ELI5

[TlsMS93]

Na, carbon from woodburning would be referred to as coal although that's not in the strictest definition what is commonly meant. It's not lignite or anything. Still commonly referred to as coal however.

Hence charcoal

Strange, Kola mentions several confusing things he found.

[Stubble]

Na, carbon from woodburning would be referred to as coal although that's not in the strictest definition what is commonly meant. It's not lignite or anything. Still commonly referred to as coal however.

Hence charcoal

Strange, Kola mentions several confusing things he found.

I find nothing strange about finding charcoal, ashes, cremains and bone fragments in the pits. For me it makes sense. After open air cremation, assuming it was effective, that is what one would expect to find.

What I find more striking than what he found is specifically what he did not find. A 'homicidal gas chamber'.

[bombsaway]

No, he is being precise and you are being imprecise, hopefully unintentionally.

For example, charcoal, what part of cremains constitute charcoal.

He is precise when he states ash, cremains or bone fragments. Not imprecise and intentionally confusing somehow by making the delineation.

So when he says crematory remains, what exactly is he referring to?

And when he says crematory ashes, what is he referring to?

Be precise

[Stubble]

No, he is being precise and you are being imprecise, hopefully unintentionally.

For example, charcoal, what part of cremains constitute charcoal.

He is precise when he states ash, cremains or bone fragments. Not imprecise and intentionally confusing somehow by making the delineation.

So when he says crematory remains, what exactly is he referring to?

And when he says crematory ashes, what is he referring to?

Be precise

I don't have to be precise as kola already has been. Not unlike the wansee minutes, just read it literally. It's right there. He is being specific.

And when he uses the nondescript term simply ashes, he means just that. Ashes, not cremains.

And when he says charcoal, he means charcoal.

And when he says sand, sand.

[bombsaway]

I don't have to be precise as kola already has been. Not unlike the wansee minutes, just read it literally. It's right there. He is being specific.

And when he uses the nondescript term simply ashes, he means just that. Ashes, not cremains.

And when he says charcoal, he means charcoal.

And when he says sand, sand.

I genuinely don't understand, what are crematory ashes to you? Are they different than crematory remains?

[Stubble]

I don't have to be precise as kola already has been. Not unlike the wansee minutes, just read it literally. It's right there. He is being specific.

And when he uses the nondescript term simply ashes, he means just that. Ashes, not cremains.

And when he says charcoal, he means charcoal.

And when he says sand, sand.

I genuinely don't understand, what are crematory ashes to you? Are they different than crematory remains?

Cremains or crematory remains; what remains after cremation in total.

Crematory ashes; what remains of your body, your flesh and blood, after the cremation process. The ashes that are not bone that I carefully collected after the obliteration of my fathers body in the cremation oven 2 years ago.

[bombsaway]

Cremains or crematory remains; what remains after cremation in total.

So you're saying for this, after burning the bodies, they ground up the bones, and then mixed it back in with the wood ash.

[Stubble]

Cremains or crematory remains; what remains after cremation in total.

So you're saying for this, after burning the bodies, they ground up the bones, and then mixed it back in with the wood ash.

No, I'm looking at the study. If he says ashes, I assume he means ashes, because he said ashes. If he says cremains, I assume he means cremains. If he says sand, I assume he means sand.

I'm not making a ground up assumption based on his strata study, I'm just assuming he has identified what he looked at and he has determined what it was. I make no assumptions about how the stratification occurred, merely accepting that it exists.

There is an implication that the wood ash and the cremains are mixed to a degree based on the findings of the study. If I were to venture a guess, I would guess that the wood ash, charcoal etc was disposed of in the pit along with the cremains.

[bombsaway]

Cremains or crematory remains; what remains after cremation in total.

So you're saying for this, after burning the bodies, they ground up the bones, and then mixed it back in with the wood ash.

No, I'm looking at the study. If he says ashes, I assume he means ashes, because he said ashes. If he says cremains, I assume he means cremains. If he says sand, I assume he means sand.

