http://www.theage.com.au/national/fears-fo...90816-emcw.html

Am I being naive by being disturbed by the re-emergence of such "Fears" or are there genuine issues here?

I say naive because again it is Australian journalist & European correspondent Paola Totaro who is the author and there appear to be no other journalists or news agencies running with this story.

Last time concerns about the archaeological work at Fromelles were raised I experienced knee-jerk alarm and promptly wrote to the CWGC. I include an extract from their response:
"LGC Forensics is the largest independent supplier of forensic services to the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales, supporting law enforcement agencies including police forces and non-police organisations. They met all requisite international standards and provided a solution that met the project requirements [...] Please be assured that the entire project is on schedule and that all the work taking place is being carried out in a highly professional, sensitive and dignified way."
- Peter Francis, Head of External Communications CWGC.

Coincidentally on the 7th of June I met and spoke with Johan Vandewalle on his way into the Fromelles excavation site. He told me much of what Paola Totaro quotes him as saying in her article. later that day my partner & I were down on the fence line at the rear of the excavation site looking through a viewing rectangle (cut in the wood and shade cloth that otherwise obscures any view). One of the Oxford Archaeology people came over to speak with us. It was around the time of the last media fracas and he seemed to be checking to see if we were journalists. Once he was satisfied that we weren't we had a bit of a chat with him. He said they were "very hurt" by the suggestions of mis-management in the press. That the story was a beat-up and that there was no flooding of any of the excavation pits.

I just want to get the opinions of forum members before I decide whether or not I should be writing to my MP, CWGC & anyone else I can think of who might be concerned.

Cheers. Den

Something odd with that link, it has twice turned my PC off.

If you are uncomfortable then contact everyone you can think of, I'm not sure why the opinion of forum members should sway you. I for one would like to be satisfied so I will foward the article, if I can ever open it properly, to my MP.

Mick

For Mick and in case anyone else could not access the link to the Totaro article in The Age:

Fears for bodies of the fallen Fromelles diggers
Paola Totaro
August 17, 2009

Diggers in the trenches at the battle of Fromelles. Photo: Courtesy Australian War Memorial
A BELGIAN World War I expert has described as a ''nightmare'' the methods used by an English archaeological firm to exhume the bodies of about 300 Australian and British soldiers left for 90 years in a mass grave in France.

Johan Vandewalle's chief anxiety is that the methods used to excavate - going deep into the centre of graves instead of working meticulously layer by layer - means there is no guarantee that every set of remains can be attributed to one individual and that they may be jumbled. He reported: ''I cannot believe they did not follow this archaeological procedure … they can show all sorts of sketches, provide all sorts of pictures, but I still ask why did they go straight to the bottom before finishing up the top?'' The Age contacted Mr Vandewalle but he would not comment, citing a confidentiality clause in his contract.

He said elsewhere: ''I do not want to create a problem. But these are young men, lying all together, alone. They have to be taken out slowly, you need time and you need feeling - without feeling you can't see it, you miss things. If you miss something, it is not respectful … this is the shame for me.''

The Age can reveal that Mr Vandewalle, who has more than 25 years' experience digging in the battlefields of the Western Front, was secretly seconded to Fromelles in June, when bad weather highlighted that the firm chosen to complete the dig, Oxford Archaeology, was not prepared to cope with rising groundwater and rainstorms. He has privately expressed concern that delays, the tight schedule and cost-cutting has turned an archaeological excavation project into a ''body recovery exercise''. Oxford Archaeology won the job by bidding almost half the price of its competitors.

Mr Vandewalle is the only independent witness to the exhumation, regarded by European historians as the most important World War I find in 80 years. Media have been banned from the site since May. He is seen briefly in a video on the project website but is not named or credited. Mr Vandewalle played a key role in the successful excavation and recovery of the remains of five Australian soldiers in Zonnebeke, Belgium, in 2006.

But Peter Barton, who was the official project historian and helped confirm the existence of the grave in the first place, has confirmed that Mr Vandewalle's concerns have now been reported formally to British and Australian authorities. Yesterday Mr Barton was dismayed that the project had seemingly moved from being an archaeological dig to a swift, cut-price recovery of remains. ''It seems bizarre that so much time, effort, care and money could be invested in the project to date only to downgrade requirements at the final, critical stage,'' he said.

