ANZAC Day is one of Australia's national days of mourning for those who fell in war.
We mark it on 25 April each year. Throughout the land, in big cities and small towns people will gather today at a war memorial, cenotaph or cemetery - and remember.
A beautiful and moving tribute:
Their name liveth for evermore.
The wreck of HMAS Sydney (II) has been found, and can be assumed to be the final resting place for most of her 645 crew.
The decades old query about why she was sunk has resurfaced and the controversy continues in an item from today's Sydney Morning Herald:
Professor Tom Frame, a former Anglican bishop to the Australian Defence Force and author of HMAS Sydney: Loss And Controversy, stepped into the latest row on Friday to defend the honour of the boat's commanding officer.
Dr Frame said Captain Joseph Burnett had been "terribly defamed" by a survivor from the Kormoran, the German armed merchant "raider" that on November 19, 1941, sank the Australian light cruiser in the Indian Ocean, killing all 645 crew.
Ludwig Ernst, 89, the president of the Kormoran Survivors' Association, told The West Australian newspaper that Burnett's actions during the fateful encounter were "incompetent" and "criminal".
"Eventually Australians will have to comprehend that the guilty party for Sydney's sinking is Captain Burnett," Mr Ernst said.
Well, what do the archives say?
Commander (later Captain) Emile Dechaineux was sent to Perth to coordinate the investigation and particularly the interrogation of the POW Kormoran survivors. He arrived in Perth on 28 November 1941.
On 30 November 1941 Sir Dudley Pound the First Sea Lord of the Admiralty in London sent a signal to the Australian Commonwealth Naval Board:
When you have been able to collect from prisoners all available information regarding action between SYDNEY and raider, grateful if you would let me know what happened so that we can deduce any lessons for the future.
[ Naval War Diary, message 1st Sea Lord to ACNB, 1115A/30 November. Naval Historical Branch { from Captain Peter Hore's fine book HMAS Sydney II: The cruiser and the controversy in the archives of the United Kingdom}]
The response can be found in the National Archives of Australia as Interrogation of German survivors ex Raider 41 "Kormoran" [ NAA: MP1049/5, 412871 ]
Here's page 4 of 36 pages from the online document:
This was sent to the Admiralty from the Naval Board on 23 December 1941.
At point number 1. close to the bottom of the page it states, "CAPTAIN OF "SYDNEY" WAS DECEIVED AND PLACED HIMSELF IN TACTICALLY UNSOUND POSITION."
For the sake of completeness, here is the next page of the 2 page communique. (page 5 of the 36 page online document)
The file next shows Commander Dechaineux's draft, as an internal Minute Paper. (page 6 of 36 pages in the online document)
The next page of his draft (page 7 of 36 pages in the online document) has as the corresponding point number 1. in lessons learnt as:
1. Captain of "SYDNEY" was deceived and placed himself in tactically unsound position.
The contributory cause of this is the admitted inefficiency of Merchant Ships in challenge and reply procedure.
We see also the signature Dechaineux at the bottom of the typescript.
There is another significant matter to consider. The way in which the Official History of the Royal Australian Navy in WWII was written. The official naval war historian was Mr. G. Hermon Gill. His two volume history is the starting point for any serious reader about WWII RAN naval history.
There's a very interesting correspondence relating to Gill's writing about the sinking of HMAS Sydney II, which has been highlighted by Richard Summerrell:
An interesting postscript to the official inquiries into the loss of the Sydney is revealed in the correspondence of R B M Long, the former Director of Naval Intelligence with G Hermon Gill, the official navy war historian in 1953. It appears that Gill referred to Long for his comments copies of his draft chapters of the official war history (including chapter 12, the chapter in which Gill deals with the loss of the Sydney).
In Long’s reply of 23 November 1953 he remarked that chapter 12 ‘is the best one you have done so far’. He went on to comment on Gill’s treatment of the story, particularly the conjecture as to why Burnett appeared to have put the Sydney in a position of vulnerability.
‘I think you handle the subject with great tact, very fairly and with literary skill. It is a part of the History that will be closely read and as Joe Burnett’s two sons are now rising in rank as Naval Officers it is important that they should be able to read that section without distress. I don’t know who it was who said that we all make mistakes and the man who doesn’t makes nothing. Burnett’s mistakes and the loss of the Sydney of course must be his responsibility (whether he happened to be sick or dead at the time of the action is of little consequence) and his reputation must be carried by his sons, but I think that you have given such a decent slant to the matter that they need never be even embarrassed.’
