Somme gives up the body of another Anzac

[joad]

Mindful that this in not WW1 material so will be brief.

As a resident of Honiara - AKA Guadalcanal - we regularly are called by local people who discover WW2 remains. Most often they are Japanese but occasionally they are American. The Japanese Embassy will always assume they are 'theirs' and will give a 20kg bag of rice to the finder, take the bones into storage and cremate them when next most convenient for return to Japan and communal burial.

When there is evidence they are American they are covered up again, if possible, and JPAC is informed. Often they do not respond so it is always best to contact the marines or veterans of foreign wars (VFW) who show a lot more interest. An example of the tardy JPAC response concerns the remains of the unknown soldier interred at the American memorial on Skyline Ridge. He is not unknown, his is Sgt John Harold Branick, KIA Oct. 1942. His inscribed college ring and other effects are in Honiara in the possession of one of the labourers who discovered the remains. JPAC knows where the remains are and has the contact details for relatives but in more then 5 years has not made a DNA inquiry.

[ph0ebus]

Mindful that this in not WW1 material so will be brief.

As a resident of Honiara - AKA Guadalcanal - we regularly are called by local people who discover WW2 remains. Most often they are Japanese but occasionally they are American. The Japanese Embassy will always assume they are 'theirs' and will give a 20kg bag of rice to the finder, take the bones into storage and cremate them when next most convenient for return to Japan and communal burial.

When there is evidence they are American they are covered up again, if possible, and JPAC is informed. Often they do not respond so it is always best to contact the marines or veterans of foreign wars (VFW) who show a lot more interest. An example of the tardy JPAC response concerns the remains of the unknown soldier interred at the American memorial on Skyline Ridge. He is not unknown, his is Sgt John Harold Branick, KIA Oct. 1942. His inscribed college ring and other effects are in Honiara in the possession of one of the labourers who discovered the remains. JPAC knows where the remains are and has the contact details for relatives but in more then 5 years has not made a DNA inquiry.

Hi Joad,

Thanks for posting this. This is pretty upsetting to hear...it seems JPAC has some housecleaning to do.

-Daniel

PS, was made aware of this link via Centre for Battlefield Archaeology: a map of recent findings of remains along the Western Front.

Great War Servicemen Remains Along The Western Front

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

..... The fact that a state of affairs exists where it is commonplace for private individuals (experienced well intentioned amateurs or otherwise) to recover remains without the support of (and deference to) the authorities is completely outrageous to many of us. Whilst I still question the journalist's actions, perhaps this has now served to illustrate to many how unsatisfactory the current situation really is. .....

Tim - I think that the underlying problem here is that several posters have approached this situation as if recently deceased soldier's bodies were being found, rather than "occasional collections" of bones, - of great age, and with probably 99.99(rec)% certaintity of being those of WW1 soldiers. In the case of the latter it is almost 100% guaranteed that an ID will either be made immediately on the "find site" (which is unlikely in the extreme - historically that seems to have been very, very, rare), or no ID will ever be made.

These remains are being found (or simply observed) mainly on farmland which, nearly 100 years ago, was a charnel house. The finding of such remains in these areas is "matter of fact", and passes mainly without comment. This may be difficult for an outsider to understand or accept, but you are talking here of an area where a pile of dangerous munitions at the side of the road is regarded as totally unremarkable. They will often stay there for months, awaiting collection, and nobody will bat an eyelid.

I hate to use this word, but I'm afraid that "you" just have to be pragmatic. No specialised teams are ever likely to be formed (Pheasant Wood was a very unusual exception) - there will be no CSI type investigations; no 24 hour cordons thrown round discovery sites; and Somme farmers will most definitely not be risking their livelihoods by inviting any such measures to be forced upon them.

Tom

[willy]

Completely agree Tom.

[ph0ebus]

Tim - I think that the underlying problem here is that several posters have approached this situation as if recently deceased soldier's bodies were being found, rather than "occasional collections" of bones, - of great age, and with probably 99.99(rec)% certaintity of being those of WW1 soldiers. In the case of the latter it is almost 100% guaranteed that an ID will either be made immediately on the "find site" (which is unlikely in the extreme - historically that seems to have been very, very, rare), or no ID will ever be made.

