 and the subsequent rebuttals and apologies in the link on post #35.

John - please note that the rebuttals and apologies you mention weren’t actually from the SMH but from other groups in Australia. Despite the Australian Department of Defence denying the previous claims in the SMH and even stating in a recent letter to the soldiers’ potential relatives that the story had been “retracted” by the SMH, they clearly haven’t. In fact, it should be blatantly clear from the latest article that the SMH absolutely stands by their original claims.

Peter – I really would suggest you speak to Johan asap and you will then hear what he has to say. There is no journalistic/artistic licence regarding the reporting of what he said.

I should add that having read all of these responses, I find it intriguing to find that no one seems to be questioning why Oxford Archaeology needed to call Johan on site in the first place. He has been working for them since the beginning of June. Why would he, a recognised leading expert on drainage and WW1 excavations, be there if there wasn’t a problem with drainage on site?

[MelPack]

I find it intriguing to find that no one seems to be questioning why Oxford Archaeology needed to call Johan on site in the first place. He has been working for them since the beginning of June. Why would he, a recognised leading expert on drainage and WW1 excavations, be there if there wasn't a problem with drainage on site?

A fair point.

[Ian Murphy]

Jeremy,

I make no claim to be an expert here but is it not possible that Johan has been brought in for preventative rather than reactive reasons? Or am I being too charitable?

Ian.

The text from the article in the Australian is below.

War dig claims 'untrue'

Leigh Dayton, Science writer | August 18, 2009

A WORLD expert on forensic archeology says verbal attacks on a British team excavating the World War I burial site at Fromelles in France are unfounded.

Richard Wright, a senior forensic adviser to the group, Oxford Archaeology, headed groups that located and excavated mass graves in the former Yugoslavia and graves of victims of the Nazi Holocaust in Ukraine.

The Sydney University emeritus professor said claims yesterday in Fairfax newspapers that methods used by Oxford Archaeology were a "nightmare" and "wickedness" were untrue and showed complete ignorance of basic archaeological procedures.

"My view is that the 'nightmare' and the 'wickedness' rest not with Oxford Archaeology, but with a reporter that furthers untruths," Professor Wright told The Australian. "These disturb both relatives of the dead and the stakeholders in the Fromelles project."

Oxford Archaeology won the contract to recover the remains of up to 400 Australian and British soldiers killed during the Battle of Fromelles in July 1916. There has been speculation that Fairfax's negative coverage stems from one of the two failed bidders, one in Glasgow and the other in Birmingham.

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, acknowledged the reports, saying: "I am aware of some criticism of excavation measures and water management at the site at Fromelles, which has appeared in media reports. I am advised that such claims are untrue."

The key allegation is that Oxford Archaeology has compromised the project by "going deep into the centre of graves instead of working meticulously layer by layer".

[John_Hartley]

John - lease note that the rebuttals and apologies you mention weren’t actually from the SMH .........

Correct. The two links are clearly to www.Australia.to. and it is that organisation which apologises as this extract

" Australia.to recently published two "Letters to the Editor" which unfairly and inaccurately described the performance of Oxford Archaeology in its fulfillment of the contract to recover the war dead.

Australia.to and the editors apologise to Senator Combet, Oxford Archaeology, its staff, workers, local contractors and relatives of the servicemen as information from Oxford Archaeology has come to hand which clearly shows that the work is proceeding satisfactorily and that the content of the letters to the editor was inaccurate and that a retraction is warranted."

[dendonedid]

Jeremy,

I make no claim to be an expert here but is it not possible that Johan has been brought in for preventative rather than reactive reasons? Or am I being too charitable?

Ian.

The text from the article in the Australian is below.

War dig claims 'untrue'

Leigh Dayton, Science writer | August 18, 2009

A WORLD expert on forensic archeology says verbal attacks on a British team excavating the World War I burial site at Fromelles in France are unfounded.

Richard Wright, a senior forensic adviser to the group, Oxford Archaeology, headed groups that located and excavated mass graves in the former Yugoslavia and graves of victims of the Nazi Holocaust in Ukraine.

The Sydney University emeritus professor said claims yesterday in Fairfax newspapers that methods used by Oxford Archaeology were a "nightmare" and "wickedness" were untrue and showed complete ignorance of basic archaeological procedures.

"My view is that the 'nightmare' and the 'wickedness' rest not with Oxford Archaeology, but with a reporter that furthers untruths," Professor Wright told The Australian. "These disturb both relatives of the dead and the stakeholders in the Fromelles project."

Oxford Archaeology won the contract to recover the remains of up to 400 Australian and British soldiers killed during the Battle of Fromelles in July 1916. There has been speculation that Fairfax's negative coverage stems from one of the two failed bidders, one in Glasgow and the other in Birmingham.

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, acknowledged the reports, saying: "I am aware of some criticism of excavation measures and water management at the site at Fromelles, which has appeared in media reports. I am advised that such claims are untrue."

The key allegation is that Oxford Archaeology has compromised the project by "going deep into the centre of graves instead of working meticulously layer by layer".

Ian,

with all due respect to Johan Vandewalle wouldnt you think that Oxford Archaeology would have their own people to cover such contingencies?

[SiegeGunner]

Ian,

with all due respect to Johan Vandewalle wouldnt you think that Oxford Archaeology would have their own people to cover such contingencies?

Yes, you would think they would have their own people to cover such contingencies. So why, some considerable time into the operation, did they have to call in Johan ?

[ianw]

The first casualty of war again seems to be truth.

