Crashed Aeroplanes – War Graves – Time Team

snipped. A delicate topic, and perhaps lets just leave the rest to the imagination here. However, your general supposition on this specific matter is wholly incorrect.

Totally agree Andy.

Malcolm, I do not believe this is a good road to go down on a public forum…we all have imaginations and there are many many people out there who will have been personally affected by the violent death of a loved one who would not wish to read this. Yes they have a choice of what they read, but this is emotive and is not a clinical subject.

OK. Deal! I don’t mind if you tell any other aviation archaeologists. I don’t have a reputation to be shot to pieces! ;):)

Sheeeesh!! So does that mean we can all shake hands and go away now?

I’ll think about it :confused:

Oh OK then 🙂

Actually it was an interesting discussion, but don’t tell anyone I said that or my reputation will be shot to pieces 😉

Nope no berating from me, your detailing of the expertise available allays a lot of my concerns. My personal view besides the professional concerns is that the job is not a matter to involve an archaeologist – something that you and I and the film production company seem to be in agreement on, and which was my contention at the beginning. My concern is really only that the job is done properly because I am quite familiar with the problems of removing artefacts from the ground and that they are conserved accordingly.

Probably in the future when we move over that as yet undefined line in time when it becomes archaeology then archaeologists will be involved, but that I feel is someway off.

Sheeeesh!! So does that mean we can all shake hands and go away now?

Well….I didn’t like to say anything before now Mark 12….!!

By the way….the attached book by my good pal Guy de la Bedoyere (a trained archaeologist of some note and repute) is worth a read. Don’t know whay it has not cropped up before now.

His Preface has some interesting lines:

“…Aviation archaeology is consequently in a state which resembles more conventional archaeology as it was more than a century ago in the days of the week-end barrow digging antiquarian rural vicars. But the wreckage of aircraft is also entirely different because the history of the time in which they were used is well known and well recorded, which puts the subject into an interesting context”

and:

“In the end it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the archaeologist is normally so very distanced from the world he or she is exploring, and the archaeological evidence so miniscule a remnant, that it is debatable whether archaeology can ever comprehend the past as a human experience without historical evidence to validate or even create interpretations. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but a little knowledge is all archaeologists can normally hope to have. The air war is one part of our past where we can observe all the facets of that evidence and see how it works”.

The book is a “must read”, in my view, for those struggling to understand more about the subject discussed in this thread.

ISBN 0-7524-1485-2
Tempus
2000
£14.99

“So, the perception that we are a bunch of unwashed oiks”

I like it. 🙂

Mark

Yes, I know Malcolm will berate us (again) about not having an archaeologist but then we have already agreed (haven’t we?) that it isn’t archaeology. ….

Nope no berating from me, your detailing of the expertise available allays a lot of my concerns. My personal view besides the professional concerns is that the job is not a matter to involve an archaeologist – something that you and I and the film production company seem to be in agreement on, and which was my contention at the beginning. My concern is really only that the job is done properly because I am quite familiar with the problems of removing artefacts from the ground and that they are conserved accordingly.

Probably in the future when we move over that as yet undefined line in time when it becomes archaeology then archaeologists will be involved, but that I feel is someway off.

Thank you Cees for a very interesting summary.

I’d like to flatter myself that my opinion was of some import. As a reporter, the most I can hope to be is a catalyst.

Had we had a similar post regarding what is done by the aviation archaeologists from the UK when the questioning of methodology first came up, we’d have had a bit more light and less heat.

I’ve plucked out the kind of things I expected to hear from the UK but didn’t, although some have come forward late in the day:

I’ve highlighted the points that reassuringly indicate a methodology and ‘qualifications’ (I suspect Cees may mean ‘skill set’, rather than a paper qualification, but the point is essentially: able to to the job well or properly, to a standard.)

Cees also touches on –

I take Cees’ intent, given the context he’s put it in, indicates that the learning methodology is non-academic but works.

