Fears for bodies of the fallen Fromelles diggers

[galena]

Being an archaeologist myself and having to deal with drainage/ground water problems all the time, I am somewhat puzzled by all this.

A reconnaissance dig was conducted before the actual project started, even before the project had been appointed to Oxford archaeology. The times that I have undertaken a similar reconnaisance task, a full report on geology, drainage and ground water levels have always been an important part of this, so adequate measures could be taken to prevent water problems as much as possible during the actual full excavation that is to follow. Drainage systems are usually put in place a few weeks/month before the actual excavation starts, as it takes a while to actually lower the ground water level. A drainage system does not prevent a site from flooding in case of heavy rainfall, but is allows the rainwater to be absorbed very quickly. Basically the flooded part is left for a little while untill the pumps have done their work.

So the question pops up whether or not the reconnaissance team had advised drainage.

Some time since I read the report, but from memory, I believe its primary purpose was to confirm existence of burial pits and wether they contain bodies. GUARD did recomend a secondery survey before recovery was undertaken. they were only there a few days and the work was mostly non-invasive, I believe. It was mentioned that the water table was at ground level and there was a flood problem with a blocked drainage ditch along the wood (was this addressed?). The ground was deemed impossible to plow, the landowners tractor had got stuck there in the past. I think ground radar also indicated water content but would have to re-read the report to be sure (and its too long for me now). I must say i'm rather alarmed at the rate of body recovery, on the current figures it is averaging 1.9 to 2.7 per diem. Time Team timescales?

[dendonedid]

Please see below edited highlights from an email I received today from Peter Francis (CWGC). Through correspondence with Fairfax media, research and reading additional information kindly provided on this forum I had already come to several conclusions about the Fromelles Project, not the least of which were that 1. Fairfax media have been fear-mongering and 2. That 99% of all other sources that I might put trust in are indicating that the project is moving forward in a professional and dignified manner.

"...let me state, categorically, that there is not, nor has there ever been any crisis of any kind during the operations at Fromelles. There is no basis in fact for any of the critical reporting and both we and OA are extremely distressed and angered by the inaccurate reports in some sections of the media - not least because of the unnecessary distress it must have caused to families back in the UK and Australia.

 

To that I would add that OA are a multi national and multi skilled organisation, in whom we have complete confidence, with the resources and ability to bring additional personnel onto the project as required. It was in this capacity that Mr Vandewalle was asked to visit Pheasant Wood to advise on water management techniques.

 

Mr Vandewalle's proposals included the excavation of sumps adjacent to burial pits and construction of drainage ditches connecting the pits to the sumps. These measures were taken by OA to ensure that every possible effort was being made to ensure that no remains were compromised at any time. 

 

I should point out that OA's original tender and execution on the ground already included detailed water management plans that had proved completely effective in protecting the graves and their contents. Additional water management systems were put in as a precaution, not as a reaction to previous problems.

 

[...] I believe the additional comments about the methodology of excavating the remains are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of sound archaeological principles.

 

An early exploratory dig in 2008 by GUARD to establish the number of remains had inevitably meant some  “modern intrusion” into the graves. Good archaeological practice demands that archaeologists must remove recent deposits first, to avoid any risk of the site and results being contaminated. To the untrained eye it might have looked like OA were burrowing into the pit, rather than dealing with it layer by layer. But before that could happen, OA had first to deal with clearing the test pit. OA are recovering the remains layer by layer and the high proportion of artefacts – some of which are incredibly well preserved  – associated with specific individuals is proof of the effectiveness of the methodologies employed on site and the skills of the multi national and multi disciplined team OA were able to engage on the project. At no point in this process have human remains or artefacts been at risk. All of OA's methodologies conform to the highest archaeological standards.

 

[...] You have my word and assurances, that the project is moving forward with every ounce of professionalism, dignity and care we can bestow and that these men will be given a commemoration fitting their sacrifice."

Peter Francis

Head of External Communications

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

[sarge2871]

...many thanks Digger, looks good to me and backs up what Martial and I discussed over a 6hr meet recently on site at Fromelles, good to see the same in print though..thanks once again for posting, stay safe mate.

Colin Stalgis

Remembering: Cpl G.F.Stalgis

KIA 19/20 July 1916

Fromelles

[J Banning]

I have no connection to the Fromelles dig, having only visited it in its early stages this May (and that through the viewing station), but find it very difficult to form an opinion on this, given all the 'chaff'. I suspect I am not alone in that. However, I must say that I find the statement "Johan Vandevalle knows nothing about archaeology" somewhat odd, and lacking knowledge in itself.

Many thanks for making this observation Paul – it is refreshing to read someone’s views that are not clouded by the fact that Johan’s concerns were published in a newspaper.

