278 replies to this topic

[Markess]

The thing that struck me when I first read the article this morning was why weren't the local police on the scene? You can't just dig up remains and carry them off in a sack.  I don't care where you are!  To use the excuse that there was a risk that when the workmen returned the site may have been lost forever, while a distinct probability had the remains not have been discovered, is folly in my opinion.  Had the police been informed, I am confident they would not permitted this to occur.  I would have thought, as well, that the police would be able to facilitate afterhours contact to the Australian Embassy in Paris.
Hopefully now that the story has been splashed across the papers, the new Unrecovered War Dead Section of the Australian Army is on the case ... with the unfortunate circumstance that crucial evidence could now be lost.
Markess

[willy]

Piorun, on 17 January 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

I feel you are all being far too harsh and quick to libel a pair of honest and caring men. A bulldozer had uncovered these remains and, from past experience, we know that it would very likely have ploughed them under again. M. Zanardi is, I believe, a Battlefield Guide and well-versed in the required procedures. Contacting the Mayor of the municipality would certainly constitute the "authorities" and it is hard to see what even the Mayor could do on private land in the face of a 'dozer driver determined to carry on his paid work. Zanardi and the Mayor effectively shielded the remains with their own presence and were at least able to recover what remains they could. Placing the remains on hessian sacking was perfectly respectful (what would you have, white linen?) and practical under the circumstances. What did you do with the last military casualty you handled? No, it's not the best battlefield archaeology - but it's better than the bulldozer would have done. I feel that it's also inappropriate to doubt the Mayor's word that he couldn't raise the Australian Embassy on the weekend. If you've ever tried to raise any embassy on the weekend, you'll know that it can be impossible - especially in these days of "leave a message after the tone". Please ease up Pals - and be careful about libelling good people. Antony

Antony, no one is libeling anyone as far as i can observe here, the last remains i was involved with, once discovered, were 1st reported to the police, they attended, satisfied it was not a crime scene, authorised the removal. 2nd removal was carried out with great care, and each set of remains and all associated items placed in sealed plastic evidence bags, 3rd handed over to the Army, who then made contact with CWGC for identification,4th, once all id was carried out by CWGC they were buried with full military honours.
At all times the remains were treated with respect and as laid down by law.
The first point of contact here should have been the police, but there is no mention of their involvement,if this was on private land who asked M Zanardi and the Mayor to attend?.

[ianw]

I think we have to remember that the French on the Somme live in very close proximity to the physical remains of the Great War - pillboxes, unexploded shells, mine craters, large areas that were never cleared of remains etc etc. Rightly or wrongly, familarity has bred, if not contempt, then a fairly relaxed attitude to these reminders of the conflict be they piles of very nasty shells piled casually at field corners or human remains. Finding a skull on the Somme does not elicit the same response as one found in Sydney or Sunderland. Finding anything unexploded in the UK causes a 500 metre exclusion zone!

That said, the attitude of the CWGC is in my opinion too relaxed. In these days of DNA identification, there has arrived a new era with opportunities to make more IDs as demonstrated at Fromelles. Of course, a singleton set of remains is a different thing to a "closed" group of remains like those at Pheasant Wood but the potential for an ID may well be there.

The fact is that the really concentrated efforts at recovering remains finished way back in 1921 when the various governments withdrew their grave detachments - no doubt the Australian Graves Service would have passed close by where these remains were found without locating them. After 1921, the IWGC/CWGC eventually phased down to a care and maintenance type of operation such as we have today. It will be interesting to see if the CWGC can be made any more responsive by any future discoveries of large numbers of remains say as mooted at Bullecourt.

[Paul Reed]

There are a great many mistaken beliefs here. I can see why, but what takes place and what is the norm in your country is not necessarily the norm elsewhere.

The reality is that the police in France are very unlikely to come out for the discovery of remains from the Great War. Simply put, they do not see it as their responsibility. At some point they have to officially confirm that the remains are WW1 and not more recent but that is normally only once the remains have been transferred to CWGC.

