Somme gives up the body of another Anzac

[iain mchenry]

Mat,

For most of the time during the exhumation of the 5 Australians in 2006, there was an archeologist on site: Bert Heyvaert, also a forum member. The dig was also overseen by the regional archeological authorities.

Regards

Iain

[Seadog]

It is not a question of whether Dom is a great bloke or not, we seem to go around in ever-decreasing circles with this subject. The question concerns the whole system of the recovery of the dead in this case from the French battlefields and whether the professionalism and methodology utilized at the present time is entirely proper and suitable in this era, bearing in mind the events at Fromelles which made use of the latest technology in order to help identify the dead. The fact that the present situation is unsatisfactory is evidenced by the number of posts on this subject not just on this thread but repeated whenever these events are reported.

There are proper questions to be asked which deserve discussion; those questions have been repeatedly posted here and on the other similar threads. It is a fact that there is a perception that the current system and method of recovery of the dead calls into question the credibility of all those involved. The least that could be done to improve the situation is the formulation of official guidelines for those people who excavate the human remains and checks and balances to ensure that those guidelines are strictly adhered to plus the sanction of legal action against non-compliers. The best solution of all would of course be the involvement of a properly trained archeologist to at least oversee such recoveries.

The deafening silence from the authorities on these matters is itself a cause for concern no better recent example of which can been seen than that of the 15 British Soldiers excavated in the village of Beaucamps-Ligny in November 2009 and were it not for our French friends on this forum then nobody in the UK would have been any the wiser due to the fact that the MOD declined to issue any kind of press release despite the French newspapers reporting the story. These 15 sets of remains still rest unburied and to the best of my knowledge uninvestigated by the British authorities at this time.

Norman

[Blackblue]

It is not a question of whether “Dom is a great bloke” or not, we seem to go around in ever-decreasing circles with this subject. The question concerns the whole system of the recovery of the dead in this case from the French battlefields and whether the professionalism and methodology utilized at the present time is entirely proper and suitable in this era, bearing in mind the events at Fromelles which made use of the latest technology in order to help identify the dead. The fact that the present situation is unsatisfactory is evidenced by the number of posts on this subject not just on this thread but repeated whenever these events are reported.

There are proper questions to be asked which deserve discussion; those questions have been repeatedly posted here and on the other similar threads. It is a fact that there is a perception that the current system and method of recovery of the dead calls into question the credibility of all those involved. The least that could be done to improve the situation is the formulation of official guidelines for those people who excavate the human remains and checks and balances to ensure that those guidelines are strictly adhered to plus the sanction of legal action against non-compliers. The best solution of all would of course be the involvement of a properly trained archeologist to at least oversee such recoveries.

The deafening silence from the authorities on these matters is itself a cause for concern no better recent example of which can been seen than that of the 15 British Soldiers excavated in the village of Beaucamps-Ligny in November 2009 and were it not for our French friends on this forum then nobody in the UK would have been any the wiser due to the fact that the MOD declined to issue any kind of press release despite the French newspapers reporting the story. These 15 sets of remains still rest unburied and to the best of my knowledge uninvestigated by the British authorities at this time.

Norman

Very well put and exactly what I am getting at. Surely in this day and age the fallen deserve every chance of being named.

[Seadog]

Thanks, of course all of this will come to nil if those with the power to change things do nothing, we can only hope that such persons are able to view this excellent forum. Allow me to add just another suggestion, why not formally licence people like Dom and all those others who are at this time providing the best service that they can given the circumstances and place the supervision of these licence holders with the local Mayor. Having done this in the local areas then back this up with the services of an available trained archeologist based in the local large town or city, these people must exist.

Review the work of the licenced excavators and keep an archive of formal reports of the individual exhumations available for scrutiny, copies with the Mayor and with the national authority responsible. In my view if this is done those who ignore the law will soon be found out as the areas in France where remains are likely to be found are very rural and not much gets past the locals. This would be a start and a minimum requirement in order that both trust and credibility can be restored to the excavation of the dead.

Norman

[willy]

If we are going to rely more on DNA testing, i fear that remains will in the future be removed with less care to the relics which may surround them, and they have a story to tell too, then we will become reliant on one, expensive method, that without a worldwide data base is not full proof on it's own.

