Somme gives up the body of another Anzac

[Seadog]

Ref Post 50:

You raise many points in your post that require expansion but here are just a few:

You have spoken to the CWGC “Exhumation Manager” in Arras, so can you tell us what your understanding of his duties are bearing in mind Post 29

You say that the CWGC collects the “Bones” this I presume from the local Police which is the nrmal practice. You do however state that the CWGC “Lift” the remains perhaps you can explain that.

Your statement that the “other items are thrown back in the hole” comes as a surprise to me as far as I am aware such items are preserved and buried with the human remains.

In fact I am having a bit of a problem getting my head around your post so perhaps you can help by at least expanding on the above points.

Norman

[Paul Reed]

CWGC don't collect any bones from the Police unless those bones have been handed into the Police, which is very rare. Mostly they collect them from the site of discovery and sometimes from the person who has discovered them if the site they have been found on is under threat.

Personal items are usually passed on to next of kin if the soldier is identified, and all other items are normally buried with the soldier if they are removed from the original site.

[Piorun]

This was in France, not Belgium, so please stand corrected there,respect is objective, personally the fact the remains were left in a hessian sack on the bank of the ditch overnight, and that to date are residing somewhere in france in same hessian sack, does not strike me as respectful, the finders acted the best they could, it's the system that requires looking at, but make it complicated, legal etc will probably mean remains are stripped of artifacts and re buried or destroyed forever.

Thanks, willy. I stand corrected for my typo and have corrected my original post; the principle remains as stated. Respect is rather more subjective, I fear, than objective and I don't think we have any evidence as to how the remains are currently being stored. However, I share your views on whether or not something better could have been done. Absolutely, it could (although perhaps not at that time and that place with the resources readily available), but that's no reason for us to libel those who did what they felt they could in the circumstances. It's not the best "digging season" in France at the moment and this uncovering was already done by the machinery. We seem transfixed by a hessian sack. Body bag any better? Regards, Antony

[ph0ebus]

In reading this thread I recollect comments I made in a thread I started not that long ago, where I suggested that people who engage in battlefield artifact recovery (especially artifacts that would hint at the location of possible human remains) have some sort of training before they do so, and people looked at me like I had three heads and all but told me to mind my own business. Well, here we have people doing that and more, and the status quo seems suddenly not good enough.

It seems to me that if the GWF can have some sort of positive role in this type of circumstance, members could perhaps either advise on matters like this or even form some sort of organization whose mission is the proper retrieval of remains in circumstances like these. Certainly there are plenty of historians on here, quite a few archaeologists and a hell of a lot of 'diggers'. We have members in France, yes?

Oh wait, I'm an American, I am one of those "people who don't live here", and I should not "start telling us what we can or can't do in our own land", so I will shut my mouth and mind my own business.

-Daniel

[SteveMarsdin]

I think Geraint's post goes somewhere to explaining the French position and as Tom points out, they need no reminding about the sacrifices of WW1. Many French soldiers were deliberately buried in mass graves, as a matter of policy, even where they could be identified; it doesn't mean their fallen are any less commemorated (Gervaise Foch, General Foch's son, is one so interred).

[ianw]

Better a hessian sack as a staging post on the way to an honoured grave than to remain lost and "out in the cold".

Not ideal I'll grant you but I am sure that absolutely no disrespect was intended.

[chrislock]

For what it's worth, the hessian sack is by far the best choice to store human remains in. It is natural material and can breath. It will retain moisture and is sublime.

A plastic supermarket carrier bag is just not on for many more reasons than mentioned in the above receptacle.

Far better retrieved and brought in than sooner smashed to pieces by the digger or once location known, scavengers will appear and the poor guy will be dug back up, discarded all over the place and all for the sake of a badge, button or whatever. The Mayor was the best bet in France so whilst not perfect as in the perfect world, I'm comfortable with this.

Chris.

[dycer]

Can I come to this debate from a different stance.

Through accident of birth I have an Uncle,who was has no WW1 grave,and is possibly still lying out there to be found.

We have to now accept,in my Uncle's case,if he is ever found,his skeleton will fit into a hessian bag,which may have in reality been all that was found of him,if anything.

If any "bits" of my Uncle can now be found and "recognised" by his spoon,etc. I have no problems with his "bones" being treated with apparent contempt because I feel he fought, in France,to allow the French people to have free expression and choose what they would like to do,for their Country's advancement,unfortunately that includes WW2,and for which as a British Visitor to France,I wish the people to recognise that I am not there as an exponent of my Country and Empires deeds but just to appreciate the legacy and heritage France brings.

