Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Exhumation, excavation and emotion


Martin Brown

Recommended Posts

Dear All

In the past we have debated the issue of exhuming/excavating human remains on archaeological sites on the Front. Reactions have been interesting, ranging from "Leave them where they are" to "Another one brought home".

I am trying to draw together views on this field for a conference paper I am presenting later in the year about this fraught area and would like to hear from Forum Pals about their views.

Questions for discussion might include:

  • Do you mind archaeologists excavating Great War remains?
  • Does study of the remains by specialists concern you?
  • Is the involvement of TV, as sometimes happens, bother you?
  • Does Archaeology help identify remains?
  • Should archaeologists have a say in the modus operandi of the authorities in theatre, such as CWGC/Ancients Combatants?

I realise that this is an emotional area so please respect others rights to their opinion.

Any views expressed here may be used in my presentation but authors/posters will remain anonymous.

All good wishes and thank you

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin

if it results the lads of whatever nationality getting a decent burial and identification where possible I have got no problems

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all in favour of archaeological investigation carried out in an approved manner by trained or experienced workers. I am in favour of rescue archaeology where work is just ahead of the bulldozer on the principle that half a loaf is better than none. All of that presupposes that human remains will be dealt with in a respectful manner and re-interred properly as soon as the formalities are completed. I think that work like this can be of great assistance in keeping fresh the memory of the men who lost their lives in the war. Plus, I believe we owe it to them to recover them and give them a proper burial whenever possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin,

1-If not already in a "consecrated" grave.no problem.

2-No,subject to above.

3-No,if it were to remain factual rather than to dramatise.

4-Yes.

5-Yes,if it were to assist the CWGC,etc recover,identify,if possible, and re-inter sympathetically before the remains were scavenged for saleable items or to fuel a morbid curiosity.

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Martin - this should prove a very interesting thread!

Firstly, I'm not in favour of exhumation if we are talking about remains in an existing burial plot. I think the excavating of remains outside of the cemeteries, for the purpose of trying to identify them and give them a proper burial is generally a very good thing. We see, around Ypres especially, that progress cannot be halted in all places and battlefields become building sites and the thought of the bodies being lost forever under buildings and offices is not a nice thought. I'm sure there may be exceptions now & then, where 'leaving them be' may be considered more appropriate.

I think the disciplines of archaeology would play an important part in the recovery of any remains, ensuring that any surrounding material is logged and remains associated with the body for the purpose of identification. This is the area that to me is key when carrying out excavations/digs.

The study of remains - I think has to be carefully thought out over a case-by-case basis taking into account the type of study and the use of the results.

TV certainly does not 'bother' me - if it's done well. I have the 'Finding The Fallen' DVD (and several others - I'm not spotlighting NML!) and there are good and bad things about the programmes (all documented on other threads in this forum). Any programmes should keep the sensationalism out, the speculation to a minimum (and make sure it's understood it is just that) and concentrate on the facts. These programmes can do a lot of good in raising the subject in people's minds and firing their own interests.

I enjoyed "Finding The Fallen" and would much rather these programmes were made, so that they may be praised/criticised and from that, provide a standard for any future programme to meet.

cheers, Rich.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin

1) No not at all if it leads to any chance of identification and reburial in a war cemetery.

2) If the remains are to be disturbed I think they should be studied by non destructive techniques to assist in identification, and even to "tell the story" of the fallen victim where possible.

3) TV can be a valuable tool in broadcasting the activities to a wider public. (whose ancestors supplied the subject matter being studied). It can also help in fund raising. I would not want the activities held within an incestuous small community of academics from whom the public are excluded.

I have also said on a similar thread to this one, that I would also permit the sale of suitable war debris found as a by product to the dig, in order to raise funds for further investigation, but exclude items connected with the remains found which would first be offered to the family if suitable, or re-interned with the remains.

4) Archaeology clearly used in conjunction with a broad field of scholarship and disciplines such as military history, and forensics are now probably the only tools available to identify remains discovered.

