Jim Gordon Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Understand the sentiment Jim, but you can't blame the medium. It is people that post things and say things, not the software! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Chris I do not have a problem re the Forum software. I really thought it was evident from my posting that I was dismayed by the content of this thread which is due to some of it's members. I was all the more surprised at the conduct displayed as I have the highest regard for this Forum and it's membership. Regards Jim Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Gordon Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Balancing act... 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?'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> mcderms It may come as a shock to you to learn that there are still some of the first post-war generation still alive and that some of us are even computer literate. We do not need any reality check to remember the inter war years or WW2. Both my wife and myself have relatives lost in Flanders and I can assure you that we would rather have had them than a name carved on a granite block. We certainly would not wish to see images of their present day remains plastered over the media. Regards Jim Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcderms Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Re: "Proper Channels"... These are the proper channels! The people digging are licensed by the Belgian govt. As for 'dignified manner' etc. etc. how are you going to stop the press? They'll always turn up and always make a story out of nothing - trust me in that all the good journalists are as dead as this poor Lancs man. As for posting photos... (a) Don't read the thread! All the archeaological posts have pictures. Do you think that all those buttons and bits of weebing we see/find on the surface just got dropped? and ( These pictures are how things get identified - in this case that it's definitely an ORs cap badge. I'm all for debate just as I am for respecting the dead... But I think that this work being done is a far more fitting commemoration than just covering the poor ****** up again and moving on as per Time Team and their ilk. As for debate, it's all about the challenge of intellect, the exchange of ideas and the cut and thrust of supported arguement. Wittering on as some have done about 'professional firms' to clean items and 'ooh not sure I like this' just makes us all sound like a bunch of old women (not disrespect to any elderly female posters). I for one would be stunned if Kris and the other local diggers bothered telling us anything like this again. Then where are we? Robbed of info and believing what we read in the Sun? Alternatively, a few well worded letters to the right people and we'll get the diggers banned (trust me - bitter experience again) and then it's back to sacks of remains left outside cemetry gates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbie Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Wittering on as some have done about 'professional firms' to clean items and 'ooh not sure I like this' just makes us all sound like a bunch of old women (not disrespect to any elderly female posters). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why"old women"? Why not "old men"? Or "grumpy old men"? Couldn't resist. Robbie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Bruce Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Indeed it is, which is why I see no point in contributing further posts to this thread Jock As for debate, it's all about the challenge of intellect, the exchange of ideas and the cut and thrust of supported arguement. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOK4 Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Hello, I was contacted by a journalist too, but since I am not a member of the team that did the digging I did not give further comment, because I haven't got an idea what exactly was found, where etc. etc. So, Aurel, I'm terribly sorry, but I think you shouldn't have given so much explanation either without knowing the exact facts. Another thing I find disturbing is that the 'specialists' stated at first it was an officer without any clear find pointing in this direction. It was a big error to presume things that were not backed by actual finds... The media take it over immediately and the next day they find a name of a missing officer... that's how such things start. For the rest: I think it is not appropriate to show human remains like that be it in the press or in a museum or something. I think human remains, being Egyptian mummies or cavemen or soldiers from a past war, should not be publicly displayed... Jan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soren Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 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}> Is it not better that there is STILL media coverage 90 years after the event, wether it is good or bad? I met someone two years ago who did not know what the 'Somme' was? So long as theres coverage it might still give the English history lessons about their own country. Kind regards Soren Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Hello, I was contacted by a journalist too, but since I am not a member of the team that did the digging I did not give further comment, because I haven't got an idea what exactly was found, where etc. etc. So, Aurel, I'm terribly sorry, but I think you shouldn't have given so much explanation either without knowing the exact facts. Jan <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jan, You may be right. Maybe I should simply have put down the receiver. But then the information I gave were the exact facts, and nothing more, since these facts had been made public on this Forum by someone who had been involved in the excavation itself. And the journalist himself was in a position to find the very same information here, and even more. Which maybe he did. Anyway, no harm done, since my information was not used. And I cannot say I regret this ! Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 I will try to post a full official archeological report as soon as possible. