Lance Corporal Arthur George Butcher of the 13th Battalion, Rifle Brigade

[stiletto_33853]

Hi Ian,

 

Yes re. the 34th Div report. Unfortunately the 34th Div does not make a lot of this action as the 111th & 112th Brigade were on loan from the 37th Div. Very little in the 34th Division History so had to go up the III Corps for the map. There are a few other maps there but they mainly relate to 1/7/16 Artillery support.

I had a good walk over the area sometime ago using lInesman.

 

Andy 

Edited 9 April , 2021 by stiletto_33853

[IanButcher]

On 07/04/2021 at 17:20, Matlock1418 said:

It was throughout a formal process to get identification off fallen soldiers and became an increasingly very standardised process by the end of the war/after.

It was not without reason that soldiers were all expected to keep their pay book in the same top pocket of their uniform jacket - to aid quick retrieval - and their personal diaries, letter and photos etc. seemingly commonly kept in the other.

Firstly to collect army documents such as paybooks - initially for identification purposes - but also personal details & effects such as rings to perhaps send back to NoK.

Don't forget a soldier's paybook also commonly contained his Will.

Not all such returns seem to have been welcomed as they could have blood and other remnants of the demise of the soldier of the soldier on them - Many books and cigarette cases with bullet holes in them etc.

In fact the early war process of removing all identification, including the single dog-tag provided [and just marking of a grave] made later identification of bodies found without grave markers all the more difficult and impossible in many cases - hence so many "Unknown" / "Known unto God" on headstones/memorials

Later two dog-tags were issued and one was intended to remain with the body to help reduce the lack of identification.

It didn't help that, as the military hadn't expected such a long and static war with delayed recoveries of bodies [expecting quick recovery of bodies from a fluid battlefield] so the dog-tags were made of pressed fibre and were not durable - so many left with a body didn't do the job intended when the body was much later recovered, or perhaps 'concentrated', to an I/WGGC cemetery.

Later as soldiers had become increasingly wary of becoming an 'unknown' many soldiers purchased or made their own private identification too - my GF, who I am pleased to say survived, made a supplementary 'homemade' metal bracelet with his name, rank and regiment details on it [and I have and treasure it now].

:-) M

 

Edit:

Without seeing his SR - The suggestion that a pocket book and correspondence might have been recovered and recorded as returned to NoK might perhaps suggest that his body had been found, and that it was perhaps not destroyed by a shell, but I would also suspect that such larger personal effects would have been kept with his large pack [part of his 'marching order' which would have been left behind and thus be easy to recover and return] as the attack would have been made with the lighter personal scale of webbing [in 'fighting order' only] - perhaps should not give cause for increased or excessive hope.

 

Matlock, 

 

I've been reviewing the docs over the weekend and a question(s) comes to mind, which I'm not sure if you may know? Despite my great uncle being recorded as 'missing', if (and a big if) his body had been 'found' what would have been the likely protocol to deal with this? Would his body have been buried where found or placed in a mass grave? Presumably record keeping was limited, particularly on days with mass casualties such as 10th July 2016? Could it have been moved after the war? 

 

Thanks,

 

Ian

 

 

[kenf48]

1 hour ago, IanButcher said:

Despite my great uncle being recorded as 'missing', if (and a big if) his body had been 'found' what would have been the likely protocol to deal with this? Would his body have been buried where found or placed in a mass grave? Presumably record keeping was limited, particularly on days with mass casualties such as 10th July 2016? Could it have been moved after the war? 

Working parties were organised and generally speaking trenches dug and bodies placed in mass graves, the working parties may have been British, or if the ground was accupied by the Germans then they would bury the dead.  A detailed account of German burial practice was established in the excavations at Fromelles

https://www.world-archaeology.com/features/fromelles/

I attended a lecture outlining the discovery, excavation and recovery  of the bodies at Fromelles and it was observed the Germans 'helpfully' removed identity discs and forwarded them to the Red Cross.  No doubt the problem at Fromelles were equally as bad if not worse for those recovering the bodies immediately after the war.  There was probably no expectation in 1916 they would be relocated.