The Age reported on July 6 that the entry of water threatened to derail the dig, compromising the men's remains. The Department of Defence denied that report. But remedial and emergency work led by Mr Vandewalle has included rerouting of groundwater and creation of adequate drainage, new buttressing of grave walls to protect sides from collapsing and sliding into the open pits, construction of wooden stairs and erection of a specialised marquee to prevent further water entry and damage. All these works were explicitly stated as pre-requisites in the tender document, a copy of which has been obtained by The Age.

The men were buried by the Germans after the horrific Battle of Fromelles on July 19, 1916, in which 5533 Australians from the 5th Division were either killed, wounded or reported missing in action, making it the worst casualty rate in Australian military history. The 61st British Division suffered losses of 1547 killed, wounded, taken prisoner or missing. Almost 170 Australian and British remains have been recovered from the mass grave site since excavation began in May. Descendants of soldiers have been urged to register with the army.

The Age reported last month that the losing tenders, Birmingham University and the Glasgow University teams, both estimated the cost of the project to be more than £2.4 million ($A4.7 million). Oxford Archaeology won the bid promising to complete the five-month project for about £1.4 million.

Thanks for that.

Mick

I find parts of the article rather odd. It says that Mr Vandewalle was "secretly seconded to Fromelles in June" which begs the question "by whom and why?" It appears he has some sort of contract according to the article, which would suggest some sort of official position, but we are really non the wiser. It then goes on to say "He is seen briefly in a video on the project website but is not named or credited." which appears to be a criticism. If his secondment is meant to be a secret, that is hardly suprising. My comments are not intended to denigrate Mr Vandewalle, but rather more to draw attention to the some of the weakness's of the publication's reporting.

TR

Heres another link.

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...howtopic=106964

Den

Am I right in recalling that Totaro has been involved in "mixing it" with an earlier story - I think you are hinting at that in your opening remarks about her?

Her story, above, reports "Oxford Archaeology, was not prepared to cope with rising groundwater and rainstorms." Was that not totally disproved when someone else (described by another GWF member as a conspiracy theorist) tried to suggest the same thing - an attempt that resulted in a fullsome apology from the news source to Oxford Archaeology?

That said, if you feel uncomfortable about things then, of course, you should raise your concerns with CWGc, your MP or whoever, as appropriate.

John

John,
Of the articles I've seen alleging 'Problems' at the excavation site about 90% have come from Totaro (The Age & SMH).

Member Chalkie has posted some follow up perspective: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...howtopic=131114

As you suggest though: I think her original article claiming flooding was roundly rejected in the UK and in Australia. I don't know about totally disproved however. The process is a bit less transparent than I would think it should be.

I can vouch that Johan was asked to attend to the site in June as a specialist advisor. He told me so himself and that it was in relation to concerns about how to best deal with the the soil/clay on the site. I was discussing some unrelated issues with Lambis when he came down the walking track looking for entry onto the site.

I have been informed that there is to be a press gathering at the site tomorrow (Tuesday) but I don't know what time.

Paola seems fair enough as a reporter but if this is what Johan has said, then this is very dissappointing. I will disuss it with Johan when I am next talking with him.

I must admit though, I was surprised the other day when I noted that the forensic teams were at some depth in Pit 5 when they had only just recently opened it. It was untouched one day and about four days later you could see that they were at around chest-height. Pit 5 is supposed to have had the highest concentration of remains and as such should have been progressing rather slowly.

Even though I spent many days in the Media Tent during last year's site investigation with Paola last year on the site, in a way, I hope what she has reported is not true, for the sake of the "Boys".

Regards, Peter

Den

I was referring to this earlier thread. http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...27591&st=25

In particular see the links on post #26 and the subsequent rebuttals and apologies in the link on post #35.

John

The report in the Sydney Herald seems to be a little better edited:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/revealed-digge...90816-emen.html

and a rebuttal already appears in the Australian:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...8-26040,00.html


Mel

Thanks John.

John - please note that the rebuttals and apologies you mention weren’t actually from the SMH but from other groups in Australia. Despite the Australian Department of Defence denying the previous claims in the SMH and even stating in a recent letter to the soldiers’ potential relatives that the story had been “retracted” by the SMH, they clearly haven’t. In fact, it should be blatantly clear from the latest article that the SMH absolutely stands by their original claims.

Peter – I really would suggest you speak to Johan asap and you will then hear what he has to say. There is no journalistic/artistic licence regarding the reporting of what he said.