However anyone who thinks that leaning through ‘fieldwork’ only or ‘academic study’ only, and a inverted snobbery of ‘I learned all this on the dig’, is, I’m sorry, being dumb – both because it’s doing it the hard way missing better and smarter ways of doing things. As ever, an amalgam is vital – like in farming, for instance, the ‘we’ve done it this way for thousands of years’ is as hopeless of survival adaptation to new realities as ‘GM and science will answer our crop needs’. Both knowledge sets have contributions to make.

I don’t have a degree of any kind – to be ‘proud’ of not having one as though it proves something would be silly, and to attack (or snipe or degenerate) others for their degree, usually based on ignorance of the reality, btw, is childish. (As is to degenerate those without qualification but with experience.)

Cees makes the good point it’s about recovery of the lost, burial and that the development of history (rather than simply using history) is an incidental sideline. I’d suggest, and my point is only, that for a little more effort, validating the results of the research as is already being published, enables the work of the aviation archaeologist to be useful in the greater historic community, rather than being only wreck recovery and incidental benefit.

To go back to the example Tangmere gave (only because they are to hand) I only have his word for it that the Junkers data number came from that wreck (FWIW, good enough for me, but…) as we know there are people who will fudge the data to ensure each JP piece on a block of mahogany is a 1940 Spitfire ace’s aircraft part. How we know the difference is by record keeping, validation by people who work to a standard, sometimes inspection, and (a term often mis-used here) ‘provenance’ the paper trail that shows how something got here from there. Then we can rely that the data’s good, otherwise we are risk of distorting the historical record through a lack of care, leading towards the Holocaust denyers – because we accept false history as real.

(I’m aware that some fraudulent e-bay type ‘false history’ collectables are caught out by those such as Tangmere – but if their methodology isn’t recorded, then that stuff will eventually get into the proper historical record.)

It’s clear that the British aviation archaeologists could set up a qualification for the job, at an appropriate level, and most would pass that test; many of those that didn’t would then lean aspects they’ve been able to avoid or just didn’t know before – to their benefit. I’d just hope that data recording and so forth was placed as important as dig safety and research skills currently are. That would ensure that other organisations wouldn’t need to examine every proposal from an ‘aviation archaeologist’ on it’s merits alone, but would know that a person was qualified – or not, saving effort all around. Oh, and it would challenge the MoD. I appreciate this forum isn’t a full picture, but some of the attitudes shown here would indicate to me that some people are to be avoided at all costs. Again Cees’ clear, reasoned, open, specific and transparent post indicates how and perhaps why the Netherlands is in a better position than the UK.

I should add that I can only go on what I’ve been told here regarding aviation archaeology; if I’m wrong, I apologise, but if the data isn’t shown, then it’s not my failing. If you don’t present the data, people will assume the worst. I’d be interested in any correction to show UK aviation archaeology is in a better historically-useful state than it appears.

If it’s to be real history rather than wreck recovery, the development opportunity lies with the aviation archaeologists, no one else.

Regards,

A very interesting post James, and lots I agree with.

I also take your valid point that had someone posted a similar post to that by Cees about the work by aviation archaeologists in the UK then we might have had more light than heat. Unfortunately, I know for a fact that good many aviation archaeologists in the UK were put off doing just that by the tone and attitude of some comments already posted in the thread that really were not helpful from those outside the field who were trying to engage aviation archaeologists in debate. Having said that, the situation in the UK (generally) is really not too far from how Cees succintly describes the Netherlands experience. In fact, its pretty much a mirror. With the exception, of course, of co-operation from the authorities.

I think you are right, James, in assuming that where Cees talks about “qualification” he is talking about skills sets rather than qualification of the formal kind. Again, exactly the same situation in the UK.

