Graves Registration Report forms - silly question(s)

[Aurel Sercu]

Luc,

 

Thanks ! (And I am always more than thankful when the person I thank appears to confirm what I thought before ... :-) )

 

And I agree : Talana Farm Cemetery is not a concentration cemetery, and it may be better to limit the discussion to this (type of) cemetery. (But believe me, I am very interested in concentration cemeteries as well, more specifically the Burial Returns, of the concentration cemeteries in my Boezinge area, like Artillery Wood Cemetery (Boezinge), and Duhallow A.D.S. Cemetery (just north of Ypres).

 

Just one more "general question" related to GRRFs. Maybe I can find the answer on War Records Revealed. And I did spend some time there ... But am I too overwhelmed ? Too impatient ? Or just too clumsy ? I can't find the answer.... This is the question:

 

Look at the GRRF I started this topic with. Is there a way for me to find when this form (and the other almost 30 Talana Farm Cemetery GRRFs) were drawn up ? (I mean: the typewritten original versions.) I would be pleased if I knew the year. Was that before Armistice already ? Or 1919, or later ? On many of the forms (including the one this Topic starts with) there is a handwritten date in the bottom right corner. I think I read 10-9-23. But it seems to me this is the date that some handwritten corrections were made. What I am interested in (too) is : when were the typewritten originals drawn up ? Before 1923 ? Do you know  the answer ? I see your head is spinning when reading War Records Revealed, well, let me assure you: that makes two spinning heads in the Ypres sector... :-)

 

As to my very specific question I promised : soon more. But briefly : How am I to interpret the very first line, 1/E.Lancs.R  CAINE Pte, and most of all the later (1923 ?) correction into UNKNOWN BRITISH SOLDIER. Please do not answer right now. I will explain later.

 

Aurel

[Matlock1418]

For full clarification please - The GWF conclusion ...  on a GRRF:

E/Erected =??

and

GRU/GRU'D = ??

:-) M

Edited 20 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
clarification of question

[jay dubaya]

FWIW Matlock my interpretation and conclusion so far is -

 

E - Standardised cross erected by GRU (creosoted timber) and registered to a cemetery.

GRU’d - Any cross or marker - other than E above - that has been previously registered by a GRU and is now registered to a cemetery.

[Matlock1418]

3 minutes ago, jay dubaya said:

FWIW Matlock my interpretation and conclusion so far is -

 

E - Standardised cross erected by GRU (creosoted timber) and registered to a cemetery.

GRU’d - Any cross or marker - other than E above - that has been previously registered by a GRU and is now registered to a cemetery.

JD - Thanks for your quick reply

 

Yes, I generally agree and think that is what other pals have also concluded thanks to Aurel's "Stupid question" - not stupid and a good observation arising!

Not quite so sure about the exact wording of your GRU'd definition [as you may quite reasonably query my wording offered below] but certainly they seem there or thereabouts and for there to have been an existing marker already there - which got GRU'd and registered

 

Certainly seems to have turned on its head my previous interpretation of E and GRU'd  :-/  :-)

 

Thanks to Aurel's  photo:

Helpfully the photo has a number of identifiable individuals

Front row {row C]

Lewis - GRU

Frost - GRU

Baker - GRU

Their GRRF

Interesting to note

Timson - in the photo [righthand-most] - GRU but has a dark standardised cross - seems probably a later [re-]erection before the photo [GRRF seems to pre-date the photo]

 

Second row back {row D]

O'Brien - GRU

Two Standard crosses to the right of him [as viewed in photo] - E

Their GRRF

E and standardised dark crosses =

UBS

Jackson

 

It has made it all so much clearer seeing that photo!  :-)

 

The problem now is that the CWGC Glossary doesn't seem that clear or helpful as it perhaps could be

I just can't see why CWGC haven't acknowledged that the Erected Cross/grave was also registered [?? - at the same time???] or that there was an existing cross/marker

 

Perhaps CWGC would be better as:

      E. - Cross Erected, used to show that a grave had been {newly} marked {by a GRU - and also had been registered by a Graves Registration Unit}.
      G.R.U.'d - used to show that a {previously/still marked} grave had been registered by a Graves Registration Unit

 

[GRU'd - Can't get out of my head that advert where someone got T***o'd though ;-/}

 

Their other CWGC guidance isn't that overly clear or full in its description [imo]

 

I wonder where / what documents they got their info from ??

