Those people with strong religious beliefs tend to think graves are better left undisturbed. People with strong non-religious beliefs share this view.

A German photograph depicting what is believed to be a large group of German, Australian or British bodies in a wooded area behind German lines near the village of Fromelles in 1916. Picture courtesy Australian War Memorial.

“Let the dead rest” is a universal sentiment that is only ever challenged when foul play or mass executions are suspected.

There is no good reason to dig up our Diggers. Nothing will be gained by identifying those members of the 31st Battalion, and others, who died at Pheasant Wood in France, in July 1916. We already know what happened.

There is no wife waiting in the wings for news of her husband, no children waiting for confirmation that dad is not coming home.

People who believe they may be related to the hundreds of Diggers and British soldiers who were buried in mass pits by Germans at Pheasant Wood are being asked to register their details and may be DNA tested to ascertain their connection.

But this exercise in archaeology and anthropology does not appear to have been borne of a clamour among distant relatives seeking answers on their great uncle’s or great-grandfather’s fate.

The rationale for the Fromelles expedition has not been adequately explained. This new breed of (lower-case) diggers may have convinced governments to fund their forensic picnic, but they will provide satisfaction to no one apart from themselves.

What are they finding in Pheasant Wood? They are finding that men were shot, stabbed, gassed or blown apart.

The prowess of these forensic experts would be better served investigating the mass graves of recent conflicts, where suffering relatives really are waiting for answers about their loved ones. Or putting their talents to investigating cold homicide cases.

At about the time Lord Elgin was ripping off the Parthenon of its sculpture and architecture and crating it to Britain, so-called British scientists were robbing the graves of Aborigines and likewise freighting the skeletons to museums.

The demands that the Elgin Marbles and the Aboriginal remains be returned to their rightful homes are valid.

This is different. Our men were not stolen. They were taken by war. Ataturk said those Diggers who died at Gallipoli were at peace and “having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well”.

We should accept his remarkable words and apply them, widely. Otherwise we’ll not only be digging up the Somme but Kokoda, Changi and the whole Middle East. We’ll never stop.

Where the Diggers rest is where they rest. These graves surely represent hallowed ground. This ground, left undisturbed, holds more meaning that could ever be achieved by digging them up, identifying them, putting them back in the ground or possibly returning them to solitary graves in Australia or Britain.

We asked a lot of them, but they no longer ask anything of us. They lie with their comrades and that is not such a bad place to be.

It is not possible to imagine what they think of eager scientific types cleaning up their old bones with (literally) toothbrushes.

But if they could talk, they, being soldiers, might suggest the money was better spent equipping our current soldiers, or looking after the veterans and widows who still remember their wars.

Most commented

16 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • mark says:

      08:01am | 03/09/09

      Agree somewhat with your sentiments, however if it’s at all possible, don’t these young men deserve a headstone of their own ? It seems little reward for giving up one’s life for ‘King and country’.

    • Peter says:

      08:12am | 03/09/09

      Strongly disagree.  Were it me, I would want my own name on my own gravestone.  Deny them their names and their own graves and they are just statistics.

    • RT says:

      08:44am | 03/09/09

      I agree. Lest we forget is what we always say, but when it comes to disinterrment of long-dead war victims - forget it.

    • Chad says:

      09:35am | 03/09/09

      Great article, i watch them talk about this on the news and i thought i was the only one that was asking why this was happening? Why were these soldiers graves being disrespected. And further more why were we diverting funds for this.

    • DG says:

      10:16am | 03/09/09

      I tend to agree with the article - had I fallen fighting with my friends in battle, I would want to be put to rest with those friends (if I could not be returned to my partner for burial). It is one thing to send troops home immediately, to loved ones who need the closure.

      There is nothing to come home to more than 80 years later - instead they are left at peace with their fallen comrades, together in arms until the end of days. What more fitting eternity could await a soldier killed in battle? Is it really just that a man who died on the front line be removed to some obscure, out-of-the-way, plot and buried by people who never knew them (but have some distant blood relationship), or should he be left, where he currently rests, as a shrine to his ultimate sacrifice in the battlefield and a standing reminder to all of the war in which he fell?

      Having said that I do appreciate that the plan is to move them a little more than 120m (rather than across the globe), but I think the same result could be achieved by building the shrine at the new place and indicating the place where the fallen lay at rest.

    • David Andersen says:

      11:29am | 03/09/09

      Regardless of whether people died or not, our knowledge of WW1 in particular, must always grow. Education about these conflicts is the best way to prevent ones of this scale from occuring again. Archaeology, regardless of whether its hallowed ground or not is vital for this. It is also vital for preserving the war for future generations (as everything about it should be). Furthermore it is not disrespect to dig up a body and identify it and give it a proper burial in a proper place. We know so little about the lives of many of the deceased, and how they died, or even where they are. Knowing this about them is actually respectful, rather than disrespectful, it allows us to honour them without ignorance, and to actually tell their individual stories. It may have only happened 90 years ago but we know surprisingly little about many of the individuals (who were mostly from the working classes).