I have frequently (and usually) work with a team where the skills set is diverse. For example, engineers, civil engineers, pilots, chemists, geologists, metalurgists (specialising in conservation) and physicists to name but few. We are talking here about qualified professionals who often have equally glittering degrees as does Malcolm in his sphere. Yes, I know Malcolm will berate us (again) about not having an archaeologist but then we have already agreed (haven’t we?) that it isn’t archaeology. And the skills set we have, both qualified and through acquired knowledge and experience, is fit and more than adequate for purpose. So thats alright, then! 😉 There are also specialists in aircraft types (eg Spitfires or Me 109) who know every last nut and rivet. Even people who run businesses restoring old aircraft – like Spitfires or Hurricanes. Even drainage engineers to sort out broken land drains and even a lady (a Dr) who is currently head of document conservation at the British Library. So, the perception that we are a bunch of unwashed oiks who have met at the pub and decided it would be a “good idea” to dig up a wreck needs to be quashed, I think. Why…we even have writers and historians amongst our number, too! I might add that a conscious decision was taken (involving the archaeologists, I believe) that when Wildfire TV made the Bader programme the archaeologists were left at home. (Wildfire TV is the production company for Time Team, by the way) The reason? It was agreed that the archaeolgy discipline did not fit with the work we were doing or setting out to do. The skills set we had was more than adquate. It also included an air crash investigator (former test pilot at Boscombe Down and recently retired head of the Air Accident Investigation Branch) and probably the worlds leading expert on Spitfires.

My concerns are much similar to those of James. But there is an extra consideration as far as I am concerned which is that I have been a professional archaeologist. It took a lot of hard work as you may guess to get those qualifications. Also you must also remember that any professional in a field that requires the degree of effort and sacrifice that archaeology requires just to get to the point of being a professional, there is a sense of committment that leaves one very concerned if there is move towards somehow lessening standards and allowing excavation by people who are not qualified. Call it professional concern, call it a regard for ethics or whatever but it exists, and put simply although I am now retired from the work I still hope that it will continue to develop.

Now that is not a criticism of any respondent here, but as an archaeologist and historian I note increasing signs of a dumbing down of the public’s attitude to the study of the past and to history. One need only consider that we have a rise in religious fundamentalism which is seeing our educational establishments being pressured into teaching that non sequitor “creation science” a collection of myths taught as truth and which flies in the face of the work of two centuries of research in geology, history, archaeology, palaeontology and astronomy. As a professional I have very very deep concerns about that dumbing down when I consider the problems our society is going to face in this century.

My constant aim in this thread has been to get to the intellectual roots of wreck recovery, its methodology, the training and commitment of its practitioners. So far ( edit: with some exceptions), anyone who has raised these very basic ideas has been insulted for being qualified, dismissed with silly jokes or been told that if you weren’t there you couldn’t understand as if it was some terrible battle, when in fact it was simply digging a hole. As a professional I understand that people can be moved by finding human remains but, and what many fail to understand, the fact is that a professional in any area which involves examining or finding human remains must put that aside and concentrate on their part of the job of analysis.

Also no one seems to be able to even suggest when a site moves from being a source of plane parts to a site that requires the excavation skills of the properly trained professional. No matter the emotion, the human remains are secondary to the wider picture. That is how a professional must see it otherwise they are not doing their job, so how about looking at this issue less from emotion and more from a scientific aspect, because if not those people who are interested in wreck recovery will see that permits will require formal qualifications and all the other impedimenta that is required of any conventional archaeological dig.

(And to answer Tangmere – you need look no further than the silly response when I suggested that recovery was a political matter, because it is a government decision. All I got was nothing but extraneous emotion).

Edit: I, like James, thank Cees for his detailed replies on the state of the subject in his country.

Malcolm

The experience you have in the archaeological excavation of ancient sites, Malcolm, is not disputed. You are clearly well qualified in that field and we have heard this over and over to the point that nobody can be in any doubt. Your qualifications in that sphere, your dazzling array of degrees etc are entirely laudable and I have little doubt that you are very good at what you do.

I rather think, however, that your experience of the recovery of wartime aircraft is similar to my experience of your particular brand of archaeology. In other words, I suspect we can both claim a total of attendances at such operations as being a figure of somewhere less than one.