5) Such activities must be team based with the final say going to the body who is responsible for the final care and recording of the remains discovered. I cannot imagine that official bodies would not seek the advice of professional in all the disciplines involved.

What we do need to prevent is the looting of newly discovered sites for sale items, which ruins archaeological integrity, or where remains are unofficially disposed of, because the official reporting systems are too cumbersome or expensive to land owners or developers.

Gareth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin - my thoughts

  • Do you mind archaeologists excavating Great War remains?
  • - No not if it is done in a controlled way with all due respect, and can lead to the identification and formal burial of those still interred by battle. I also take this to include materials that may be used in research and perhaps exhibited in museums, not just human remains.
  • Does study of the remains by specialists concern you?
  • - No, but I'm not sure what can be learnt. These remains should be of fit individuals, who did not suffere from long term illnesses such as would be found in a city dig, and I'm sure the effects of bullets, explosions and shrapnel are well enough known.
  • Is the involvement of TV, as sometimes happens, bother you?
  • - No if it is done with respect and is non sensational. History not tabloid exploitation.
  • Does Archaeology help identify remains?
  • - Yes both human and material. the finding of personal documentation, papers etc is very important and even if a body is not present may provide links to other data and may help other site related investigations.
  • Should archaeologists have a say in the modus operandi of the authorities in theatre, such as CWGC/Ancients Combatants?
  • - Perhaps the most difficult qustion here. After 90 years or all arguments should be considered on their merits, with due consideration of families, human feelings and doing the right an decent thing.
I look forward to seeing your conclusions.

Gunner Bailey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear All

In the past we have debated the issue of exhuming/excavating human remains on archaeological sites on the Front. Reactions have been interesting, ranging from "Leave them where they are" to "Another one brought home".

I am trying to draw together views on this field for a conference paper I am presenting later in the year about this fraught area and would like to hear from Forum Pals about their views.

Questions for discussion might include:

  • Do you mind archaeologists excavating Great War remains?

    No, provided it leads to a proper burial afterwards in a CWGC cemetery. That is the sine qua non..

  • Does study of the remains by specialists concern you?

    Not if it is for the purpose of identifying remains, either as individuals or as members of a regiment. I can't think why else they would be studied.

  • Is the involvement of TV, as sometimes happens, bother you?

    No, there have been some good reconstructions of a soldier's life this way, either through study of artefacts or remains.

  • Does Archaeology help identify remains?

    I'm not sure. That probably isn't their priority. I suppose they might help reconstruct troop movements through the location of remains and help illuminate how life was lived through material objects. It might also be possible to help identify individuals through possessions. I would say that archaelogist should never be allowed to separate remains from material objects and that remains must be handled with every respect until it is time to reinter them properly.

  • Should archaeologists have a say in the modus operandi of the authorities in theatre, such as CWGC/Ancients Combatants?

    No, I think they should be under the authority of these organisations. They may excavate where they like, but if remains are discovered, the CWGC must be alerted to put in motion their procedues which should take precedence over archaeologists' priorities.I would not like to think of remains being put on display , for example. Remains must ultimately be the province of the CWGC/AC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin

I have no problem with excavation of remains

I would prefer the remains to be re buried without being tested for various things in a lab.

No problem with tv, providing they don't interfere with the recovery, or give direction to the specilast's to make "good" tv just tell it as it is.

Clearly Archaeology can help with identification

The main concern must be to try to identify, in line with established procedures and not to recover the remains for scientific reasons alone

willy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ontario Cemeteries Act, Burial Sites Regulation is interesting:

4. The owner of land that contains an irregular burial site shall,

(a) ensure that the remains are interred in a cemetery located in the same municipality as the land in which they were discovered or in an adjacent municipality; or

( B) establish the land as a cemetery. O. Reg. 133/92, s. 4.

You could say that battlefield burials are "irregular burial sites". Few landowners in France and Flanders would be likely to establish yet another cemetery, with excellent CWGC sites nearby.

I'm all in favour of recovering any of the fallen who can be found. If an identification can be established by id tags, items with regimental number, inscribed articles, so much the better.