I should add that having read all of these responses, I find it intriguing to find that no one seems to be questioning why Oxford Archaeology needed to call Johan on site in the first place. He has been working for them since the beginning of June. Why would he, a recognised leading expert on drainage and WW1 excavations, be there if there wasn’t a problem with drainage on site?

A fair point.

Jeremy,

I make no claim to be an expert here but is it not possible that Johan has been brought in for preventative rather than reactive reasons? Or am I being too charitable?

Ian.

The text from the article in the Australian is below.

War dig claims 'untrue'

Leigh Dayton, Science writer | August 18, 2009

A WORLD expert on forensic archeology says verbal attacks on a British team excavating the World War I burial site at Fromelles in France are unfounded.

Richard Wright, a senior forensic adviser to the group, Oxford Archaeology, headed groups that located and excavated mass graves in the former Yugoslavia and graves of victims of the Nazi Holocaust in Ukraine.

The Sydney University emeritus professor said claims yesterday in Fairfax newspapers that methods used by Oxford Archaeology were a "nightmare" and "wickedness" were untrue and showed complete ignorance of basic archaeological procedures.

"My view is that the 'nightmare' and the 'wickedness' rest not with Oxford Archaeology, but with a reporter that furthers untruths," Professor Wright told The Australian. "These disturb both relatives of the dead and the stakeholders in the Fromelles project."

Oxford Archaeology won the contract to recover the remains of up to 400 Australian and British soldiers killed during the Battle of Fromelles in July 1916. There has been speculation that Fairfax's negative coverage stems from one of the two failed bidders, one in Glasgow and the other in Birmingham.

Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, acknowledged the reports, saying: "I am aware of some criticism of excavation measures and water management at the site at Fromelles, which has appeared in media reports. I am advised that such claims are untrue."

The key allegation is that Oxford Archaeology has compromised the project by "going deep into the centre of graves instead of working meticulously layer by layer".

Correct. The two links are clearly to www.Australia.to. and it is that organisation which apologises as this extract

" Australia.to recently published two "Letters to the Editor" which unfairly and inaccurately described the performance of Oxford Archaeology in its fulfillment of the contract to recover the war dead.

Australia.to and the editors apologise to Senator Combet, Oxford Archaeology, its staff, workers, local contractors and relatives of the servicemen as information from Oxford Archaeology has come to hand which clearly shows that the work is proceeding satisfactorily and that the content of the letters to the editor was inaccurate and that a retraction is warranted."

Ian,
with all due respect to Johan Vandewalle wouldnt you think that Oxford Archaeology would have their own people to cover such contingencies?

Yes, you would think they would have their own people to cover such contingencies. So why, some considerable time into the operation, did they have to call in Johan ?

The first casualty of war again seems to be truth.

I must confess that I am concerned by what Peter Barton has apparently said as described in post 3.

I hope that the cause of cost saving is not responsible for denying men the identification they deserve.

.. a very fair point.

To be clear though, I was not disagreeing with or criticising Jeremy's question, just pointing out the possibility that it could be a proactive rather than reactive engagement of John Vandewalle by Oxford Archaeology.

I am not persuaded either way as yet without more facts and so I do not yet take a position either way.

I can readily see that it could be exactly as Jeremy's question infers and that water management issues and errors are being made. Clearly, the lack of transparency on the part of Oxford Archeology lends support to this viewpoint.

I can also readily see a journalistic angle to translate Johan Vandewalle's expertise into a "no smoke without fire" context and conclude that there are water managment issues without any substantiation.

Ian.

Ian M,
I didnt mean to imply that you were disagreeing or criticising. I'm like you, I cannot take a position either way yet. I have just emailed Oxford Archaeology and asked them straight out if they have brought in Johan as a consultant or advisor. Wishful thinking for such transparency? Perhaps.

John,

The person referred to as a 'conspiracy theorist' appears to simply jump on any negative reports about the Fromelles dig and claim them as fact without first seeking to confirm the truth (when not making up his own nonsense). It doesn't mean that 'some' of what he's heard isn't true but more that he's a completely biased and unreliable source.

As like almost everyone, I don't know whether Paola Totaro's article is accurate or not. But therein lies the problem. Because OA, MoD, CWGC, DoD etc are treating the dig like some huge state secret, they are enabling an atmosphere of rumour and criticism. A little more transparency by them from the outset might have avoided much of this problem.