These remains are being found (or simply observed) mainly on farmland which, nearly 100 years ago, was a charnel house. The finding of such remains in these areas is "matter of fact", and passes mainly without comment. This may be difficult for an outsider to understand or accept, but you are talking here of an area where a pile of dangerous munitions at the side of the road is regarded as totally unremarkable. They will often stay there for months, awaiting collection, and nobody will bat an eyelid.

I hate to use this word, but I'm afraid that "you" just have to be pragmatic. No specialised teams are ever likely to be formed (Pheasant Wood was a very unusual exception) - there will be no CSI type investigations; no 24 hour cordons thrown round discovery sites; and Somme farmers will most definitely not be risking their livelihoods by inviting any such measures to be forced upon them.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I agree with your assessment of the reality as it currenly plays out in the fields of France, but I politely disagree with your opening line, in that I would say that these are indeed the bodies of recently deceased soldiers. You and I (and, I suspect, others) just have different interpretations as to how one defines 'recent'. We're not talking the battle of Hastings, here...in my opinion, if soldiers from this conflict are still alive today (there are few, but they still live), then that's recent enough for me.

As to how we might make an effort to change people's way of thinking on this issue, well, that's a whole other kettle of fish, as they say. I would love to hear what the few remaining Great War veterans have to say on this topic. Has anyone asked them what *they* think? A few choice words from a Great War veteran might go a long way in furthering the discussion.

-Daniel

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Hi Tom, I agree with your assessment of the reality as it currenly plays out in the fields of France, but I politely disagree with your opening line, in that I would say that these are indeed the bodies of recently deceased soldiers. .........

Sorry Daniel, but they are not the "bodies" of soldiers ...

"body, bod'i, n. the whole frame of a man or lower animal: the main part of an animal, as distinguished from the limbs:" (etc etc)

(Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary).

"Recently" is relative, but the point I was (clearly) making was that we are not talking here of the recently dead as say a coroner or a policeman would view them. If you 'phoned a police station on the Somme and reported finding a few bones in a field they would not be rushing to your side. I understand the Somme police did "rush" to the recent double-murder scene, but they most categorically will not be rushing to what we are discussing here.

Arguing the semantics of "recently" in this context is futile (at least on planet-Earth, where I live).

Tom

[ph0ebus]

Sorry Daniel, but they are not the "bodies" of soldiers ...

"body, bod'i, n. the whole frame of a man or lower animal: the main part of an animal, as distinguished from the limbs:" (etc etc)

(Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary).

"Recently" is relative, but the point I was (clearly) making was that we are not talking here of the recently dead as say a coroner or a policeman would view them. If you 'phoned a police station on the Somme and reported finding a few bones in a field they would not be rushing to your side. I understand the Somme police did "rush" to the recent double-murder scene, but they most categorically will not be rushing to what we are discussing here.

Arguing the semantics of "recently" in this context is futile (at least on planet-Earth, where I live).

Tom

Tom,

I am perplexed by your need to insert parenthetical barbs in your reply to my post. While I was simply indicating I hold a different position than you as it relates to certian points you made, you decided to take a conversation to a personal level. That, in my opinion, is a shame. A few follow up questions:

(1) So, you are saying they are not finding any intact bodies at all? Not one? Since the end of the war?

(2) As someone who has a relation who died in the Great War, literally and figuatively lost in the fog of war in France, and as someone in touch with that fellow's grand-daughter whose life was directly affected by this man's loss, would you not think the return to the family of 'a few bones in a field' might be welcomed? I'll answer this one for you: yes.

(3) Have you had any direct or indirect experience with body recovery? I have, and I will tell you that for those who have lost family members in a violent way (in my case, the collapse of the World Trade Center), even the return of a fragment of a loved one would be welcome, even if it is decades after the fact. Ten years on, many families who buried empty coffins in 2001 still wait for the phone to ring with news that some trace of their relation has been found. Tell me, where does one draw the line? Who gets to draw that line?