    • Cuppa says:

      02:12pm | 03/09/09

      You are wrong.If i fell in a foreign land, i would want someone to bring me home.It seems a bit strange that you agree with bringing aboriginal remains back(very PC) but not the brave men who built this country & defended our freedom.I am pretty sure most of them would like to rest in the land they died defending.

    • Fiona says:

      03:08pm | 03/09/09

      I think it is up to the families to decide. Not you - nor me. It may be that they may want their loved ones home so they can have closure and I respect that.

    • DC says:

      03:25pm | 03/09/09

      Cuppa and those of you that have made similar comments, in what sense is teh remains of a human still that human? in order to explore this question it is necessary to refrain from getting emotional about what is left over when we die. one the one hand if we have some sort of afterlife, whatever it is that survies clearly does not require the remaining body. if what happens when we die is that we cease to exist then it is difficult to see how what remains is us in any significatnt way.

      so any statement that includes reference to a ‘you’ after you have died seems rather starnge. in what sense is what remain ‘you’? in what sense could ‘you’ be brought home? surely whatever is left is not you. the corpse has none of your memories, none of your hopes and desires, none of a great list of things you would most likely claim as necessary elements of what it is that is ‘you’.
      our language seems to allow us to make claims about what we will want after we die but how can we make sense of something that does not exist having wants?
      we should treat teh remains of people who have died with respect but we should remember that what is left behind is not in any significant way the person who has died.

    • DG says:

      03:29pm | 03/09/09

      @Cuppa - 2 things:
      (1) I very much doubt that the people who died care where they are buried - the only ones that care are those that are still alive [it is worth nothing that they died defending France (our Allies) from the Germans rather than defending Australia (unless you adopt the US approach to defence)]  - further there is no suggestion that they would be transported back to Australia (so far as I am aware), they are planning on building a military grave some 120m from where the bodies were found. So all this fuss is about digging up dead bodies, that were laid to rest during the war, and moving them 120m so that the tourists can visit more easily. I would go so far as to say that those who went to war EXPECTED that they would be buried on the battle field should they fall (on account of the fact it was common practice during the war).

      (2) Now comparing aboriginal remains and fallen soldiers: On one hand we are talking about people who were born here, died here and were taken to another country as ‘artifacts’  or trophies and stored in a museum (or private collection) as compared to people that went to another country, were killed in battle, and were buried on the battlefield. In fact there is very little that the two have in common (beyond being dead and currently located outside of their home country).

    • graham s says:

      04:53pm | 03/09/09

      The sad facts regarding this particular site is it’s discovery is within our current awareness of WW1 and any activity regarding the site has in some way an effect on some very elderly persons whose late brother or uncle may well be one of the dead. If this grave site was found to contain soldiers from some battle two or three hundred years ago then there wouldn’t be this debate in fact it would be an unemotional archeological dig.. Ditto if the same site was discovered in 2109, it would be be seen as a foot note in history and probably have a car park built over it as it has no relevance to 2109. My view is leave them where they are, that’s where they died and that’s where they were found.

    • marley says:

      07:46pm | 03/09/09

      Rupert Brooke wrote of the field burial of the dead during the FIrst World War:  ‘‘there’s some corner of a foreign field that is for ever England.”  I tend to think we should let the dead of Fromelle rest there, a little part of Australia in a foreign field.  I see no purpose in disinterring long-undisturbed remains for DNA testing, or any of the other technologies modern science has brought.  In the end, young men died in those foreign fields, perhaps for a questionable cause, but surely for what they saw as their country, their duty, their comrades.  And no advance of science or technology will change that.  We know what happened.  Let the dead rest.

    • Richard says:

      09:42pm | 03/09/09

      Cuppa,

      If I fell in s foreign land, I think I’d be beyond caring where I was buried… as have been the vast majority of servicemen who fell abroad. When and why has this egalitarian practice changed?

    • Denny Carr says:

      10:36pm | 29/06/10

      Bit late on the scene but:

      They asked the families what they wanted and went with the consensus.

    • WagnerMara21 says:

      11:28am | 30/10/11

      I took my first personal loans when I was 32 and that helped me a lot. But, I require the student loan as well.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

tory_maguire

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

Daniel Piotrowski

Australia. Where you die for your country and get a rest area named after you http://t.co/hO6LpfwDvI

ToryShepherd

@benpobjie @jessadamson7 @jhwakelin kinda creepy from a high school cheerleader #misheardlyrics

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter