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

Martin

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

Chris

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.

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

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.

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

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

[quote name='Martin Brown' date='Oct 22 2007, 10:39 AM' post='784650']
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

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

The Ontario Cemeteries Act, Burial Sites Regulation is interesting:



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".

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

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

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



Barbara..

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

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.

Very well said Barbara.

GB

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:



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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

#
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.

Martin,
I'm not sure where we're going with this one so from a layman.
If bones are found when archeaology is being undertaken on a site to test the known history then they should be treated with respect(as I know they will) both to ensure a decent burial and to aid the archaelogical research.
It is not the archaelogists role to seek areas where remains may be discovered.This was done post-War by the Authorities.Should the Authorities wish to examine an area of ground and seek the assistance of Archealogists,well and good.
I note your point about the Ancient and Modern.I was watching a programme recently about a dig in Chester.The Interviewer spoke to a resident of the City who whilst digging in her back garden found, what turned out to be a Roman Cremation Urn.She reported it to the Authorities who took it away.When she contacted them some time after she was advised that the "Pot" was lying on a Shelf.She asked for it back and subsequently re-buried it in her back garden.
Objectively I cannot defend the distinction between the Ancient and the Modern but subjectively would like the modern re-buried under the care of the CWGC or similar.
Another thing that must be considered, however distasteful.As I understand it most Ancient artefacts have little financial value.It would appear that even the most insignificant WW1 artefact has financial value.I accept this is a modern problem, which dare I say it, archaelogy has accidently helped to fuel.
George

George
Always a pleasure to hear from you. Thank you for your considered posting. You make a point about layman's views, which is exactly what I want - i know what my colleagues think but in the past I have been both bashed and lauded on here by non-archaeologists for our work and I wanted a flavour of that.

Someone has said to me a couple of times that if I find his great-uncle I should leave him where he is but others are supportive and I want to get a flavour of the specturm of opinions.

Martin

I have no problem with the excavation of battlefields for historical purposes. That said I must add some provisos.
Any human remains found should be treated as though they were recently dead, i.e. given a proper funeral and interment in a recognised cemetery.
No "studies" of human remains should take place since, however respectfully and diligently they may be carried out, it still remains a violation of the body and invalidates the theory of "Rest In Peace". A study of objects in close proximity to or actually on the body may be carried out for identification purposes but always with the dignity of the deceased in mind.
Coverage of such exhumations and excavations by TV should only take place as a factual recording of the event,( that may be asking a little too much of 21st Century media) without sensationalism or speculation.
Any excavations of this nature should be done under the auspices of CWGC or other nations' equivalent organizations.
Recognised cemeteries should be inviolate and should take precedence over the needs or requirements of supermarkets, factories, car parks etc.
We owe every last one of these men, whatever their nationality, our respect and consideration for giving their lives in service to their country. No man could give more.

Martin,

Having been on exhumations (long before anyone was interested and only one cem was open) I can say that archaeology does have a part to play, if your expertise could help identify an unknown then it has to be a good thing, however if its only for "research" or half an hour on the telly then "I" think that the only aim is for self gratification with a little bit of publicity for the t.v. channel and some all round back slapping thrown in for good measure.

Clearing an area before development = excellent work.

Picking a point on a map and saying lets dig here, there may be something exciting = buy your own field and enjoy yourself.

Just my tuppence worth

Slasher

In a meeting with Chris Farrell from the CWGC in Ieper I was asked the question what motivated the Diggers to go and locate remains.

We are asked by contractors, farmers or the local authority to check an area which is either threatenend or the farmer is going deeper with new equipment. The main worry is ammunition and is best removed and items of equipment which is our main interest which is often much of the same. Every soldier had a shovel so finding these is nothing special. When we are clearing an area it can happen if the conditions are there, no plowing like the Boezinge site that there is a change of soldiers remains. We think it is in good taste to remove these soldiers and they are relocated on a cemetery, the top soil where these soldiers were found was in the top layer and this was sold and transported near Brugge. I do feel it like an intrusion of a soldiers last resting place but due to progress we can at least make the effort to remove him. We remove everything out of the ground but we make no effort regarding ID of the soldier, this is left to the respective governments.