(4) You say arguing semantics is futile, but you spend much of your post doing just that. Did you read your reply before you posted it?

So, that's my take, here on planet Earth, right with you.

-Daniel

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

..... (1) So, you are saying they are not finding any intact bodies at all? Not one? Since the end of the war?

......(2) As someone who has a relation who died in the Great War, literally and figuatively lost in the fog of war in France, and as someone in touch with that fellow's grand-daughter whose life was directly affected by this man's loss, would you not think the return to the family of 'a few bones in a field' might be welcomed? I'll answer this one for you: yes.

.....(3) Have you had any direct or indirect experience with body recovery? I have, and I will tell you that for those who have lost family members in a violent way (in my case, the collapse of the World Trade Center), even the return of a fragment of a loved one would be welcome, even if it is decades after the fact. Ten years on, many families who buried empty coffins in 2001 still wait for the phone to ring with news that some trace of their relation has been found. Tell me, where does one draw the line? Who gets to draw that line?

.....(4) You say arguing semantics is futile, but you spend much of your post doing just that. Did you read your reply before you posted it?

Sorry Daniel >

(1) We arent talking about finding intact bodies in 1918, or 1919, or 1920 ...; we are talking about what is being found now, in 2011. Dont try to move the goalposts.

(2) In the context of this topic that's just sentimental claptrap. Its got no connection with the reality of this topic and to be blunt, its an attempt at getting a cheap sympathy vote.

(3) The relevance of the World Trade Center is what, exactly ? The 11-9-01 event is a 21st century event where remains were found soon after the event, in the age of DNA testing, and where there was very relevant immediacy between the event and the ability to trace relatives and carry out tests. This has no relevance whatsoever with the finding of "odd" bones from 1914-1918 today, in 2011.

Tom

[Seadog]

Daniel (Post 259) I entirely emphasise with the comments that you have made. In fact I would go even further and ask the question, when do human remains cease being subject to common decency and respect and become merely archeological artifacts? I contend that there is no time limit on the proper treatment of such remains and indeed I even feel uncomfortable with TV programmes such as Time Team which is broadcast here in the UK when they excavate either knowingly or unknowingly the remains of those buried in antiquity and retain such remains for academic research.

In Britain I understand that there is a requirement that such excavated remains should be reburied within a time limit of two years from excavation, there are I believe certain exclusions to this rule. With regard to human remains found on the battlefields then I am in no doubt that provided there are sufficient quantity of remains found plus any additional artifacts then every attempt should be made in order that the individual(s) can be accorded the dignity of a name.

Regards

Norman

PS: Mr Tulloch-Marshall considering the subject matter of this thread perhaps you should consider moderating the tone of your recent posts

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

Daniel (Post 259) I entirely emphasise with the comments that you have made. ..........

............. PS: Mr Tulloch-Marshall considering the subject matter of this thread perhaps you should consider moderating the tone of your recent posts

"Seadog"

#1 - I think you will find that you intended to empathise.

#2 - Dominique Zanardi did say to me that he thought it very strange that people were allowed, on GWF, to criticise him whilst hiding behind what were clearly "made up names". Cowards, he called them.

#3 - Your final point; I have to refer you to St Paul's second letter to the Corinthians.

Tom

[ph0ebus]

Sorry Daniel >

(1) We arent talking about finding intact bodies in 1918, or 1919, or 1920 ...; we are talking about what is being found now, in 2011. Dont try to move the goalposts.

(2) In the context of this topic that's just sentimental claptrap. Its got no connection with the reality of this topic and to be blunt, its an attempt at getting a cheap sympathy vote.

(3) The relevance of the World Trade Center is what, exactly ? The 11-9-01 event is a 21st century event where remains were found soon after the event, in the age of DNA testing, and where there was very relevant immediacy between the event and the ability to trace relatives and carry out tests. This has no relevance whatsoever with the finding of "odd" bones from 1914-1918 today, in 2011.