Regarding Mat's comment concerning id at Fromelles, those were buried bodies by the Germans so would presumably have been stripped of personal items that would help id them, this from what i can see is a lost soldier not afforded a proper burial, so as stated did have items which could help id him as Australian .

Regarding the way this soldier was removed, i am sure both Dom and the Mayor acted as best they could in the circumstances, but the procedures required need changing and enforcing, so can we expend more effort on that please.

[Seadog]

I am trying Willy (Post 81)

Regards

Norman

[Piorun]

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?

Tim: with respect, why is "this day and age" any different from any other day and age? Pheasant Wood was a major, mass-grave project, well-planned in advance and with considerable scientific resources primed and ready to assist. Despite all that, there was considerable hysteria over the alleged non-competence of the team and I don't believe that a single Digger was identified except through the incredibly expensive and time-consuming process of dna analysis. I'm not too sure how many times we have to repeat this point - but the only Australian 'authorities' with a remote chance of getting there seemed to have been closed for the weekend. The other "relevant stakeholders" were the Mayor (the local authorities), the land-owner, and the lad being paid to dig the trench. Why is it wrong for a writer to "handle some poor devil's remains"? What would you have him do? If you've read the follow-up, you'll now realise that this writer has played a great part in getting these remains to the Australian authorities in a very timely fashion and, if there's any chance of i.d., he will definitely have played a part in assisting in identification. May I ask, in the interests of accuracy, where you get the impression that the disinterment took place over a number of days? I read that M. Zinardi found the damaged remains on a Friday evening and that the writer, the Mayor, and M. Zinardi disinterred the remains the next day (Saturday). After the Mayor tried to raise the Australian consulate on Saturday and Sunday, it was decided to remove the remains from the site on Monday to protect them from being re-buried (infer here - by the field owner or trencher wanting to avoid all the fuss). As to the photos; I suggest that an appropriate photographic reconstruction of M. Zinardi showing how the trencher had cut through the site and just how fortunate the whole find had been is well within the bounds of good background to the story. It might give readers "in this day and age" a better idea of the whole muddy horror of it all. What further investigation of the site could be conducted by these three men? Now that the writer (and, likely, M. Delattre) has brought the matter to the attention of the public and the Australian authorities, perhaps a more investigative excavation of the wider site can be carried out under controlled conditions. There really has been far too much careless talk on this thread (I've already posted some of it) - from words like "deafening silence" (when the newspapers in OZ had already published the story and the government's follow-up) to "credibility" (as if there's something underhand about the efforts taken by M. Zinardi and the Mayor to preserve the remains of a brave Digger) to an often complete failure to understand the realities of farming and living on a battlefield. If we start demanding that the French or Belgians get licences to walk about and dig up their own land, then we risk even worse reactions than we already get. We fought for their freedom. We died for their freedom. But, in the end, it is their freedom and their land. Regards, Antony

[willy]

I am trying Willy (Post 81)

Regards

Norman

And so am i, see multiple posts of mine!

[Seadog]

In Post 84,If you are referring to my use of the words "deafening silence" which appeared in Post 79 please be aware that this was used in the context of the attitude of the British MOD towards the majority of the British soldiers remains found on the battlefield and specifically to their total lack of any press announcement concerning the BL-15 I had thought that my post made this clear but obviously not.

Norman

[willy]

