Positioning of Headstones

[dsms]

When visiting cemeteries there is often a number of headstones that are quite differently placed to others I have often been asked by others do I know why this is the case. There are many variations as well. As it stands I can only answer from what I have heard from guides and others who think they know.

Is there any real 'official' explanation to what appears to be, from an outsiders point of view, an arrangement that is outside the 'normal' regimented lines of equidistant placed rows. Example of what I mean are:

Where a headstone appears to be in a 'random' position in the cemetery, normally explained as being where a particular soldier fell and was buried or where they happened to be originally buried if/when the place was used as an aid station or similar at the time.

Given that cemeteries grew and many were brought in from other locations at a later date when the cemetery was 'formalised' for re burial why were these existing ones not incorporated into the row system along with others.

The vast majority of burials within a cemetery are set in rows with equal distance between each stone, but it is not at all uncommon to see some where the headstones are placed immediatly next to each other in a group, sometimes just two but in other cases a number more. Oft heard explanations for this are: A group of men who were killed at the same time and have been buried in a 'mini mass grave', another is that the men were a known group but because of the nature in which they died could not be individually identified and thus a mass burial undertaken but with individual headstones as they were all known to be. Though in some cases these groups were buried together but one or more headstone gives the names of two individuals on it within the close group, again this I have heard being explained as parts/individuals could not be separated for actual identification, this discounts part of theory of the whole group not being able to be individually identified.

There has to be an official logical explanation for these and other scenarios, but the logic may well only be known to those who were there at the time, can anyone throw any definitive explanation/light on such matters.

Have attached a couple of snaps showing the types of scenario I mean.

First a close group of headstones but with one that has two names. Others behind, not set within the 'normal' row layouts.

Second an ordered row but with one set further apart from others, all died on same day though.

Both shots taken at Essex Farm but its not uncommon to see similar elsewhere.

[jacksdad]

Hi Dsms

my understanding is much the same as you have stated, and therefore no real rule of thumb applies to any particular layout.

sometimes the burials were rushed affairs and over time grave markers got blown down or lost in shell fire etc - trying to make sense of all this 1 -2 - 5 years later would have been no easy task and every decision would have to be case by case.

After the war when the cemeteries were closed and the graves were moved they could be set out in ordered evenly spaced lines. however it can be prob imagined that this was also a massive task and full of problems.

problems would have been incurred locating the bodies in some cases under the supposed loation of the original marker or cross, imagine digging down under a cross and finding no body, or finding two when there should be only one, then finding one nearby that has no marker. you can prob imagine all sorts of situations that were difficult to work out.

If an cemetery was being added too it was easier and better to let the men currently buried there lay where they were suposed to be and let them RIP rather then dig them up and end up with even more problems to sort out.

The french did this and the massive and may i say impressive cemeteries have a very different feel to the CWGC because of this.

Cement house Cem is a case where 500 french graves were removed and then filled with transfered Commonwealth graves, so you can end up in that situation with staggered oddy spaced rows, then several rows of neat spacing and then further rows of the original staggered adhoc spacing. Another situation at Polygon wood seems to be a group of graves being destroyed by a shell and then the remains being reburied together in the one grave so now 4 or 5 men are now all with the same grave but separate headstones.

roger

[dsms]

Hi Roger

Totally agree with your synopsis, the conditions and scale of the operation at the time under which such matters occurred must have been so very fraught with problems, not only logistically but emotionally for those concerned as well, we can only wonder at the resolution of those who undertook the task.

Your examples of such difficult situations highlight very well just some of the difficulties, from personal experience I found Polygon Wood to be very moving in its layout and distribution.

When showing friends and relations images of various cemeteries the seemingly odd layouts in some cases do indeed bear stark contrast to those generally utilsed by the French, Belgian, German and Americans.

I recently had a comment from one such viewer who basically said they could not really understand the logic of 'ours' as the forces are normally so regimental in everything.

Was his comment that prompted the question as I could not provide a definitive answer for them only speculation on what I have heard, though unlike in many cases the speculation over this type of scenario does indeed make sense.

Expanding a bit further when explaining that in war grave cemeteries all are equal, without any favour to Rank,Title, Heroism etc he once again threw in a point I have never really considered. How indeed was it decided who should be placed where within the cemetery his view being that in relation to the central point of attention so to speak, ie the cross of sacrifice, these men would be more center of attention was difficult for him to understand that this was not actually the case at all. It was all effectivly random as to who went where given that no favoritism was permitted - born out in a number of cases where sons of the rich and famous, officers and gentlemen as well as VC winners appear at all sorts of spots within a cemetary and a lowly private can be right next to the cross.

But someone must have decided and planned a bit who goes where, is there a common criteria, cannot say I have ever noticed a common theme or layout when it comes to this point - dates, can appear illogical to layout etc. Possibly dictated by the cross being placed at a point that could support its weight, position in relation to geography, light direction or some other salient feature within existing grounds.