Tom

Tom,

Re: 1, I am not moving the goalposts. You missed the heart of my first question. You say no intact bodies are being found, with the unwritten implication that no more intact bodies will be found. Please back that assertion up with facts.

Re: 2, The body of Sam, my relation, is somewhere in the fields of France. I can give you a trench map showing approximately where his body is, if you like. His remians have never been recovered. How is this 'sentimental claptrap'? Why is my relation any different or any less worthy of discussion than the ANZAC whose remains were just found, and whose discovery prompted the start of this thread? I would add that the thread originator used the word BODY in the subject line. Maybe you should check and see if what was found meets the definition you provided.

Re: 3, you missed the point here as well. Norman (yes, that is his name, which he signs to his posts, as do I) makes the point quite well in his subsequent post. When do human remains become just a mere archaeological find? It may interest you to know, since clearly you do not, that remains are still being found ten years after the event (September 11th). Remains will likely continue to be found for years to come. So, how long until the finding of remains from that event just becomes an archaeological curiosity or an inconvenience to be reburied, as is happening in France right now? I was drawing a parallel to help make a point and apologize if that confused you.

I am not sure where your animosity towards your fellow forum members is coming from but it is most unbecoming.

-Daniel

[Blackblue]

Tim - I think that the underlying problem here is that several posters have approached this situation as if recently deceased soldier's bodies were being found, rather than "occasional collections" of bones, - of great age, and with probably 99.99(rec)% certaintity of being those of WW1 soldiers. In the case of the latter it is almost 100% guaranteed that an ID will either be made immediately on the "find site" (which is unlikely in the extreme - historically that seems to have been very, very, rare), or no ID will ever be made.

These remains are being found (or simply observed) mainly on farmland which, nearly 100 years ago, was a charnel house. The finding of such remains in these areas is "matter of fact", and passes mainly without comment. This may be difficult for an outsider to understand or accept, but you are talking here of an area where a pile of dangerous munitions at the side of the road is regarded as totally unremarkable. They will often stay there for months, awaiting collection, and nobody will bat an eyelid.

I hate to use this word, but I'm afraid that "you" just have to be pragmatic. No specialised teams are ever likely to be formed (Pheasant Wood was a very unusual exception) - there will be no CSI type investigations; no 24 hour cordons thrown round discovery sites; and Somme farmers will most definitely not be risking their livelihoods by inviting any such measures to be forced upon them.

Tom

Cheers Tom,

I do understand the realities and what has been highlighted in this thread assists greater understanding of the realities for us all.

I was speaking more about the recovery of largely intact remains...to be completely honest I hadn't even considered that some would classify a foot or an arm for example as a 'body'. I don't know about the original article that started this thread...but the manner it was written in certainly suggested a largely intact body was recovered. Is the reality otherwise in this case?

I certainly understand the difficulties of identifying small finds, but surely the recovery of a relatively complete corpse is an entirely different matter that deserves an improved state of affairs?

Rgds

Tim

[Seadog]

Mr Tulloch-Marshall, thank you for pointing out the use of an incorrect word in my post. As to the rest of your latest post I confess that it makes no sense to me whatsoever but I am sure that you will no doubt educate me as to its full meaning in due course.

Norman (Real Name)

PS I have kept this post short in an attempt to minimize the chance of spelling mistakes, contextual errors and bad grammar etc.

[Fedelmar]

Isn't it about time you boys moved on?

[Blackblue]

Its not our fault...new people keep turning up here!

On another note...has anyone heard a thing about this recovery since it occurred? I note the Australian Army and MINDEF have made no mention or media release on this issue.

[Seadog]

Of course Fedelmar (Post 266), since recent discussion has focused on the condition and quantity of human remains discovered on the battlefields I thought that this photo would be informative as to what has been found in the past. The photo has already appeared on the forum and is of the remains of a British soldier from the Kings Regiment found in Flanders 2006. I think it is a good example of the completeness of some of the remains discovered.