In a village in France the mayor is a de-facto representation of the police and if you inform him of such a discovery, as far as the French are concerned, that is as good as contacting the police direct.

The CWGC in France is not open 24/7 and they do not have an emergency number for the discovery of remains. It is worth noting that their principal task is to maintain existing cemeteries and memorials, not to search for the missing. They used to have a Chief Exhumation Officer for each region, but I have no idea whether they still do. His main job was moving existing burials from one place to another (eg during the closure of civil cemeteries).

Speaking from experience, if the Frenchman named in this report had not retrieved these remains it is likely they would have remained where they were forever or had been destroyed in any work taking place. People here should be thanking him, not attacking him. His own diligence over many years has saved the remains of a number of Great War soldiers.

There are no teams of archaeologists on standby to take up the retrieval of these remains; they have no lawful powers to do so, and neither do they have the funding to either.

While many here - myself included - would like to see a different approach the only way to do that is petition your government about it. Do not attack a Frenchman who has been honouring the Australian sacrifice on the Somme for many years.

[seadog]

Good points Ian (P28) although we are in danger of overlooking the most important aspect of the excavation of the dead of WW1. That is surely the attempt to put a name at last to a soldier and to then grant him a permanent resting place amongst his mates in a war cemetery. Added to this there is the common decency of human beings towards the treatment of these soldiers’ remains, yes there will be times when the volume is so small as to perhaps justify a respectful interment where they were found and with no official involvement.

When complete or almost complete bodies and artifacts have been found then in my opinion these should be excavated by qualified people and a full record of the excavation prepared which will be put in the public domain after all steps have been taken to identify the individual(s). The present situation pertaining in France at this time is in my opinion totally unacceptable and the authorities certainly in Britain which include both the CWGC and the MOD should act with a greater transparency and openness towards the remains of those soldiers who after all died in our name.

Norman

[NigelS]

I stand to be corrected, but I'm not all sure that the CWGC should be one of the first point of contact on the discovery of remains. It may be different for ANZACs (and other Commonwealth soldiers) but it appears that the initial contact for British remains ought to be through the MOD's JCCC Link. Although I doubt that there would be any more liklihood of them being contactable outside of normal office hours than any of the other organizations previously mentioned.

NigelS

[judy7007]

Wise words from Paul - as so often
Judy

[willy]

NigelS, on 17 January 2011 - 12:11 PM, said:

I stand to be corrected, but I'm not all sure that the CWGC should be one of the first point of contact on the discovery of remains. It may be different for ANZACs (and other Commonwealth soldiers) but it appears that the initial contact for British remains ought to be through the MOD's JCCC Link. Although I doubt that there would be any more liklihood of them being contactable outside of normal office hours than any of the other organizations previously mentioned.

NigelS

CWGC are about the last organisation in the chain to be contacted, the point here is not to criticise the finders, but the procedures that are, or are not in place, when remains are discovered.

[seadog]

Paul Reed, on 17 January 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

They used to have a Chief Exhumation Officer for each region, but I have no idea whether they still do. His main job was moving existing burials from one place to another (eg during the closure of civil cemeteries).

Hi Paul

Regarding the CWGC "Exhumation Officer" this may be of interest:

Email from CWGC France November 2009 regarding burials on the Somme in 2009

Please be informed that our Exhumation Officer made all the appropriate investigation to try to identify these sets of remains

From the CWGC dated 2000

In France, the Commission has an exhumation officer. He would be called to
the site by the local authorities and carefully photograph and exhume the
remains noting anything that might lead to a possible identification. The
relevant Defence Attache is immediately notified and while the remains are
held by us, any items that may be of use in identifying a casualty are
passed to the relevant Defence Unit.

2000 - 2009 He? was certainly still employed by the CWGC and his? functions appear to be the same.

Norman

[Lou Bougias]

Thank you all.
We need to find a proper way of recovering our dead.
Dominique may have done the most appropriate thing as far as he was concerned, and the circumstances allowed,
however,
an Australian soldiers bones were retrieved improperly,
and are STILL in a hessian bag.
To prevent this from happenning again, we must do something.....