There is no question of “obfuscation”. I did not feel it was a topic that neccesarily needs to be discussed here in an open forum. There is a YouTube film of a recovery in Russia where the pilot of a Yak 1 (or possibly a Hurricane?) was found. If I can find the link I will pm it to you. Or you can do a search. I think that those viewing it might well be doing so out of a morbid kind of fascination and that is not something any of us, I hope, would wish to encourage. If you wish to look at it for your professional or scientific puroposes then that is up to you. Lets just say that if you had known this particular man you would certainly still recognise him – more than 60 years later. The total completeness, for want of a better word, of limbs and soft tissue in this case is rare but not unknown. But it is an illustrative case that demonstates well the point I had made and demonstrates that your general supposition of what might still be found is not entirely accurate. However, in view of your lack of knowledge, experience or expertise in this specific field I would not expect you, or anyone else without first hand knowledge, to be able to fully understand or comprehend what might be found. That said, a myriad of factors obviously affect the completeness and state of preservation of aircraft and any unfortunate occupants. Clearly, this is tied in to soil type (eg alluvial soils, marshland etc or even chalk), velocity of machine on impact, aircraft type, fire or explosion (or not) before or after impact etc etc. So, no obfuscation on my part as you wrongly suppose.

You ask me to reply to your point about war graves and at what point they could be considered no longer “war graves”. I do not know the answer to that. It is purely a subjective thing, isn’t it? However, in this context I suppose you to be meaning the last resting places of “lost” casualties rather than formal and existing war graves. In the case of the latter, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission charter requires their care of graves and monuments to be “in perpetuity”. It might not be unreasonable, perhaps, to suppose that any unrecovered casualties from the conflicts covered by the CWGC (or sites believed to contain such casualties) should be treated by the same CWGC yardstick; ie in perpetuity. I think it is safe to say that, within all our lifetimes and probably very long beyond, the casualties from the conflicts of WW1 and WW2 will continue to be treated with the same respect – and not viewed as sites of archaeolgical interest for “scientific” study with attendant regard for surviving mortal remains being reduced to them being viewed as “husks” . However, we can neither influence nor guide how these issues might eventually be treated by generations yet to come.

Whilst we are on the subject of not answering questions and obfuscation (a stick with which you repeatedly beat me!) you have not yet answered the question I have posed more than once. Where have I said, as you have suggested that I have, that you state or believe that such remains should not be treated with respect?

– if it is such a sensitive topic then provide the information to contradict my “observations” in a pm if you feel the descriptions are too graphic. .

On occasions, it is very, very sensitive…and humbling.

Mark

Thank you Cees for a very interesting summary.

…
Because an open and transparent sharing of knowledge and information, as well as expertise, would clearly be of benefit to all involved and to all further work in this field. As a by-product, it might also go a long way to satisfying some of the “concerns” expressed by Malcolm MacKay and JDK!

I’d like to flatter myself that my opinion was of some import. As a reporter, the most I can hope to be is a catalyst.

Had we had a similar post regarding what is done by the aviation archaeologists from the UK when the questioning of methodology first came up, we’d have had a bit more light and less heat.

I’ve plucked out the kind of things I expected to hear from the UK but didn’t, although some have come forward late in the day:

Those who remain are really bitten by the aviaton virus but have soon found out that there is more to the story, and not just digging up wrecks but that is the final stage of the whole process.
…
First of all you have to do things by the book.

When involved in this kind of work, you cannot be a pirate and go out having a dig and leave without doing your homework. It might work once or twince but then people have been warned and that’s it.
…
Every investigation is made using our own forms where information, charts, photo’s, whatever may be needed, and kept in a file unique to the aircraftcrash (we have a database of some 1500 crashes, mostly on land, of which only one is still unknown (and we hope to rectify that one soon)…
…
This relatively small group together has a complete set of all qualifications needed to do this kind of work. Some are dedicated to archive investigation, others do field work, others spend years learning aircraft structures, organistion structures, you name it, it’s there.
…
Some of us who have a liking to publish books have done so and our group has give out one publication with some crashrecoveries and the full story of the crew, but this is not the focal point of the work done.