 

My earlier questions about process and concurrent or sequential activity still remain for someone/anyone to answer more fully.

 

Nevertheless thanks to Aurel for raising that 'stupid question' = you 'clever chap'!

:-) M

[Matlock1418]

 

On 18/09/2020 at 15:21, LDT006 said:

More information here:

https://warrecordsrevealed.com/communal-reports-preliminary-and-comprehensive/

 

Relevant extracts:

‘Cross Erected or Despatched’ had also now been replaced by ‘Cross Erected or G.R. U’d”, a late alteration of the form to recognise that many existing regimental and locally made made crosses/memorials were ‘G.R. u’d”  with a registration plate fixed to an existing regimental cross etc. by a Graves Registration Unit (G.R.U)) rather than being replaced by a standardised D.G.R. & E. designed cross.

and 

Grave Registration Units noted on the G.R.R.Fs. (Graves Registration Report Forms) whether new G.R.U. type crosses had been ‘erected’ or existing crosses ‘G.R. U’d”. A number of completed forms feature statements such as ‘All Crosses Erected or G.R. U’d”.

 

"Registration plate"

Registration plate presumably being the embossed aluminium tape at the top of the vertical of a  cross/marker - See front row attached to both original white and newer dark crosses

On 18/09/2020 at 12:25, Michelle Young said:

This is photo of the cross placed on the grave of Ernie Serls at Tyne Cot.

 

[Lower] Registration plate clearly seems to have a number- what is the top tape?

On 18/09/2020 at 23:57, jay dubaya said:

1 K 3 - a large grave of 22 soldiers, all 22 GRU crosses erected are the new standardised type, the individuals details came from one GRU registered cross , what existed prior to this cross or where the details came from I do not know - is it a new standard cross?

 

Anyone got any idea how the registration plate number worked - perhaps in conjunction with GRRF and Cemetery plans ??

:-) M

Edited 20 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
pruned some errant text

[Michelle Young]

The top tape is G ( obliterated but I assume R ) U, bottom tape is plot , row, grave number 

[Matlock1418]

6 hours ago, Michelle Young said:

The top tape is G ( obliterated but I assume R ) U, bottom tape is plot , row, grave number 

MY - Was checking with others - thanks for your quick reply.

Looking at Serls's cross - Yes, I agree the top does look like G_U - presumably GRU

I had presumed the lower 'number' would be a grave reference

However I originally thought I saw 41820 but on checking I now see 41B20 which. and looking at CWGC. would nicely match with his grave reference of XLI.B.20 [41.B.20]

I hadn't looked carefully enough before rushing off for a nice walk in the local sunshine. Shame we can't easily get out further afield to these days.

:-/ M

Edited 20 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
typo

[Aurel Sercu]

Matlock,

 

Just a detail from one of your recent postings today :

You wrote :

Interesting to note

Timson - in the photo [righthand-most] - GRU but has a dark standardised cross - seems probably a later [re-]erection before the photo [GRRF seems to pre-date the photo]

 

Yes, Timson ... And he is the exception I meant (the exception to the "rule" that I phrased in my own primitive way : "E = We, the GRU team, erected these simple dark standard crosses - GRU = We found these white crosses when we came here".   An exception because Timson has  a simple brown standardised creotinised marker in the photo, yet has GRU on the GRRF.

 

To be honest, in a different photo I have, of the row F in Plot II, there is one more exception. (Atchison, II. F. 18) And I have two cases where there is a white cross, but a brown one placed in front (against) it. But apart from these I have two dozen cases obeying the rule.