Commenting on other sections of the draft Long noted
‘The search for the Kormoran films commenced as a military expedition, certainly within six months of the Kormoran prisoners being put into stir. It continued intermittently until 1945... You probably know that I, personally, continued for over two years, a world search and on the flimsiest stories, for some indication as to the Sydney’s end. I well remember an expedition that was outfitted for me on the Gold Coast and bunged up country into Vichey/French Territory on a statement that some nine Germans, mostly officers, with two British prisoners, had gone inland from Dakar. I just can’t remember the full extent of the search but I remember it also took in Kerguelan [sic] and there was a case of the “Two Sailors” in the mountainous country back in Natal. It is correct to say that “not a stone was left unturned”.’
Part of Long’s response appears to have been used by Gill in the official history. At page 460, Gill states
‘Australian naval intelligence continued for some years a search for any information which would throw light on the fate of Sydney’s company. The flimsiest stories were followed up, and the search ranged from Central Africa to Kerguelen, but without success.
[ I have removed Richard Summerrell's footnotes from this excerpt, but the full text can be read online here. ]
SUMMARY
Firstly, Dechaineux's report on the sinking of HMAS Sydney, mainly arising from POW Kormoran survivor interrogations, stated that the Captain of HMAS Sydney was deceived and allowed himself to be placed in a tactically unsound position.
Secondly, the official historian was praised for writing about HMAS Sydney's demise so as not to cause distress or embarrassment to the sons of the Captain who were themselves in rising RAN careers.
Here I shall give online resources I have referenced and relied upon thus far.
With renewed interested in HMAS Sydney (II) consequent to announcement of the discovery of Kormoran's wreck together with battle debris belived to be from HMAS Sydney (II), this will assist some people landing on this blog.
USEFUL LINKS about the Unknown Sailor of Christmas Island:
National Archives of Australia Recordsearch.
--------------------------------
-------------------------------
The Sinking of HMAS Sydney A guide to Commonwealth Governement Records by Richard Summerrell (1999).
-------------------------------
ABC 7.30 report story 28 July 2000 - Govt agrees to fund search for Unknown Sailor.
--------------------------------
Australia's Forgotten Son by Glenys McDonald.
----------------------------------
Western Australian Museum HMAS Sydney reading list.
----------------------------------
An analysis of the HMAS Sydney / HSK Kormoran engagement.
----------------------------------
-------------------------------
RAN History archives summary of HMAS Sydney (II) and Kormoran - Lifeboat Workshop 23 - 24 APR 03.
-------------------------------
----------------------------------
Defence Media Briefing 26 October 2006, Remains of Unknown Sailor located on Christmas Island.
------------------------------
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
----------------------------------
---------------------------------
-------------------------------
---------------------------------
Navy paper 12 July 2007 Bid to identify unknown sailor.
---------------------------------
----------------------------------------
The bone sailor - The Bulletin, September 4 2007, p.23
---------------------------------
Details of the Mutiny on Christmas Island in March 1941 and the Japanese invasion of the island.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
--------------------------------
Digger History 3: German Naval Uniforms.
--------------------------------
Mr. J. W. Brown stated in May, 1949 that the Carley float held, "... the body of an engine room rating in blue overalls very much decomposed.
How would Mr. Brown have known the body had been an engine room rating in life? Well, Christmas Island would have been visited by plenty of Royal Navy and Royal Australian Navy ships by 1941. The corpse held no personal identification, so there must have been something about the clothing which led Mr. Brown to these two conclusions - that it was a "rating" (i.e. an enlisted rank or non-officer), and from the "engine room"
Let's look at naval engineering branch insignia. The Royal Australian Navy used significantly the same badges to denote the engineering branch from 1911 to 1990.
A three-bladed propeller.
The upper example in the photograph was the printed type worn on overalls or boiler suit by Stokers.
The badges at left are Royal Navy World War II era badges. The pictures are from the useful website www.naval-history.net We can see that the Royal Navy's badges were similar to the RAN badges.
See also the written description here on page 137 of the Navy List. Unsurprising given the close links between the two navies.
Both RN and RAN ships were visitors to Singapore and Christmas Island so it is quite likely that Mr. Brown was familiar with the enginering branch insignia.