I'm no expert on archaelogical digs and can't make any judgements in that regard however I do have serious concerns about other 'slapdash' aspects of the investigation that may have a direct impact on the number of potential identifications.

Cheers,
Tim L.

Academics stoke Fromelles furore - Sydney Morning Herald
Paola Totaro Herald Correspondent in London
August 19, 2009

http://www.smh.com.au/world/academics-stok...90818-ep3m.html

THE British Parliament will raise questions about the exhumation of 300 World War I soldiers buried in a mass grave in France for more than 90 years.
The all-party parliamentary war graves and battlefield heritage group, chaired by Lord Roper, is expected to reconvene in October and address the mounting controversy about the way the men's remains have been excavated as well as the tender process won by the private company, Oxford Archeology.
The anxiety has been fuelled by the first-hand observations on the Fromelles site by the Belgian battlefield specialist Johan Vandevalle. The Herald reported on Monday that Mr Vandevalle was seconded to the site within a month of the company starting the excavation.
A world-renowned battlefield excavation expert with 25 years' practical experience, he was called to provide emergency advice and remedial works when water threatened to compromise the pits due to rain and inadequate site preparation.
Air Commodore Steve Martin, the head of Australian Defence staff in London, yesterday defended the project. He confirmed the Australian High Commissioner in London had received a letter from Lord Roper last month raising concerns.
However, he insisted the project was on track and Oxford Archeology started remedial drainage work when it realised ''there was a better way of doing things''. It was doing an excellent job on site and that concerns raised with the parliamentary group had come from someone ''who had not been on the site since work began''. He briefed Lord Roper personally on July 20 ''and he was very happy with what I told him''. He said Mr Vandevalle's concerns had not been conveyed at the time.
Richard Wright, an archaeological consultant, has led the criticism of Mr Vandevalle's claims which, he insists, stem from not winning the tender. Mr Wright was part of the Birmingham University bid but left to join the winning Oxford Archeology team at the eleventh hour.
Yesterday, Birmingham and Glasgow - the latter also a failed tenderer - signalled they would co-operate and participate in any public inquiry into the dig.
Iain Banks, the director of Glasgow University's archaeological research division, called for a formal inquiry into the tender process. "I do not wish to interfere with the project [but] the statements are very concerning and … need to be investigated openly so that the project is seen to respect the men … and fully satisfies all of the relatives that they left behind," he said.
Dr Tony Pollard, who led the original evaluation dig in 2007 and is director of the university's centre for battlefield archaeology, said there was ''a tremendous amount of confusion about what is happening and we really need more transparency''.
Senior British archaeologists proposed an independent monitor to ensure archaeological standards on the site.

The words “he was called to provide emergency advice and remedial works when water threatened to compromise the pits due to rain and inadequate site preparation” jump out of the page ……………….

V.

And when you read something like this, the bu****it antennae circles 360 degrees:

Staff working on the project have confirmed names of the dead soldiers by consulting the Commonwealth War Graves database, the National Archives and histories of the regiments.

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/glo...il/article.html

Ho hum

HAH!

Is that the smell of sour grapes wafting by?

Have to say it is getting harder by the day to take much of this seriously anymore.

Well, did the original post mention the words "journalist" or "newspaper"?

At that point I stopped taking it seriously and skipped to the end of the thread.

My view is, if it's published in a newpaper, it's likely to be distorted, self-promoting, profit/sales-driven rubbish.

Cynical? Moi?

John - "Is that the smell of sour grapes wafting by?"

It does appear that the critcisms are originating from those who were unsuccesful in their bids.

Ken - "My view is, if it's published in a newpaper, it's likely to be distorted, self-promoting, profit/sales-driven rubbish."

A friend suggested last week that there were only three things in a newspaper that were absolutly true, the day, date and year!

It’s worth pointing out that Air Commodore Steve Martin, the head of Australian Defence staff in London, has stated that the project is now on track, but that Oxford Archaeology had started remedial drainage work when it realised that ''there was a better way of doing things''.

V.

The Australian - August 20, 2009

A TOTAL of 214 sets of human remains have now been recovered from mass graves near the World War I battlefield of Fromelles, most of them Diggers.

Defence Personnel Minister Greg Combet told parliament yesterday that work had been completed on seven of the eight burial pits at Pheasant Wood, where up to 300 Australian and British soldiers were buried by the Germans in late July 1916.

Mr Combet said "full anthropological analysis" had been completed for remains from three of the burial pits.