 

That other exception I have just mentioned, in Plot 2, is a photo of which I am not 100% sure  when it was taken, maybe May 1922. (The other two photos I have posted are March (maybe Febr.) 1921. (And they were taken at the time as a proof that the grave next to O'Brien, Unknown British Soldier, does have an identity : of Lt. Robert Druce Brandt. A proof in the family tradition however that never would or could be accepted by the CWGC. But that is another story ...)

 

Anyway, that is why I would be happy if I knew when the original typewritten GRRF I started this Topic with, was drawn up. According to the photos: before Febr.-March 1921. And yes, Matloch, you wrote that too (pre-dating the photo). But I would like this to be more precise ...)

 

Aurel

[LDT006]

21 hours ago, Aurel Sercu said:

Is there a way for me to find when this form (and the other almost 30 Talana Farm Cemetery GRRFs) were drawn up ? (I mean: the typewritten original versions.) I would be pleased if I knew the year. Was that before Armistice already ? Or 1919, or later ? On many of the forms (including the one this Topic starts with) there is a handwritten date in the bottom right corner. I think I read 10-9-23. But it seems to me this is the date that some handwritten corrections were made. What I am interested in (too) is : when were the typewritten originals drawn up ? Before 1923 ? Do you know  the answer ?

 

Aurel,

 

the lack of a date on the GRRF forms has been a problem for me too and am still puzzled why there isn't one on most of them, so I don't know the answer to your question.

Sometimes there is more information on the first or last page of the GRRF documents, can you have a look at these?

The dates for the handwritten corrections indicate that the original was made some time earlier but when? Have a look at all pages for the earliest date, the original is obviously before that date.

 

Shortly after the war units were dispatched to record the graves in the cemeteries and GRRF forms were made in early 1919 (working copies), these were then verified with the already existing records received from chaplains and burial officers during the war. Unidentified soldiers were exhumed for identification and more steps were taken to complete the records: correcting misspelled names, incorrect service number and/or battalion, etc.. The result of this was the final version of the GRRF "certified correct and complete".

Some of these final versions were only made in 1924 or even later.

 

I am quite sure that the GRRF for Talana Farm was made early 1920, it would be impossible to create such detailed documents before the armistice.

Edit: The above is probably wrong, rereading the War Records Revealed makes me believe that it was a work in progress and that the first pages could have been made in 1915 and more added later. These were sometimes retyped but still had the same report and schedule number. Will try to add some more info later today if time permits.

 

Luc.

 

PS: Duhallow A.D.S. Cemetery has several Unknown Aviators concentrated from my hometown and reports have been submitted to CWGC for identification but it needs many, many years for CWGC to have a look at these.

 

 

Edited 21 September , 2020 by LDT006

[Matlock1418]

Whilst not an answer to direct to the OP [now sorted] and not an answer to my earlier posed question(s) about the process / instructions for erection of a cross/marker and GRU actions on finding an existing cross/marker already erected [answer(s) still sought please] the following may also be of interest to those who follow this thread - Relates to reinterments and references use of various reports etc:

 

"Revised Instructions" - From I/CWGC Archives http://archive.cwgc.org/GetMultimedia.ashx?db=Catalog&type=default&fname=CWGC_1_1_5_27+(WG+1294+PT+2)+part+2.pdf  - is informative about exhumations and re-burials - for IWGC personnel it would appear [it refers to using IWGC instead of GRU on the tape on a standard GRU cross]. 

:-) M

Edited 21 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
Edit addition and then correct/remove edit

[dickaren]

30 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Whilst not an answer to direct to the OP [now sorted] and not an answer to my earlier posed question(s) about the process / instructions for erection of a cross/marker and GRU actions on finding an existing cross/marker already erected [answer(s) still sought please] the following may also be of interest to those who follow this thread - Relates to reinterments and references use of various reports etc:

 

"Revised Instructions" - From I/CWGC Archives http://archive.cwgc.org/GetMultimedia.ashx?db=Catalog&type=default&fname=CWGC_1_1_5_27+(WG+1294+PT+2)+part+2.pdf  - is informative about exhumations and re-burials - for IWGC personnel it would appear [it refers to using IWGC instead of GRU on the tape on a standard GRU cross].

:-) M

Very interesting reading. Thanks for posting.

