Malcolm McKayyes, 22 years in the RAF and attending a few funerals of close friends tends to make you like that. I don’t care who picks over the remains of downed aircraft as long if human remains are recovered they are treated with the respect they deserve. Frequently the MOD has left our people in unmarked holes in the ground because they don’t want to go to the expense of a recovery. Subsequently the amateurs you seem to despise have come along and the decent thing has been done.
If you are an example of the great ‘professional detachment’ perhaps you should stay away from the scene
In reply to you I an only repeat what I said to Tangmere
Yes nice emotional issue, and you are to be commended for pointing out what an absolute unthinking ******* I am. However you will note if you read carefully that no where have I suggested that the remains should not be treated respectfully. So that answers your response on that issue.
Malcolm McKayMalcolm
With respect, it IS an emotional issue and not a scientific one. You should not be surprised, therefore, if some responses to what you say on the the matter are emotional!
You speak of “repatriation”, and in the case of American casualties they are repatriated to their homeland. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission policy is never for repatriation, and so we need to make that distinction. Casualties of WW1 and WW2 are buried in the nearest open CWGC cemetery to where they fell (in the case of casualties outside the UK, that is) and if casualties are found within the UK families have the option for burial in a cemetery at or near their home town. Generally, though, such burials have all taken place at Brookwood.
As to the matter of recovering and re-burying war dead, it is not wholly a political issue. The families and next of kin have an interest, here. It is, though, a fact that in the UK politicians have legislated to control such sites – so, in that context it is “political” but there are moral and religious (and yes, emotional!) issues here as well as legal and political. Beyond the shores of the UK, however, the controls of the PMR Act are not extended – except in International Waters.
Nobody has suggested that honouring the dead does not ammount to “more than digging them up and re-burying them”. That is a statement of utter and complete nonsense. Nobody, either, would suggest anything other than what you say in terms of helping the grieving, the wounded, or in trying to ensure that the tragedy of future wars does not again present itself. Raising those points, Malcolm, in this context is completely fatuous.
You talk about letting these missing casualties rest in the “war graves” wherever they may be. It is interesting, however, to consider the position of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission on the matter when they set this down in writing in 1974:
“It must be accepted that remains left in wrecked aircraft are not secure, nor are relatives or the Commission able to exercise any control over them. The Commission’s policy therefore would tend to support the recovery of the remains and removal to a recognised cemetery provided it were done with care and reverence”.
In considering the above, however, it is important to recognise that the CWGC does not have any remit to recover casualties. Only to deal with them in the matter of burial, commemoration and care of gravesites once they are placed into their care.
The above CWGC statement, of course, was written before the 1986 PMR Act and I suspect that the CWGC position – at least in respect of UK sites – might have been slightly “modified” so as to offer no conflict with the MOD policy which is, generally, against recovery. That said, the MOD have in recent years made rather conflicting statements on the issue – on the one hand being “anti” and, on the other, issuing press statements when casualties have been found saying that it is “a good thing” for families when these cases are finally closed.
The thing to remember, Malcolm, is that the matter of missing casualties is not black and white. It is only partly political. It is not scientific. It is emotive.
Who shall I answer first – you your first.
Yes nice emotional issue, and you are to be commended for pointing out what an absolute unthinking ******* I am. However you will note if you read carefully that no where have I suggested that the remains should not be treated respectfully. So that answers your response on that issue.
Malcolm McKayMy next favourite TV show after Time Team is Top Gear. Great show, however someone who once on that show set fire to a caravan while trying to cook some chips is perhaps not the best person to comment on the intelligence of others.
š
Malcolm McKayTalking of political matters, it does seem that there is a double standard where by it appears ok for licences to be issued to recover gold from sunken war ships by treasure hunters containing missing crew. Whats the diffrence even if they are 18th century battle ships, apart from the goverment getting a cut of the proceeds?.
There is the interesting case of a gold bearing wreck from the 1850s of the coast of South Carolina in the late 1980? that was salvaged by an American group. The gold came from the California gold fields. When the ship sank the insurers paid out to the owners.
The salvagers thought that the immense amount of gold they found was theirs. Unfortunately the insurance company was still in existence although the name had changed and they successfully claimed the gold as theirs because they had paid out on the insurance all those years ago. That is another ting to watch out for.
Also I believe that anything that was the property of the crown remains so except if sold off or otherwise legally disposed of. Therefore recovering the pay chest of a naval vessel may turn into a complex legal issue. On land treasure trove is deemed crown property with the finders being entitled only to a share, and there is always the question that a descendent of the original owner may step forward and present legally acceptable evidence that the treasure is theirs.
IIRC the Spanish Government has claimed ownership of the cargoes of treasure ships wrecked when sailing to Spain from the Americas. In my opinion they have a solid case as it was and remains government property and the government although changing over the years can demonstrate that it has a constitutional continuity of existence.
Crown property is also a means to protect property from an open slather siezure by individuals of anything left unnattended for a period. Sort of protection against the historic version of car theft š
Malcolm McKayIt’s not ‘a political matter’ It’s a matter of honouring the dead, if you’re too far up yourself to see how arrogant your comments make you look then there is little hope š”
Ummm….. becoming a little emotional aren’t we.
It is a political matter because it is political decisions that provoke conflict in the first place, it is the political will of the people that either sustains the conflict or ends it and it is the political will of the people who elect the government that makes the decision to recover and repatriate the dead or to let them rest in the war graves wherever they were killed.
“Honouring the dead” is not simply a matter of digging them up and reburying them elsewhere, it is making sure their immediate families are helped in their time of suffering, it is ensuring that there is money to help wounded or disabled veterans and most importantly it is making a decent attempt through the political process to ensure that the events that lead to the deaths of people in wars don’t happen again.
So if you went back and reread my original post you might see that I looked at the current situation regarding repatriation and war graves and simply conceded that it is a political issue that is decided by the majority will of the people. If you feel so strongly about it then lobby your local parliamentarian to pressure the government into repatriation of all fatalities. Rather than shouting at me for explaining what is quite obvious.
Malcolm McKayOk, tried to stay away…..failed š Just one more burst from little ol’ unqualified me!
Another example of a case where an aviation dig may further knowledge or be of some use …..I have spent 2 years looking for an aircraft accident site that sadly resulted in the death of the youngest ever Trials Officer. He lies in an unmarked grave…finding the aircraft and recovering some of it for public display and a report will raise this young man’s sacrifice higher in the public memory…it may also allow funds to be raised for a grave stone.
Malcolm is obviously well qualified in archaeology and good on him for it…..but what about the ‘qualifications’ or know how about aviation/physics/construction methods of an aircraft crash? TT shows how setting professional archaeologists off on a dig is all very fine but you need SMEs (subject matter experts) or their ramblings/findings are useless.
That sounds like good work – and if I was ever in the position of having to determine the aviation/physics/construction methods of an aircraft crash I would naturally call in someone with the appropriate qualifications to do that. Just as we use botanists, osteologists, dieticians, geologists, etc. etc. etc. etc. I totally agree with your comment about the need for SMEs. Every dig I’ve been on has had them, and on some I’ve been an SME in regard to lithic technology. An archaeological dig has a top strata of SMEs who are there to examine and offer advice on their areas of expertise, and because of the cost a lot of the SMEs are also working as trench supervisors as well and wielding trowels.
A point for James – believe it or not my direct writing style belies the fact that I am rather good at PR. If someone was needed to butter up a land owner, take aside a village or tribal elder and make them feel really much respected and honoured; or on the odd occasion present a smiling face on camera I seemed to land the job. Especially in the ME where older bearded chaps are rather well respected. We archaeologists are nothing if not adaptable.
Malcolm McKayI am unclear as to how a degree, or similar, in archaeology will help me carry out aviation archaeology which, you agree, is not archaeology. Its probably just me.
