Hi guys,

Here is another conumdrum for you all. Nearing the 90th anniversay of the Battle of Fromelles, the Australian media has been peppered with reports (once again) that a mass grave of Australian troops has been found near the battlefield site. Fromelles was Australia's first taste of the Western Front, and within a matter of hours, cost the lives of 5,000 Diggers.

Pending all the red tape associated with convincing the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the French Government of an excavation of the site, there is an ethical dilema associated with digging up the site to see what lurks below.

1. Seems that the land is privately owned, how do the French, who were 'bled white' at Verdun, take to a group of Aussie researchers wanting to dig up the back paddock?

2. If the site turns out to be a mass graves, should the bodies be exhumed and re-buried, or should they remain as they have been for the last 90 years vis-a-vis with a memorial?

Im sure there are others, but to throw it out there for debate, 'SHOULD DISCOVERED BODIES ON THE SITES OF FORMER BATTLEFIELDS BE EXHUMED? WHEN SHOULD WE DIG OR NOT TO DIG?'

There are a few archaeologists amongst you, as well as a heap of people from Belgium, France and Germany as well as Britain, Canada and other 'Allied' countries. I am interested to hear all of your thoughts.

Feel free to explore the following links:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/unknown-then-and-even-more-so-now/2006/07/16/1152988409020.html

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,19792709%255E662,00.html

Cheers,

A.

Hi Aron,

Interesting question. To the best of my knowledge where bodies are found from the 1st World War they are exhumed and every effort is made to identify them and trace any known relatives.

If the remains can be identified then their names are removed the list of unknown and added to a new grave stone.

Where this cannot be done they are re-buried by the War Graves Commission and their graves marked as unknown soldier of the great war.

Both German and Allied boidies are frequently found during building work, where this happens, work stops and the experts move in to try and solve the problem.

As to whether or not digging should begin, I can't say as I imagine that permission to start would be required from the land owner, but if that were given then the Commission has a set of procedures to deal with any remains that are found.

Whether it is morally correct to start to dig is a question I'll leave for others as it could be argued that the sight should be marked as a war cemetary and left undisturbed as is the case with sunken ships or it could be argued that the relatives have a right to know where their loved ones fell and every effort made to recover and identify any remains.

Some thoughts anyway.

Cheers

Al

Well as a professional archaeologist, I would leave well alone. The only occasion when it is appropriate to disturb burials is when it becomes impossible to leave them in situ. If the grave was to be disturbed by unavoidable development, then exhumation would be appropriate, otherwise it is far better (IMHO) to leave them where they were laid with a suitable memorial to commemorate their sacrifice.

'Do the least harm' is an appropriate reminder for archaeologists too, and disturbing their rest without good reason is unjustified. Archaeology in France (from what I remember when I worked there) involves jumping through a few official hoops, which is another reason to leave well alone.

On a personal note, my great uncle Private William Gladwyn is listed among the missing on the wall at Tyne Cot cemetery and I wouldn't want him found unless it was done in a totally professional manner, not just because someone thought it was a good idea to look for burials.

Greeeting all,

A sound analysis David, I'd agree with that. There was a case a few years ago where a fairly large number of British Soldiers were discovered in the development of a factory site or road development in France. (Can remember which now).

A lot of pressure had to be brought on the French athoritiues to stop the whole place just being bulldozed and as is often the case, after much outcry from the Vets association a compromose was finally reached in so much as the archaeologists were given a period of time to salvage what they could after which time the developers moved in. There was a lot of anger and debate about it at the time although I don't remember all the specific details.

Leave well alome and erect a monument would seem to be sound advice.

Cheers

Al

Ironically it was during the construction of a BMW factory

Lincolns

Linked arms

There was a documentary about the MoD's attempts to identify the soldiers which didn't exactly give the impression that much effort was put into the process - another reason to leave them in peace.

Hi David,

How's it going? That's the one, I remember seeing the documentary on the box some time ago. I thought the whole thing was pretty sad - dig to a deadline!!