Can be difficult sometimes when such questions are asked and there is no 100% definitive guide that I have come across.As with so many aspects relating to the Great War things can throw up more questions than answers.

[KevinBattle]

Much information is also available in the Cemetery Information details at the bottom of each casualty entry.

That tells you about construction and layout, whether concentrated from other nearby sites etc etc...

It's been explained many times here (what a Search button does) that "touching" headstones is often where a row of soldiers were buried in a trench, generally hastily due to exposed position etc, so that they are tightly packed and the only sensible way is to have the headstones touching, overlapping or even double banked...

Other reasons are an original small cemetery being expanded as later fighting raged around, or other cemeteries being concentrated into the available space. As mentioned, other nationalities originally buried there were removed by their graves organisation in order that they may lie with their comrades... That leaves odd spaces and arrangements that the CWGC do their best to make sense of.

One thing you cannot fault the CWGC for is the immaculate care of the fallen once they reach a CWGC cemetery. As for what happens before they get there, is another topic.

[Peter and Ellen]

Hi dsms,

I posed these same questions to a senior executive of the CWGC and the reply came similar to this.

The Army created the Cemeteries and left no plans or details as to why this was done here and why that was done there. As a result, I was given the opinion that the CWGC is unable to explain it in an absolute manner.

The general beliefs are,

1/ that the random spacings and positionings were done before the Grave Recovery teams started their collections from the battlefields. They may be burials during the fighting or for remains brought in before the official process started, and hence, the Rows that we now commonly see.

2/ when you see a line of headstones touching, it was believed that the remains were brought in by the Grave Recovery teams and they were placed side by side in a trench-like grave, if you like, elbow to elbow. When the wooden croses were installed, they could place one cross high and the next cross low and as such could mark all of the grave positions without a problem, that is until the standardised memorial stone was brought in by Sir Fabian Ware, the first Director of the Imperial War Graves Commission. In some cemeteries, you can see a long row of headstones touching each other and then occassionally, you will see a gap of about 6 inches (150mm) or so, and then a headstone standing just behind the others. It was explained that this had to be done otherwise the headstones would have been stepped-out too far from the grave of the individuals buried below.

3/ the other unusual one is where you can see a General buried out to the side, and away from the others. That is because those conducting the burial were permitted to bury the higher ranking officers away from the others. I have only seen this once where a British General, I think a Lieutenant-General or a Major-General is buried over to one corner, in a cemetery up near Lille in France.

I am certain that other Members will be able to provide much more information regarding this subject, regards, Peter

[dsms]

I apologise to KevinW4 for seemingly wasting everyones time in asking what has obviously been discussed may times over in the past.

I was not trying to fault anything that the CWGC does. They and their staff do a fantastic job and their efforts are greatly appreciated.

I was simply trying to find information so that I did not give false info to any general enquirers made by friends and relatives. I will in future rely on the search rather than post.

[dsms]

Thank you Peter for your detailed response, It clarifies very well the probable scenarios that occurred.

It must have been very difficult times for all involved, with many difficult decisions to be made.

However the many cemeteries eventually evolved we can only be thankful that people undertook the tasks of constructing them and providing peaceful and respectful final resting places for men who at the time lived and gave their lives in such awful circumstances. We must also not forget of course the many today who spend time tending them so well.

Hi dsms,

I posed these same questions to a senior executive of the CWGC and the reply came similar to this.

The Army created the Cemeteries and left no plans or details as to why this was done here and why that was done there. As a result, I was given the opinion that the CWGC is unable to explain it in an absolute manner.

The general beliefs are,

1/ that the random spacings and positionings were done before the Grave Recovery teams started their collections from the battlefields. They may be burials during the fighting or for remains brought in before the official process started, and hence, the Rows that we now commonly see.

2/ when you see a line of headstones touching, it was believed that the remains were brought in by the Grave Recovery teams and they were placed side by side in a trench-like grave, if you like, elbow to elbow. When the wooden croses were installed, they could place one cross high and the next cross low and as such could mark all of the grave positions without a problem, that is until the standardised memorial stone was brought in by Sir Fabian Ware, the first Director of the Imperial War Graves Commission. In some cemeteries, you can see a long row of headstones touching each other and then occassionally, you will see a gap of about 6 inches (150mm) or so, and then a headstone standing just behind the others. It was explained that this had to be done otherwise the headstones would have been stepped-out too far from the grave of the individuals buried below.

3/ the other unusual one is where you can see a General buried out to the side, and away from the others. That is because those conducting the burial were permitted to bury the higher ranking officers away from the others. I have only seen this once where a British General, I think a Lieutenant-General or a Major-General is buried over to one corner, in a cemetery up near Lille in France.