Richard

[Matlock1418]

Again from the CWGC Archives - Of likely additional interest regarding exhumations and concentrations - at present sadly not digitised so will require a visit to Maidenhead I guess - if only it could be made available digitally!

http://archive.cwgc.org/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=CWGC%2f1%2f1%2f7%2fB%2f48&pos=1

Unique ID: CWGC/1/1/7/B/48
File Number: DGRE 46
Title: Exhumations - Report Of Committee Of Enquiry
Description: Main topics: investigation into exhumations at Hooge Crater Cemetery; concentration of scattered graves into Hooge Crater by army labour company; and resulting mistakes in the marking of graves revealed by subsequent exhumations.
Content Note: Includes: Photocopies of the proceedings of the committee of enquiry; 13 Jan.- 4 Feb. 1921. Photocopies of standard documents relating to registration of graves and to reburials. Photocopies of army instructions re concentration of isolated graves; 1919.
Date: 1/1/1919 - 31/3/1921

Believed [I've yet not seen it] to contain procedures used by the Labour Corps Exhumation Squads and Cemetery Parties - believed based on instructions written by Captain Crawford, OC of 68 Company in July 1919 - at least that is what Starling & Lee write in Appendix VI, p.368-371 in their book "No Labour, No Battle" about the Labour Corps.

[Edit: The title of Crawford's instruction appears to have been "For the guidance of exhumation companies in the future" - Thanks to 'LDT006' for pointing me the thread/link in the following post, and the discussion posts therein - as he also indicated further below page 6 / post 5 from that thread is particularly interesting - thanks to 'themonsstar' for his post]

:-) M

Edited 21 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
Edit/addition

[LDT006]

Matlock,

 

parts of that file have been published here before, see this post:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/174749-war-cemeteries-a-sham/?do=findComment&comment=1702395

 

The exhumation reports for these graves are at the CWGC archive, I can provide links if interested.

 

Luc.

 

Edit: links to documents in the CGWC cloud archive don't work for the moment, this should be one of reports that worked in the old format:

http://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc1818566.JPG

The current archive requires a https://..... but this creates a download in stead of displaying the document:

https://archive.cloud.cwgc.org/archive/doc/doc1818566.JPG

@Matlock1418I will PM or email the files to you as to not clutter Aurel's topic to much.

 

Edited 21 September , 2020 by LDT006

[Matlock1418]

2 minutes ago, LDT006 said:

Matlock,

 

parts of that file have been published here before, see this post:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/174749-war-cemeteries-a-sham/?do=findComment&comment=1702395

 

The exhumation reports for these graves are at the CWGC archive, I can provide links if interested.

Thanks for the lead - quite a long thread - will take a while to read & digest.

Yes please.

:-M M

[LDT006]

I was linking to a specific post in that thread but seems that it doesn't work, also the posts have no number anymore ....

It's on page 5, 6th post.

 

[Matlock1418]

14 minutes ago, LDT006 said:

I was linking to a specific post in that thread but seems that it doesn't work, also the posts have no number anymore ....

It's on page 5, 6th post.

OK - thanks for pointing and trying - shame about the post number having recently gone 'walkabout' with the GWF new look site - hey ho!

So thanks for the page references etc. - actually I had just found that and was moving on a bit! - still reading all.  :-) 

Have already noted that Aurel had some say in the aforementioned thread !! - not wanting to stir that up any further, unless he really wants to give us more local comment.

:-) M

Edited 21 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
addit

[Matlock1418]

http://archive.cwgc.org/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Catalog&id=CWGC%2f1%2f1%2f7%2fB%2f48&pos=1 

Title: Exhumations - Report Of Committee Of Enquiry
Description: Main topics: investigation into exhumations at Hooge Crater Cemetery; concentration of scattered graves into Hooge Crater by army labour company; and resulting mistakes in the marking of graves revealed by subsequent exhumations. .... .... ....