 

Individual bodies tended to be buried immediately behind the lines, and of course a number were buried where they fell or at nearby CCS, generally speaking these burial sites form the foundation of the CWGC Cemeteries close to the old front line.

 

I note soldier's effects show he was 'killed in action' and the date.  I'm not sure why he is regarded as 'missing' the recovery of the pocket book suggests he was buried by the British, his grave marked but later lost in the subsequent fighting as noted in the original post the soldier who was 'brought in' was identified by the name on the  groundsheet he was wrapped in originally - was it even his groundsheet?

 

Thiepval is dedicated to the Missing of the Somme it lists those soldiers who have no known grave, he and his comrades may lie beneath an 'Known unto God' headstone.  The fact so many are listed at Thiepval does suggest a mass grave, which perhaps like Fromelles has yet to be discovered.

 

PS Sorry about the map query only just seen it but seems to have been sorted for you now as an aside if you put a quote in from the respondent's post rather than yours than the respondent will get a notification hth

[IanButcher]

3 hours ago, kenf48 said:

Working parties were organised and generally speaking trenches dug and bodies placed in mass graves, the working parties may have been British, or if the ground was accupied by the Germans then they would bury the dead.  A detailed account of German burial practice was established in the excavations at Fromelles

https://www.world-archaeology.com/features/fromelles/

I attended a lecture outlining the discovery, excavation and recovery  of the bodies at Fromelles and it was observed the Germans 'helpfully' removed identity discs and forwarded them to the Red Cross.  No doubt the problem at Fromelles were equally as bad if not worse for those recovering the bodies immediately after the war.  There was probably no expectation in 1916 they would be relocated.

 

Individual bodies tended to be buried immediately behind the lines, and of course a number were buried where they fell or at nearby CCS, generally speaking these burial sites form the foundation of the CWGC Cemeteries close to the old front line.

 

I note soldier's effects show he was 'killed in action' and the date.  I'm not sure why he is regarded as 'missing' the recovery of the pocket book suggests he was buried by the British, his grave marked but later lost in the subsequent fighting as noted in the original post the soldier who was 'brought in' was identified by the name on the  groundsheet he was wrapped in originally - was it even his groundsheet?

 

Thiepval is dedicated to the Missing of the Somme it lists those soldiers who have no known grave, he and his comrades may lie beneath an 'Known unto God' headstone.  The fact so many are listed at Thiepval does suggest a mass grave, which perhaps like Fromelles has yet to be discovered.

 

PS Sorry about the map query only just seen it but seems to have been sorted for you now as an aside if you put a quote in from the respondent's post rather than yours than the respondent will get a notification hth

 

Kenf48, 

 

Thanks again for the detailed response. I will read the article with much interest.

 

If (again another big if), my great uncle had been identified and buried by the British, why wouldn't they have recorded where he was laid to rest? Was that not a standard procedure in all cases? Would the British not have marked a mass grave of their own? The can see how the German side may not have done so (not having read the article). Do you know what issues/circumstances may have been encountered where graves were not marked on the British side? Was it simply down to time and effort? 

 

Thanks,

 

Ian

[ss002d6252]

6 minutes ago, IanButcher said:

 

If (again another big if), my great uncle had been identified and buried by the British, why wouldn't they have recorded where he was laid to rest? Was that not a standard procedure in all cases? Would the British not have marked a mass grave of their own? The can see how the German side may not have done so (not having read the article). Do you know what issues/circumstances may have been encountered where graves were not marked on the British side? Was it simply down to time and effort? 

Burial locations get originally recorded and then an artillery barrage comes along later and destroys the area. There are then no identifiable remains when the battlefields are later being searched and so nothing can be linked back to a person. At best you then get an 'unknown' burial, at worst there's nothing at all to be re-buried.