I am certain that other Members will be able to provide much more information regarding this subject, regards, Peter

[Tony Ring]

Hi Dsms

You touched on a subject that has always interested me.

My Great Uncle is buried in the Wood Farm Cemetery at Epehy. His gave in plot 1, Row G, Grave 15 is one of 22 in the row with touching headstones. He was KIA on the 18th September 1918 along with at least 14 others in his row.

The occupant of Grave 1 was KIA on the 10th September and the occupant of Grave 8 was KIA on the 23rd September and this indicates that the "trench burial" would have taken place after the 23rd.

Epehy was captured on the 19th Sept and fighting moved North so the burials would have been "behind the line". by the 23rd

I can only presume that the Grave Registration units have picked up the bodies several days after the fighting and I guess a trench grave is more practicable than individual plots when you have a large number of bodies to bury.

Tony

[NigelS]

Trench and/or high density burials are not unique to battlefield cemeteries: the five (+ a half) headstones shown below, which cover eight burials, are of war graves at Brookwood Military Cemetery here in the UK. The deaths all occured within a three week time span (22nd July - 12th August '17), and may have been caused by the Spanish flu when, with many burials needed and many more expected (both civilian & military), a trench might have been by far the best expedient for grave diggers who would otherwise have been stretched had individual graves been required to be dug.

NigelS

[dycer]

Tony,

I would not bother too much.

My Uncle,who died of wounds,in Jsnuary 1915,rests beside a 1914 casualty,according to his CWGC Headstone.

George

[Tony Ring]

George

There is always the suspicion that the the headstone might not be an accurate representation of the who is in the grave in front of it. Wooden crosses stuck in the ground for a number of years prior to headstones being erected may have been inadvertently moved around.

Tony

[jacksdad]

Hi DSMS

Coming from New Zealand

I reckon the CWGC cemeteries represent who we are the best and at our best, i know that your not saying or infering otherwise, but those cemeteries feel right to us down here.

The American are very 'American' in style the German have a very different feel - war is never kind and less so to the vanquished, and so on for the French and Belgium and others.

But some how the CWGC have captured the Commonweath and those adhoc cemeteries with their crooked lines as well as the massed concentration plots represent who we were at our best, in particular the rule that all regardless of rank or position are treated the same sits very well with us Kiwis and Ozzys.

It means that for us downunder that we can travel to the other side of the world and find our great uncles and Grandfathers laying in a place the feels right, looks like it could be a cemetery up the road from home and somehow that is the most moving and untangable part of the experience -knowing that for most of us we will only get there once in our life, but leave feeling sad but content.

[Tony Ring]

Spot on !!!!

Tony

[(nzef)]

An excellent thread. I had the chance to talk to a member of CWGC 'recovery team' this Wednesday who gave the same information as already listed above.

On my travels I have seen some cemeteries where you get a real 'feel' of chaos of war. Here are a few photographs.

The first is in Heilly Station Cemetery - Virtually every headstone has dual regimental markers.

The burials in this cemetery were carried out under extreme pressure and many of the graves are either too close together to be marked individually, or they contain multiple burials. Some headstones carry as many as three sets of casualty details, and in these cases, regimental badges have had to be omitted - From the CWGC site

[(nzef)]

This photograph, of Doullens Communal Cemetery No.1 shows the 'stepped' layout of the headstones.

[(nzef)]

Finally a photograph of Etaples Cemetery. A very humbling place.

[seaforths]

Norman Colin's 'Last Man Standing', edited by Richard van Emden; writing of Seaforth men buried at Mailly Maillet Wood '...the close proximinity of their bodies during burial has ensured that the gravestones above ground are somewhat compacted.' In fact, some of them look to be overlapping slightly.

[Guest michael cushing]

On visiting various cemetaries the issue of headstone positioning becomes evident but not proven or defined . Eg a line of touching stones RAF with same date to me indicates a single identifiable crew . My grandfather Charles Cushing Leinster Reg from Birr Co. Offaly, Ireland , is at Ferme Buterne, Houplines France a small 129 graveyard (very close to the Xmas day truce 2014) was one of 3 KIA 3 may 15 ( reg diary ) yet his two mates are alongside with touching stones then normal spacing then Grandfather then another mates stone touching but he was KIA on 2nd May 15 inverse to date order then all back to date order with normal spacing . From the Xmas day truce there was it appears an unwillingness to continue 'fighting' and war diary highlights little action untill the gas arrived. On 3 May 15 diary quote quiet day Leutenant? hurt his toe , 3 men dead with no mention of the horses ! As the farm building ( Ferme Buterne) alongside was destroyed its not a suprise to imagine how these graveyards were created and modified by shelling . So in a nutshell I concour with other posts that one was Lucky to have a grave even if shared ! The massive memorials to the missing is still only partway to the reality of those times .