Finding soldiers remains is still very rare, in the Ieper area on a yearly basis no more than 20.
We have removed 12 soldiers this year of which six came from the Boezinge battlefield, no plowing and three germans were next to the remains of a bunker which saved them from the plowe.
Otherwise the chance of locating remains is vertually nihil.

I don't have a problem with archeologists or with TV if it is done in the correct context.
If you mean that when you do a project and in this project you were to locate a soldiers remains you try and assist the CWGC/MOD or other authorised authority, I don't see a problem.
But it has happenend that relatives were informed of the find of a distant relative before the CWGC/MOD knew of anything. I do have a big problem with this procedure.

With due respect to everyone in the three years that I have been involved we have found nothing we did not know already, or would change our thoughts on history. Any information I required on items or soldiers I would be forwarded within a couple of days from regiment museums or other experts.

On the other hand we don't class what we do as archeology the areas we clean are to large and we only clear metal. The reason for clearing the metal was made clear to us all last week when sadly another person was killed by old ammunition.

Frans

Martin,
To be honest with you I think you need to retitle this Thread "Why does WW1 still cause so much emotion" or look for a different target audience.
As I undestand it, the work of archaeology is to test the known facts against the evidence on the ground.Human remains can assist this research and even suggest different avenues to explore but also be a hindrance especially if the research team are working within a limited budget or time scale.Coupled to this you have me and many similar "Forumites" wondering-have you found my Uncle George and clamouring for answers?
That brings me to the different audience.Although this is thriving Forum it only represents a small proportion of the Families that participated in the War.We,as members of the Forum,are likely,therefore,to have more emotive views on the discovery and recovery of human remains still lying on the Battlefields than the vast silent majority who have relatives out there but do not contribute to the Forum.Is there any way you can seek their views?
George

Personally I don't understand why the active search for bodies was stopped relatively short after the war. I'm sure there stil were many locations where the chances of finding graves were great, but which were simply not examined.

My great-grandfather is among the missing soldiers. His son has always wondered what had happened to him and where he might have been buried. Hie died around 1980, without finding any answers.

After many years of research and valuable help from forum-members I now believe to have found the location. Thanks to an aerial taken shortly after his death I can now pinpoint the spot of the massgrave where he must have been buried. No 100% proof, but the story is still pretty waterproof.

I would love to have this site checked. Because a missing relative -no matter how distant- was buried there, in some deserted trench. I have the names of 5 other men who most likely were buried there as well. If someone gets missing in normal daily life, everything is done to find him/her back. Why should this all of a sudden stop when someone has died in a war?

Given the sacrifice they have made the missing deserve a proper burial, instead of the shellholes, trenches or fieldgraves where a lot of them ended up. They deserve a grave where relatives and friends can visit them. A bit late fot 14-18 casualties? The youngest daughter of my great-grandfather is still very much alive.

Ofcourse searches should only be done by the authorities. No discussion there whatsoever.

Roel

...another reason why I think selected sites should still be examined.

My great-grandfather's body was left behind in no mans land. After a few days, his best friend left the trench to look for his body. He managed to bring him in, and bury him in a mass grave.

He risked his own life to bring in a body, so it could be buried properly at a known location. Like so many soldiers have done before and after him, bringing in their mates from no mans land.
Their efforts will lose much of their meaning if those now lost burial grounds remain unknown, in spite of strong indications where they are.

Roel

Roel,
First I inderstand your feelings although in my case from the other side of the wire.
I am the Nephew of a man killed in the March 1918 retirement and the best I can hope for is that he is buried in a mass grave.The Family accepted this uncertainty by believing he may have been buried as the Unknown Soldier.Is this something Germany should think about?
I don't think there is any point on dwelling on the chances of any investigation in the area you have identified revealing any remains and even if any are found whether they can be identified.
As I've said before the work of archeaology is scientific, to try and find evidence to support historical information or to plot an event in history.
That is the prime aim,any body material found should be treated as secondary function of any "dig" although the information it contains may assist the research.If as a result of this secondary research the man can be identified or even the fact that he is afforded a decent burial should be viewed as a huge personal plus to the investigation and nothing more.
George

I don't know if I'm too late or if I'm piling on ... but, I think that the more work done, the better. Face it, our shrines and battlefields are in the middle of living communities. Archeology not only adds to our knowledge base, but makes good PR / TV, etc. ANY public awareness of the War and those who fought it is extremely important in terms of funding and "right of way" when it comes to public decisions about space and land usage.