One might ask how and why OA & CWGC chose Johan Vandwalle to do this work. CWGC has offices in Beaurains and Ypres and employ hundreds of people, Oxford Archaeology have offices in the UK as well as Montpellier, France, employ nearly 400 people and yet, between both organisations, they had no one who was capable of sorting out the problems that their lack of preparatory drainage had caused. For OA to now denigrate Johan and his unique skills when it was he that saved their bacon is rather repulsive. If he was the amateur they are making him out to be then I would question quite why they got him in to sort out the drainage in the first place. He was working on site for two months - it was not just a couple of visits but a hefty proportion of the time allocated for the retrieval of the bodies.

To anyone that knows his work and skills it is clear that Johan is plenty more than a café owner and carpenter. For those who don’t know, he is the world expert on investigating dugouts in Flanders clay, was technical director of the ABAC team responsible for the Vampire Dugout dig and was also responsible for the safe excavation of the Zonnebeke Five - five Australian soldiers killed in 1917 - all of whom have been reburied in a CWGC cemetery, three of which have had their identities determined by DNA testing.

After the recent media day, CWGC and various media outlets recently showed images of the burial pits covered by a huge tent. This was not in place for the first two months of the dig. Six weeks into the excavation and OA only had a blow up tent that covered two pits resulting in severe water ingress into the others. It was Johan that sourced the huge marquee from Belgium which covered the remaining pits. Johan also put in drainage around the pit areas and marquee to take the rainwater away.

You can believe whatever you like about the stories. Those of a cynical mind apparently will never believe anything they read in a newspaper, those with a more open, inquisitive view on events will have further questions. I would hope that the whole truth will come out in the end but please don’t believe these personal, vindictive remarks made against one of the most decent, upright blokes you’ll ever hope to meet. He has plenty more integrity than those criticising him and is left with no platform to answer back. If anyone is in and around Ypres over the weekend then pay a visit to his bar, De Dreve next to Polygon Wood, and ask him yourself his thoughts about the site.

[ianw]

A most interesting post by Jeremy above.

Like many, I am concerned and rather confused by developments at Fromelles and disappointed that in the very broadest sense , we may have dropped the ball at Fromelles and be selling short the men who have bee patiently waiting in this foreign field to "come in from the cold". The in-fighting is at the very least unseemly and at worst may have damaged the precious chances of identification.

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by these developments. I am sure the troops wouldn't have been. As has been said, there will be a nice ceremony next year, congrats and gongs will be dished out and the story of Fromelles will have another talking point added to it.

[Fedelmar]

We will see ALL the relevant politicians, grandstanders, their wives and husbands, invited guests and other 'hangers on' seated in the front rows. There may be smidgen of relatives who most likely will have paid their own way standing in the back rows!!!

Bright Blessings

Sandra

PS:

Some one said to me recently "the politicians and armies are finishing off in Fromelles what the General's began"!

[purley]

I noted in the originally quoted newspaper report that they were accusing Oxford Archaeology of undercutting all the other bidders to make a fast buck. However was not one of the reasons for the lower bid that OA refused to commit to complete in 5 months and this requirement was quietly dropped in favour of a more thorough approach and avoiding deploying uneconomic quantities of resources.

John

[59165]

Not a big deal,only my own obs but,seeing the pneumatic diggers in the last covered hole pished me off no end.

That is pure laziness.

Even the diggers of Ypres made a more concerted effort than this & worked from the upper layers whilst working for nothing.

Digging from the centre of the hole & not paying attention to the upper/lower layers etc.is this why Oxford brought in outsiders?

I dunno if accepting a lower bid was such a good idea.If they had asked,they could have had a more committed team that would have worked for nothing.

I know so many folk that have not been allowed access to the site for so many reasons but,mechanical diggers in the last hole?They pay a fortune for lax security that a puppy could beat yet they dont let the people that have put in the effort on this project visit the site.

That is just to make up time ,time lost because of a stupidly low bid & a lack of understanding of the water table(Jesus,I coulda told you about that,& this is not my area ).

You pay peanuts,you get monkeys.

Prove me wrong.

[cs_cooper]

Sandra, We were informed at the relatives meeting that if a soldier is identified from remains then the total cost for 2 relatives to attend in July will be met by......I do not know who.......but we are promised that it will be met.

Chalkie.

[Fedelmar]

Chalkie ... thanks for that ... might be the case for the UK as its not too far to travel ... could be a different matter for those iin Australia.

Bright Blessings

Sandra

[Bert Heyvaert]

As for the ratio of bodies being lifted. I am currently excavating a medieval burial site with probably close to 50 inhumations. Excavating, recording and lifting 1 skeleton takes us 12 hours for one archaeologist. I think it is impossible to do it faster in a decent way.

As for Johan, have had the opportunity of working with him on the Passchendaele 5. He is a dedicated amateur with vast professional skills.

Of course he is not the only one able to fix a drainage problem in Northern France. I bet there are a dozen companies around who can get the job done. Guess it was cheaper to bring in Johan? Anyway, no offence to Johan, who I have always respected as an archaeologist and a person.