Craig

[IanButcher]

6 minutes ago, ss002d6252 said:

Burial locations get originally recorded and then an artillery barrage comes along later and destroys the area. There are then no identifiable remains when the battlefields are later being searched and so nothing can be linked back to a person. At best you then get an 'unknown' burial, at worst there's nothing at all to be re-buried.

Craig

 

Craig, 

 

Thanks. It's just another depressing matter of fact thing you learn about war! 

 

Apologies if I'm labouring the point, but would it not have been the case that the names of the men buried in mass graves would have been recorded where they could be identified? So, while the grave may have been subsequently destroyed, it could be said that x/y soldier was buried in this general location? 

[ss002d6252]

1 minute ago, IanButcher said:

 

Apologies if I'm labouring the point, but would it not have been the case that the names of the men buried in mass graves would have been recorded where they could be identified? So, while the grave may have been subsequently destroyed, it could be said that x/y soldier was buried in this general location? 

Possibly the original records could have identified the location but even then some of them are quite vague.

Craig

[kenf48]

4 hours ago, IanButcher said:

Would the British not have marked a mass grave of their own?

 

I think Craig has answered the question as to how graves on the battlefield would have been fought over, churned up and destroyed. 

 

Behind the lines it was much easier  my great uncle was killed in an air raid at the Base at Etaples, when you visit the cemetery all the casualties from that raid were buried together and after the conflict the original cross replaced with a CWGC headstone.  The Somme battlefields were contested one way or another until the Armistice.

 

The account posted above by Andy describes how the Battalion buried the men from Northumberland in a large shell crater when they took over the trenches.  This was vey common they only had to fill it in rather than dig it out.  There are descriptions of Ovilliers after the fighting there, the village or what was left was finally taken on the 17th July.  One account notes on the 21st July the ground was 'littered with dead bodies', and on the 13th August an officer reported, 'I've just taken over some trenches, such as they are, full of equipment filth and bodies and am being heavily shelled."

 

In November 1982 a grave containing the remains of fifty one men, including two Germans was found twenty yards from the cemetery.  There are probaly still graves to be found.

 

Ivor Gurney passed through the village in November and wrote of it,

"As I went up by Ovillers

In mud and water cold to the knee

There went three jeering, fleering spectres,

They walked abreast and talked of me

 

Ballad of Three Spectres

Ivor Gurney (who spent the last years of his life institutionalised his depression no doubt occasioned by what he saw there and elsewhere on the Western Front).

 

It must have been an awful place and not surprising bodies were lost and unidentified there.

[Matlock1418]

 

On 13/04/2021 at 20:29, IanButcher said:

Despite my great uncle being recorded as 'missing', if (and a big if) his body had been 'found' what would have been the likely protocol to deal with this? Would his body have been buried where found or placed in a mass grave? Presumably record keeping was limited, particularly on days with mass casualties such as 10th July 2016? Could it have been moved after the war? 

 

On 14/04/2021 at 01:43, IanButcher said:

Apologies if I'm labouring the point, but would it not have been the case that the names of the men buried in mass graves would have been recorded where they could be identified? So, while the grave may have been subsequently destroyed, it could be said that x/y soldier was buried in this general location? 

 

Burial process varied quite a lot according to date and circumstances of burial and recovery during the war, battle activity, casualty treatment etc. and after - Assuming a body could physically be recovered in the first place and/or later.

 

By 1916 the burial process had become pretty well established and casualty returns were expected to be in detail and accurate - but that was still a big challenge in the field, especially on 'busy' days.

 

Image courtesy of the National Archives

You may recognise many of the details from above also in the account below - there certainly was a process by 1916.

 

Remember many other burials were not intentional beyond that of the gunner who fired the shell or the miner who fired the mine that buried the bodies as a result. 

 

There are many threads on GWF regarding the handling of casualties and intentional burials etc.  A GWF search will pick up many of these.