Let's now consider which members of the crew aboard HMAS Sydney may have been wearing a blue boiler suit bleached white by exposure, with four or five press stud closures down the front.
My regular readers know that my preferred evidence is a first person accout, so I thought it may be useful to see what a couple of people I know who actually served aboard Royal Australian Navy ships during World War Two had to say on the topic of clothing they wore. My friend Mackenzie Gregory was a Sub-Lieutenant and Lieutenant RAN aboard Australia's three 8-inch gun cruisers HMAS Australia, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Shropshire for the duration of WWII (except for time off to complete his Lieutenant's course in the UK).
I asked Mac about WWII era RAN workclothes. He said,
- Engineering officers wore white overalls by convention. But in Shropshire I seem to recall that I wore a white type of overall at action stations, plus anti-flash gear and blue mae west life belt. See the attachement after I was rescued by Patterson.
- Stokers, ERA's wore blue overalls. (E.R.A. = engine room assistant)
- Overalls of no other colour were worn.
- Also think the sailors all wore a blue overall at action stations, plus anti flash gear and blue mae west life belt.
- By day we normally wore Khaki shorts and shirt.
My father was a Stoker, RAN aboard HMAS Shropshire during WWII, so had a different perspective on navy life. He said,
- He wore a blue coloured boiler suit made from a denim like material which when new was very stiff. Some other stokers wore pants made of the same material without a shirt due to the high temperature in the engine compartment.
- When I asked him if anyone aboard ship wore a white coloured boiler suit, he said that some fellow stokers bleached their blue boiler suits to soften them and make them more comfortable to wear.
- He said that he thinks that his boiler suit did NOT have press stud closures, instead it used buttons.
- He wore black leather boots.
What about the possibility that the Unknown Sailor of Christmas Island was a German, probably from the Kormoran?
In the media conference addressed by Captain Jim Parsons, Commander Matt Blenkin and Jo Button on 26 October 2006, the Q & A had this exchange:
REPORTER: So, to the team leader, just based on what you've discovered, what degree of probability would you say this sailor or this person who was buried, was actually from the Sydney ? What sort of level of probability would you put on it?
JIM PARSONS: I think you're bringing in some issues there where I can't draw a conclusion from, but the Defence Standing Committee drew the conclusion that on the balance of probability it was a sailor from HMAS Sydney . I think we have to accept that. What I have, is a strong belief that the person that we have recovered is the person that was recovered from the Carley raft in February 1942. I think the link is already made between that and the other part.
REPORTER: Just, is there any possibility that the sailor could be a German?
JIM PARSONS: It's not impossible and it would be interesting to theorise how he got into the Carley raft, but it's certainly not implausible. And this will be part of the process that we go through.
If the engine room sailor had been a german of the Kriegsmarine, he may have been wearing a patch like this one for the Maschinenlaufbahn, although the one pictured is known to have been in the U-boat service.
The military history website http://www.diggerhistory3.info/ has helpfully reproduced a copy of book produced in 1943 by the British Admiralty's Naval Intelligence Division.
If we look at page 30 from the book we see that the third row show a range of E.R.A. or Stoker badges, each having a 3-bladed propeller motif.
And what of overalls or a boiler suit in the Kriegsmarine? Well page 28, section C.of the book says, "In small craft such as E-boats, a black leatherette and one-piece suit is often worn at sea. The lining is provided with elastic cuffs and ankle pieces, to keep out the water. The suit is closed by a zip-fastener."
That does not correspond to the boiler suit that the Uknown Sailor was wearing so, at present there seems no evidence that a Kormoran sailor may have worn a blue boiler suit or even a boiler suit at all. More research into the uniforms of the Kormoran sailors and the Kriegsmarine will be needed.
We must also consider the latest information from the mettalurgical analysis of the shrpnel fragment found inside the skull of the Unknown Sailor after the 2006 exhumation
In no account given by Kormoran survivors either during their wartime interrogation or after the war was there a desription or an instance of a German shell exploding and injuring one of the Kormoran's sailors. A file comprising 491 pages exists in the nationa Archives of Australia as 'Kormoran'(Raider No. 41) - 'G'German AMC - Interrogation of Prisoners [ NAA: B6121, 734562 ] which may be viewed online via NAA's RecordSearch facility.