As you rightly say, all the more reason to leave them alone.

Cheers

Al

If there's no immediate danger to the massgrave, I think that they should leave the place in question well alone. Only if there's absolutely necessary (construction work etc. etc) then they can do something about it....

Just my 2c folks.....

Hi Arron,

What's the thinking in Australia on this one. Obviously they want to identify and mark the sites if they can be shown to exist, but was just wondering if the feeling is that they want to exhume the bodies?

If they start digging to try and identify the sites I was wondering when they stop if you know what I mean. How many bodies would need to be found before it could be declared a War Grave site and would those remains be exhumed or left in place.

Cheers

Al

Was this the one they did on the BBC's 'Digging up the Ancestors'? I remember seeing something like that, and they managed to pull a seriel number not from the cardboard ID tag, but from an engraving from a spoon which was in the soldier's kit! Battlefield archaeology fascinates me, but as David mentioned before, the red tape is mammoth.

I guess the feeling here is mixed. I know the guy who wrote the piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, and I must say I totally agree with some of the things he says. From the people I have spoken with, the general consensus is that we should do every effort to firstly establish that there is actually a mass grave there in the first place, and secondly, dig up and identify.

I certainly agree with the identifying bit. However I am a bit sceptical of the role the ANZAC legend plays in matters such as this. The re-release of this story circa to the 90th anniversary of the Fromelles battle - and the balls up at Pozieres - kinda hints at a running agenda.

If there is a mass grave there, should they be dug up? Im kind of in two minds about this. Im a graduate historian with a keen interest in Australia's role in the First World War, with far distant relatives missing on the Somme. Part of me wants to agree with the exhumation, attempt to identify the bodies, work out how they got there, how they were killed, clear the names from MIA records etc. Thats the Historian in me I guess.

Then again, what political implication does this have if we find out that there are a handful of executed Diggers in this wood? Or what about the poor French farmer whose land he will most probably lose to squillions of pilgramaging Australian 20 somethings, who will most probably mourn the loss of men long forgotten from living memory?

Another thing to keep in mind is that a part from the Digger that was pulled out of the ground at Bullecourt (i think) and now resides in the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the Australian War Memorial, we are not exposed to the finding of missing bodies on foreign battlefields all that often, and as the group leading this project has successfully tried to do, there is a lot of hype over this potential find.

Sorry about this one guys - its a toughy. I apologise for not being able to give a full answer, but rather a stream of loose thoughts. Perhaps some diverse input will waggle a solid opinion from me in the future.

(I will say however that the idea of a memorial of gum trees is absolutely ludacrous!)

A.

The BBC programme seems to have been part of a series called 'Body Hunt', which doesn't appear on the A-Z listing of programmes on the BBC TV site or not that I can find anyway. 'Meet the ancestors' (now just 'Ancestors') did look for a dugout associated with Wilfred Owen in a rather pointless programme in the last couple of years. Think that was in Belgium though, where the official position on archaeology is somewhat different.

Since the chances of making positive IDs seems small and the actual location of the grave is doubtful, I'd still go for a memorial and not an excavation. Just digging something because it's there goes against my instincts. BTW Eucalypts don't mind the European climate, I pass a couple on the way to work every day.

As an idea of the number of those killed in the First World War with no known grave, my great uncle is one of nearly 34,000 British soldiers listed as such in the memorial at Tyne Cot. And that is just for soldiers lost at Ypres after 15th August 1917.

So there really isn't a clear cut answer to this, Aaron and loose thoughts are probably all we can manage...

one of our sites nearly got on 'Meet the ancestors' but they already had enough Saxon stuff.

Trust me mate, I know. I hail from the Southern Highlands in gum-tree clad place just inland from the south-eastern coast of Australia. Although my family has been here for nearly 150 years, I still sport my opaque Welsh heritage suntan :-) Its flippin' freezing at the moment!

