LANCASHIRE FUSILIER FOUND!!

[ypres1418]

It would be nice of the papers followed the story putting up known facts only, but does any-one know of any paper that does,

As to the photo's being posted before anyone knows who he is, if it were to be one of my relatives then i would not have a problem with that just glad that he had been found.

Simon I was sorry to hear you had a bad day at work! Mine yesterday was quite a nice one considering it was Sunday and on Friday we had no beds! and that was the beginning of the bank holiday weekend!

Mandy

[Simon R]

I will try to post a full official archeological report as soon as possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where will this be published?

As a sidelight, it's quite interesting that most of us are more confident in making suggestions regarding this man from evidence in the historic record rather than the archaeological one. If we call him an 'archaeological find', or perhaps more properly 'a soldier known unto God' for now, shouldn't our first questions be physical, empirical, archaeological ones - questions regarding the context within which he was discovered?

Perhaps it's just a relic of my own personal training - my first appreciation of any find like this would be what's it in and what's above and below it.

Read your post Chris B, can understand your feelings.

(still waiting for a cup of tea).

[PhilB]

Perhaps it's just a relic of my own personal training - my first appreciation of any find like this would be what's it in and what's above and below it.

(

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most of us aren`t archaeologists, of course. We assume that in a WW1 burial there`s nothing in the layers above, around or below that`s going to help an identification. We know the date already to within 4 years! Perhaps you could enlighten us, Simon, as to what we`re overlooking?

Phil B

[PhilB]

I cannot claim to be the most eloquent of writers and often find it difficult to express my exact thoughts and feelings on paper

You did a good job of getting them down, Chris!

Would I really want photographs of what might be his remains splashed all over the Internet at the first opportunity

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tricky one that. I`d feel a bit iffy about having my grandad`s remains netted, but I wouldn`t worry about my own remains being netted in 100 years or so. I suppose it`s a matter of context - OK if done tastefully to a discerning audience. Not quite the way it`s been done though, I agree. Phil B

[John_Hartley]

Phil

I presume that, for instance, if there was something below the body that could be dated to, say, December 1917, it would preclude him being killed in the October.

John

[Aurel Sercu]

Could someone inform me on what the Daily Mail wrote today (or will write tomorrow) ? I'm asking because yesterday (Sunday), shortly after noon, I was contacted by a Daily Mail journalist (by telephone) who asked me all I knew about this find. I told him that I had not been involved in the excavation, but he insisted. I told him what I knew, about the material finds too, advised him to contact the people who were directly involved, etc. I also emphasized that I had my doubts whether the man was an officer.

I do not know if the journalist is going to quote me (with or (hopefully) without name), but should he, then I would be interested to read what the result of the interview (it took about 10 minutes) is or will be on paper. Also because I'm not sure what I have to think of the quality of the Daily Mail. Is this a tabloid ?

Aurel

[Simon R]

We have little information as to the deposits within which this man was found. The whole site is evidence, not just the finds.

Was he in a shell hole? What deposits had filled the shell hole? How had they got there? Do they account for his preservation? Was he in a trench? What features had that trench cut into?

It's not saying much to say he died 14-18 is it? That much is obvious. We can't possibly be suggesting that because we know what European war he fought in that the context of his discovery is irrelevant? Can we?

Stratigraphy is both a question of dating and of understanding the context within which this man died. Aren't his very mortal remains perhaps his final epitaph?

I hope I have eased your burden. I go now to a far better place. Morrisons. Pray for me.

[Aurel Sercu]

Phil

I presume that, for instance, if there was something below the body that could be dated to, say, December 1917, it would preclude him being killed in the October.

John

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With all due respect to professional archaeologists ...

Of course examining the layers and deposits below and higher than found remains is extremely important. That is where prehistoric and medieval etc. excavations are involved.

However, if I may say so, after having witnessed and assisted in a number of excavations of remains in Boezinge, applying these standards in my opinion is a bit unrealistic. The practice of battlefield archaeology may be a bit different indeed. I remember finding remains of probably 1915, whereas the items found beneath the man (cartridges or so) appeared to be more recent (1917). Or items found less deep than he was, being older. Or even : finding plastic milk bottles very close to the remains.