I'm not making a ground up assumption based on his strata study, I'm just assuming he has identified what he looked at and he has determined what it was. I make no assumptions about how the stratification occurred, merely accepting that it exists.

There is an implication that the wood ash and the cremains are mixed to a degree based on the findings of the study. If I were to venture a guess, I would guess that the wood ash, charcoal etc was disposed of in the pit along with the cremains.

Why is it implied, this is where I'm not following you.

In a description like this

It was of a homogenous content. Studies of its crematory layers structure suggested multiple filling of the grave with burnt relics. The layer with the biggest thickness and intensity of crematory contents appeared in the lowest part of the pit and was about 1 meter thick;

I see no reason to presume the crematory layers contain wood ash.

[bombsaway]

Sometimes Kola says stuff like, "Above there were layers of crematory remains and charcoal" . If the Crematory remains obviously contain charcoal already, why does he have to note it again?

[Stubble]

So you're saying for this, after burning the bodies, they ground up the bones, and then mixed it back in with the wood ash.

No, I'm looking at the study. If he says ashes, I assume he means ashes, because he said ashes. If he says cremains, I assume he means cremains. If he says sand, I assume he means sand.

I'm not making a ground up assumption based on his strata study, I'm just assuming he has identified what he looked at and he has determined what it was. I make no assumptions about how the stratification occurred, merely accepting that it exists.

There is an implication that the wood ash and the cremains are mixed to a degree based on the findings of the study. If I were to venture a guess, I would guess that the wood ash, charcoal etc was disposed of in the pit along with the cremains.

Why is it implied, this is where I'm not following you.

In a description like this

It was of a homogenous content. Studies of its crematory layers structure suggested multiple filling of the grave with burnt relics. The layer with the biggest thickness and intensity of crematory contents appeared in the lowest part of the pit and was about 1 meter thick;

I see no reason to presume the crematory layers contain wood ash.

And in that sample, there doesn't appear to be, but, in the earlier sample you cited with 'thin layers' and 'charcoal' there is an implication there.

Are you now saying that there is a 1 meter layer of cremains uniformly distributed in the pits and that the rest of the overburden is free of cremains?

Or can we agree that we should look at the samples to determine makup of different parts of the internment pits, or mass graves if you prefer?

Perhaps, just perhaps, the cremation and internment wasn't carried out in a uniform manner and that explains discrepancies in stratification between samples.

[Stubble]

Sometimes Kola says stuff like, "Above there were layers of crematory remains and charcoal" . If the Crematory remains obviously contain charcoal already, why does he have to note it again?

During obliteration of a corpse in a cremation, all carbon is consumed, thus, no 'charcoal' is implied for cremains.

[bombsaway]

No, I'm looking at the study. If he says ashes, I assume he means ashes, because he said ashes. If he says cremains, I assume he means cremains. If he says sand, I assume he means sand.

I'm not making a ground up assumption based on his strata study, I'm just assuming he has identified what he looked at and he has determined what it was. I make no assumptions about how the stratification occurred, merely accepting that it exists.

There is an implication that the wood ash and the cremains are mixed to a degree based on the findings of the study. If I were to venture a guess, I would guess that the wood ash, charcoal etc was disposed of in the pit along with the cremains.

Why is it implied, this is where I'm not following you.

In a description like this

It was of a homogenous content. Studies of its crematory layers structure suggested multiple filling of the grave with burnt relics. The layer with the biggest thickness and intensity of crematory contents appeared in the lowest part of the pit and was about 1 meter thick;

I see no reason to presume the crematory layers contain wood ash.

And in that sample, there doesn't appear to be, but, in the earlier sample you cited with 'thin layers' and 'charcoal' there is an implication there.

Are you now saying that there is a 1 meter layer of cremains uniformly distributed in the pits and that the rest of the overburden is free of cremains?

Or can we agree that we should look at the samples to determine makup of different parts of the internment pits, or mass graves if you prefer?