I must also add that the respect shown to the unknown dead is a living testiment of "good" in our society that is all too seldom practiced. We are an example to the world in this manner.

If we don't want the Malls of the future to be built on our sacred soil, it has to remain sacred ... not through the resistance of a rapidly aging historian community, but in the minds of both voters and bureocrats.

Andy,
You touch on the age old problem which I think Martin is trying to address.
What is sacred ground?
I appreciate it is now too late ,when discussing WW1 but even in the immediate post-War aftermath there was never any serious discussion about preserving the 500 mile front as sacred ground.
You are right,of course.Any proposed Mall or other development should include some archealogical or other work before building starts.The "Diggers" seem to be employed in this area looking for unexploded muntions.
We are singling out WW1 but as a Historian I am sure you will understand the consternation that has occurred over the years when it is belatedly realised what new development has destroyed e.g. in UK Roman sites.
The rhetorical question.Are only Battlefields sacred Sites?Probably not.Runnymede where the Magna Carter was signed is seen as a Sacred Site.I am sure you can identify similar in the US.
I fear the problem is that we are trying to look at the significance of a particular area of ground to a descendant rather than how it fitted into the larger picture i.e. the outcome of the War.
George
p.s. Martin help

I agree that is is often the personnal attachement of a specific individual for a certain area because of a lost relative.
Getting permission for finding a suspected mass grave would be difficult and I think the result would be to remove these remains and reburying them on one of the cemeteries. Unless these graves were dug pritty deep most of them will have been destroyed by plowing. I personnaly don't agree with the locating and removel of soldiers unless there is a good reason, such as a building site.

It is very true that when we are called in the finds are normally over the 95 procent of munitions after all it was an artillery war. The chances of finding soldiers remains are extremely small.

Making the salient Sacred ground I think is pushing it a bit far. If we were to take the full 500 km of the front in Belgium and France and accounting of 10 km on either side of the front line we are talking about 10000 sq kilometers.To put it in perspective about 25 procent of the total Land area of Belgium. We also have to take account that it is not exactly the first and last war which past over Belgian soil. The cloth industry in Ieper was destroyed in 1383 by an English Army and an army from Gent. The Border of the French and Spanish Holland in 1703 was also at the Canal bank at Essex Farm. I think by the time we have run through all the battles there is little left of Belgium.

What is very important is that the metals, munitions and gas munitions are removed from the ground. I have helped a student from the university of Gent for his phd thesis which documented the higher concentrations of copper in the ground in the Ieper area. I should immagine these higher levels will also count for lead, zinc and severall poisonous gasses.

Frans

I found the last entry very interesting , and it has got my mind working. We all remember those who fought in the Great War, but do we remember the people that live where the battles were fought? We all acknowledge that the munitions still directly cause injuries / death, but what about how the land has been affected, does that have its insiduous effects? Surely higher levels of metals may potentially affect the ecology of the area, and also possibly affect the underlying health of the local residents. Has there ever been any research into the health of the local population, and if so, is there any conditions that could be related to the effects of the war?I feel that the job that Frans does is a truely valuable one.

HG,
It is indeed a thought provoking statement when you highlight it as you do.
I am sure that it is something that the Archeaologists have to take into account when undertaking a "Dig".
It is now well documented the effects lead poisoning can have on health so,therefore,was the post-War health of Belgian and French Citizens living in the former Battlefields affected by War-time contamination?I honestly don't know.Hopefully Frans may have an answer.
Couple of thoughts though.Contamination can work both ways e.g. Did any post-War crop flourish as a result of wartime ground contamination.
I recall my Father saying(he was a teenager in WW1) that it was unsafe to drink the water in Belgium/France due to the ground being contaminated by human remains.It was safe, however, to drink the wine.He never visited the Continent in his life so I do wonder if this was a WW1 Soldier's tale Must admit,though,I suppose it would not be such a far fetched story during the War.
George

Here is the map which show the concentrations of copper on the Belgian Front 1914-18.
I have a copy of the manuscript of Drs M De Boever but i am afraid it is in dutch.

Black arrow is the Ieper area.
Rode polygoon-red line which markes the area which was totally devasted in 14-18.



I am looking for any other research done for ground contamination.
I will keep you posted.

Frans

Dear Friends

Thank you all for discussing this issue. I left you to it by and large as I just wanted to see what people thought.