Let's not forget (and I am speaking of Boezinge now), where the frontlines remained where they were for 2 years and 3 months, that the area was heavily shelled a great part of the time. And that often remains apparently were blown to pieces several times, and maybe even dumped in trenches and shell holes after the war ! Dating remains in my opînion, based on items found below or less deep than the found remains can be a bit risky.

But let it be clear : I am not an archaeologist. Not even an amateur.

Aurel

[John_Hartley]

Also because I'm not sure what I have to think of the quality of the Daily Mail. Is this a tabloid ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is, indeed, one of our tabloids. And be prepared to be misquoted (and not in a favourable way). You are, after all, "foreign". The Mail is not keen on "foreigners".

I, also, take your point in the later post about the difficulties of battlefield archaeology. I have no practical experience in these matters, whereas, I know you have many years with the Diggers.

John

[Jock Bruce]

Chris,

you are certainly eloquent enough to express something that struck me when I first saw the pictures and which has been nagging at me ever since.

Jock

I am not sure that my post added to this long thread will ever be read, but it is a rather personal message to those who do.

I cannot claim to be the most eloquent of writers and often find it difficult to express my exact thoughts and feelings on paper, but there is something about his whole business which makes me feel very very uneasy.

I'd like to think we would all heed the more cautious words expressed by Paul Reed, Terry Denham, and Aurel Sercu whose collective knowledge and experience I respect.

But more than this, if this dig had occurred somewhere on the Zonnebeke Road where my Grandfather's cousin Samuel George Burge died, possibly blown to bits, and was denied a proper burial, I would be asking myself this question:

Would I really want photographs of what might be his remains splashed all over the Internet at the first opportunity, or would I prefer the investigation into his remains to continue in a dignified, discreet and confidential way, away from public gaze and curiosity, until at some point when a positive ID (if ever possible) was made and a simple but honourable burial could take place. 

I know my answer, and rather than be swept a long by this “exciting discovery” I'd ask you to give a moments thought to what your answer would be...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Dragon]

Chris,

you are certainly eloquent enough to express something that struck me when I first saw the pictures and which has been nagging at me ever since.

Jock

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Me too. I find much of this discussion and analysis distasteful, insensitive and ghoulish.

What if a member of this forum, searching for a lost ancestor, finds that her or his family member has been the subject of this thread? It is not inconceivable.

(I have not seen all the pictures. I don't want to.)

Gwyn

[Boreenatra]

In this day and age does anyone have image rights to any of this? THIS IS NOT A FACETIOUS QUESTION Regards Steve.

[BeppoSapone]

theres the problem when something like this happens,THE MEDIA,they start guessing and digging out pictures of who he could be,and all they do is upset anyone connected to the men they put forward,why dont they ,just for a change,follow the story as it unfolds and report it correctly instead of making up b******t to sell more papers than the other b**********s,it just upsets people unnecessarily,am i wrong or a bit harsh,bernard

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is just too easy to blame "the media". The media are in business to make money and will print/publicise anything that sells. Look at the dross that fills the tabloids, and yet people still buy them.

The problem here is the human race, not the media.

[Jim Gordon]

I hesitate to join this thread but I have just seen on Page 12 of "The Scotsman" a picture of the "preserved" British Officer more gruesome than any posted on this Forum so far. Now "The Scotsman" is not a tabloid but (up until now) a much respected Scottish newspaper that I would have thought to be above such sensationalism and pandering to the prurient tastes of those who revel in this sort of thing.

I agree totally and emphatically with Chris !!! and I speak not as a great-great- granddad researcher but as a person who has an Uncle, and whose wife also has an Uncle, who have no known grave.

The act of publishing the photos of the remains before identification is disgraceful and,it pains me to say it, that this Forum must shoulder some of the blame.

I shall be contacting "The Scotsman" to let them know my sentiments on this.

Regards

Jim Gordon

[john w.]

As requested here is the article

John

[Aurel Sercu]

John H.,

Thanks for your reply to my question regarding the Daily Mail.

John W.,

Thanks for the scan of the article. I can see that the journalist did not base his info on what I said. (Too many things (small details) that he cannot possibly have got from me. And I emphatically said that doubts may be cast on the man being an officer.)

It appears that indeed he got his info from Franky Bostyn, who led the excavation.

Aurel

[mcderms]

Balancing act...

France and Belgium contain the undiscovered remains of hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth troops. Fact. This is why the soil is so wonderfully fertile...