Additionally, on page 13 of 491 in that NAA file the inferrogation notes with Richard Emil Adolphe KOHLS, Chief Engineer, Kormoran contains this ,
"... In Indian ocean all wore only white clothes - weather was never really cold (below 10 degrees centigrade)... all wore warm clothes at night (except near Equator)."
Hence that appears to rule out that the Unknown Sailor was from the Kormoran.
We must now also consider other persons aboard who may have worn blue overalls.
In review,
- One eyewitness stated the Unknown Sailor was wearing a blue boiler suit bleached white by exposure. There were four plain press studs from neck to waist.
- One of these witness said that the body was that of an "engine room rating" dressed in blue overalls.
- One eye witness stated the Uknown Sailor was wearing a white boiler suit.
-
Adelaide University has helpfully placed online an article titled Bone Sailor by Cheryl Jones in the September 4, 2007 issued of the now-defunct Bulletin Magazine. The substantive contents of the article is an interview with Jeremy Austin of Adelaide University's Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ADAD). Dr. Austin , Deputy Director of ACAD, is part of the team attempting to identify the Unknown Sailor.
Austin read the unknown sailor's genetic code to work out his position on the global human family tree. The man was of European descent but carried unusual mutaions that put him in the haplogroup J1, rare but widespread in Europe. Haplogroups - twigs on the family tree - are big groups of people with a common ancestor.
Austin says research on other sections of the genome would be needed to pin the sailor's linage down to a place in Europe - another possible clue to his identity.
The geneticist knows the tall sailor, who had a mouthful of gold fillings, well, but he won't be able to finish the story until he gets a DNA match.
We must also consider the RAAF members aboard HMAS Sydney who may have been wearing blue coveralls.
Next, in Part 4 I will list USEFUL LINKS.
.
The holdings of the National Archives of Australia (NAA) on matters related to the disappearance of HMAS Sydney (II) are vast. They have also been trawled by many professional and amateur historians.
Let's concentrate here on what the archives have to show us about what the Unknown Sailor was wearing when he was found floating in a Carley raft off Christmas Island on 6 February, 1942. (The photograph at left shows a Carley float typical of the period. This one was from HMAS Shropshire.)
Mr. Richard Summerrell, then Assistant Director of the NAA in 1997 produced a guide to Commonwealth Government Records on this matter called The Sinking of HMAS Sydney (ISBN 0 642 34412), and it is available online here. this guide is a very significant work of research in its own right.
The eyewitness accounts of the recovery of the Carley float/raft off Christmas Island are contained in the NAA as reference [ NAA: AA1980/700, NID 194/222 ] "Carley float and Corpse Recovered Off Christmas Island." It is available for viewing online at the NAA website via the "Recordsearch feature." Images of this file follow, which I have downloaded from the NAA site as Bitmap images and then converted to JPEG. Technically, there was some image compression required to load onto this blog, so if you want the higher resolution image you will need to go to the NAA site.
In early May, 1949 Mr. J. W. Brown was staying at the Carlton Hotel, Perth, Western Australia and made contact with Mr. J. K. Atkinson of the West Australian newspaper. Mr. J. W. Brown had been a resident on Christmas Island at the time of the recovery of the Unknown Sailor in February 1942.
And who was Mr. Brown? According to the Parliamentary report section 7.53, he was former Sergeant of the Christmas Island Platoon of the Singapore Volunteers.
Mr. Brown's statement included this,
"... It was a Carley raft with one body on board, the body of an engine room rating in blue overalls very much decomposed. Seabirds from above and fish from below had done their share to make identification impossible. A pair of boots was also on the raft which our resident medical officer said could not have been worn by the dead man, this led us to believe that there may have been others on the raft. ...." (my emphasis added)
"
Mr. Atkinson of the West Australian went to the Naval Staff Office in Fremantle, West Australia and sought comment. The Naval Officer In Charge at Fremantle sent his own agent to interview Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was at that time absent, so his wife was interviewed, and she substantiated that they were residents of Christmas Island in February, 1942.
The Naval O.I.C. then, on 4 May, 1949 sent a letter to the Director of Naval Intelligence in Navy Office Melbourne seeking confirmation of any facts.
In February and March 1942 Christmas Island was in turmoil. The Japanese military were advancing. On 7 March the Japanese shelled the island. On 11 March the 27 Indian troops staged a mutiny murdering Captain Leonard Williams and four British NCOs , all part of the British Army garrison who were to protect the island. On 31 March 1942 the Japanese invaded the island, interning the Europeans, including Tom Pearson Cromwell (District Officer).