The Americans, of course, take the remains to their Hawaii facility and try to match through height, age, and probably now, DNA.

Personally, as desirable as a positive id might be, I am uncomfortable with that soldier sitting in a facility until such time as a decision can be made. Far better, in my mind, that he be "A British/Canadian/Australian/New Zealand/South African/Indian Soldier of the Great War, Known Unto God".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

I hesitate to comment, but bearing in mind the very large numbers of men of the various nations that were killed on the western front and have no known grave, wonder if there is much to be gained by trying to identify remains that come to light on the battle fields as a result of construction of one sort or another. The names of those killed are recorded on memorials and are remembered by those who care from time to time. I would agree with a comment above that the nearest cemetery with a standard headstone ' An unknown soldier of the Great War'

Old Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Martin

I'm echoing a number of the opinions recorded above but hope that doing so will give you a representative poll of opinion

[*]Do you mind archaeologists excavating Great War remains?

Not if it's done with due dignity and respect

[*]Does study of the remains by specialists concern you?

Depends on your definition of "study". If it's to help discover an identity then I'm for it. If it's for any other reason then Yes it would concern me.

[*]Is the involvement of TV, as sometimes happens, bother you?

No, as long as it's not sensationalism. Factual programs help todays generation appreciate the sacrifice these men made.

[*]Does Archaeology help identify remains?

If the archiology identifies the rank/Rgt etc then this could aid the identification.

[*]Should archaeologists have a say in the modus operandi of the authorities in theatre, such as CWGC/Ancients Combatants?

A resounding no from me on this.

Hope that helps you to guage opinion

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those men earned a right not to be forgotten, to a consecrated grave and their remains to be treated with respect.

Barbara..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think archeologists are trying to cut themselves in on the popular action generally with a TV slant. Recovering and identifying remains is not their job. So near the event it is hard to justify.

Roop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's not anyones job,let's all be gratefull to those who give their time to recover those souls who have been waiting a long long time to be buried correctly, god rest their souls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those men earned a right not to be forgotten, to a consecrated grave and their remains to be treated with respect.

Barbara..

Very well said Barbara.

GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that people shouldn't go "prospecting" for the missing, but where construction is taking place efforts such as those of de Diggers should retrieve any bodies.

But I'll put this quote to you:

What did it matter where you lay once you were dead? In a dirty sump or in a marble tower on the top of a high hill? You were dead, you were sleeping the big sleep, you were not bothered by things like that. Oil and water were the same as wind and air to you. You just slept the big sleep, not caring about the nastiness of how you died or where you fell.

The author was a member of the CEF and RAF named Raymond Chandler. http://data2.archives.ca/cef/ren1/013768a.gif Profession: Journalist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Barbara's line of" They deserve not to be forgotten" strikes me as about right. If they stay where they lie (which I admit was my first reaction) they will indeed disappear under the housing estates, car parks and motor ways and disappear forever. If found, get them out and, with the utmost respect and dignity, into a proper military cemetery.

Colin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will not comment other than to say that I fully concur with Raymond Chandlers thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the exhumation is to prevent remains near the surface being disturbed by bulldozers, such as the work by the Diggers, then go ahead; otherwise leave them in peace. At first thought, the idea of building a car park over the dead is not a pleasant one, but will the men beneath the tarmac be any worse off than thousands of their comrades still occupying the small piece of land that they died for?

To my mind, archaeology is only of use if it tells us something about the past that we couldn't have learned by other means. This war is so well documented that it is difficult to imagine what new information could be gained from digging up the battlefield.

Is there any validity in considering what the men themselves may have wanted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the exhumation is to prevent remains near the surface being disturbed by bulldozers, such as the work by the Diggers, then go ahead; otherwise leave them in peace. At first thought, the idea of building a car park over the dead is not a pleasant one, but will the men beneath the tarmac be any worse off than thousands of their comrades still occupying the small piece of land that they died for?

To my mind, archaeology is only of use if it tells us something about the past that we couldn't have learned by other means. This war is so well documented that it is difficult to imagine what new information could be gained from digging up the battlefield.