 

However as a very quick resume of key points I will post this.  Hopefully accurate enough, though additions and/or corrections from others have to be/are to be welcomed here

 

Early in the war things were less formalised but casualties were still expected to be recorded [for normal military purposes] and burials & returns were made and later in the war to became very detailed and standardised - I don't have the exact details for the earliest periods.

 

In the first instance/early in the war it would be common to mark a fallen soldier by his rifle with bayonet stuck in the ground of the battlefield. He may or may not have been searched very thoroughly.  Potentially just quickly buried in little more than a shell scrape [small & shallow] by his mates or unit that followed and often rather crudely. Often as a means of sanitation and for morale.  In some cases these ad-hoc unsearched burials might actually aid later identification as identifiable material might remain - but that is moving on.

 

You hopefully recall from my earlier post in this thread that identification material, papers and effects, was usually removed from a body before burial - the marker being expected to do all the necessary ID. Only later was the second dog-tag to remain with the body [but still a later problem as degradable fibre that failed over the following years/decades] and sometimes perhaps another personal ID tag would stay behind.  Engraved rings and watches, flasks and the like which could have been useful at a later date were taken, assuming they hadn't previously been stolen.

 

Later burial in a better local grave might occur - sometimes an old military trench or in a deliberate one for the purpose - probably better searched for ID [but removed all the same] and a grave marker, typically a crude wooden cross or the like, would be erected with a few details marked in pencil - name, rank, number and unit.  Small cemeteries could be formed this way.  Don't just think mass graves with bodies just thrown into them - if possible they were reverently laid side by side [circumstances, like enemy shelling, might make that fraught] but there were also plenty of single and small number groupings scattered around in many places.

 

The problem with early burials was that they were not always very accurately reported, marked or location given.  Sometimes the landmarks used to locate a grave(s) ceased to exist as the human and physical landscape was changed for ever by war - by shellfire and mines etc.

 

Sometimes too when a man or several men fell/were buried in a particular area then a Memorial marker would be put up in the area - though not strictly a grave, or mass grave, such memorial markers did later prove a problem as they sometimes were taken too literally and when later exhumation work was attempted no body(ies) was to be found,

 

Though such front line burials were probably unlikely to have been officiated by a Chaplain one of a Chaplain's noted duties was to make sure that casualty burial returns were made and that an adequate marker was in place on a grave.  If in an exposed situation and a cross was not possible, or even a potential target/problem, details were expected to be put down on paper in pencil [not ink so as not to run] and be placed in an upturned/neck down empty bottle on the grave.  Some of these early graves had quite detailed and intricate forms of cross and details reflecting both the time, inclination and ability to carry out such work in the absence of the enemy.

 

For casualties who made it down the medical treatment chain small cemeteries [e.g. next to a Field Ambulances and Casualty Clearing Stations] and then increasingly [e.g. next to a Hospital] larger cemeteries commonly grew up.  Chaplains were more to the fore here officiating over the burial, but still with their duty to ensure the marking of the grave was adequate [cross or bottle etc.] and for its accurate reporting back into the system.  The further back from the front line the bigger and more formal these cemeteries and likely better initial recording etc..  As casualties were moved back there increasingly became a process of having a small bag for the personal effects of a wounded man and eventually, if they died, these effects often found their way home to NoK.

 

Units known as Grave Registration Units {GRU] were formed to help with the standardisation of burials and to ensure marking by using more durable metal stamped tapes to mark on both original and later erected standardised wooden crosses.  Various types of labour source were used to dig the actual graves.

 

The story of the growth of I/CWGC and work of Sir Fabian Ware etc. is well recounted in David Crane's 'Empires of the Dead'

 

As has been mentioned several times above, graves near to the front line, or in areas where the frontline/zone was fought over repeatedly in a to and fro manner graves were very were prone to destruction by shellfire and/or mines, in come case it seems new trenches were even dug though them on occasions - markers and previously buried bodies/body parts getting well scattered.  Complicating matters was the fact that markers could be displaced and then re-erected - but now in the wrong place over a body with little or no other identification - you can see a likely problems developing with these various scenarios

 

At the end of the war there were hundreds of scattered places of burial from single graves and small groups to very large cemeteries - it was all rather too much to keep maintained adequately.  The French nation bequeathed the land for military cemeteries but they wanted much back so they could continue their lives.  So consolidation/rationalisation or 'concentration' took place.