George

[trenchtrotter]

Those who are on their high horses and making many assumption clearly have never met Dominique. His passion and respect for the Austrailian Soldier and for all nationalities come to think of it are deep and passionate. He is not a guide but runs a cafe in Pozieirs and has done much to commemorate the ANZAC legend. He cares deeply about the missing and would not sell on the artifacts.

He has a musuem containing a trench and relics (not everyones taste I accept) but appreciated by many.

He was given a recovered ID disk to a Digger and made efforts to locate the family in Austrailia and returned it to them.

He has done much to help Austrailia! Perhaps you should consider this before being "outraged". I have known him 20 plus years.

As for the body in a sack...well I have seen the CWGC recover bodies on the Somme (in person I saw two recovered from near Mucky Farm) and personally found 50% of a body at the Leipzig salient. CWGC came out and guess what.....recovered in a waterproof shhet and cardboard box. I know This man that Dom found will be passed to the authorities with all equipment for a proper burial and attempt at ID. And has been said were it not for his actions he would now be reinterred careoff the digging machine.

"Outraged!"

TT

[KIRKY]

Well put TT and Paul, both experienced in this kind of thing and both close to understanding the situation.

Dom may be a bit rough around the edges but he shows respect.

Tony

[ulsterlad2]

Those who are on their high horses and making many assumption clearly have never met Dominique. His passion and respect for the Austrailian Soldier and for all nationalities come to think of it are deep and passionate.

Well said.

[ianw]

Finaly if these remains had been lost to the digger again, what is the difference if this guy stays "unknown" in a cemetery due to lack of evidence?

Plenty in my opinion. If an "Unknown Australian Soldier of the Great War" is all that can now be managed on his headstone, so be it. I suspect the fallen man would have been proud of that. I know I would rest easier under a stone like that.

But of course we should strive for an ID if possible.

[Seadog]

I too have known Dom and I have no problem with his motives or actions in this matter. However it would help if we looked at this from the viewpoint of someone perhaps living in Australia and not knowing the individual concerned who excavated the remains or has never visited the WW1 battlefields of France and Belgium. It is then that the events as reported by the erstwhile journalist take on quite a different perspective. When we read the report we see no mention of the police being informed of the find prior to excavation, and although the Mayor was involved and had the power to stop the work by persuasion or no doubt by legal means it was still deemed to be a matter of urgency to remove the remains quickly, in case they were destroyed by workmen, neither the CWGC or the Australian authorities could be contacted, the remains were placed in a bag and to an outsider the individuals exhuming the remains were not professionally qualified for the job and in fact the journo reports that he helped place bones in the bag. Bearing just the aforesaid in mind what conclusions would you come to reading this thousands of miles away and the newspaper report being your only reference?. It would be good if we remember that the battlefield of Pozieres is recorded by the Australians as being the place where their soldiers fell more thickly than any other battlefield of the Great War.

Norman

[willy]

Plenty in my opinion. If an "Unknown Australian Soldier of the Great War" is all that can now be managed on his headstone, so be it. I suspect the fallen man would have been proud of that. I know I would rest easier under a stone like that.

But of course we should strive for an ID if possible.

But his name will be on a memorial, whether that is in a cemetery or in a ditch, so he "liveth forever" in either scenario.

[Blackblue]

Apparently they were shut!, first port of call should have been the police.

Libel? I understand that Dominique was doing what he thought best and what to him is perhaps common practice in the circumstances. I have no qualms with this...but things certainly need to be changed. Did the journalist though make all reasonable steps to contact appropriate authorities, particularly the Australian Consulate or someone in Australia? From what is written it appears not and I fear this recovery has been undertaken hastily...and as far as the journalists actions for the sake of sensationalism. I am sure the majority of people interested in this case in Australia would see these actions as foolish. Lets see what is said online in response to the article!

In this day and age, particularly given the case of Pheasant Wood, can people who then report such instances afford to be complacent in the recovery of remains? There are now far greater chances of identification. I do not see that 'all reasonable efforts' were made to contact the authorities and find it very hard to believe that the Australian consulate (or someone in Australia) could not be contacted at all to provide guidance. Given the Government and Army's experiences with Pheasant Wood I am sure they would have responded appropriately.

What is it that makes France different to anywhere else and seems to make such a practice acceptable? Would this happen elsewhere? I think not.