[NigelS]

willy, on 17 January 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

CWGC are about the last organisation in the chain to be contacted, the point here is not to criticise the finders, but the procedures that are, or are not in place, when remains are discovered.

The point - perhaps not made to well - I was trying to make: every time bodies are discovered, exhumation and the business of identification gets discussed the CWGC is often the first organisation to be mentioned, or blamed for poor performance; they, in my opinion, as the very last in the chain, who can't do anything without MODs sanction, can't really be considered a guilty party as they rarely (if ever) have any say in the initial stages of a discovery.

NigelS

[Lou Bougias]

I am begining to think that some sort of submission should be made to individuals who actually give a damn........
Thoughts anyone?

[Piorun]

Quote

Antony, no one is libeling anyone as far as i can observe here, the last remains i was involved with, once discovered, were 1st reported to the police, they attended, satisfied it was not a crime scene, authorised the removal. 2nd removal was carried out with great care, and each set of remains and all associated items placed in sealed plastic evidence bags, 3rd handed over to the Army, who then made contact with CWGC for identification,4th, once all id was carried out by CWGC they were buried with full military honours.
At all times the remains were treated with respect and as laid down by law.
The first point of contact here should have been the police, but there is no mention of their involvement,if this was on private land who asked M Zanardi and the Mayor to attend?.

Sorry, willy: words like "folly", "moral outrage", "disgrace" , "don't believe", "bull****", "just wanted the scoop", and "why the Mayor wasn't there" have all been used in previous posts to describe the actions of M. Zanardi, the journalist and, believe it or not, the Mayor himself who very clearly was there and who represented the 'authorities' adequately under French law. Given the circumstances and realities of this matter (see Paul's post above which echoes my own earlier), such words and phrases most likely consitute a libel against the actions and apparent motives of M. Zanardi and the Mayor and, I believe, the journalist, not to mention displaying some degree of failure to understand the cultural and practical realities. There is absolutely no evidence that the remains were treated with anything but respect. Regards, Antony

[willy]

Piorun, on 17 January 2011 - 12:37 PM, said:

Sorry, willy: words like "folly", "moral outrage", "disgrace" , "don't believe", "bull****", "just wanted the scoop", and "why the Mayor wasn't there" have all been used in previous posts to describe the actions of M. Zanardi, the journalist and, believe it or not, the Mayor himself who very clearly was there and who represented the 'authorities' adequately under Belgian law. Given the circumstances and realities of this matter (see Paul's post above which echoes my own earlier), such words and phrases most likely consitute a libel against the actions and apparent motives of Zanardi and the Mayor and, I believe, the journalist, not to mention displaying some degree of failure to understand the cultural and practical realities. There is absolutely no evidence that the remains were treated with anything but respect. Regards, Antony

This was in France, not Belgium, so please stand corrected there,respect is objective, personally the fact the remains were left in a hessian sack on the bank of the ditch overnight, and that to date are residing somewhere in france in same hessian sack, does not strike me as respectful, the finders acted the best they could, it's the system that requires looking at, but make it complicated, legal etc will probably mean remains are stripped of artifacts and re buried or destroyed forever.

[seadog]

Antony (P38), have you considered why the police were not (apparently) informed prior to the remains being exhumed?, and why was it necessary for the journalist to be involved (for as he puts it) "we placed his bones carefully into the hessian bag beside his muddy grave, it was poignantly satisfying to know that he would next be at rest in a coffin and that he would, at last, be afforded some dignity almost a century after his death. Hopefully now his identity will be returned. How does he think that "his identity will be returned"?, why was it necessary to turn the exhumation of this soldier into some kind of media event and why was it not possible for the Mayor to use his powers to suspend the work on the site until the authorities could be contacted. The questions just keep coming and some answers would be in order. I have no doubt why people get a little upset when they read of such an event concerning their countryman.

Norman

[willy]

Lou Bougias, on 17 January 2011 - 12:33 PM, said:

I am begining to think that some sort of submission should be made to individuals who actually give a damn........
Thoughts anyone?

Who do you suggest then?