I’ve highlighted the points that reassuringly indicate a methodology and ‘qualifications’ (I suspect Cees may mean ‘skill set’, rather than a paper qualification, but the point is essentially: able to to the job well or properly, to a standard.)

Cees also touches on –

…Every knowledgde we have is self taught or learned from field experiece or looking in the local archives
…
But this has not come about by using degrees by studying at University or any other way, but purely by dedication,…

I take Cees’ intent, given the context he’s put it in, indicates that the learning methodology is non-academic but works.

However anyone who thinks that leaning through ‘fieldwork’ only or ‘academic study’ only, and a inverted snobbery of ‘I learned all this on the dig’, is, I’m sorry, being dumb – both because it’s doing it the hard way missing better and smarter ways of doing things. As ever, an amalgam is vital – like in farming, for instance, the ‘we’ve done it this way for thousands of years’ is as hopeless of survival adaptation to new realities as ‘GM and science will answer our crop needs’. Both knowledge sets have contributions to make.

I don’t have a degree of any kind – to be ‘proud’ of not having one as though it proves something would be silly, and to attack (or snipe or degenerate) others for their degree, usually based on ignorance of the reality, btw, is childish. (As is to degenerate those without qualification but with experience.)

Cees makes the good point it’s about recovery of the lost, burial and that the development of history (rather than simply using history) is an incidental sideline. I’d suggest, and my point is only, that for a little more effort, validating the results of the research as is already being published, enables the work of the aviation archaeologist to be useful in the greater historic community, rather than being only wreck recovery and incidental benefit.

To go back to the example Tangmere gave (only because they are to hand) I only have his word for it that the Junkers data number came from that wreck (FWIW, good enough for me, but…) as we know there are people who will fudge the data to ensure each JP piece on a block of mahogany is a 1940 Spitfire ace’s aircraft part. How we know the difference is by record keeping, validation by people who work to a standard, sometimes inspection, and (a term often mis-used here) ‘provenance’ the paper trail that shows how something got here from there. Then we can rely that the data’s good, otherwise we are risk of distorting the historical record through a lack of care, leading towards the Holocaust denyers – because we accept false history as real.

(I’m aware that some fraudulent e-bay type ‘false history’ collectables are caught out by those such as Tangmere – but if their methodology isn’t recorded, then that stuff will eventually get into the proper historical record.)

It’s clear that the British aviation archaeologists could set up a qualification for the job, at an appropriate level, and most would pass that test; many of those that didn’t would then lean aspects they’ve been able to avoid or just didn’t know before – to their benefit. I’d just hope that data recording and so forth was placed as important as dig safety and research skills currently are. That would ensure that other organisations wouldn’t need to examine every proposal from an ‘aviation archaeologist’ on it’s merits alone, but would know that a person was qualified – or not, saving effort all around. Oh, and it would challenge the MoD. I appreciate this forum isn’t a full picture, but some of the attitudes shown here would indicate to me that some people are to be avoided at all costs. Again Cees’ clear, reasoned, open, specific and transparent post indicates how and perhaps why the Netherlands is in a better position than the UK.

I should add that I can only go on what I’ve been told here regarding aviation archaeology; if I’m wrong, I apologise, but if the data isn’t shown, then it’s not my failing. If you don’t present the data, people will assume the worst. I’d be interested in any correction to show UK aviation archaeology is in a better historically-useful state than it appears.

If it’s to be real history rather than wreck recovery, the development opportunity lies with the aviation archaeologists, no one else.

Regards,

I would, though, point out that your observations about what becomes of aircrew trapped within wreckage that has been driven deep underground (ie totally fragmented and burnt) is rather wide of the mark. Those who have been present or involved in such recoveries will testify. A delicate topic, and perhaps lets just leave the rest to the imagination here. However, your general supposition on this specific matter is wholly incorrect.