As to your second point, “….you can see no scientific purpose” in bringing back a lost casualty from where he had fallen. Who on earth said anything about there being “a scientific” purpose??? There is no scientific purpose. Clearly.
But you see I see things like body exhumation and recovery from a scientific point of view – that is how I am trained. However if you read further you would see that I conceded that it was a political matter and that it needs to be resolved according to the political will of the people. After all a military action is an extension of the political process. Therefore it is up to the government of the day to resolve it according to the political process which will I am sure reflect how the people feel about the emotional aspects. That is the way it has always worked. Bodies weren’t bought back until adequate means of preservation were developed anyway – apart from Nelson in the barrel of brandy (or was it rum).
As to qualifications for what you do – that is matter for you to decide as your interests develop or standards change.
Malcolm McKayFinally Malcolm, yes your last paragraph does sound arrogant. Tediously so.
Yes I totally agree and it was intended to be so – tedious it might be to you but to me it was a lot of hard work. It is the professional who is trained to scientifically accepted standards and it is the professional who has to judge the applications of both amateurs and other professionals. As a former professional archaeologist I at no stage ever had to answer to, nor would I even contemplate answering to an amateur in matters concerning archaeological methodology. No trained professional in any field needs to do that. That’s what all the training and study is about, and as I suggested, if an amateur feels miffed about this then all they have to do is gain similar qualifications, and I forgot to add the post-doctoral fellowship I undertook as well, as well as a couple of books (now they are tedious to the non-professional š ). That is all they have to do – I did it, lots of others have done it – it is not an impossible task.
Now back to the matter of war graves. This is an emotive issue, but as I see it from a scientific viewpoint bringing the body back serves no scientific purpose, but if a government decides that it will bear the cost then that is a political matter which reflects the will of the people who elect that government. If it is the people’s will then bring the bodies home – after all it is a political decision that sent the troops to where they are fighting. However the great war cemetaries of Europe are, I feel, a fitting place for the casualties of those European conflicts to be buried. That is where they fell and that is where the message of the pure wastefulness of war needs to be bought to bear.
Last year a mass grave of British and Australian troops was found at Fromelles – they had been buried by the Germans after the battle. IIRC the grave was partially excavated but the bodies were reburied where they had lain and an appropriate memorial put there. It was I think the best decision, as was the simple ceremonies in the Indian Ocean after the discovery of HMAS Sydney.
Regarding crash sites I sympathise with the difficulties that wreck recoverers have with dealing with government bureauocracies and their mistakes. Archaeologists have similar problems. Certainly recovery of human remains wherever they are is a difficult job and needs to be done properly – digging up badly eroded skeletons is a very difficult job, especially as the archaeologist has to record everything by drawing it and photograph it as well and take the bones out in a manner that minimises further damage, and those standards also should be followed by the wreck recoverer. But if it does contain human remains then under our present ethical considerations it is a war grave. Personally I would favour leaving the body where it was but that is obviously impossible because the wreck, its coffin, is being removed so the remains must be reburied in appropriate circumstances and with appropriate ceremony if that is the current standard – however in a couple of centuries it will change as newer conflicts grab our attention.
Malcolm McKayMalcolm
I was not trying to attribute something sinister to your every remark. However, I think your earlier responses to Rocketeer were unhelpful, shot from the hip and bound to provoke a reaction that was not helpful in the wider debate here. Be that as it may, we have moved on from there. I hope?
Turning to your statement we are now discussing, I’m afraid that that is how I read that particular sentence to be. I accept your clarification, although I have to say that my perception of your general approach/stance to the matter certainly coloured my judgement as to what I thought you meant.
Telling me to “Do try and stop attributing…etc etc” is a classic illustration of a tone and patronisation that has not helped engage those you wish to engage in sensible debate, but then get all offended when they bite! I rest my case, made earlier, about tone, attitude and approach. I am merely trying to help you Malcolm (honest!) to understand that getting the people you are trying to engage will not be achieved the way you have sometimes approached it. In some areas, you might have been pushing at an open door. In other cases you were on an uphill struggle, anyway! There is no point in causing that door to be slammed in your face and locked shut, or making the hill a vertical and very tall cliff.