Evey year since the war ended, bodies have been found. Now, if they were found by a farmer early on then a bounty was paid and the CWGC recovered the remains. Fact #2.

When the bounty ended it was up to the landowner to do what they thought was best. Fact #3.

Today, modern developments are encroaching on the battlefields. Fact.

The respective govts do not have the resources to deal with the ordnance that turns up let alone devote millions to painstakingly excavating every body found. Fact.

This is where the diggers, local museums and enthusiasts come in because let's face it, developers don't like stopping work and having their sites shut down when they find Roman temples so they really don't break sweat over some poor Tommy, Poiliu or Fritz. Fact.

So... we have a new track being laid... The museum (lucky) who's doing this work spends time and money poring over old maps to ID any sensitive sites... They then spend more time and money excavating these times and PAINSTAKINGLY RECORDING and RECOVERING items which have absolutely non archealogical significance - WW1 human remains? Can't turn a shovel without finding something here mate...

We're bl00dy lucky to have these blokes looking out for the interest of our boys and their one-time enemies because you can trut me when I say the worlds of politics and commerce don't lose sleep over the odd dead servicemen these days. This is something I have bitter personal experience of.

So yo those critics amongst you I suggest two things: stop reading this thread then flog your house and buy a few fields of ex-battle ground and live their. Then you can stop the diggers yourselves. To those of you who think that relatives will be offended by the posted pictures, I suggest a reality check given that it's 90 years ago and the people who still care about the First War are here on this forum. Not waiting for the BBC to knock on the door with 'Your great-great-great someone has been dug up. Fancy making a fuss?'.

So let's just leave bkristof and the (amateur) archeaologists to it. Unless you want some kind of blanket ban and a nice black market on eBay et al.

[bkristof]

Balancing act...

France and Belgium contain the undiscovered remains of hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth troops. Fact. This is why the soil is so wonderfully fertile...

Evey year since the war ended, bodies have been found. Now, if they were found by a farmer early on then a bounty was paid and the CWGC recovered the remains. Fact #2.

When the bounty ended it was up to the landowner to do what they thought was best. Fact #3.

Today, modern developments are encroaching on the battlefields. Fact.

The respective govts do not have the resources to deal with the ordnance that turns up let alone devote millions to painstakingly excavating every body found. Fact.

This is where the diggers, local museums and enthusiasts come in because let's face it, developers don't like stopping work and having their sites shut down when they find Roman temples so they really don't break sweat over some poor Tommy, Poiliu or Fritz. Fact.

So... we have a new track being laid... The museum (lucky) who's doing this work spends time and money poring over old maps to ID any sensitive sites... They then spend more time and money excavating these times and PAINSTAKINGLY RECORDING and RECOVERING items which have absolutely non archealogical significance - WW1 human remains? Can't turn a shovel without finding something here mate...

We're bl00dy lucky to have these blokes looking out for the interest of our boys and their one-time enemies because you can trut me when I say the worlds of politics and commerce don't lose sleep over the odd dead servicemen these days. This is something I have bitter personal experience of.

So yo those critics amongst you I suggest two things: stop reading this thread then flog your house and buy a few fields of ex-battle ground and live their. Then you can stop the diggers yourselves. To those of you who think that relatives will be offended by the posted pictures, I suggest a reality check given that it's 90 years ago and the people who still care about the First War are here on this forum. Not waiting for the BBC to knock on the door with 'Your great-great-great someone has been dug up. Fancy making a fuss?'.

So let's just leave bkristof and the (amateur) archeaologists to it. Unless you want some kind of blanket ban and a nice black market on eBay et al.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

problem solved mate, don't worry about it...

[Chris_Baker]

The act of publishing the photos of the remains before identification is disgraceful and,it pains me to say it, that this Forum must shoulder some of the blame.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Understand the sentiment Jim, but you can't blame the medium. It is people that post things and say things, not the software!

[CROONAERT]

I'll just say before I start that I haven't read all the previous 6 pages of this thread (and don't intend to) so I apologise if I've missed the point somewhere here....

I'm just curious as to why the big fuss on this particular find and why are do some people seem to be getting hot under the collar about it? Many previous finds have , of late, had photos spread across the media of the remains and pure speculation as to who they are and why. Some of these have been discussed on this forum before, but no-one seems to have "gone off on one" about them.