Norman

[Blackblue]

Umm....I think I would count that one as a body.

[ph0ebus]

Agreed. I would most certainly call that a body.

I have made my point, so let's move on, shall we? Apologies to the thread's originator for the sideshow.

Daniel

[Tom Tulloch-Marshall]

.......... You say no intact bodies are being found, ..

What I said was "We arent talking about finding intact bodies in 1918, or 1919, or 1920 ..". The picture in post #268 is interesting, but not representative - not representative by a very long chalk.

I'll post any further general views about this topic in "Skindles".

Tom

[dfaulder]

Cheers Tom,

I do understand the realities and what has been highlighted in this thread assists greater understanding of the realities for us all.

I was speaking more about the recovery of largely intact remains...to be completely honest I hadn't even considered that some would classify a foot or an arm for example as a 'body'. I don't know about the original article that started this thread...but the manner it was written in certainly suggested a largely intact body was recovered. Is the reality otherwise in this case?

I certainly understand the difficulties of identifying small finds, but surely the recovery of a relatively complete corpse is an entirely different matter that deserves an improved state of affairs?

Rgds

Tim

I raised this issue as part of a larger enquiry with CWGC. The full reply is on the Recovery of Found Remains thread.

Original Draft by DSF with notes in magenta, Response by PF (Peter Francis, CWGC) 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]

This is in contrast to Discovery Of Remains At Gallipoli

David

[ph0ebus]

I raised this issue as part of a larger enquiry with CWGC. The full reply is on the Recovery of Found Remains thread.

This is in contrast to Discovery Of Remains At Gallipoli

David

Hi David,

Thanks for this. Very interesting to read the differences in how the discovery of remains are handled, and even more interesting the cultural differences in how remains are looked at in places like Gallipoli.

Regards,

Daniel

[David Davis]

May I just offer my two pennorth regarding the identification of this man.

What do we know and what do we think we know?

It has been reported

• that he was an officer
• that he was armed with a rifle, bayonet and pistol and that he was wearing an "apron" with a number of Mills bombs in it.
• that he was of below average height
• and that he was a member of a Western Australian battalion.

If all of this is true then it might be a relatively straightforward task to identify him.

• Officers would have made up only 2%-3% of a battalion's establishment.
• Some officers were trained as bombing officers and may well have carried grenades as they led their bombers in the advance. References to officers carrying rifles and wearing private soldiers' tunics have been made in previous posts.
• The height, weight and chest measurements of all of those who served were recorded upon attestation.
• WA units fought at Mouquet Farm.

Were I tying to identify these remains I would start by looking at the records of WA officers who were trained as bombing officers and who were killed in 1916. Then I would factor out all of those who were above average height. This would leave a number of possibilities which could be further reduced by DNA analysis compared with living relatives.

Naive? Perhaps. We have to be careful. Maybe he wasn't an officer, if that is the case it would make identification much more difficult. Maybe only the pistol's holster came from Western Australia but if we go with the first four identifiers we may yet be able to give the man a name.

David Davis

[ph0ebus]

An interesting article in today's news:

Ned Kelly's Skeleton Rediscovered

To do the identification, a mass grave was exhumed and each set of remains was tested against an exemplar until Ned's bones were identified.

So, if folks are willing to do this for a convicted criminal (and I am saying this in the technical sense, not as a statement of my personal opinion), why not for a soldier who died for his country?

(As an aside, why on earth were they engaged in this enterprise in the first place?)

-Daniel

PS: the story of the public display of his skull is quite unsettling, IMHO

[roel22]

PS: the story of the public display of his skull is quite unsettling, IMHO

This story was on Dutch tv as well; his remains were shown, but no skull.

And I think I know why Neds remains were examined but not the remains of "a brave soldier": there's still a 100.000+ brave soldiers out there in Belgium & northern France...

Roel

[ph0ebus]

His head had been removed post-hanging and put on public display; his headless body had been buried in the mass grave.

Daniel