[andrewrichards]

Sarge

You have raised an issue that I have pondered on.

Does anyone know if there is a media production team on site?

Mel

EDIT

Edited 14 September , 2009 by Andrew Hesketh
CONTENT REMOVED DUE TO UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS.

[Victoria Burbidge]

EDIT

Edited 14 September , 2009 by Andrew Hesketh
Victoria, apologies, but if I kept your response the allegations above would be easy to work out

[keithmroberts]

There is too much speculation and hot air in this thread. It would be as well if posts were limited to statements for which posters had evidence. I have none, and therefore won't comment.

Keith

[Victoria Burbidge]

There is too much speculation and hot air in this thread. It would be as well if posts were limited to statements for which posters had evidence.

Exactly so. Thank you, Keith.

V.

[SiegeGunner]

EDIT

[59165]

EDIT

Edited 14 September , 2009 by Andrew Hesketh
...and post 63 again!

[Auimfo]

PARTIAL EDIT

If there are any plans for a documentary about the dig, I'd suggest he check with OA or the CWGC.

With regards to Johann, I don't believe he has actually ever made any public statement about the Pheasant Wood dig anywhere. The fact that he has been pilloried by OA etc was in response to claims from other sources alleging he'd said things. Personally I find OA's willingness to denigrate Johann in an effort to defend themselves against a 3rd party allegation absolutely disgraceful.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Edited 14 September , 2009 by Andrew Hesketh
....63 again.....

[iain mchenry]

Bertie Coley,

PARTIAL EDIT

Personnally I think your post here is nothing more than a crude, pathetic snipe at XXXX and XXXX and not researched in its content at all.

Iain

Edited 14 September , 2009 by Andrew Hesketh
Iain - sorry for hacking your eloquent defence, but see post 63 and I hope you'll understand.

[Paul Reed]

Posts like those from 'Bertie Coley' expose a fundamental weakness of this forum IMHO.

People like him/her can come on here under an assumed name and make any comments that want about real, named people. It's easy to hide under an assumed identity and take a punt at someone who has a high profile.

It's happened to me on here, and several others I know, and is one reason why many people who make their living out of military history and WW1 give this site a wide berth. Which makes it a poorer place again IMHO.

[John_Hartley]

Paul

Is it not a fundamental flaw with any internet discussion board? Most users have an unidentifiable username and you havnt a clue who they might be. Folk like you and I, who post under our real names, a rarity.

One of the benefits I see with the GWF is its largish membership. Means that if someone does start posting something inaccurate, there'll be several folk out there ready to counter it. Exactly as seems to have happened here.

John

[Paul Reed]

John, I agree it is a flaw of all forums but unlike many on the Net this ones sees itself as a place of serious study and discussion. Yet it allows anonymous users hiding under a username to post comments like this. A couple of history related forums I am members of will allow any user name you wish, but insist you put your real name in your signature. Of course that can be abused as well, but it is a start.

This is not a criticism of the Mods, but certainly on the WW2 forum where I moderate, we Mods there would not allow an anonymous user to post comments about a named and identified individual. It would result in deletion of the post, and banning of said member. Of course that may well be in the pipeline here, but the post has been up for a while now.

[SteveMarsdin]

John, I agree it is a flaw of all forums but unlike many on the Net this ones sees itself as a place of serious study and discussion. Yet it allows anonymous users hiding under a username to post comments like this. A couple of history related forums I am members of will allow any user name you wish, but insist you put your real name in your signature. Of course that can be abused as well, but it is a start.

This is not a criticism of the Mods, but certainly on the WW2 forum where I moderate, we Mods there would not allow an anonymous user to post comments about a named and identified individual. It would result in deletion of the post, and banning of said member. Of course that may well be in the pipeline here, but the post has been up for a while now.

Not relating to Fromelles but re John and Paul's posts:

As a new member (20 posts as oppose to your combined 18,000+ !) who has found the wealth and depth of knowledge of members of this forum incredible and a great source of information and education, I must share your sentiments - anything that may deter historians, amateur or otherwise, from contributing should be countered, although I agree with John's comment that the membership is big enough to "self-regulate" when unsupported posts are made. This anglophone forum has the benefit of attracting members of all languages representing viewpoints from all sides of the conflict and where an a different opinion is expressed the vast majority of members respect it providing it is well supported by references etc. The similar francophone forum suffers (in my opinion) from not having such a wide ranging membership. May the moderation, formal and informal, continue to preserve the integrity and diversity of this forum

[stevem49]

How on the internet can you stop anyone from using any name they want to?

sm

[John_Hartley]

Steve

I guess that, as Paul suggests, it can be a condition of membership (although, of course, they'd be nothing to stop someone inventing a "real name"). There are a couple of boards that I use (different subject) where I have a username (but I put my real name in my profile).

John