Hi Aaron and David,

I think if they can find written evidence of the existance of the graves and their location they should mark the site and leave well alone.

I can also understand that there are many unanswered questions that relatives would like to know and that there is also possibly another agenda running at the same time.

My Uncle Tommy was killed in the Great War. No one ever said anything more than that. Tommy died in the Great War. A few month ago I decided to look up his name and sure enough he's listed as killed in the War but strangely he is actually buried in my home town. I can only assume he died of his wounds on return but no one evey mentioned that, life's full of stuff like that.

I don't know how appropriate Gum Trees might be, but as David said they do well in Europe despite the climate.

Re the TV programme I think I first saw it on Discovery, there have been several and I remember the one about Wilfred Owen, whose poetry I like along with the other War Poets and Artists of the Great War.

Keep us informed of any developments you hear of, however the decision may already have been made as is often the case.


Cheers

Al

PS It's 39C + here at the moment, so stay warm Aaron.

Hi Al and Aaron

It was the same with my great uncle, it's only in the last couple of years that we've found where he's commemorated. His brother was badly shell-shocked and that wasn't talked about either.

In fact I went to Ypres for Armistice Day while I was at school (stayed at the Toc H in Poperinge - I have never spent a colder night). We visited Tyne Cot, but that was before I knew anything specific about my great uncle, so I missed his name.

It didn't help that he'd joined the ASC (got to France with a day to spare for the 1914-15 Star) and then transferred to the 1/5 Gloucestershire Regiment (a territorial battalion from Bristol, even though he was from Herefordshire). This meant he had two army numbers as well. To ad to the confusion the war memorial his name is on over here is in Gloucester...

Fortunately, when the family started researching, he was apparently the only man with that surname killed in the First World War. Once we had his unit, it was relatively easy to track down roughly where he was killed, mostly using McCarthy's Paschendaele Day-by-Day and an online orbat of the British Army in the first World War to work out brigade and division.

Tracking down my grandfather's army history was a doddle in comparison, as he was in the CEF. I searched their records online (another unique combination of names) and got photocopies sent for the cost of copying and postage - less than £10.

It's about 30C here and we don't have aircon......

David

Hi David and Aaron,

Interesting story David, my nephew is doing a lot of research in to the family history at the moment. I hope to catch up with him next time I'm home to see what he has discovered.

My folks have passed away a long time ago now as have most of my elder relatives. I've forgotten a lot of what I was told when I was younger but my Mum had some funny stories about the Americans stationed in Bangor who were preparing for D Day, again most of which I can't clearly remember. LOL, LOL.

Such is life.

Cheers

Al

Edit Sorry, that's a different story and Off Topic!!

As an American, I really don't have a dog in this fight, but I do have an opinion, so here it is, take it or leave it.

Have the bodies professionally exhumed, taking care to keep them complete and separate from one another. Small samples can be taken for DNA testing -- these men died less than a century ago and depending on the soil, etc., DNA may be viable. Re-inter the bodies in a proper cemetery. Families of soldiers listed missing in the battle can give DNA samples. If the dead have viable DNA, they should be able to match with mitochondrial DNA. The families of men who are IDed will have to make a decision -- return them to home soil for burial or have the marker changed at the military cemetery. At the very least, they finally know whatever became of Grandpa or Uncle Albert. And a big point -- these heroes end up in a proper military cemetery and not under some French turnip field, car factory or housing development.

We Americans have very strong feelings about accounting for our war missing. Check out the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command site: http://www.jpac.pacom.mil/ A few years ago, they IDed the national "Unknown Soldier" from the Vietnam War.

Hi Bob

One of the things that annoyed about the treatment of the bodies found at Arras is that the outside organisation contracted by the MoD to identify the remains were clearly not interested in using any scientific means to determine identity - DNA testing was specifically ruled out (without trying it) and so was photo superimposition despite one of the relatives of one of the men possibly in the burial having a full-face photo of him. Hence my oblique comments the first time I mentioned the programme.