[ianw]

But his name will be on a memorial, whether that is in a cemetery or in a ditch, so he "liveth forever" in either scenario.

Yes, but his physical remains are with his peers within the confines of a war cemetery. A step up from residing in a drainage ditch IMHO. But we will have to agree to disagree.

[Piorun]

Did the journalist though make all reasonable steps to contact appropriate authorities, particularly the Australian Consulate or someone in Australia? From what is written it appears not and I fear this recovery has been undertaken hastily...and for the sake of sensationalism. I am sure the majority of people interested in this case in Australia would see these actions as foolish.

In this day and age, particularly given the case of Pheasant Wood, can people who then report such instances afford to be complacent in the recovery of remains? What is it that makes France different to anywhere else and seems to make such a practice acceptable? Would this happen elsewhere? I think not.

M. Zanardi found the already-uncovered remains. He contacted the Mayor. That was the local authority. The writer had nothing to do with it as he was only summoned by M. Zinardi post-facto and as he is not a French national. Whether we like it or not, British or Australian or Canadian "authorities" are not authorities in France except within the confines of land granted. My wife's uncle lies somewhere in one-half square mile east of Ieper. I have no authority, granted or implicit, even by European citizenship, to go digging about for him. Anything I can do is by the grace of the Belgian authorities and the landowner. In this case, what would you have had the Australian writer do? Keep it a secret and become a one-man crusader for this Digger's identity or report it publicly so that the greater mass of ordinary folk could know about it and bring to bear whatever pressure they can on those organisations that can fund the ensuing investigation? Mass information is not, per se, sensationalism and the article was, I believe, sensitively written. Pheasant Wood was a planned dig and recovery with a great deal of resources put behind it. This was not. With respect, Antony

[ph0ebus]

The story was also run word-for-word in The Age:

Almost a century after a terrible Somme death, another Anzac's history is uncovered in the mud

What is the item next to the toothbrush (and below the watch)?

FYI, I got the link via Facebook, via the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology.

-Daniel

[Ice Tiger]

To the best of my knowledge neither Mr Zinardi or the Mayor have a voice on this forum. Therefore I find it grossly unfair that a self appointed cyber court feels it right for them to be tried in their absence and further sit in judgement of their actions.

No matter how much we may wish otherwise, the rules/regulations and accepted practise are not the same the whole world over, or even amongst the member states of the European Union. If you don't like the way things are done then feel free to make representation to the correct authorities; don't send a virtual lynch mob in persuit of those who do all they can within the laws they live under.

Andy

[Blackblue]

M. Zanardi found the already-uncovered remains. He contacted the Mayor. That was the local authority. The writer had nothing to do with it as he was only summoned by M. Zinardi post-facto and as he is not a French national. Whether we like it or not, British or Australian or Canadian "authorities" are not authorities in France except within the confines of land granted. My wife's uncle lies somewhere in one-half square mile east of Ieper. I have no authority, granted or implicit, even by European citizenship, to go digging about for him. Anything I can do is by the grace of the Belgian authorities and the landowner. In this case, what would you have had the Australian writer do? Keep it a secret and become a one-man crusader for this Digger's identity or report it publicly so that the greater mass of ordinary folk could know about it and bring to bear whatever pressure they can on those organisations that can fund the ensuing investigation? Mass information is not, per se, sensationalism and the article was, I believe, sensitively written. Pheasant Wood was a planned dig and recovery with a great deal of resources put behind it. This was not. With respect, Antony

Hi Antony,

I am talking about what is becoming expected in this day and age. Pheasant Wood has highlighted the far greater possibility of identification if matters are handled correctly and this sort of care will become what the Australian public reasonably expects.

What could he do? No need at all to keep it secret...but at least make all reasonable efforts to report the matter to relevant stakeholders so there is the best chance of identification! Assisting in a successful identification makes a far more worthy and poignant story than personally handling some poor devils human remains.

If it is an Australian soldier the Australian authorities could obviously make certain representations to the French Government. Personally I would have been ringing everyone I could think of! I am not suggesting that the Australian Government has any right to dig anywhere in France, but in this day and age they certainly have the right of input and to seek assistance from relevant local authorities to bring things to a successful conclusion.

If this recovery occurred 'post-facto' and such urgency was attached to their removal then why was it done over a number of days after the journalist had driven from Belgium?? Why did the journalist take a physical role in recovering remains? Why didn't he ALSO make representations for the appropriate Australian authorities? What are they still doing digging in the trench as the photos illustrate? Was any proper investigation of the sight even conducted?