[Lou Bougias]

The chairman of CWG, or hs relatives.
No point getting Julia Gillard interested, I have tried.

[willy]

Lou Bougias, on 17 January 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

The chairman of CWG, or hs relatives.
No point getting Julia Gillard interested, I have tried.

But it's not really CWG responsibility, it's the French authorities who need to be approached, but alas i fear little interest there either, it really is a conundrum.

[pilot]

Hello

In such a case in France we have :

1/ to call the gendarmerie
2/ to call the "Direction des Affaires Culturelles" (located in Amiens). This service is the only one allowed to undertake archeological works. In this case nothing was done according to the rules...

Sincerly

[seadog]

Try the gentlemen of the press they are always interested in a good story, plus your what we call MPs for lack of a better description and keep on plugging the issue here on the forum, you never know someone may take an interest.

Regards
Norman

pilot, on 17 January 2011 - 01:56 PM, said:

Hello

In such a case in France we have :

1/ to call the gendarmerie
2/ to call the "Direction des Affaires Culturelles" (located in Amiens). This service is the only one allowed to undertake archeological works. In this case nothing was done according to the rules...

Sincerly

What rules?.

Norman

[truthergw]

Lou Bougias, on 17 January 2011 - 12:26 PM, said:

Thank you all.
We need to find a proper way of recovering our dead.
Dominique may have done the most appropriate thing as far as he was concerned, and the circumstances allowed,
however,
an Australian soldiers bones were retrieved improperly,
and are STILL in a hessian bag.
To prevent this from happenning again, we must do something.....

Excuse me if I feel I must disagree. The arrangements in place for dealing with remains from the Great War are a matter for the government in France. We may approve or disapprove and certainly one of the functions of this forum would appear to be to provide a platform for airing those opinions. Personally, I am unsure of how that sits with our avowed policy of staying clear of current politics. Beyond complaining to the local Consul or Embassy or even making a complaint to the appropriate French department, I doubt if there is anything can be done. The French as a nation need no reminding of the sacrifices made in the Great War. As to the use of a hessian sack to gather the remains. Would it have made a great deal of difference if they had been collected into a synthetic bag? Do you have some suitable receptacle in mind that you believe ought to be always on hand when remains are discovered?

[willy]

truthergw, on 17 January 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

Excuse me if I feel I must disagree. The arrangements in place for dealing with remains from the Great War are a matter for the government in France. We may approve or disapprove and certainly one of the functions of this forum would appear to be to provide a platform for airing those opinions. Personally, I am unsure of how that sits with our avowed policy of staying clear of current politics. Beyond complaining to the local Consul or Embassy or even making a complaint to the appropriate French department, I doubt if there is anything can be done. The French as a nation need no reminding of the sacrifices made in the Great War. As to the use of a hessian sack to gather the remains. Would it have made a great deal of difference if they had been collected into a synthetic bag? Do you have some suitable receptacle in mind that you believe ought to be always on hand when remains are discovered?

Politics? i thought we were talking procedures here, procedures of notification that were not followed, there may well be sound reasoning behind the way this was carried out and those responsible possibly acted the best they could, but there are questions that would be good to hear some direct answers to.
Each part of the remains should have been packed separately, and then boxed to help preserve them for possible identification. We may be dealing with more than one set of remains here as well.

[Piorun]

seadog, on 17 January 2011 - 12:59 PM, said:

Antony (P38), have you considered why the police were not (apparently) informed prior to the remains being exhumed?, and why was it necessary for the journalist to be involved (for as he puts it) "we placed his bones carefully into the hessian bag beside his muddy grave, it was poignantly satisfying to know that he would next be at rest in a coffin and that he would, at last, be afforded some dignity almost a century after his death. Hopefully now his identity will be returned. How does he think that "his identity will be returned"?, why was it necessary to turn the exhumation of this soldier into some kind of media event and why was it not possible for the Mayor to use his powers to suspend the work on the site until the authorities could be contacted. The questions just keep coming and some answers would be in order. I have no doubt why people get a little upset when they read of such an event concerning their countryman.