I am pleased to say that the conference session on human remains, repatriation and archaeology were amazed by the issues raised by the discoverey of Great War casualties as most of them only work with older remains. The feedback I got was excellent and it is in no small part to the discussion in this thread and discussions I have had with others elsewhere on this Forum.

I believe that we can do a great service to these men by excavating them respectfully and using our techniques to identify, where possible and gather information about the human even when we cannot find a name - by this I mean gather height and age data and then use the associated finds to show us something about him apart from which side he was on. This is not, I would contest, dome out of idle curiosity but to restore the man to the bones.

Thanks again and Merry Christmas

Martin,

That sentence should be inscribed somewhere prominent - it is a great sentiment. Thanking you for sharing the thread and the sentiment with us!

Adrian

Martin.
am keen in getting involved in NML, we met at the university in birmingham recently, at the centre for First world War Studiesi'm on the web site as a member of the site mattl88@hotmail.com
thank
matt

Yes , "restoring the man to the bones" is a good phrase that could well describe the aims of archaeological activities on Great War sites. It encompasses both the acquisition of knowledge and the continuing process of recovering the remains of the men who fell there. I am one of those people who know they have a close relative (Great Uncle) lost in the soils of Ypres and would be delighted if his remains were some day found. I don't regard the body recovery process as finished. It is a task that our Grandfathers passed on to us.

I also cannot see how you can conduct a proper archaeological examination without fully investigating the identity of any remains found - the remains have the ability to allow you to date the area under investigation very accurately plus deliver much other valuable information.

Should they be left "where they lie"?

I fear that there are probably as many opinions as there are 'lost'. And they will change.

Towards the end of his life, my father (who was suffering from MND) became very concerned about the thought that his father may be still lying face down in the Ypres mud. (I suspect that he is more likely lying in a "known unto God" grave). He would have found it a great comfort to know that the father he never knew was buried in a known place.

My father in the 1920s at Tyne Cott - as he said: the nearest he could get to his father
Click to view attachment

In respect of TV involvement, I think one of the most important considerations (aside from respect for the remains), is that next of kin of identified remains are sensitively informed before transmission.

In respect of declaring land "sacred", one of the purposes of the war was to ensure that France and Belgian should be "free". Taking a whole lot of their freed land (such as a 10km strip along the front - which moved considerably) and declaring it "sacred" (with associated restrictions) is against what the war was fought for. Their commitment to the cemetaries which dominate parts of their landscape is already considerable.

David

David,

what a wonderful but incredibly moving photograph, thank you for sharing this with us.

Regards,
Scottie.

David,

Thank you for sharing you photo, my Gt Granfather is also one of the missing, , and i would very happy for him to be found and identified so we could have a known
place for him to rest. I find it very distressing to think that he may still be lying out there somewhere in the cold mud.

London girl ........

What a poignant picture

I have visited the memorial to the missing at Runnymede where my father's kid brother's name is inscribed. Lost en route to Kassel in October 1943, no member of the crew of his bomber has ever been found. He could be anywhere; at the bottom of the North Sea or buried under the soil of Germany. If his remains are ever found, I would like to see him returned home and buried with full military honours. I have spoken to the relatives of other crew members and most feel the same way.

I suppose that disinterring the unknowns, as long as it done with due reverence and respect is acceptable, but I've watched some of the archaeological programmes on the telly where they have unearthed Saxon, Roman, Viking and others bones and treated the remains with what I felt was disrespect. Bodies have been disturbed from the place they were laid to rest by their kin and subjected to all manner of indignities in the name of science. Sure, it's nice to know what a Saxon peasant ate for his last meal but I don't always care for the way in which science sometimes dehumanises the dead. I would not like Tony Robinson and that yokel with the feather in his cap pawing my uncle's remains from the cockpit of his Lancaster in full view of the cameras so I am against this as a form of entertainment.

As I'm writing this, I've scrolled up to post #26 by dycer and see that he's already addressed some of my points. Oh well. Great minds and all that eh? ;-)

Interesting thread. Any piece of land you dig in Afion contains bodies of those who have fallen, whether be turk or the invader. I believe it is best to leave those kids alone and just respect the land in its present state. What would we sayabout the aboriginal sacred sites in OZ? the mining activities in their burial grounds, otherwise?