Tim: with respect, why is "this day and age" any different from any other day and age? Pheasant Wood was a major, mass-grave project, well-planned in advance and with considerable scientific resources primed and ready to assist. Despite all that, there was considerable hysteria over the alleged non-competence of the team and I don't believe that a single Digger was identified except through the incredibly expensive and time-consuming process of dna analysis. I'm not too sure how many times we have to repeat this point - but the only Australian 'authorities' with a remote chance of getting there seemed to have been closed for the weekend. The other "relevant stakeholders" were the Mayor (the local authorities), the land-owner, and the lad being paid to dig the trench. Why is it wrong for a writer to "handle some poor devil's remains"? What would you have him do? If you've read the follow-up, you'll now realise that this writer has played a great part in getting these remains to the Australian authorities in a very timely fashion and, if there's any chance of i.d., he will definitely have played a part in assisting in identification. May I ask, in the interests of accuracy, where you get the impression that the disinterment took place over a number of days? I read that M. Zinardi found the damaged remains on a Friday evening and that the writer, the Mayor, and M. Zinardi disinterred the remains the next day (Saturday). After the Mayor tried to raise the Australian consulate on Saturday and Sunday, it was decided to remove the remains from the site on Monday to protect them from being re-buried (infer here - by the field owner or trencher wanting to avoid all the fuss). As to the photos; I suggest that an appropriate photographic reconstruction of M. Zinardi showing how the trencher had cut through the site and just how fortunate the whole find had been is well within the bounds of good background to the story. It might give readers "in this day and age" a better idea of the whole muddy horror of it all. What further investigation of the site could be conducted by these three men? Now that the writer (and, likely, M. Delattre) has brought the matter to the attention of the public and the Australian authorities, perhaps a more investigative excavation of the wider site can be carried out under controlled conditions. There really has been far too much careless talk on this thread (I've already posted some of it) - from words like "deafening silence" (when the newspapers in OZ had already published the story and the government's follow-up) to "credibility" (as if there's something underhand about the efforts taken by M. Zinardi and the Mayor to preserve the remains of a brave Digger) to an often complete failure to understand the realities of farming and living on a battlefield. If we start demanding that the French or Belgians get licences to walk about and dig up their own land, then we risk even worse reactions than we already get. We fought for their freedom. We died for their freedom. But, in the end, it is their freedom and their land. Regards, Antony

Just to pick up on couple of points here ;

1 The only persons handling any remains or associated items, and indeed the only photographs taken on any of the exhumations i have witnessed were that of the team doing the work, out of respect and also in the case of photographs, so that someones relatives remains are not spread across the globe, shows maximum respect.

2 To dig more than one metre deep in Belgium requires permission from the authorities and the correct licence and a full report made and submitted to said authorities.

[Seadog]

Willy this is the current procedure in Belgium as posted on another GWF thread, I have only deleted some persons names which have no bearing on the context. I am also responsible for the highlighting. It was accepted on the thread that this was an accurate description but if you can add anything please do so.

Norman

1. Discovery

2. Local Police informed

3. Belgian MOD informed by Local Police in Belgium if they identify the victim is WW1 or WW2 and not a victim of a crime (Now after the transition of the MOD; The Belgian National Institute for Veterans and Victims of War)

4. Local (of the local community) archeologists informed (if it's strongly believed more soldiers are buried on the spot) Permission to start a archeological site is needed.

5. MoD of the victims informed(if identified)

6. Handed over to the CWGC or Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge for reburial

This seems eminently sensible.

[Piorun]

In Post 84,If you are referring to my use of the words "deafening silence" which appeared in Post 79 please be aware that this was used in the context of the attitude of the British MOD towards the majority of the British soldiers remains found on the battlefield and specifically to their total lack of any press announcement concerning the BL-15 I had thought that my post made this clear but obviously not.

Norman

Sorry, Norman: I read it that you were using the British find as "no better example" which implied to me that there were other examples, including our current subject. I withdraw any implication otherwise. Further to that, I do read that you and others are concerned about the apparent reality that no better procedure is required or enforced when such events occur as M. Zinardi's fortuitous find. I am in complete agreement with you. I only decry the language and tone of the criticism that is being levelled at individuals who have no Forum to defend themselves and which is seemingly based more on emotion and perception than on the realities. Kind regards, Antony

[willy]

Willy this is the current procedure in Belgium as posted on another GWF thread, I have only deleted some persons names which have no bearing on the context. I am also responsible for the highlighting. It was accepted on the thread that this was an accurate description but if you can add anything please do so.

Norman

1. Discovery

2. Local Police informed

3. Belgian MOD informed by Local Police in Belgium if they identify the victim is WW1 or WW2 and not a victim of a crime (Now after the transition of the MOD; The Belgian National Institute for Veterans and Victims of War)

4. Local (of the local community) archeologists informed (if it's strongly believed more soldiers are buried on the spot) Permission to start a archeological site is needed.