I quote...

"Our soldier has a birth name, to be sure. But like the many thousands of others who lost their lives in the terrible fighting on the Somme during World War I, the battlefield has claimed his identity".

More chance of this now I am afraid.

Respectfully

Tim D

[Esskay]

Update in the SMH this morning

http://www.smh.com.au/world/army-moves-to-claim-lost-digger-20110117-19u5s.html

Cheers

Sue

[Bardess]

What I find hard to accept on this forum in particular is the amount of time and energy spent in discovering so called “Non Commemorations” and yet the actual dead that are found on the battlefields receive little or no interest at all.

Norman

That's a cheap shot We are close to 1,000 names accepted with almost the same amount being considered. Even if their last resting place is never found at least their names are there for eternity

[Blackblue]

Here's an explanation of the Australian Government policy on this:

http://fffaif.org.au/research-tools/australian-government-policy-for-burial-of-war-dead/

Rgds

Tim

[ianw]

Passions always run high on this subject and I would urge Pals to exercise a bit of self-control on what they post. Important that we keep able to debate this issue without making it a no-go area like SAD used to be.

[Mat McLachlan]

The discovery of this body seems to have a lot in common with the discovery of the five Aussie bodies at Westhoek in Belgium in 2006. I wasn't there, but I've had countless conversations with all the people involved so feel I have a fair understanding of the process that occured then, and its relevance to this situation. Like this recent discovery, remains were uncovered at Westhoek by construction workers during a digging job. Again, a local (Johan Vandewalle) came to the site and excavated the remains. Like Dominique, Johan is not a trained archaeologist, but an experienced amateur who has spent years on the battlefield. In 2006 the remains were excavated in a very careful, archaeologically-sound manner, but that is only because Johan was on the spot and wouldn't let the workers carry on with their jobs at the risk of disturbing the remains. The excavation was carried out by Johan with the permission of the local mayor. Johan did a great job with the excavation, DNA was collected and three of the five bodies were identified (incidentally, this was the discovery that established the precedent of using DNA to identify WWI remains, not Fromelles).

There seems alot of parallels here, and I think there's some important things we should take away from this:

- Both Johan and Dominique are great blokes who have dedicated a large portion of their lives to preserving the memory of the soldiers of the Great War. Any suggestion that something underhand was going on is just plain wrong.

- In both circumstances, it was only the efforts of the locals on the spot (Johan in Belgium and Dominique in France) that led to the remains being recovered at all. Anyone who thinks the bulldozer drivers would not have just carried on with their work and destroyed or reburied the remains is deluding themselves.

- This sort of situation is extremely difficult - trying to convince a bulldozer driver to stop working while you poke around in the hole he has just made is never going to be easy. Johan was lucky that the work team gave him the latitude to get the authorities involved. Dominique might not have had that luxury.

- I think that the suggestion that by Dominique removing the remains, something has been overlooked that would help to identify the soldier is a bit of an exaggeration. This isn't a crime scene - that body has been exposed to the elements for almost a century, so it's not as if we are looking for fingerprints or a single hair fibre or some other tiny piece of crucial evidence. I can't think of a case where a soldier has been identified by anything other than DNA, or a pretty obvious clue that was discovered with him: a dogtag, a watch with his name on it, a knife engraved with his service number, etc. On the evidence of the photos, Dom has managed to pull out items as small as coins and a toothbrush with the body, so it's unlikely that there's some piece of crucial evidence lying there that Dom has missed but a professional archaeological team would have discovered (and that can be used to ID the body). Take Fromelles as the perfect example: 250 bodies, all neatly laid out, excavated by a large team of archaeologists over several months, working from a list of names of the men who were likely buried in the graves, and not a single body was identified using archaeological evidence alone. They were all identified using DNA.

Apologies for the long post, but my summation is that Dom is a great bloke who has huge respect for the soldiers of the Great War, he was in a very difficult situation and did the best he could under those difficult circumstances. Furthermore, there's nothing he has done that will prejudice the opportunity to identify the remains using DNA testing or investigation of the items found with the body. Had there not been a journalist and photographer on the scene to cover every facet of the excavation, the headlines we would now be reading would be along the lines that the body of an Australian soldier has been found by a French villager, the remains are in the hands of the authorities and an investigation is being launched in an attempt to identify him.

I doubt that any of us in the same circumstances as Dominique could have done better.

Cheers,

Mat