Hmmm… having excavated burials and seen the results of recent graves robbed I do have a some experience. Once again a question is asked and once again there is obfuscation – if it is such a sensitive topic then provide the information to contradict my “observations” in a pm if you feel the descriptions are too graphic. I can understand the reluctance with a recent wreck but as you were maintaining that it is a form of archaeology and I am an archaeologist then I see no problem.

Now as to your other points I am familiar with the legal requirements but given observations by others on the methodology of wreck recovery and the nature of some of the casual observations posted on this thread and others, by some of those involved over the years I have some qualms that beneath the pious surface there was a considerable undercurrent of souvenir hunting and that probably drove the progress of many digs.

However you did not reply to my observation regarding when and what point a site previously considered a war grave is no longer considered such. Which then as you are no doubt aware raises the question regarding at what elapsed time since the burial, or accidental interment do we remove the classification that these are a war grave, and apply another standard which requires that the excavations be carried out by properly qualified archaeologists. That is an important point as time is passing and as I noted several posts back we are approaching the centennial of the beginning of WW1, and 24 or so years after that will be the centennial of the beginning of WW2.

Although all interesting observations Malcolm, they are just that. Observations. The vast majority of the points you raised are already known and recognised by those who have been involved.

Questions of identification (and even removal from site, generally) are always deal with by HM Coroner with forensic osteologists and pathologists as appropriate. Hopefully you were not imagining that anything other than this was the case?

It is certainly the case, often, that due to circumstances of the crash not all the reamains of any one body are recoverable. That said, if you read up the procedures of CILHI and RNAF (who are specifically searching for lost casualties) you will appreciate that their search methods are rigorous.

I would, though, point out that your observations about what becomes of aircrew trapped within wreckage that has been driven deep underground (ie totally fragmented and burnt) is rather wide of the mark. Those who have been present or involved in such recoveries will testify. A delicate topic, and perhaps lets just leave the rest to the imagination here. However, your general supposition on this specific matter is wholly incorrect.

Now that we have properly moved back to the original topic of the thread the discussion raises another interesting point.

Recovery of skeletal remains from a grave is difficult enough even though the body was usually buried in a complete condition either originally fleshed or in some cases after exposure to deflesh then only the bones collected and buried.

A crash site creates a number of extra logistical problems. If it remained on the surface and was not badly damaged then any bodies could be removed at the time. However as noted in the thread previously if the aircraft has violently contacted the ground and burnt or buried itself then crew who were in the wreck will most likely be fragmented or burnt. The remains if recovered today would be fragmented and eroded skeletal parts. Identification of these would be difficult – larger parts would be less of a problem but small fragments could well be missed and in the case of crashes in agricultural settings you run the risk of the soil already containing fragmentary non-human animal parts. Properly speaking, although I suspect that cost alone would preclude it, each recovered bone fragment would have to be tested to determine if it is human or non-human.

Having dug sites where there are human burials and where non-human remains are in the soil and in fairly close proximity – farming communities tend to be like that then ideally identification of stray bone fragments necessarily should be the job of appropriately trained pathologists or physical
anthropologists. That is quite obvious.

But having noted the complexities involved, albeit simply, how and when do we draw the line at a site being a war grave or not. If the body is removed in its entirety then the site is not a grave but simply a crash site. However in the all too common circumstances where the force and nature of the crash has fragmented, burnt or otherwise disarticulated the body how do we determine that all parts have been removed. The parts can be distributed over a wide area by several natural actions. To name just a couple there is the results of an explosion or if parts were taken by animal or insect scavengers, and then there is natural movement in the soil.

So what I am driving at is how do we determine if the body has been recovered – a body is a finite thing. The recovery team through constraints of time and budget which, less face it, are the forces which over rule any idealistic or scientific objections in the end may simply dictate that we have recovered as much as we can, while other bodily parts are still left unrecovered. We cannot forget that the recoverers are human and have limits, and that there is no automatic system that sifts soil in a block so that everything is recovered.