5. MoD of the victims informed(if identified)

6. Handed over to the CWGC or Volksbund Deutsche Kriegsgräberfürsorge for reburial

This seems eminently sensible.

That just about sums it up, Norman.

[Chris_Baker]

Plea (and I could post many pleas about this thread): please stop the unnecessary quoting from previous posts. It isn't difficult.

[willy]

Sorry Chris, but in most cases i feel it necessary to do so, so as to keep replies on topic and to ensure that people know clearly what is being replied to, and to stop any confusion.

[Chris_Baker]

To coin a phrase, it does my head in.

[Piorun]

Sorry, Chris. Antony

[Auimfo]

Antony,

Just to clear up one of the common misconceptions about the Fromelles recovery that you have touched on in your posts.

Of those men identified from the mass graves, a couple were identified by means other than DNA. The remainder were not identified by DNA matching alone and it required a combination of anthropological, archaeological and DNA evidence to determine a man's identity.

Although there was some early criticism of the journalist, Zinardi and the Mayor in this thread, with further discussion and understanding, those people who made the comments now generally realise that these people were most likely only doing what was required with the best intentions given the circumstances and that it's the lack of any formal procedure that's at fault for making this kind of hasty recovery necessary.

Lets move on from defending these individuals (which has now been justified and accepted) and discuss what/why/how a series of formal procedures should be implemented in future circumstances such as these.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[ianw]

A good summing up Tim.

Your point about the combination of DNA evidence with other contextual evidence to establish IDs is well made.

[Auimfo]

Thanks Ian,

Yes, unfortunately it seems that many people have been led to believe that it's simply a case of gathering a bit of DNA from both remains and decendants and Bob's your uncle. In reality, this isn't the case and although DNA certainly adds a great deal of weight to any investigation it's only one of a series of factors examined; any of which not matching may preclude an identity being made.

This is why any hasty removal of remains from where they lie may damage the integrity of other contextual evidence and therefore be detrimental to the final outcome. It's not just a matter of good intentions and best efforts which have no doubt been displayed here by Zinardi and co. but a question of why they were forced to act so hastily in the first place. The lack of any kind of formal procedure or governing body to address these finds needs to be rectified.

Cheers,

Tim L.

[ph0ebus]

Thanks, of course all of this will come to nil if those with the power to change things do nothing, we can only hope that such persons are able to view this excellent forum. Allow me to add just another suggestion, why not formally licence people like Dom and all those others who are at this time providing the best service that they can given the circumstances and place the supervision of these licence holders with the local Mayor. Having done this in the local areas then back this up with the services of an available trained archeologist based in the local large town or city, these people must exist.

Review the work of the licenced excavators and keep an archive of formal reports of the individual exhumations available for scrutiny, copies with the Mayor and with the national authority responsible. In my view if this is done those who ignore the law will soon be found out as the areas in France where remains are likely to be found are very rural and not much gets past the locals. This would be a start and a minimum requirement in order that both trust and credibility can be restored to the excavation of the dead.

Norman

Wow, this sounds exactly like the idea I had suggested....and I was told to MYOB.

See:

Clickity Click

-Daniel

[trenchtrotter]

One observation......they rule out an officer on basis of rifle and bayonet. What is to say officer armed himself with such weapon or having been hit and falling into shell hole landed on top of a discarded rifle or a rifle was thrown on his corpse afterwards?

Also I am sure given the circs Dom did everything to search for ID and what is to say any ID ever existed and if it did the digger had already done the damage?

Every time there are works on the Somme when I am over I check them out and have often seen remains (bones and teeth) amongst other things. Maybe a body lay within inches maybe not. Do we conduct full excavation every time.

Again having seen single bodies recovered there is no great archeological dig. It comes down to a couple of "navvies" with shovels supervised by an official (often a UK citizen) who literally shovel away and place bones and items on top of the pit.

It is not pretty and is done with as much respect as is possible in the circs. Even if the authorities recovered it may not have been much different.

Re the question "Why can this only happen in France" well consider what happens in Russia and the old WW2 Eastern Front and also what would happen if such warfare had been waged over the south of England. What respect do we give the dead of Ancient Egypt or indeed our own civilian dead whern a cemetery is full?