"That equates to 104 soldiers having been analysed. Of these, I can advise the house that the overwhelming majority are Australian," he said.

DNA-testing of recovered remains by British firm LGC Forensics will soon begin under a five-year contract with the Australian army having already established a data base for descendants of the Diggers who may be among those buried at Pheasant Wood.

"While we are hopeful that collection of DNA will allow us to identify some of our soldiers, an unfortunate reality is that our chances of doing so still remain quite low. This is due to the complex nature of the identification process," Mr Combet said.

He said the total number of recoverable remains could now be less than 300, compared with an initial estimate of up to 400.

Artefacts recovered from the burial pits so far have included train tickets, books, buttons, military webbing, a gas mask and an Australian army rising sun badge.

The battle of Fromelles, on July 19-20, 1916, resulted in the First Australian Imperial Force's Fifth division suffering 5533 casualties -- the heaviest loss in a single day's battle in any war fought by Australians.

The burial site at Pheasant Wood was discovered in 2007 after years of painstaking detective work by retired Melbourne schoolteacher, Lambis Englezos.

In a detailed statement to parliament yesterday on the Fromelles excavation, Mr Combet strongly defended the decision by the Australian and British governments to choose Oxford Archaeology as the site excavator.

"They have been methodically undertaking the archeological excavation of the sets of remains layer by layer in each grave, with due care and process, and the operation is being fully documented in accordance with world's best practice," Mr Combet said.

Oxford Archaeology had also carefully managed water levels at the site so no remains had been compromised by the very heavy rain experienced in late May.

DNA samples are being taken from every set of remains recovered from Pheasant Wood, with testing of each sample to start at LGC Forensics' London-based laboratory at the end of this month.

DNA matches with possible family descendants will be possible until 2014, with LGC Forensics adopting a number of new techniques to obtain DNA from each set of remains.

One thing I forgot to mention from the relatives meeting on Monday was mention that X ray techniques are being used to identify both artefacts, their position and thus give an indication of the uniform/nationality of the soldier.

It would appear that eyelets on uniforms were different positions on British and Australian uniforms. These are very small, heavily corroded and fragile and unless X rayed whilst in the earth they can dissolve and disappear when remains are washed.


This may account for the type of excavations taking place. If you think about it if you removed soil layer by layer these sorts of artefacts could disappear due to their size and fragility. If on the other hand they are removed in larger clumps, x rayed and their position noted, etc if they subsequently do not survive then at least in the example I've given on uniforms they have evidence of nationality. There may be very sound reasons for the techniques used and I hope the example I was quoted on Monday helps explain a little more. I do wonder if those who are criticising the the techniques used have sought a rational for them directly?

Richard

might be worth a read

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...6-31477,00.html

Bright Blessings
Sandra

I'm trying to remember who it was that said "trust nothing you read in a newspaper but the date, and even then you should check that against your diary"

All,

This article is from the Australian "The Age" website:

Fromelles DNA tests set to start in Sept
Belinda Tasker
August 20, 2009 - 10:39AM Australians who believe they are related to the World War I diggers whose remains were discovered in a mass grave in France will begin undergoing DNA tests in September to help unlock the mystery of the soldiers' identities.

A team of about 30 forensic archaeologists and anthropologists have been working since May to recover the bodies of an estimated 250 Australian and British soldiers from the site at Fromelles in the hope some can be identified before all are reburied at a new military cemetery nearby.

The site was opened to the media for the first time on Thursday, providing a rare glimpse of the progress being made amid criticism that some of the work was not up to scratch.

Independent experts overseeing the operation and those on site have staunchly defended the standard of archaeological work, saying it is in line with world's best practice and on track to ensure the soldiers' remains are reinterred with full military honours in July 2010.

So far the bodies of 222 individuals from the Australian and British armies have been unearthed along with a range of artefacts including uniform buckles, boots, badges and handmade metal rings.

About 1,400 Australian and British families who believe they are related to soldiers who disappeared during the notorious battle of Fromelles in July 1916 have come forward, offering to do what they can to help identify the troops found in a series of deep, muddy pits.

Scientists based at DNA analysis firm LGC Forensics in England will begin collecting genetic samples from families in September to check against those taken from each of the soldiers.

If there are matches, there is a strong chance a special identification board made up of Australian and British government representatives and other experts will allow those soldiers to be reburied with a headstone bearing their name.