The problem is compounded by the destruction of a lot of the army records of soldiers killed in the First World War when the pension office where they were kept was bombed in the Blitz. Between the German incendiaries and the fire brigade about 60% (IIRC) of the records were destroyed or damaged.

David

Thanks for the explanation, David.

It sounds like someone of authority decided this falls into the "too-hard-to-do" category. Or perhaps the "too-expensive-to-do-and-with-little-political-benefit" category.

This, however, was the statement that stunned me:



Unbelieveable.

Hi David and Bob,

It is a cost issuse for the UK Government, no one wants to spend the money, it's the same with the war pensions, widows and service men had to prove they were entitled.

On that side of things were are badly let down, no one cares much about a soldier in the UK until there's fighting to be done, once it's over it's go away son until you needed again.

I remember being stationed in Pirbright, the local economy depended heavily on the income from the various military service men living within that area. Pretty much despised by the locals and looked on as lesser people, when there was talk of closing several of the Barracks and moving the troops else where well what a different story.

Unfortunately it's always been the same.

My thoughts anyway.

Cheers

Al

Hi Al and Bob

IMHO the problem wasn't really the MoD who are only functionaries led by whatever their political masters have woken up thinking about on any one day. The MoD bods in the programme were at least well-meaning, but entirely dependent on what their external consultants told them about the identification process.

So you can guess who my villains are

And Al - didn't Rudyard Kipling write a poem about the differences in civilian attitudes to soldiers in peace and war?

David

Hi David,

Were you reading my mind , and wasn't he an Irish Guard or is my mind wondering just because of the cool beer I'm drinking at the moment!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) That's quite possible :-) :-) :-)

Cheers

Al

My two pence

Raise a monument to honour the brave, but leave to rest in peace. - "They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old"

My grandfather was one of the fortunate - he survived through it - maybe i'd feel different if he hadn't.

Andy

Hi Al

It was Kipling's son who was in the Irish Guards, killed at Loos

Kipling

Think he was first listed as having no known grave and it was only identified fairly recently, and certainly after Rudyard Kipling died. Which made Kipling supplying the phrase 'Known unto God' for graves containing unidentified bodies even more poignant.

David

EDIT: the identification of Kipling's grave has been questioned Kipling?

Hi David,

That's absolutely correct sir, he then spent years trying to dicscover where he died, all sorts of stuff about mediums and all that. There's a statue erected by his mother that links to the story as well.

Very sad story indeed.

Just worked it out, the beer here is 14p a bottle LOL, I better sign off now as it's rather good stuff and I may fall off this seat at any moment!!!!!

:-) :-) :-) :-)

Cheers

Al

IMHO I would say in order to properly honor those men and thier surviving families it would be resonable to exhume the bodies. I think it would serve to educate not only the families but the general public that these were in fact men and not just simply a statistic.

My 0.02 Euro:

As far as the mass-graves go, if possible, identify them (and their extent)and leave them alone. Put a monmument there, and that is it.

Just a few remarks in general:

1. DNA evidence is not the the magic potion. Quite often it is not even possible (dependent on the soil, largely, and state of the bones, and just sheer randomness of where the sample was taken from). And as far as it was being ruled out by the intsitution hired at Arras, odds are it was a cost issue, and a precaution against never ending discussions.
I do not know how many burials were involved. But if for every burial DNA testing is to be done, one of the first questions that posps in mind is: "When and where will you stop?". What gives you the right to decide to give one body another try, and decide that another body is not worth another shot? Costs will rise very very rapidly...

2. As fas as the bodies on a developmental site... them just being crushed in the development goes a bit far. But especially in Northern France and the cricumstances of the modern battlefield, if you would follow "proper" procedures for the find of human remains and.or ordinance, life and development would become all but impossible. Just have a look the impact older battlefields have on the planning and development of an area... it pales in comparison with what is happening in France...