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I will try to post a cuppa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Lees Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Well, out of utter boredom I finally read the whole thread. All the way through I was wondering if anyone would ask what on earth a Lancashire Fusilier would have been doing in the Salient in 1917 or 1918 wearing a cap. No wonder he's dead! Was this cap badge in his pocket? Hardly proves it was his, does it? Maybe a swap with a pal in the estaminet in Poperinge. Initials on a watch or a flask? Well, property changes hands at the best of times, so in the war it could have been gambled over, lost, sold, given away, etc. But the initials (if there are any) were probably - and only probably - those of an owner of the item at some time. From what I've read, there is no evidence that will convince me of his identity, even of his regiment. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CROONAERT Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 After reading a few more posts on this thread, it strikes me that what seems to be upsetting a few forum members is the actual publication of the photographs of the dig. - Are these actually any more upsetting than those that were published during and immediately after the war (the famous one of the graves registration unit unearthing some remains out of a muddy hole near Ypres in 1919/20 sticks in my mind)? A person seeing that picture could have witnessed the unearthing of their own father/son/husband/brother only a few short years after they died. I doubt very much that they would have got so sensitive about a photo back then, so why now when the relationship is far more distant? Mountains and molehills come to the fore of my mind in this thread! Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaymen Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Totally agree Dave - I have read the whole thread and I have found it fascinating. Bloody well done Kristof - you have my full support - keep up the good work and don't be put off posting anything in the future. Glyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krithia Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Quoted from the newspaper article “A cap badge confirms the soldier was with the Lancashire Fusiliers, while his personal effects and equipment have convinced experts he was an officer”. NOT necessarily so. Nothing I have read have identified him as a LF and I am not convinced of the so called ‘experts’ belief that he was an officer. There was mention of P03 webbing? … I assume this is meant to be Pattern 1903 leather equipment and not the standard infantry Pattern 1908 webbing equipment. P03 equipment was issued mainly to Territorial’s pre-1916 and secondline units e.g. the Artillery, Engineers, ASC etc. Waterbottle cradles/canteens and these belts were not worn generally by officers, especially LF officers or men of that regiment during 1917. Other items like the wrist watch, bank wallet, pencils, pens, cigarette case and bible are not just officer related. Wrist watches became hugely popular during the war with all ranks and the other items could be carried by anyone. The ‘bank’ wallet and bible appear possible leads for identification. The cap badge is an Other Ranks badge and not worn by officers. IF the identified date of death is 1917, helmets were worn in the line then and not caps. Is the badge related to the casualty or a coincidence and ‘lost’ by someone else but in the same spot. The cap would be carried in the pack. The SBR was issued from Summer 1916, so no proof he died in 1917, he could have died in 1916 or 1918. The pattern of groundsheet may be another clue to the year of death or any other bits not mentioned already. Were there any buttons found, officers or general service pattern? Sadly nothing mentioned so far identifies the mans rank, unit or date of death. So please, no jumping to conclusions until ALL the evidence is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marina Posted 30 May , 2005 Share Posted 30 May , 2005 Why"old women"? Why not "old men"? Or "grumpy old men"? Couldn't resist. Robbie <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Glad you didn't! Marina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcerha Posted 31 May , 2005 Share Posted 31 May , 2005 [and secondline units e.g. the Artillery, Engineers, ASC etc. ] Krithia - please do be very careful about who you call "second- line units" There is nothing "second line" about The Royal Regiment of Artillery! Just a friendly tip! regards David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7:29am Posted 31 May , 2005 Share Posted 31 May , 2005 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... This is absolute rubbish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Nelson Posted 31 May , 2005 Share Posted 31 May , 2005 Kristof, Your doing a great job, keep it up mate. cheers Aaron. And the Artillery is def not second line........my Great Grandfathers rolling in his grave right now !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcderms Posted 31 May , 2005 Share Posted 31 May , 2005 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... This is absolute rubbish <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Expert on organo phospates are we? Didn't think so... It may be a generalisation but it's not rubbish. Still nice to see everyone picking the salient points out in a discussion like this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doogal Posted 31 May , 2005 Share Posted 31 May , 2005 Hi, I'm curious - I had always thought that marker pens were an early 1940's invention at the very oldest? Can anyone clarify or define what is meant by marker pen in this particular historical context - ie Great War. regards doogal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krithia Posted 31 May , 2005 Share Posted 31 May , 2005 [and secondline units e.g. the Artillery, Engineers, ASC etc. ] Krithia - please do be very careful about who you call "second- line units" There is nothing "second line" about The Royal Regiment of Artillery! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Please accept my apologies, I agree with you. Steve (Krithia) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon R Posted 1 June , 2005 Share Posted 1 June , 2005 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). Aurel <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Aurel, I think your experience here is valuable, especially as regards Boezinge. I would however maintain that the basic principles of superposition, uniformitarianism and stratigraphy apply to all sites we choose to investigate archaeologically. Some Western Front sites will undoubtedly consist mainly of a melange of deposits from a whole variety of periods - this may be the Boezinge experience. But if we are investigating physical phenomena that we can call 'features' i.e. trenches, pits, post-holes, shell-holes, dug-outs then there must necessarily be a physical relationship between them and the earth into which they are cut. There must be particular and specific reasons why this man was preserved. These reasons must be linked to the conditions within which he lived and died and the processes that affected him over the last 90 years. What were those conditions and what were those processes? Aside - many contributors to this thread are concerned with media taking information out of context. I would suggest that we as yet know nothing of the archaeological context within which he was found. Oh and thanks for the tea, most refreshing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 1 June , 2005 Share Posted 1 June , 2005 (1) if we are investigating physical phenomena that we can call 'features' i.e. trenches, pits, post-holes, shell-holes, dug-outs then there must necessarily be a physical relationship between them and the earth into which they are cut. (2) There must be particular and specific reasons why this man was preserved. These reasons must be linked to the conditions within which he lived and died and the processes that affected him over the last 90 years. What were those conditions and what were those processes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Simon, (1) Yes, of course, stratigraphy is important, and there always is "some" physical relationship, but the fact is that this stratigraphy often (in the case of battlefield archaeology) hardly reveals anything about the chronology. (2) I think the reasons here are 'obvious'. Maybe the fact that he was wrapped in a groundsheet also accounts for the preservation. But also the depth. As far as I know he was found on the bottom of a shell hole. At what depth ? Maybe one or more meters ? And the bottom of a shell hole often consists of that bluish greyish b*st*rd clay, very compact, hardly any oxygen. And I can assure you that when items (like cartridges) are found in this, just give them a rinse (no brass polish necessary), and they look brandnew. I do believe that all Kristof needed to give the items that shiny look was a bit of water. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon R Posted 1 June , 2005 Share Posted 1 June , 2005 Aurel, I can well agree that battlefield stratigraphy can't always be used to infer chronology. You can see why this can be a bitter pill for any archaeologist to swallow! But I wouldn't assume this to be the case with every site. I well remember the Diggers prog. on TV some time ago (sorry, details lacking) where someone pointed out the very trajectory of a shell through some stratigraphy (call it what you will) - the kind of evidence provided by such a fleeting moment could provide very fine-grained local chronologies for site such as this. (Thinks: Is this balls?) Of course, that's a fine sentiment and a nice idea, but in practice I wouldn't like to be the one to go out and dig it! I think the ideas ok, but with X million 18lb shells etc could i be sure of saying anything meaningful? Probably not - but that doesn't mean such sites don't exist, where we can really get some decent fine grained chronological understanding of the last moments of someones life. At least I'd like to think so! Preservation depends on a variety of factors as you point out - anaerobic conditions brought about by burial in heavily gleyed clays sounds reasonable - at least a factor but I don't have an angle of the local geology. I'd be really interested to understand the taphonomy of sites like this. Come to think of it, i don't have ANY references to the excavation of a WWI soldier and the reasons for preservation - any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 1 June , 2005 Share Posted 1 June , 2005 Aurel, (1) Preservation depends on a variety of factors as you point out - anaerobic conditions brought about by burial in heavily gleyed clays sounds reasonable - at least a factor but I don't have an angle of the local geology. I'd be really interested to understand the taphonomy of sites like this. (2) Come to think of it, i don't have ANY references to the excavation of a WWI soldier and the reasons for preservation - any suggestions? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Simon, Thanks for the reply. (1) I'm afraid that having only been a language teacher you won't get much help from me, with regard to archaeology and geology and other words I hadn't even heard before ! All I can say is that working on a battlefield with the archaeological methods of stratigraphy used for older archaeology indeed must be a bitter pill. (Could that be one of the reasons that professional archaeologists never have been keen on working on WW battlefields ?) (2) No suggestions from my side. All I can say is : the deeper the remains were found, the better the preservation appeared (also because the remains were less disturbed by shells). And the ones that were only one foot deep were almost pulverized. I guess that manure and the use of fertilizers didn't do any good to the preservation either. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragon Posted 1 June , 2005 Share Posted 1 June , 2005 Simon, I have here a copy of Antiquity, Vol 76, No 291, March 2002, which includes a paper by Nicholas Saunders: Excavating Memories: archeology and the Great War. Apologies if you already have this sort of material, as I don't know your background, but if the paper is of any interest, even for its references, I'd be happy to scan and email it for you. Gwyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now