3 hours ago, LDT006 said:

parts of that file have been published here before, see this post:

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/174749-war-cemeteries-a-sham/?do=findComment&comment=1702395

 

Regarding my enquiries above re: The burial/reburial and registration proces(es) - Concurrent and sequential operations

From this other thread and post p5/6 by 'the monsstar' the following is an interesting transcription from the report which suggest certainly a degree of sequential operations at times - certainly reflecting the period from January 1919 by 68th Labour Company [at Hooge Crater Cemetery]

 

"It was the duty also of the Cemetery Officer to fix a peg in the ground, at the time of reburial, at the surface of each grave, the peg bearing a ticket with particulars corresponding to those given in the return.

The responsibility of the 68th Labour Company for the correctness of the reburial ended with the fixing of the peg and the rendering of the return. It was no part of their duty to erect or see to the erection of a temporary wooded cross over the grave. That was done subsequently by a Unit of Graves Registration."

 

Really would be good to see more of that file.

More info on the process(es) is still welcomed

:-)  M

Edited 21 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
clarification of the document referred to in both threads

[LDT006]

I had a look at all the GRRF pages for Talana and there are some issues:

 

The first page has a note:

"This report No.4 Schedules 1c - 26c cancels report No.4 Schedules 1 - 34 & 1A."

This indicates that there was an earlier version of the GRRF forms for Talana.

 

The above indicates that there were 26 pages originally, page 27c has been added later but is not in the CWGC cloud.

Aurel: do you know if graves 2.C.11 and 2.C.12 are for unknowns? There is also something strange on the cemetery plan, a space on each side of these 2 graves?

 

 

Page 28c was also added later containing the special memorials and this one has a typewritten date of 24.9.23.

 

Page 5c (doc2154896) was cancelled and replaced by 2 new pages: 4C and 5C (doc2154895) but now there are 2 pages marked 4C (doc2154893 and doc2154894). This is an error and should not have happened?

I have also read some older topics for Talana farm and there were several French soldiers and also 2 American soldiers buried there, all these were removed after the war. The Americans are not mentioned on these GRRF forms but the French are still on these forms.

So logic would tell us that these GRRF's were typewritten between the removal of the US soldiers on 12 June 1918 and the removal of the French, is this date known?

Much more information might be obtained from the first set of GRRF forms but only CWGC can tell if these exist, there are also records at Brussels for Talana Farm but I don't have a clue what information they contain.

 

Luc.

 

[Matlock1418]

3 hours ago, LDT006 said:

Aurel: do you know if graves 2.C.11 and 2.C.12 are for unknowns? There is also something strange on the cemetery plan, a space on each side of these 2 graves?

 

TALANA FAEM CEMETERY - On CWGC now there is BURRIDGE 9846 2.C.0010 [formerly 2.D.10] and WHITE 15856 2.C.0013 [formerly 2.D.11] - see GRRF below

The following GRRF has been much amended but there is an interesting note right at the bottom regarding a space between 10 & 11 No sign of a grave but  a Regimental Cross erected to PRESCOTT 16489 and a Memorial Cross was made of this [PRESCOTT is now on the Menin Gate Memorial]

https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/100071/#&gid=1&pid=1   Image from CWGC

:-) M

Edited 22 September , 2020 by Matlock1418
added link to GRRF

[Aurel Sercu]

Matlock and Luc,

Thanks !

 

But let me start with an "urgent" question. I thought I had all the GRRForms of Talana Farm Cemetery. They include the one that Matlock posted in the preceding posting. With a yellow post-it note in the top left corner. But you posted an extract from the same sheet (I can read ... RIDGE and TE of Burridge and  White.) The note says "See Schedule 27 c etc." I don't have that one ! (I even wrote on my doc.2154900 :" Does doc.215499 exist" ? I've just been to CWGC and I still cannot find it ... Yet yesterday you wrote : "I had a look at all the GRRF pages for Talana." Help me please.