Dave.

Edited 30 May , 2005 by CROONAERT

[CROONAERT]

I'm just curious as to why the big fuss on this particular find and why are do some people seem to be getting hot under the collar about it?  Many previous finds have , of late, had photos spread across the media of the remains and pure speculation as to who they are and why. Some of these have been discussed on this forum before, but no-one seems to have "gone off on one" about them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've now been made aware of the situation, so I don't believe that my query needs any further answer. All a bit over the top and blown out of proportion (yet again!!! ) I think?

Dave.

[Jock Bruce]

Dave,

in my case probably because it is the first thread like this I've ever bothered reading ... not usually the sort of thing that floats my boat. Maybe if I had read similar threads in the past I would have said my piece before this.

Jock

And I replied while you were replying to youself - JB

I'll just say before I start that I haven't read all the previous 6 pages of this thread (and don't intend to) so I apologise if I've missed the point somewhere here....

I'm just curious as to why the big fuss on this particular find and why are do some people seem to be getting hot under the collar about it?  Many previous finds have , of late, had photos spread across the media of the remains and pure speculation as to who they are and why. Some of these have been discussed on this forum before, but no-one seems to have "gone off on one" about them. Why now? What's so special about this find?

Dave.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Chris_B]

It's not usually my style to enter into to public debate with those I disagree but I'm prepared to break my own rule this time, although no doubt I'll regret it or be seen as "gone off on one" (I'd feel the same about any such case where publication proceeded efforts at id etc):

So to Mcderms:

You seem to have missed the point of those you accuse of being critics. Did anyone of them actually say they wanted the diggers to stop? Did anyone of them say they did not appreciate the efforts made by those who do discover the fallen to treat them correctly? But I for one would certainly not want this to be splashed all over the Internet and press like some trophy.

However, I really take the strongest exception when you say: 'To those of you who think that relatives will be offended by the posted pictures, I suggest a reality check given that it's 90 years ago and the people who still care about the First War are here on this forum. Not waiting for the BBC to knock on the door with 'Your great-great-great someone has been dug up. Fancy making a fuss?'.

Firstly it seems grossly arrogant to think that this Forum, and its contributors, have a monopoly on those who still care about the Great War. Secondly, perhaps you would like to have meet my Grandmother who was alive until quite recently and at a very advanced age had never forgotten her first husband John Storer. They were married for just one week when the luckless John was on sick leave recovering from being gassed, he didn't live for much longer once he returned to the front.

So what is 90 years? The exact number of years ago that my Grandfather's cousin died in Flanders on 8 May 1915 and whose grandchild, Brian George Burge, still goes to the War Memorial in Mitcham to see his name “Burge, S.G” in stone along with many many others carved there. But Brian doesn't belong to this forum and probably never will, but I know one thing, that if it should ever come to it, I don't think he'd want pictures of his Grandfather's remains shown around like holiday snaps.

It would seem we may both care, but evidently in very different ways.

[Dragon]

So yo those critics amongst you I suggest two things: stop reading this thread then flog your house and buy a few fields of ex-battle ground and live their. Then you can stop the diggers yourselves. ...  the people who still care about the First War are here on this forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don’t be idiotic.

There are some of us who find the posting of photos and the speculation undignified, and unbefitting of those who claim to respect the dead. This is a mere internet forum, not the be-all and end-all of the Great War and the repository of all known information. Just because we are members of an internet forum doesn’t make us special guardians of insight, information and caring. There are thousands of people who care but do not subscribe here. Some of this thread has the flavour and excitement of a chase to be the first to get to the right answers and the capitalisation of the post header sets the excitable tone.

No-one is suggesting that there should not be proper investigation of the remains of this poor human being, or future searches for others. Some of us feel that investigations should be allowed to follow a discreet and dignified course, using established and proper channels, with identification, if possible, in due course.

Of course there have been human remains found in the past. The fact that they haven’t been greeted with such lack of dignity simply indicates that the possibility for immediate public show and public debate now exists where it didn’t before.

Gwyn

[john w.]

It is a free forum, where all may air there feelings thats the beauty of this group..

There are those here who have in there time found many bodies and treated them with the respect they deserve.

There are those who are asked to research family members and find things which could cause grief to those who are left, they are sensitive to that issue.

War is unpleasant.

John