Is there any validity in considering what the men themselves may have wanted?

In regard to the recovery of human remains it is not the goal of the actual dig. The goal is to uncover and study Great War sites and invariably remains are discovered and need to be handled carefully and with respect as I have seen done on several digs.

In regard to knowing all there is I disagree. What I had expected and what I had found being part of the group were two different things. We expected Serre to be a wasteland yet there were intact and well developed German sites with artifacts going back to 1914-1915-1916 despite the devastation of the Somme battle.

Near Ploegsteert Wood we found two sets of trenches, the former German lines and the subsequent Australian trenches a few feet higher because of the mine spill. While working this site we found the remains of a large concrete bunker that did not appear on any maps from the Australian side nor were there any mention of it in the historic records so it was a new find on what was a highly photographed position.

In the event human remains are discovered I feel we have a responsibility to the men to handle them with care in the hope of an identification. The very least the men obtain a burial in a cemetery fitting from their respective army. It actually disrupts a dig considerably when remains are found because of the extra man hours needed to excavate them properly and of course there is no packing up at 5 p.m. to get a shower, a drink and a meal. The men and women I have worked with spent hours in darkness, rain and mud to properly remove remains. This all led to the positive ID of one man and the probable ID down to company level of four others.

In response to the TV question. I feel that this work should be documented properly and presented as an historical record. I feel it helps the public understand the events of that period and keeps the study of history alive and well. I also feel that the expertise and resources of the archaeologists should be used to assist the different war grave entities as many do not have the resources needed for such work and such quality help should be useful in the search for a name, etc.

Ralph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've worked with a Native American for the past 10 years. His tribe or band were called "Mission Indians" and lived in what is now San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California. Very expensive real estate!! In the past if remains were found when things got redeveloped they were put in a bag and taken to be "studied" but now they are put in a bag and reburied. A few years ago their main ancestral burial ground, which lay under a gas station, was redeveloped. It was made perfectly clear to them that they would not be given the land. End of story!!

I write this only to illustrate how easy it is to be concerned with our own ancestors and how easy it is to dismiss others. I mean no disrespect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]Should archaeologists have a say in the modus operandi of the authorities in theatre, such as CWGC/Ancients Combatants?

A resounding no from me on this.

Can I ask why? If the MO, as I have heard for some recoveries, is to shovel soil and remains through a seive to collect the bones then surely the forensic excavation of remains is preferable?

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any validity in considering what the men themselves may have wanted?

It could be suggested that because we cannot say what they would have wanted with any certainty we cannot consider their wishes. We can suggest that coming from the cultural background they did that the majority would have prefered a Christian funeral in a proper place but essentially the processes at work were never driven by their wishes but rather by, initially, the wishes of the bereaved and then by others, including Army/MOD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've worked with a Native American for the past 10 years. His tribe or band were called "Mission Indians" and lived in what is now San Juan Capistrano, Orange County, California. Very expensive real estate!! In the past if remains were found when things got redeveloped they were put in a bag and taken to be "studied" but now they are put in a bag and reburied. A few years ago their main ancestral burial ground, which lay under a gas station, was redeveloped. It was made perfectly clear to them that they would not be given the land. End of story!!

I write this only to illustrate how easy it is to be concerned with our own ancestors and how easy it is to dismiss others. I mean no disrespect.

#

My dear Vista

You have teased out exactly the issues I am trying to explore. The attitudes some posters on this forum exhibit when human remains are discussed approaches that of some more radical "First Nation" groups, including the sanctity of the land where they lay, the hands off they belong to us attitudes and the approach of "we speak for them". On the other hand there are postes whose attitudes are much more along the lines of "so long as they get a grave it's fine".

It is unusual in Old World archaeology to encounter people who get worked up about human remains on archaeological sites, apart from occasional examples, so this is an interesting area that needs exploring as more Great War sites are investigated both as development-led rescue projects and as research excavations. I have done both sorts of work and the flak I have attracted from a few qyarters has pricked my interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...