 

And true, Schedule 27 c in not in the CWGC cloud. :-(

 

Luc, you also wrote : "now there are 2 pages marked 4C (doc2154893 and doc2154894). This is an error and should not have happened?" Eh ... I can't find my doc2154894 either !  :-(

 

Luc, you also wondered if it is known when the French soldiers (about 30 Zouaves who were in the original rows A and B of Plot II) were moved to Notre Dame de Lorette (near Arras). I spent months on these graves that started Talana Farm Cemetery in April-June 1915), even on most of these men individually (resulting into an article of over 70 page)s. But never did I find an answer to the question when they were removed. For some reason I assumed : early 1920s, and even wrote "in 1923". But I can't remember if this was based on a tangible document. For some of these men it was mentioned on their "fiche" of Mémoire des Hommes that they were moved to Notre Dame de Lorette, but ... no date ... :-(

 

Matlock,

 

After paying a lot of attention to the identified graves in Talana Farm Cemetery (for many years, resulting in many articles), I turned my attention the Unknowns. Even more obesessively ! There are 14. And believe me, this resulted into a lot of ... frustration. (Especially because in most of my pieces of research this led to two or three 'candidates' qualifying for one grave ...)

And some Unknown headstones were a real mystery. Like the two ones in Plot II. Row C. graves 11 and 12 !

- Because of the lay-out in this row (a space between 10 (Burridge) and 11 (White)

- But maybe even more because these two are not mentioned on the GRRForm !

And what's more : I can't see these spaces on WW1 aerial photos ...

I'll post a photo or two of the two Unknown Graves. This one is a drone photo (taken by Adrian Wilkinson, 2017). Don't pay attention to the headstone I encircled. (That's another Unknown, RGA.) It's the two headstones standing isolated, two rows in front of it, in row C of Plot II.

 

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

And one more photo of the two Unknowns with a large space on both sides, in Plot II Row C, and who are not mentioned in GRRForm doc2154900 - Schedule N° 8.C

Aurel

[Matlock1418]

50 minutes ago, Aurel Sercu said:

And one more photo of the two Unknowns with a large space on both sides, in Plot II Row C, and who are not mentioned in GRRForm doc2154900 - Schedule N° 8.C

Aurel

Aurel [and Luc]

As very much a Johnny-come-lately I am going to throw one more cat amongst the pigeons and then quietly back off on the specifics at Talana Farm

Those gaps either side off 11 & 12 [which I presume are the two seemingly headstoned as Unknowns - UBS? in the centre of shot] look like they could possibly take more than one headstone each- perhaps two and three respectively ???

Now off I go ... [Will be watching with interest though]

;-/ M

[LDT006]

1 hour ago, Aurel Sercu said:

But let me start with an "urgent" question. I thought I had all the GRRForms of Talana Farm Cemetery.

 

Aurel,

 

I have just emailed you all the documents that I have found in the CWGC cloud archive.

You should be able to find all these on the CWGC website by looking at the names mentioned on these forms.

Don't have much time now, maybe later tonight.

 

Luc.

[Aurel Sercu]

33 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Aurel [and Luc]

As very much a Johnny-come-lately I am going to throw one more cat amongst the pigeons and then quietly back off on the specifics at Talana Farm

Those gaps either side off 11 & 12 [which I presume are the two seemingly headstoned as Unknowns - UBS? in the centre of shot] look like they could possibly take more than one headstone each- perhaps two and three respectively ???

Now off I go ... [Will be watching with interest though]

;-/ M

 

Matlock, two and three ? Certainly ! 

I have to say that a photo with a (simple) more or less wide angle (28 mm) camera (like mine) can be misleading, making the gaps look larger than they are in reality. But this photo here is more frontal, and can give a better idea of the distance. (Second row, not the graves in the foreground.)

 

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

Well, my silly question of a while ago has received more replies than I had hoped. And most of all : it looks like there is a (non-silly) solution now.

I promised more or less that I had a secondary problem, But as it is not directly related to the Erected vs. GRU issue, I decided to start a new Topic.

And this continuation can be found here :

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/285212-how-to-interpret-this-correction-into-unknown-british-soldier/?tab=comments#comment-2936998

 

Basic question : how was it decided that a man who originally was mentioned as East Lancashire Regiment, in fact (apparently) was not East Lancashire Regiment, but lost his Regimental ID ?... Was he exhumed ?

 

Aurel