Norman

Yes, I have. I read Paul Reed's very knowledgeable and measured post (#29) and I accept that the police were indeed informed - through the person of the Mayor. The writer, as I understand it, an author researching work for publication through a very respectable publishing house, hopes that the recovered personal items, dna, and Aussie records of the actions and missing in the area might provide clues to the man's identity - much as is currently done at the moment elsewhere. I don't see any sort of 'event' here other than the public recording of a very necessary and fortuitous action by M. Zinardi and the Mayor by a writer who was known to them and who they obviously felt was of an academic standing that could be trusted. The quality of the piece itself attests to that. As for halting the works; they are described as "public" works and as the Mayor no doubt is answerable to his public works committee and his populace, and as the remains had already been exposed, he no doubt used his local knowledge and authority to do what he thought best. That this may not satisfy everyone is acceptable. What is unacceptable is to launch libellous broadsides against a respected battlefield guide, a public official, and an Aussie who reported on an event in a factual, yet sensitive and moving article. Yours, Antony

[seadog]

Yet again can I state what appears to me to be obvious but seems to lead to some confusion. Can we agree that the prime aim of any exhumation of the remains of a soldier of the Great War should be focused solely on the possibility of identification of that soldier so that he may accorded the dignity of a proper burial and a headstone with his name inscribed. If we can agree on this most basic of requirements then we need to address the somewhat creaky system that appears to operate in France. Is it not beyond human ingenuity to ensure that when the remains of a soldier is found then the exhumation is carried out under the supervision of the authorities to ensure that the proper archeological procedures are applied in order that the exhumation is conducted in a way which will preserve the available evidence to allow the appropriate authorities to make a value judgment as to the identification of the fallen.

Why are the authorities not extracting DNA samples from the remains in order that at some future time this may lead to identification? The bench-mark has been set with the investigations at Fromelles and I bet that the authorities are “shaking in their boots” that this will set a precedent for future discoveries. What I find hard to accept on this forum in particular is the amount of time and energy spent in discovering so called “Non Commemorations” and yet the actual dead that are found on the battlefields receive little or no interest at all.

Norman

[AussiesinArras]

From enquiries I have made and things I have been told/observed.

The CWGC cannot search for remains and will only collect them when they are discovered. I have spoken with their Exhumation Officer based in Arras as well as one of their senior executives.

The CWGC collects the remains (bones) and any other items that assist in the possibility of identification. The other items discovered with the remains get thrown back in the hole unless someone present takes possession, legally or otherwise. When a nationality can be determined, the respective government is advised and the remains are stored in the CWGC secure storage facility in Arras. The government then decides whether the find is to be made public via the media (not the CWGC). The government can then take possession of the remains, generally for DNA or scientific investigation. If taken away, the remains are returned to the CWGC for burial. If the remains cannot be identified as being any particular nationality, the remains are held and reburied by the CWGC as an unknown without consulting any governments.  

The police, CWGC and the local Mayor always have to be advised upon discovery. The Police, the CWGC and the Mayor consult. Once the Police are satisfied it is a WW1 casualty, they are finished and leave. They do not secure the area and as such, if the CWGC do not lift the remains on the same day, then they are left exposed (maybe under a sheet of corrugated iron) overnight. This is unfortunalety where the grave robbers (I just spat on my carpet) do their filthy work. Word spreads like wild-fire and "secret" discoveries are raided during the depths of the night.

Now, possibly in early June, I am going to re-discover the remains of a British soldier that has laid, following his original discovery, for some 25 years. I will not be alone and the discovery will only be done with the local Mayor's and the property owner's permission. But, if he is there, and if the CWGC is not out on the same day, I am taking out a blanket and standing watch....no mongrel bast.rd is going to get near him during the night. If I can get a qualified archeological person to be with me, all the better. BUT, the smaller the group, the better, as he is said to be beside a frequently used road. I hope the CWGC does not turn up with a hessian sack! His re-discovery will be done with a lot of care.

My hope is that this brave soldier can be returned to be with us, buried in a known place, and buried in a dignified manner.

Peter