INTELLIGENCE REPORT INDICATING POSSIBLE UNDERGROUND WORKS AT MINGALADON

Dear All,

I don’t propose to rehash all the arguments regarding the legend of Mingaladon. However, as the story has now resurfaced I do think it is worth putting this document into perspective.

First it is not new. I have been aware of it since beginning work on the project in 2012 when it was presented to the research team as part of David Cundall’s original compilation of evidence. That is the document we refer to as the David Cundall Dossier in the technical report.

Indeed, as I am sure Mark 12 will confirm, the complete sentence without redaction reads:

“It is reported that underground hangers are under construction 4950 feet SSW. of the intersection of runways No2 and No3.”

Second, the suggestion of underground works being constructed by the Japanese at Mingaladon is not unusual. The allied photo interpreters refer to such works on an number of occasions, for example, Air 23/3869 contains another intelligence appraisal which refers to unidentified “underground working” and “truck activity” at a location on Mingaladon.

Of course, these documents represent the PI’s best interpretation of what they are seeing, not what is actually there on the ground. Subsequent to the Allied occupation of Mingaladon there is no reference in any of the copious amount of documentation to any substantial underground works being located. Neither are there any substantiated reports of any such structures being found during the extensive reconstructions of the airport which have taken place in the past seventy years.

Clearly buried structures did exist, and may still exist, on Mingaladon. At least one such structure was destroyed in one of Mr Cundall’s previous excavations. However, there is no evidence for anything of the scale required to house aircraft.

So, for now it is a case of “Move along please, nothing to see here.”

But of course, the team and I are always ready to look at any genuinely new evidence if it does emerge.

Best wishes

Andy B

Burma Spitfires Report

Dear Forum Members

Anyone who follow the news will be aware that it is something of a fashion at the moment for much anticipated reports to be delayed.

In keeping with that unfortunate fashion I must apologise to everyone who is waiting for the Technical Report on the expedition to investigate the suggestion that Spitfire Aircraft were buried by the Royal Air Force at RAF Mingaladon in 1945-1946 and confirm there is to be a short delay before the publication of the final technical report into the 2013 expedition.

This is due to proofing and production reasons and will not delay the final publication unduly and I am confident you will see our report well before Sir John Chilcot’s report into the Iraq War.

I will of course let the forum know the minute the document is released.

A fair point Peter, but a photograph taken of the crash site immediately after the crash and before the engines and other equipment was salvaged by the Svenska Flygvapnet shows the mid upper to be missing.

It is known that for these long range operations the mid upper was sacrificed to save weight. This is consistant with photographs of the 617 Lancasters which force landed in Russia a few weeks earlier where the mid upper is also missing and the location skinned over. Therefore on balance it is most likely to be a field mod for the operation. It is also the case that elements of the training and elevating mechanism which were more difficult to remove, but did not weigh as much or have the same drag effect as the rest of the turret including the weapons, were left in situ. The engineers simply removed the guns and chopped off the elements of the turret which were proud of the fuselage. Not pretty, but it worked.

Even so there was something like a two ton overload for aircraft on Operations Obviate and Chatechism carrying a full load of fuel plus auxilliary tanks and a Tallboy.

Andy B

THE EXCAVATION OF AIRCRAFT AS PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS

Hello Everyone,

I am offering this comment as a neutral conflict archaeologist’s perspective on this issue. I hope it might help the discussion, particularly as this kind of issue is likely to become more common given the increase in development applications for rural areas [and please note I am not taking sides on the windfarms debate!].

This is primarily a planning issue and the site will come under both local planning policy and the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPC] which has provision for both recognised and unrecognised heritage sites. Obviously the other key piece of legislation involved is the Protection of Military Remains Act, although it should be remembered the exhumation of all human remains of whatever age is controlled by legislation.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/burials-and-coroners/exhuming-human-remains-faq.pdf

This site will require an Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] which will include a desk top study of potential archaeology. This should in turn throw up the likelihood of a crashed aircraft and human remains covered under the Protection of Military Remains Act being present on the site.

It is then a case of implimenting a well practiced process of negotiation, decision and mitigation involving the local authority, the developer and other interested parties.

It is likely that a non-intrusive Geophysical Survey of the entire site would be requested to assess any buried archaeology [in which Lincolnshire is rich], including any impact crater and surviving debris related to ND639. The County Archaeologist will also almost certainly also liaise with JCCC as the MoD branch responsible for historic casualties to acertain their view. Where aircrew of other nationalities are present, as they are here, it would also be customary and correct to seek the views of their Governments. It is well known that different nations take differing views as to how to treat their unidentified MIA’s.

On the basis of that assessment the Local Authority Planning Ctte will be offered recommendations which might range from rejecting the application, through varying the application, for example by moving the pylons/services to miss the crash site, to allowing the application.

As part of this process archaeological conditions may be attached, for example requiring excavation within the footprint of the pylons and services, or even an open area excavation to assess the archaeoloigy across the site. Certainly the possible presence of the aircraft with human remains which are protected by legislation will be a material consideration to the planners.

There is nothing in this which contradicts MoD Policy. The MoD in the form of JCCC may recommend preservation in situ, but if the planners deem there is an overwhelming public interest in the development going ahead the proper protocols exist for the archaeological excavation of the aircraft under JCCC Licence and the forensic archaeological exhumation of any human remains.

It is not so well known that in addion to the strictly controlled exhyumation of human remains by archaeologists under a Justice Department Licence, thousands of sets of human remains are moved to facilitate developments, sometimes by commercial exhumation companies, The cemetery at Kings Cross/St Pancras moved for the HS1 Channel Tunnel Link is a case in point. A good overview of this subject is found in Duncan Sayers’ book “Ethics and Burial Archaeology.”

With the development in forensics and archaeoloigcal techniques we are better placed than ever to excavate such sites with the sensitivity the missing and their families are entitled too, but only if it proves necessary. No archaeologist would recommend the deliberate excavation of a site where it is likely or known that human remains are present without an overriding reason. In UK Practice those are,

1. A fully funded, properly constituted Research Project [like the Richard III Project].

2. An immediate threat to the security of the site [for example a major national or regional infrastructure project].

This might seem complicated but it works reasonably well and is much better than a development free for all. Future problems my lie in the current Government’s weakening of planning controls in its drive for building. This, coupled with the cuts in local authority archaeology provision make it more difficult to see a measured solution which does not involved JCB’s big yellow trowels being let loose regardless.

In this case, if anyone does have concerns, the most positive way forward would be for concerned individuals to contact the County Archaeologist in Lincolnshire and flag up the issue to ensure it is dealt with as part of the process. However, if you look at the original article in the Scunthorpe Telegraph all seems to be proceding as it should in this case-

http://www.scunthorpetelegraph.co.uk/don-t-want-wind-farm-war-graves/story-21004029-detail/story.html

No Drama…but a useful opportunity to discuss the issues this story raises for all of us involved in the archaology of aviation.

Best wishes

Andy B