LGC's forensic scientist overseeing the DNA profiling, Dr James Walker, said families with strong paternal or maternal links to soldiers who disappeared at Fromelles will be asked to provide a swab of cells from the inside of their cheek.

"We could expect the start of the samples from relatives to start coming in from September onwards," he said.

"We could expect in the order of 1,000 of these samples which all have to be processed and put on a database for comparisons with the profiles we get from the (soldiers') remains."

Given that it was more than 90 years since the soldiers were killed, Dr Walker said it could prove difficult to find relatives who still had direct genetic links.

"We can't use standard paternity type testing because of the fact that most of the samples we will be doing comparisons on will be from further down the generation," he said.

"We are going to have a situation where perhaps there will still be graves with unknown names, but hopefully we will have a reasonable number where we can put names to those graves."

Meanwhile, an independent British forensic archaeological and anthropological expert hired to oversee the Fromelles project has defended the adequacy of work carried out on the site by Oxford Archaeology.

Dr Margaret Cox, an academic with more than 30 years' experience, dismissed claims by Belgian battlefield expert Johan Vandewalle that the excavation of the soldiers' remains had been compromised by drainage problems on the site and methods used to retrieve the remains.

"There is not one jot of truth in any of them (the claims)," she said.

"The work being done here has been done to the highest international standards."

© 2009 AAP

I just received the following email from Connie Levett who is Foreign Editor for the Sydney Morning Herald:

"Mr Vandevalle was hired by Oxford Archeology, the company chosen to complete the excavation at Fromelles, to undertake emergency drainage and construction works when inclement weather made clear that preparation on site was not adequate to protect the graves from water. He worked on site from June at least two days a week.

We reported his observations, made and recorded by an eminent British historian and co-secretary of the Parliamentary group on battlefield archeology, Peter Barton. We also reported clearly Mr Vandevalle's credentials, including that while he does not have an archeological degree, he is regarded in Europe as a foremost authority on Flanders/Somme soils as well as excavation in such conditions.

Thank you for your interest in this issue. The Herald stands by its story."

Prior to going over to the site, when all this kicked off about pits flooding, slap dash work etc...etc... I spent 40mins on the phone with Martial and he told me everything was going ok, yes there were minor issues with water ingress but it was not a potential disaster waiting to happen and it was sorted, something on the lines of not enough pumps and not a lack of pumps altogether. On Saturday 8th August I spent 6 hrs in the company of Martial, we visited the site and talked at length about the situation and he has convinced me that progress is being made at the correct pace for the work in hand and also in a manner that is conducive to the work being carried out, ie - what the relatives of the soldiers would expect and nothing less.....respect. So as far as I am concerned unless it is an official press release from the site or CWGC spokesperson, then its not worth getting hyped up about.

Colin Stalgis

Remembering: Cpl G. F. Stalgis
14th Machine Gun Co
5th Div

KIA 19th / 20th July 1916

Fromelles, France

Ooo-er the fur continues to fly but this time it is mixed with a good dosage of sanctimonious indignation :

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...4-31477,00.html

Mel

I have no connection to the Fromelles dig, having only visited it in its early stages this May (and that through the viewing station), but find it very difficult to form an opinion on this, given all the 'chaff'. I suspect I am not alone in that. However, I must say that I find the statement "Johan Vandevalle knows nothing about archaeology" somewhat odd, and lacking knowledge in itself.

Paul

..... and the fact that he is described as a 'carpenter and an amateur enthusiast' suggests that the gloves are well and truly off.

I wonder how long it will be before the respective sides start to leak information about the other side's sexual peccadillos

Mel

I think that might be more interesting.

BTW, is the Margaret Cox, mentioned in the report, the same woman who regularly appears on Time Team doing the forensic bone analysis bit? Isn't she an "acknowledged expert" in this sort of thing - working in the Balkans and so on?

John

Yes that is the one but so what?

There has been far too much prissy knickered posturing by the so called experts.

Why not issue a simple statement to the effect: ' It is regrettable but Mr Vandevalle's observations are mistaken. The only deep digging that has occurred on site has been the removal of backfill from the lateral trenches of the exploratory excavation undertaken in 2008'.

Instead, we are treated to the hand-wringing, buttock clenching angst of 'We are so dedicated, we are so hardworking et al and ad nauseum.

These experts are in receipt of remuneration from Australian and British public funds. Do we really need to hear their idle threats about defamation actions and how 'hurt' they are; let alone being asked to throw fish as unto a clapping seal for the marvellous work that they are doing?