On 23 February 1942, the Naval Staff Officer (Intelligence) compiled Shipping Intelligence Report No. 137/1942. Of note was that the ship S/S Islander had arrived in port.
"The "ISLANDER" brought a total of 48 evacuee passengers from Christmas Island. From Captain J. R. Smith, Harbour Master from the Island, the following information, which throws further light on the report by J. C. BAKER (reference "HERMION" in this report), was gathered.
... The corpse was clothed in a boiler suit which had originally been blue, but was bleached white by exposure. There were four plain press studs from neck to waist. "
Here is another page from the Shipping Intelligence Report No. 137/1942 relating to the visit of M/V/ "HERMION" to port.
"On board this vessel were J. C. Baker and wife, passengers from Christmas Island. Mr. Baker, for the last six years, has been in charge of the Radio Station at Christmas Island. ...
"The corpse was clothed in a white boiler suit, the pockets were empty and there was nothing to establish identity. the Shore doctor established that the body was that of a white man. All the flesh was gone from the right arm, also the eyes and nose were missing. Otherwise the corpse was decomposed in parts. ..."
Here we have a conflict between the accounts of Smith and Baker concerning the colour of the boiler suit worn by the Unknown Sailor.
Smith said, " ... boiler suit which had originally been blue, but was bleached white by exposure."
Baker said, " ... a white boiler suit ..."
Well, the Naval Staff Officer (Intelligence) wrote about this conflict, " ... without any suggestion of discrediting Baker's statements, which were given in good faith, it is suggested that those made by Captain Smith should prove the more reliable."
In response to the request for information from the Naval Officer In Charge at Fremantle, the Director of Naval Intelligence, who was then Captain, later Rear Admiral George C. Oldham wrote to the RAN's Director of Victualling and Director of Naval Stores seeking remarks on paragraphs 3 (a), (b) and (c) of the W.A. Shipping Intelligence Report No 137/1942.
I cannot tell from my reading of the NAA's online file if the whole of W. A. Shipping Intelligence Report No 137/1942 was forward for reading and consideration by the D. of V. and the D. N. S. , or merely the page containing the account of Mr. Baker, which stated that the corpse was wearing " ...a white boiler suit." The fact that the D. of V. has commented on the topic of "pressed studs" and "press studs" infers that he also read the account of Smith who said, "there were four plain press buttons from neck to waist."
The Director of Naval Stores (D.N.S.) has replied ,
" Regarding Par 3(a), the boiler suit does not coincide with ratings' type stocked in R.A.N. as pressed studs had [ illegible words ] been adopted. A naval rating may have worn the type described although not officially uniform. R.A.N. officers purchased their own or had them made up privately. White & brown in colour [illegible word] press studs.
2. The markings on the shoes described by Captain J. R. Smith as underlined in blue pencil definitely correspond with supplies from our stores, provided they were leather not canvas shoes. I should think they had been supplied to an officer or rating."
Let's look at the conclusions which were made by Captain G. C. Oldham, the Director of Naval Intelligence. He replied to the Naval Officer in Charge at Fremantle on 2 August, 1949:
Captain Oldham concluded that the clothing could have been that of an R.A.N. rating, but that the Carley float did not belong to an H.M.A. Ship.
Captain Oldham's conclusion about the origin of the Carley float is now believed to be incorrect. Based upon substantial further evidence which Oldham did not have at his disposal, the Joint Parliamentary Committee drew the conclusion that the Carley float may well have come from an H.M.A. Ship. See the report sections 7.8 through 7.50.
SUMMARY
One eyewitness in 1942 said that the Unknown Sailor was wearing a blue boiler suit which had been bleached white by exposure to the sun.
One eyewitness in 1942 said that the Unknown Sailor was wearing a white boiler suit.
One eyewitness in 1949 said that the Unknown Sailor was the body of an engine room rating wearing blue overalls.
For this reason, I think that the current efforts to identify the Unknown Sailor by finding his surviving relatives should be concentrating on those members of the crew who would most likely have been wearing blue overalls/boiler suit - not those members of the crew who would most likely have been wearing white overalls/boiler suit.