I am pretty sure there are more than a few others who are with me here, Malcolm!
I know this is going to sound arrogant, but as a professional archaeologist it is not the amateurs I have to convince of anything. It is the authorities, who by the way are also professionals, who issue permits. Also as a professional I can ask any question I feel is pertinent to the enquiry at hand and that is why I asked the questions of Rocketeer.
I contributed to this discussion because, besides being a former professional archaeologist, however worthy and illuminating the recovery of aircraft wrecks is it is not archaeology. That is simply because while similar techniques are used the reasons for the enquiry are not based in the same imperatives as those which drive archaeological investigation of the past. I have consistently maintained that position and we see that it is something that most of us agree on. I have not denigrated the idea of recovery, conservation, study and publication of recovered wreck artefacts, despite the fact that I personally do not see them contributing much information to that which we already have on particular aircraft. That also is an opinion which I have already stated and I note that there is little disagreement with it.
In addition there is another aspect of the discussion which has slipped slightly from view and that concerns the presence of human remains which then qualify the wreck site as a war grave. That is a difficult area. I for one have never seen much practicality to the recovery and return of human remains if the grave is known and protected. In any case it is a massively expensive process, especially for Australians who have many many thousands of our dead buried in war cemetaries and graves in Europe and Asia. I have three uncles buried somewhere on the Western Front, casualties of WW1 – the sons of my paternal grandmother’s first marriage. Her second marriage to a McKay saw another three sons born two of whom, my father was one, served in WW2. My grandmother lost three sons to war – if this was America some idiot in Hollywood would make a movie like Saving Ryan’s Privates, or equally name a ship after them. Fortunately we Australians or most of us do not believe in such maudlin silliness. That is why I have no interest in repatriating my step uncles’ remains even if they could be found – their deaths are honoured in the best possible way as it is.
Now if a site is a war grave then do you excavate or not and where do your draw the line. If for instance I was digging a site in Eastern Europe and found the grave of a British auxillary who had served with the Emperor Hadrian should that nameless but equally British and brave a soldier as a WW2 airman be repatriated to Britain? You will probably say no and you would probably be quite right on practical grounds; would we do it for the remains of a British soldier from the 17th, 18th or 19th centuries, proabably not. We are only doing it in the case of the 20th century dead because of the immediacy of the conflicts and the fact that there may be living relatives or descendents.
But do we need to that? As James noted it is only the husk, and there are more immediate things of true value to living ex service personel that can be done. We honour the dead quite rightly for their sacrifice but should we turn it into a cult – not really and I expect that the dead if they could be asked would be more pissed off at the manner of death rather than how we handle their few fragmented remains. If bones are found in a wreck then by all means take them away and inter them with whatever the appropriate ceremony. The bones and accompanying grave goods an archaeologist finds, and I have excavated a few, wind up in museums for study but that is because the purpose of the dig is to seek information and burial practices tell us a lot about the spiritualty of a culture.
But one thing I must note is that I can see why medical professionals are wary of debating with their amateur counterparts the faith healers and snake oil merchants. The few debates of that kind I have seen are always resolved by the amateurs claiming with righteous indignation that the professionals are just doing it to feather their own nests and that how can many years of arduous medical study and training possibly equal amateur enthusiasm and a voice in their heads claiming to be God. This may sound unkind, and dare I say it arrogant, but I must admit that I get the same feeling coming from some of the amateurs here. My only suggestion is that if they feel so put out by having their work judged by people with professional training and aspirations they can always sit down and get a BA(hons) an MA and a Ph.D in archaeology as I have, then they can see why people like myself are wary of self-bestowed qualifications. And I come back to the point I made in the first paragraph it is not I who has to seek the agreement and approval of the amateurs, the rules of the game say it is the other way around so instead of attacking the messenger, lobby your parliamentarians to change the laws, otherwise just accept that the maligned “arrogant” professional who asks questions is merely doing the job that many years of state approved training largely at public expense requires them to do.
Malcolm McKayMalcolm
To quote you:
“Out of all the discussion generally the correct picture emerges which is why I can never understand people who get defensive when their assertions are queried”
As to the first part of that statement I would agree that the discussion has moved towards at least some consensus in some areas. That can only be a good thing. As to the middle part of your statement (“…the corect picture emerges”), the “correct picture” by whose standards or yardstick? Yours? I assume that you conclude that your stance is the “correct picture” which is, I would suggest, a tad presumptious of you. As to the last part of your sentence, well, might it be all in the tone of how those assertions are queried?
I’ll leave that with you, and others, to ponder.
Oh come on – I am simply referring to the consultative process.
Opinions are sought, each person contributes their ideas and gradually a more complete picture emerges. What in heaven’s name is wrong with that? That is how any team engaged on a common task works.
Do try and stop attributing something sinister to every comment I make – no wonder consensus is so hard to find, I had come to expect better from you.
Malcolm McKayJDK ā I believe that it was a relevant issue as it referred to Rocketeers original post, where he clearly statedā¦
āWill we write a paper, yes when it is all finished and we can also tell the story of the pilot, the aircraft and the circumstancesā ā a good scientific approach to my mind.
Just to widen the goalposts a bit and for my own āresearch purposesā; what do the ātraditional archaeologistsā think about āgeo-phys?ā
From my perspective of the Time Team programme there is a constant undercurrent [perhaps played up for the cameras] between this ānew aid to archaeologyā and the more traditional approach. Is a similar feeling perhaps part of the issue between ātraditional archaeologistsā and āavitionologistsā?
Not all that new – I was working on sites in the early 90s in the ME where we were using early forms of it as a means to locate disturbances that might be graves in fields that had been plowed over the last couple of millenia or so.
Archaeologists will use any and every technique that helps them in their job. The only problem with geophysic surveys is that they really only provide a guide to what might be there in the ground. Certainly in its usage on Time Team most of the time it is in areas that have had any surface features plowed out quite thoroughly and therefore any extra info is welcome.
The debates on the show are just about average for any dig – I remember once on a dig getting into a near fight with a very experienced archaeologist who was carefully excavating what he thought was an enamelled decorative boss off a shield. As he was working away I pointed out that it was a rather battered enamelled tin plate. He wouldn’t have it and as things were getting more heated his fine brushwork disclosed “Made in China”.
There are always spirited discussions about what is required and techniques – a dig generally has a fair number of very well qualified specialists, all of whom are there for a purpose and expected to contribute. That is what research is all about – discussion and swapping of ideas. Out of all the discussion generally the correct picture emerges which is why I can never understand people who get defensive when their assertions are queried.
Malcolm McKayAs a research scientist by qualification; Iāve followed this thread with great interest and Iāve just re-read the most recent posts.
Malcolm how can you say..
and then immediately follow it with the comments…
IMHO by those comments alone you are doing exactly the same – leaping to a subjective conclusion based on faulty data!
Not the best ‘research technique’ and ‘report writing’ IMHO!
I suggest that if you are going to argue with me about my post you might actually quote the whole thing which was written to be read as a whole, not just selectively culled bits. As a “research scientist by qualification” you must be able to read and understand longer passages.
Moving on from that minor correction of what is apparently a misunderstanding on your part, I might add that James’ post is a very good summation of the pros and cons of the debate. I can only second his comment that “much of it needs to be ‘published’ and sources, material and data managed to a national resource in the UK, otherwise it’ll trickle through the fingers“.
Malcolm McKayMmmmm Malcolm! I did not quite expect this kind of hostile reaction! Thankyou Tangers old chap for answering some of Malcolm’s questions.
I am not adverse to hostile questioning…comes with the territory! I will answer questions that Tangers has not answered, then get back to my day job!
I made no assumptions either about your dig nor your intellectual ability – you read those into it yourself. I was presented with a bald unsupported statement and asked the necessary questions to ascertain for my own benefit if the statement was to be believed or not. Hostility does not come into it – it was just a standard request for information asked in a no nonsense way. Any historian, archaeologist or qualified person would have done the same thing in the circumstances.
In answering my questions you chose to conceal much of the detail with a veil of confidentiality – strange approach that. I don’t understand that attitude, most researchers I know may be guarded at first simply because they have yet to formulate conclusions based on the data being gathered – quite wise that. Never leap to conclusions based on faulty data. However your response suggests that there is a something being hidden because there may be other issues or disputes involved – that is a worry because they impose an unneessary level of subjectivity which could colour the final way in which the data is assessed and published. Is that the case?
I am coming to note a very defensive tone in many of the replies from the wreckology side which to me seem to indicate that people are unsure of their techniques. If that is the case then perhaps my reservations about the process are appropriate. I can understand a spirited defence of the conclusions but when the spirited even aggressive defence begins with the discussion of technique then this does cause some alarm because it suggests, rightly or wrongly that some of the excavation practices may not be of an appropriate standard. That is an observation of my own and I may be wrong, but it does need to be noted. For archaeologists the questions of methodology and techniques are resolved at the stage when the permits are sought. That is not to say that as a dig proceeds these may need revision but in general they stay within approved guidelines, and if a radical change is needed then further permission must be obtained.
In a previous post I noted that we seemed to be moving towards some form of consensus view, I now note that the old hostilities have re-emerged. That is unfortunate because this is an interesting topic touching on much broader issues in historical methodology pertaining to our mutual interest in the history of aviation. If those hostilities arise because of simple questions concerning the objectives of the recovery exercise then science is being replaced by emotion and that is not a good thing.
Malcolm McKayI’m vaguely getting something about ‘qualification’ here Tangmere? Correctly, me, in an amateur way, if I’m wrong?
I, also have no degree. Shall we talk about how we got up before we went to bed and licked the road clean?
Publish. Check. Sources quoted, data available?
Pffft !!!!! I’m splendidly over-qualified and at present those three degrees plus 6 dollars will buy you a cup of coffee š
Malcolm McKayMalcolm
Some do publish, to be fair. Despite being a semi-literate unqualfied aviation archaeologist I have had a few things published myself.;) and continue to do so. The value of wreck recovery in works like those by Paul Lucas is a good example, and I am glad you recognise that. Lets not forget, either, the stunning museum exhibits on a worldwide basis that exist for all to enjoy because of the work by unqualified salvors. There are also more than a few flying examples I could cite, too, as well as a good many recovered parts that have either been re-used or used as patterns for flying or static aeroplanes. Despite my lack of any formal qualification I was asked, twice, to go to Norway to help get wrecked Gladiators off mountains for rebuild and these have now benefited national museums in the UK and Norway. Despite my woeful lack of qualification I was able, more than 25 years ago, to identify a Spitfire recovered from a beach in France. That aeroplane is now being built to fly at Duxford. Without the efforts of the amateur salvors, or my unqualified attempts to identify the aircraft and its history, the world be less one Spitfire today. That is not banging my own drum. Just putting into context the value of aviation archaeology which you seem to tacitly recognise on the one hand and sneer at down an acedemic nose on the other.
Now we are moving into some form of broad agreement which is good. The fundamental problem is making the data gathered available to as wide a circle of people with similar interests as possible. Now while I still don’t agree that it is archaeology as such, the process of wreck recovery if done competently and carefully is of value to historical research. However there is a caveat which is that research must start from some hypothesis, not from just a careless process of “let’s just dig it up, see what we find”. That process will destroy what’s left and garner no data, while clear cut research plans will shape the whole process of recovery, conservation and analysis with a flow on to proper published dissemination of that data. That then invites comments, suggestions, discussion and creates new objectives which is the way historical research works.
Sign In