For many it is a case of the war is over and time to move on.

Thankfully Dom is a barrier to this and without him this soldier would be scattered to the four winds and lost forever. That was probably his worst fear next to death itself. So a grave is important!

TT

[ph0ebus]

One observation......they rule out an officer on basis of rifle and bayonet. What is to say officer armed himself with such weapon or having been hit and falling into shell hole landed on top of a discarded rifle or a rifle was thrown on his corpse afterwards?

Also I am sure given the circs Dom did everything to search for ID and what is to say any ID ever existed and if it did the digger had already done the damage?

Every time there are works on the Somme when I am over I check them out and have often seen remains (bones and teeth) amongst other things. Maybe a body lay within inches maybe not. Do we conduct full excavation every time.

Again having seen single bodies recovered there is no great archeological dig. It comes down to a couple of "navvies" with shovels supervised by an official (often a UK citizen) who literally shovel away and place bones and items on top of the pit.

It is not pretty and is done with as much respect as is possible in the circs. Even if the authorities recovered it may not have been much different.

Re the question "Why can this only happen in France" well consider what happens in Russia and the old WW2 Eastern Front and also what would happen if such warfare had been waged over the south of England. What respect do we give the dead of Ancient Egypt or indeed our own civilian dead whern a cemetery is full?

For many it is a case of the war is over and time to move on.

Thankfully Dom is a barrier to this and without him this soldier would be scattered to the four winds and lost forever. That was probably his worst fear next to death itself. So a grave is important!

TT

Indeed, one should look at all the items associated with a burial and with the totality of the available evidence make decisions about potential avenues of research into the fellow's identity. It is also true that this fellow may not have had id on him at the time of his death, or it could have been moved/destroyed by the equipment....time will tell.

In some ways this is reminding me of the body recovery that had to happen down at Ground Zero. Given the environment and circumstances they could not do proper excavations there either and a lot of the remains ended up hauled to a landfill in trucks to be sorted through later by volunteers.

Re: your observation and question "Every time there are works on the Somme when I am over I check them out and have often seen remains (bones and teeth) amongst other things. Maybe a body lay within inches maybe not. Do we conduct full excavation every time.", I would say an emphatic yes.

Your comment re: Egypt led me to recollect my visit to Saqqara in 1996. As I and my fellow tourists walked up a dune to get a better view of the Stepped Pyramid there we noted the ground all around us was scattered with human remains. The guide, who was local, when asked about it shrugged and said something to the effect of 'Where do the burials end and Egypt begin?". To him the burials and the countryside were all one and the same, which to connect it with this thread, leads me to believe we should follow what our culture asks of us but factor the cultural views of others into the equation, which is of course easier said than done.

-Daniel

[willy]

To coin a phrase, it does my head in.

That reminds me why i stopped posting on the forum.

[Piorun]

Of those men identified from the mass graves, a couple were identified by means other than DNA. The remainder were not identified by DNA matching alone and it required a combination of anthropological, archaeological and DNA evidence to determine a man's identity.

Lets move on from defending these individuals (which has now been justified and accepted) and discuss what/why/how a series of formal procedures should be implemented in future circumstances such as these.

Cheers,

Tim L.

Thanks, Tim, for clarifying and correcting my stated belief on the sole use of dna at Fromelles. I appreciate the courtesy. Nevertheless, the foundation of my argument stands - and that is that dna analysis was the major factor in the majority of the individual identifications and that it, whether used alone or in natural conjunction with other evidence such as is already available re our current subject, is a very expensive and time-consuming process. Thankfully, it can now be applied if the Australian authorities deem it to be required. From your ultimate comment, I gather that my defence may have become tiresome. So be it. Do please note that, in an earlier post, I had clearly indicated that I agreed with seadog and willy and others on the need to move forward. However, despite the sensible comments from others, I hadn't seen any indication from those responsible acknowledging that their earlier somewhat pejorative posts regarding the actions and motives of M. Zinardi, Maire Delattre and the writer had been without foundation. Pace. It's not a contest. I retire from the defence to continue to worry about my family in and about Brisbane. Regards, Antony