I must confess that I am concerned by what Peter Barton has apparently said as described in post 3.

I hope that the cause of cost saving is not responsible for denying men the identification they deserve.

[Ian Murphy]

Ian,

with all due respect to Johan Vandewalle wouldnt you think that Oxford Archaeology would have their own people to cover such contingencies?

.. a very fair point.

To be clear though, I was not disagreeing with or criticising Jeremy's question, just pointing out the possibility that it could be a proactive rather than reactive engagement of John Vandewalle by Oxford Archaeology.

I am not persuaded either way as yet without more facts and so I do not yet take a position either way.

I can readily see that it could be exactly as Jeremy's question infers and that water management issues and errors are being made. Clearly, the lack of transparency on the part of Oxford Archeology lends support to this viewpoint.

I can also readily see a journalistic angle to translate Johan Vandewalle's expertise into a "no smoke without fire" context and conclude that there are water managment issues without any substantiation.

Ian.

[dendonedid]

.. a very fair point.

To be clear though, I was not disagreeing with or criticising Jeremy's question, just pointing out the possibility that it could be a proactive rather than reactive engagement of John Vandewalle by Oxford Archaeology.

I am not persuaded either way as yet without more facts and so I do not yet take a position either way.

I can readily see that it could be exactly as Jeremy's question infers and that water management issues and errors are being made. Clearly, the lack of transparency on the part of Oxford Archeology lends support to this viewpoint.

I can also readily see a journalistic angle to translate Johan Vandewalle's expertise into a "no smoke without fire" context and conclude that there are water managment issues without any substantiation.

Ian.

Ian M,

I didnt mean to imply that you were disagreeing or criticising. I'm like you, I cannot take a position either way yet. I have just emailed Oxford Archaeology and asked them straight out if they have brought in Johan as a consultant or advisor. Wishful thinking for such transparency? Perhaps.

[Auimfo]

John,

The person referred to as a 'conspiracy theorist' appears to simply jump on any negative reports about the Fromelles dig and claim them as fact without first seeking to confirm the truth (when not making up his own nonsense). It doesn't mean that 'some' of what he's heard isn't true but more that he's a completely biased and unreliable source.

As like almost everyone, I don't know whether Paola Totaro's article is accurate or not. But therein lies the problem. Because OA, MoD, CWGC, DoD etc are treating the dig like some huge state secret, they are enabling an atmosphere of rumour and criticism. A little more transparency by them from the outset might have avoided much of this problem.

I'm no expert on archaelogical digs and can't make any judgements in that regard however I do have serious concerns about other 'slapdash' aspects of the investigation that may have a direct impact on the number of potential identifications.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[J Banning]

Academics stoke Fromelles furore - Sydney Morning Herald

Paola Totaro Herald Correspondent in London

August 19, 2009

http://www.smh.com.au/world/academics-stok...90818-ep3m.html

THE British Parliament will raise questions about the exhumation of 300 World War I soldiers buried in a mass grave in France for more than 90 years.

The all-party parliamentary war graves and battlefield heritage group, chaired by Lord Roper, is expected to reconvene in October and address the mounting controversy about the way the men's remains have been excavated as well as the tender process won by the private company, Oxford Archeology.

The anxiety has been fuelled by the first-hand observations on the Fromelles site by the Belgian battlefield specialist Johan Vandevalle. The Herald reported on Monday that Mr Vandevalle was seconded to the site within a month of the company starting the excavation.

A world-renowned battlefield excavation expert with 25 years' practical experience, he was called to provide emergency advice and remedial works when water threatened to compromise the pits due to rain and inadequate site preparation.

Air Commodore Steve Martin, the head of Australian Defence staff in London, yesterday defended the project. He confirmed the Australian High Commissioner in London had received a letter from Lord Roper last month raising concerns.

However, he insisted the project was on track and Oxford Archeology started remedial drainage work when it realised ''there was a better way of doing things''. It was doing an excellent job on site and that concerns raised with the parliamentary group had come from someone ''who had not been on the site since work began''. He briefed Lord Roper personally on July 20 ''and he was very happy with what I told him''. He said Mr Vandevalle's concerns had not been conveyed at the time.

Richard Wright, an archaeological consultant, has led the criticism of Mr Vandevalle's claims which, he insists, stem from not winning the tender. Mr Wright was part of the Birmingham University bid but left to join the winning Oxford Archeology team at the eleventh hour.

Yesterday, Birmingham and Glasgow - the latter also a failed tenderer - signalled they would co-operate and participate in any public inquiry into the dig.

Iain Banks, the director of Glasgow University's archaeological research division, called for a formal inquiry into the tender process. "I do not wish to interfere with the project [but] the statements are very concerning and … need to be investigated openly so that the project is seen to respect the men … and fully satisfies all of the relatives that they left behind," he said.

Dr Tony Pollard, who led the original evaluation dig in 2007 and is director of the university's centre for battlefield archaeology, said there was ''a tremendous amount of confusion about what is happening and we really need more transparency''.

Senior British archaeologists proposed an independent monitor to ensure archaeological standards on the site.

[Victoria Burbidge]

The words “he was called to provide emergency advice and remedial works when water threatened to compromise the pits due to rain and inadequate site preparation” jump out of the page ……………….

V.

[MelPack]

And when you read something like this, the bu****it antennae circles 360 degrees:

Staff working on the project have confirmed names of the dead soldiers by consulting the Commonwealth War Graves database, the National Archives and histories of the regiments.

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/glo...il/article.html

Ho hum