Tim had it absolutely right earlier in this thread:

Because OA, MoD, CWGC, DoD etc are treating the dig like some huge state secret, they are enabling an atmosphere of rumour and criticism. A little more transparency by them from the outset might have avoided much of this problem.

Enough said.

Mel

Edit: This is by way of a public apology to John. I did not intend to traduce him for asking a perfectly legitimate question. My ire was directed at the unseemly conduct of the so called experts in this affair.

Re: The Cloak & Dagger.......just to throw my two pence on the table, my thoughts on all this...and I do have a vested interest. Tony Pollard and GUARD should have been given the job from the outset, and no that is not a slaight at Oxford, I was impressed with GUARDs work and reporting, but it always comes back to the same thing...money.

.... the secrecy ?.....the press in general have been kept away and not only that many innocent, day trippers if you like, have been kept away and there has been a NO camera policy by some of the private security people in operation. That leads me to think that someone....perhaps a film crew of some description is looking to make a lot of money out of this.....I may or may not be barking up the wrong tree......we shall see, time will tell ? And if it is the case, well then that is just sick !

So what?

So now I have an answer to my question. Thank you.

As for the rest, I've stopped giving a sh it one way or the other. Contract's been awarded; folk are miffed they didnt get it; work's underway; it'll get concluded; blokes will be identifed as best under the circs; folk will bitch that they could have identified more blokes; newspapers will fill more column inches; and not a single bit of difference will be made.

Nuff said.

J

(EDIT: Mel's apology, both public & private, was not necessary and the strong feelings are fully understood. No offence taken by me.)

Sarge

You have raised an issue that I have pondered on.

Does anyone know if there is a media production team on site?

Mel

Sarge2871, you make an important point. Books, DVDs, TV ... money will be made out of this, make no mistake. Whether this is behind the rather unedifying dialogue about the work that is actually being done is not clear to me, but the whole thing is jam-packed with vested interests. Political point-scoring, individual reputations and careers, the works. I find it all rather sad, but at least the men will end up in a decent cemetery, identified if possible, and that is a consolation.

I bought a Paperback this morning,The Soldier's War by Richard Van Emden.
In it, is a photograph,with the sideline "Two years after, a poignant image of British and Australian dead killed at Fromelles in July 1916."
I presume these men received a decent burial,although looking at the photograph,the dignity of an individual grave is hard to conceive.
If the current exhumation result in an authoritative Book,which assists,experts in that field,conduct similar recoveries,in the future,not necessarily WW1 related, I applaud its publication,although I doubt I will ever read it.
I am caught two ways,as a person,when reading the posts on this subject.I have an Uncle who may still be lying out on the battlefields,not Fromelles,but should a mass grave be found,in the area that he lost his life, I would be happy to offer,a living DNA sample to either identify his remains or eliminate him from the individual recovery.I would not,however,read,believe,or question Press stories about the exhumation process,but I would become angry if after this process had been finished,TV or other media outlets were used by professionals,who were there,either for their personal gain or to entertain the ghoulish.
George

Being an archaeologist myself and having to deal with drainage/ground water problems all the time, I am somewhat puzzled by all this.
A reconnaissance dig was conducted before the actual project started, even before the project had been appointed to Oxford archaeology. The times that I have undertaken a similar reconnaisance task, a full report on geology, drainage and ground water levels have always been an important part of this, so adequate measures could be taken to prevent water problems as much as possible during the actual full excavation that is to follow. Drainage systems are usually put in place a few weeks/month before the actual excavation starts, as it takes a while to actually lower the ground water level. A drainage system does not prevent a site from flooding in case of heavy rainfall, but is allows the rainwater to be absorbed very quickly. Basically the flooded part is left for a little while untill the pumps have done their work.
So the question pops up whether or not the reconnaissance team had advised drainage.

Bert,
Any WW1 British or Commonwealth War Diary you read,reveals that they,were totally pigged off with your weather,although they enjoyed your Summers.
George

I share their feelings

From memory ... the GUARD report did deal with the drainage and the soil. I have it, and would need to read it but it would be senseless now.

You can bet on the shine of the seat of their pants come the service 2010 there will be so many politicians and bigwigs grandstanding that the purpose will be entirely overshadowed. It will be surprising to me if the same grandstanders pay the way of one relative of each of the identified soldiers to attend the service.

Bright Blessings
Sandra