In the case of fragmented remains – many of those coffins we see containing long dead MIAs contain in reality little more than a few teeth and a few of the larger bone fragments. The rest is still in the ground somewhere around the site.

In our worthy desire to give the dead service personnel a fitting funeral we are in reality only interring part of them, unless the crash site was such that the body was contained intact within a confined and structural sound space. In most cases the impact forces would have shredded both machine and any person still within it at the time of impact.

So it follows that the natural result is that we are forced to declare a cut off for when a site ceases to be a war grave even though it is entirely likely that body parts will still remain at the site. It is a complex matter and one that can only be resolved I suggest by having an arbitrary guideline that allows the removal of war grave status at a certain point in the recovery of the remains, otherwise cost considerations would step in to force the removal of war grave status. Otherwise we could wind up with large numbers of areas off limits quite unnecessarily. Land use has to continue for economic reasons into the future, and the greatest killing grounds in western Europe the WW1 battlefields which contain millions of unrecovered partial remains have long returned to agriculture and development.

Creaking Door:-

1) Why it is the case that there is no hope of co-operation?

That is a question that needs to be asked of the MOD and its Agencies.

2) Why much could be achieved that way?

Because an open and transparent sharing of knowledge and information, as well as expertise, would clearly be of benefit to all involved and to all further work in this field. As a by-product, it might also go a long way to satisfying some of the “concerns” expressed by Malcolm MacKay and JDK!

No doubt the BAAC have some form of liason with the MOD Agency involved. I suspect that is token-ism on the part of the MOD but that the real situation is that the MOD probably could not care greatly about any form of meaningful co-operation between themselves, a National Body, member groups of that body or with individuals.

There is a great deal to learn from the experiences of Cees in the Netherlands and the real co-operation there between private groups and the authorities, including the RNAF.

It is a great pity that there is no hope of any such co-operation in the UK between extremely knowledgeable and dedicated civilian enthusiasts and the MOD. Much could be achieved that way.

Could you (or anybody else with similar views) explain why you think that is the case?

Sorry Andy,

I tried to be brief;)

I’m not important, I’m just part of the organisation. The organisation has proven itself by giving private indivuals a chance to get their teeth in anything they are interested in, and it gets paid back by the growing experience etc.

It’s not all rosy however. When I wanted to get into this kind of work my father warned me that I would get a lot of “gezeik” (translate that:cool:)
and I shouldn’t do it. He was right:rolleyes: and there were a lot of difficulties. In this field of work there are a lot of ego’s present (we all know don’t we) and you have to get used to that as well as in the beginning organisations such as ours were called treasurehunters, wreckhunters and sometimes bodysnatchers. When talking to the press we had to be very careful what to say, and usually we would only talk to a few journalist who had proven to be knowledgable and even then we would only give permission for an article if we could read the draft before publishing to have any irregularities or wrong information corrected. Joe Public believes what they read in the paper and one mistake will still be used against you years later. We are talking about a hobby, or are we. More like overworked unpaid fools who are doing the job the authorities should have done decades before.
Critisim from “real” archeologists? My foot!:rolleyes:

Does this sound familiar Andy?

Cheers

Cees

Cees

You and your team are to be commended on your good work and dedication.

It is a great pity that there is no hope of any such co-operation in the UK between extremely knowledgeable and dedicated civilian enthusiasts and the MOD. Much could be achieved that way.

James,

I will give an idea what the general idea is over here in the Netherlands.

Well, all people I know who are active in this field (speaking from the Dutch side) have started out of an interest in aeroplanes (same as I have). When I got into contact with the Aircraft Recovery Group 1940-1945 Foundation (twenty years ago in june) I had this foolishly idea that we would be digging every weekend and enjoying our heads off. Boy, was I wrong.:o

Most people think that when they apply to volunteer for these organisations, and they are mostly gone a few weeks/months later. Those who remain are really bitten by the aviaton virus but have soon found out that there is more to the story, and not just digging up wrecks but that is the final stage of the whole process. The feeling that young men had given their lives to free our country became stronger and stronger and from that a real passion to find any missing aircrew and if possible to give them the proper burial they deserve.