Perhaps, just perhaps, the cremation and internment wasn't carried out in a uniform manner and that explains discrepancies in stratification between samples.

Maybe we're talking past each other and are actually mostly in agreement. We can also look at the 1945 excavations for info on the graves

"The opening labeled No. 1 was taken down to a depth of 8 m and a width of 10 m and attained the bottom level of the graves. During the operation, at a depth of about 2 m, we struck the first layer of ash stemming from incinerated human bodies, mixed with sand. This layer was about 1 m thick. The next layer of ash was discovered at a depth of 4 – 6 meters. In the ash removed, some charred remains of human bodies were found, such as hands and arms, women’s hair, as well as human bones not totally burnt. We also recovered pieces of burnt wood. In trench No. 1, the layer of human ash stopped at a depth of 6 meters. The opening labeled No. 2 was taken down to a depth of 6 meters. In this trench, the layer of human ash began at a depth of 1.5 m and continued down to a depth of some 5 m, with occasional breaks. Here, too, the ash contained human hair, part of a human body, pieces of clothing, and remnants of incompletely burnt bones. Openings labeled Nos. 3 and 4 were freed to a depth of 3 meters. In hole No. 4, at a depth of 80 cm, we found a human skull with remnants of skin and hair, as well as two shinbones and a rib. Furthermore, at a level of between one and three meters, these holes yielded human ash mixed with sand and fragments of incompletely burnt human bones. Openings labeled Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 were dug to a depth of 2 m, but showed only human ash mixed with sand and human bones, such as jawbones and shinbones. Throughout all the excavations it was observed that the camp cemetery had already been disturbed by wildcat diggings; this is borne out by the fact that the layers of human ash are not uniform but mixed with sand. The recovered human bones; the bodily remains, which where in a state of complete decomposition; and the ash were collected in a common location to await the arrival of the district surgeon. Work was stopped at 17:30 hours."

Then there is an expert opinion about the composition of the graves from a forensic specialist

Expert Opinion
On grounds of the postmortem examination made I find that the aforementioned bones and soft tissue parts as well as the ash are predominantly of human origin. A very small part comes from wood. Judging by the huge amount of ash and bones I assert that the same must be from a very large quantity of human bodies. The small soft tissue parts of human bodies that are in the ash and not completely carbonized issue a smell that is caused by the decomposition process of the remains of human soft tissue parts. This smell is also caused by the fact that the soil is soaked by the masses of decomposing human corpses that were burned after having been extracted from the soil. Considering the sandy soil in which the human corpses were burned and the state of decomposition of the body parts found, one has to assume that these corpses were presumably buried about 3 years ago. The human body parts not carbonized and the huge amount of hair proves that some corpses were buried after the time when the corpse burning in the extermination camp was stopped, eventually they may also be corpses that were not extracted from the mass grave during cremation. Due to the fact that the skull bones show no traces of shots, it must be assumed that these people did not die from shooting.
Signature: Dr. Mieczyslaw Pietraszkiewicz

That (in bold) stands out to me. From these opinions it also seems like the amount of ash in the graves is considerable. The ash layers are described sometimes being meters deep.

[Stubble]

Hair?

I digress.

We were mostly talking past each other.

Because of incompleteness I find the expert opinion dubious, but, I don't think the guy is lying or anything, just giving an opinion, and not wholly without reason.

Our guesses about the contents of the pits are just that, they are pure speculation.

[bombsaway]

Hair?

I digress.

We were mostly talking past each other.

Because of incompleteness I find the expert opinion dubious, but, I don't think the guy is lying or anything, just giving an opinion, and not wholly without reason.

Our guesses about the contents of the pits are just that, they are pure speculation.

Evidence is usually incomplete, and it's the job of historians to make a best guess, given the evidence that we have. From these two studies, there are definitely things we can say.

For example we can make rough assessments of the size of the graves, and of their current contents, which seem to be stratified with many and large crematory layers, of which little is wood ash.