 

After the war the recovery of bodies from the battlefield unmarked and previously inaccessible resting places and graves, marked or unmarked, was undertaken by GRU parties and recovered bodies were concentrated into existing small cemeteries making them large, or into large ones making them larger still, or even into brand new and often very large cemeteries.  Burials being formally marked as above - some religious marking and grouping was generally more possible at this stage.

 

Identification of bodies and accurate marking of graves was a considerable problem - often not possible so now so many 'missing' and UBS.

 

A good article is reproduced on the LLT on this later process.  https://www.longlongtrail.co.uk/burial-clearance-and-burial - not an especially nice, but very necessary, process

 

Also in Starling & Lee's excellent history of the Labour Corps 'No Labour - No Battle' Appendix 6 describes later recovery process of exhumation and burial.

 

Burials had become very organised and there were detailed instructions on size length/width/depth of individual graves and further instruction on spacing and layout, including paths etc. and cemetery plans.  Location of cemeteries, gathering and recording and presentation of data. And how to deal with enquiries from anxious NoK etc. 

 

Any later still recoveries were/still are concentrated into a reducingly smaller number of larger cemeteries that were/are kept open for such burials - these were sometimes 10s of miles away from where a body was originally buried/found.

 

Only at this later time did the IWGC also start erecting permanent headstones and memorials to the 'missing' i.e. the non recovered but also the unnamed who has a "Unknown British Soldier - Known Unto God" headstone in Portland stone [other variations of words etc. reflect differing nationalities] but rarely a religious symbol as found on some named headstones. Plus Crosses of Sacrifice and Stones of Remembrance.   And all the other great commemoration work CWGC now continues.

 

One of the ironies about later concentrations is that the original battlefield finds and burial locations are usually well marked by a detailed map grid reference on Concentration of Graves Burial Return documents [that still remain and are accessible at CWGC].  These original sites might actually be the place of death of some/many of the men battlefield or medical aid post - something that earlier burials often cannot identify - though hard to be certain now, and especially for an unidentified/unidentifiable man.

 

For those who could never be found, then or now, or who remain missing or who now lie in a grave marked UBS the I/CWGC memorials were created - these tend to cover the geographical areas near to them thus Menin Gate for Ypres, Thiepval for the Somme, Ploegsteert for Armentieres, Tyne Cot and all the others for their various battle regions.

 

The CWGC Archives  http://archive.cwgc.org contain much original material on the subject of burial and commemoration as it continues its other important work.

 

Identifying UBS below such headstones was, and remains, one of the most challenging of tasks since, even if you think you are close, the CWGC will not allow exhumation or such techniques to identify remains below such headstones.  So don't even think that DNA is possible - except for completely newly discovered bodies, and only then perhaps!

 

One must not forget enemy forces - they too had their processes but it has to be recognised that each side did things differently [which I haven't touched upon]. And quite probably not quite so well for the the other side compared to their own - That's a pretty normal challenge/situation in war.  Despite post-war cooperation many difficulties have remained in getting to the bottom of identities of burials done by the other side - again a pretty normal situation.

 

That's the way it was/is.  It doesn't stop people from still trying to find some of the 'missing' or name a UBS.

 

I hope that has answered some of your questions but please consider the other options that I and others have earlier described here.

 

Assuming that men and their bodies did not get destroyed very early on in battle - Many bodies and their original places of burial did get lost over time, physically and/or the records were lost too.  A 'Missing' inscription and 'UBS' headstone may be for the same man but who can now tell and replace the details?

Not withstanding, some of their personal effects might have actually returned home one way or another - officially, or perhaps unofficially.

:-) M