When involved in this kind of work, you cannot be a pirate and go out having a dig and leave without doing your homework. It might work once or twince but then people have been warned and that’s it.

First of all you have to do things by the book. Establishing first which aircraft to investigate, then find out if any missing crewmembers are involved or UXB, if so we do the investigation try to contact any next of kin regardless of nationality, and then ask the local Mayor and ayone who has to know about it if they are willing to undertake such a recovery (they usually turn it down). In that case leverage is sought via the press and next of kin, which works in 100% of the cases so far/

If there are no missing crewmembers or UXB to be expected (simply doing one’s homework) we can tackle the project ourselves. Next thing to do is asking permission from the owner (usually a farmer, or nature organisation) to enter one’s land before even starting to find an impact point. If the owner has given permission you have to be as honest as can be, because nobody would be forced to give permission to enter his territory or even dig large holes into it.

After the site has been found, again the owner is asked if he/she is interested in a recovery, and also the reason why is fully explained. Any costs are born by our organisation and every measure will be taken to prevent any damage to the owners land, the environment etc. We do have the necessary licenses.

In recent years good contacts have been established between our group and the RNethAF and a good working form of cooperation has grown with mutal respect and understanding and we are aware that the RNethAF are representing the Dutch authorities and we fully conform to the rules and regulations stated by them.

Every investigation is made using our own forms where information, charts, photo’s, whatever may be needed, and kept in a file unique to the aircraftcrash (we have a database of some 1500 crashes, mostly on land, of which only one is still unknown (and we hope to rectify that one soon).In water it’s a different story as the IJsselmeer still holds hundreds of unknown wrecks, that may see the light of day in the years ahead.

Every knowledgde we have is self taught or learned from field experiece or looking in the local archives, or the various archieves abroad such as the national archieves at kew, where I have been several times.

All this work takes a lot of time, time that is not paid for but purely spare time. The museum generates funds which are fully fed into the organisation whatever it’s needs. We all work in our spare time (or take time off from regular work). I have found that when working with a large organisation, usually a small group is really doing the work with a large group around that provide a group of people who work on sundays when the museum is opened to the public.

This relatively small group together has a complete set of all qualifications needed to do this kind of work. Some are dedicated to archive investigation, others do field work, others spend years learning aircraft structures, organistion structures, you name it, it’s there.

Without this dedicated group of people it would not be possible to find out if a certain aircraft crash still contains human remains or deadly cargo. In the latter case the public safety is endangered and steps will be undertaken to make sure the UXB are renedered safe by EOD-specialists. In case of missing aircrew we contact next of kin and when such a recovery needs to take place every bit of information is already available to the official recovery team. Usually we are allowed to provide assistance but within the rules of the AF, which suits us fine.

The current situation could never have happened if our group or several others like us had not proved to be dedicated and “professional amateurs”:cool: But this has not come about by using degrees by studying at University or any other way, but purely by dedication, a profound sense of doing something about missing crewmembers as well as pursuing a hobby.
We have never been paid for any of this, on the contrary, it has cost us money, spare time ( a lot) or days off, but would we have wanted it any other way? No, not at all.
As mentioned earliers, during the recovery of lancaster DV286 of 300 Sqn, five missing crewmembers were found and given a fully deserved funeral at Breda cemetery. This recovery alone was give a lot of interest in Poland. Now they could be proud of their fellow countryment who died over sixty years ago, and the only survivor of the crash could finally pay his tribute to his comrades. That makes it all worthwhile

Some of us who have a liking to publish books have done so and our group has give out one publication with some crashrecoveries and the full story of the crew, but this is not the focal point of the work done.

I hope this will give you a bit of an idea what’s involved in this kind of work for those who have no first hand experience in aircraft recovery.

Cheers

Cees