Recall from my first post on this topic that analysis of the fabric remnants from between press studs found upon the exhumation of the Unknown Sailor's remains was conducted at the Australian War Memorial, and the conclusion was that the colour of the fabric was white. This together with the weave of the fabric led to the conclusion that the clothing had been of a type issued to officers, most likely in the Engineering branch.
Part Three coming soon.
This blog post (part one) will address some factual matters surrounding identifying the body of an Unknown Sailor which was found off shore Christmas Island on 7 February, 1942. Many believe him to have been a member of the crew of HMAS Sydney (II). Some background is required to gain an understanding of the issues.
(Photo from RAN)
HMAS Sydney (II) was lost at sea on 19 November, 1941 a victim of the German raider Kormoran. All hands perished. No survivor of the 645 crew members was ever found.
The pain felt by relatives of Sydney crew members has endured even as the decades have passed. There are strong emotions involved relating to the sense of loss, a perceived inaction and lack of care by our Government about appropriately commemorating the loss of the crew, indeed how best to commemorate and memorialise the loss, and how best to deal with the case of the Unknown Sailor of Christmas Island with respect to finding and identifying his remains, and then a re-interment. There have in the past been accusations of a cover-up by the Government which have hopefully now been allayed.
The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade mentioned these quotations in Chapter 8 of it's 1999 Report on The Loss of HMAS Sydney :
It seems inconceivable that a nation such as Australia, with its magnificent military history, can permit the fate of one of its most famous warships to remain shrouded in mystery and for the fate of 645 of her crew to remain unverified. It is, in short, a national disgrace and a scandal ... When a country such as Australia refuses to engage in a search for its lost heroes just off the shore of its own continent, it defies belief.1
What we say is that it is irrelevant how the Sydney was sunk. It will not change history ... What I, my mother, her brothers and sister (and I am sure all the wives, children, brothers, sisters and loved ones - plus one surviving mother of one of the Sydney's crew) would like to know is where the wreck of the Sydney is lying on the ocean floor, and if the body on Christmas island is that of one of the Sydney's crew.2
In November 2004 the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne held an exhibition in tribute to the lost crew of HMAS Sydney. My friend MacKenzie Gregory was a member of the organising committee for that exhibition and noted these emotional reactions to the exhibition:
"... Captain Burnett's daughter was one of our visitors, only 4 years old when her Dad died.
This lady, naturally enough became quite tearful when talking about the action which claimed her Father, she indicated that she was not in favour of finding the wreck, and would prefer to let her lay where ever she may be in peace.
On the other hand, many relatives with whom we talked would like to know the last resting place of their individual loved ones. "
With respect to the Unknown Sailor of Christmas island, the 1999 Parliamentary Report noted that,
For many who made submissions to the inquiry, the body on Christmas Island was a central concern. If the body was indeed that of one of HMAS Sydney's crew, there was a strong feeling that it should no longer lie in an unmarked grave in a remote part of the Indian Ocean.
In October 2006 a Royal Australian Navy search team led by Captain Jim Parsons visited the Old European Cemetery of Christmas Island. After an exhaustive yet targeted search they successfully located the grave of the Unknown Sailor, exhumed the remains which included a complete skeleton, and the ability to identify dental work via fillings and missing teeth. The remains were transported to the Shellshear Museum at the University of Sydney and they have subsequently been subject to dental, anthropological, pathological, ballistic, metallurgic and DNA analysis at a variety of locations. Here's a transcript of the Media conference given on 26 October 2006 by Captain Jim Parson, Commander Matthew Blenkin, and Jo Button.
Capt. Parsons:
"Yes there's one other point that I missed, with the recovering of the remains, there were a couple of things we found. One was press-studs - certainly what appears to be press-studs. they're badly corroded but that's what they look like.
Again, history tells us that when the sailor was recovered he was wearing blue overalls, bleached white by the sun, with press-studs down the front. Again, another piece of evidence that suggests it's the right person."
and
"These are all part of the artifacts that we handed over to the Australian War Memorial earlier this week for analysis because it appears that both the eyelets and the press-studs have some minute traces of material still jammed between where they're pressed together and we're hopeful that we might be able to analyse something out of that."
In the photo at left (supplied by the Defence Department) Captain Jim Parsons, team leader for the Christmas Island Project, hands over artifacts found at the gravesite of the unknown sailor to the Australian War Memorial's Assistant Registrar Georgina Cunningham. click on photo for larger image, and see one of the press studs in the sealed clear plastic bag closest to camera.
Since the remains of the Unknown Sailor were exhumed in October 2006 much work has been done by the team and associated scientists and technicians.
METALLURGICAL ANALYSIS OF SHRAPNEL FOUND IN THE SKULL
This indicated that the shrapnel was of German origin, not Japanese as it contained silicon and manganese which were known to be used by the Germans to harden metals in 1941. The shrapnel did not contain either nickel or copper, which were characteristically used in Japanese hardening techniques in 1941. The implication is that this is consistent with the attack by the German raider Kormoran on HMAS Sydney (II), and also seems likely to rule out the Unknown Sailor being a victim of a Japanese attack. Some historians have postulated that the ship was sunk by a Japanese Submarine, however this is a minority view.
PATHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION
This has shown that death occurred between 50 and 100 years ago, again consistent with the skeleton being that of the Unknown Sailor from 1942. It has also revealed shrapnel struck the front of the skull and lodged in the left forehead. Additionally there was a second major skull injury with bone loss on the left side of the skull, above and behind the left earhole believed to have occurred around the time of death. There were multiple rib fractures, but these may have occurred post mortem due to settling of the grave.
DNA ANALYSIS
Scientists at Adelaide Research and Innovation and the Australian Centre for Ancient DNA at the University of Adelaide extracted and analysed DNA from the teeth according to this report in NAVY.
FABRIC ANALYSIS
"White fabric and the particular weave of that fabric found within an overall stud recovered with the body pointed to an engineering officer from Sydney II" according to this report in NAVY.
Forensic odontological reports and anthropological reports excluded more than 500 of the crew of HMAS Sydney (II) according to this Defence Department media release.
Breaking those numbers down in this media release, we see that "... post mortem dental examination of the remains was carried out. Regrettably only half the crew dental records are available, the remainder having been lost with the ship. While no positive match was achieved, this analysis resulted in more than 300 of the crew being excluded."
"The next stage involved an anthropological examination of the skeleton. This effectively excluded a further 200 members on the bases of indicative age at death and height. This left about 100 of HMAS Sydney II crew as potential matches for the remains. "
SEARCH FOR DNA MATCHING AMONGST POSSIBLE SURVIVING RELATIVES BEGINS
On 23 June 2007, the Defence Department announced that the attempt to match DNA was commencing with a search for surviving relatives of 3 Engineering Officers from the crew. There were also widespread announcements in Australian media at that time.
The announcement also mentioned:
In particular Australian War Memorial (AWM) analysis of cloth fragments found within press-studs resulted in the assessment the man had been buried wearing white coveralls.
Historical research by the AWM and the Navy's Sea-Power Centre-Australia concluded that the sailor was therefore most likely to be an Officer or Warrant Officer from one of the technical categories.
Mike Cecil of the Australian War Memorial said this conclusion is based on the assumption that the sailor was dressed in accordance with Naval regulations and indeed was wearing his own coveralls.
"it must be noted that it remains quite possible that these assumptions may prove to be incorrect," Mr. Cecil said.
There is no doubt that all concerned in finding the remains of the Unknown Sailor and in attempting to effect an accurate identification are discharging their Sacred duty in a very thorough manner.
SEARCH FOR DNA MATCHING AMONGST POSSIBLE SURVIVING RELATIVES CONTINUES
On 6 August 2007, the Defence Department issued an update announcing that the attempt to find matching DNA with relatives of 3 short-listed sailors had been unsuccessful. Hence the search was being widened to locate surviving relatives of 11 other Officers and Warrant Officers who were entitled to wear white coveralls and 2 civilian canteen workers who may be potential matches due to uncertainty of what they may have been wearing during battle stations.
It was hoped that relatives may be able to provide additional biographical, physiological or medical information which would further assist the identification process.
Again, this received wide media coverage.
Again, admirable thoroughness.
Shortly after this release on 6 August 2007 Australia entered Federal Election mode, and due to caretaker government provisions few media announcements occur during that period. However as at time of writing today, there seems to have been no further information released about the search.
My problem with this? I think that the historical record in the National Archives of Australia show the Unknown Sailor was found off Christmas Island wearing blue coveralls which were bleached white by exposure. Consequently the team striving to identify the remains should be concentrating on a different segment of the crew. Those who would have been most likely to wear blue coveralls.
Let's explore that in Part Two.
Recent Comments