a soldier who used to have a grave

[ianw]

Sabine - I am sure we would all like to see some of your cards. I particularly like the early ones with the original markers and also those which show the surroundings that the cemeteries are in.

[Aurel Sercu]

Sabine - here's a new line for you to attract those guys -

"Want to come up and see my cemetery photos ?" This has to work every time!

Ian,

I think that not only a blonde lady can attract guys with "Want to come up and see my cemetery photo(s)".

Even a non blonde retired teacher almost twice the age of Sabine (actually she's a bit older than half my age I think, but it would be inappropriate to ask Sabine to confirm ?) can attract guys ! Let's find out how many replies this postcard will attract !

Sent to me this morning by Philip (postcard collector, living in Hollebeke).

Actually he sent two. The first one I opened was a "disappointment" : for it was not Potijze Chateau Grounds, but Potijze Burial Ground... (Don't expect everybody in the area to know the difference between the 4 Potijze cemeteries !)

But the second card I click on, made up for that ! And I really wish we had had that one sooner. For I think if we had had it, then this Thread would have been a lot shorter. (Or on second thoughts, maybe that's the reason that we'd better be glad we did not have it so soon !

Anyway, here we go.

A. When does Philip's card date from ?

I have already had a close look (for almost half an hour, thinking : How would they feel knowing I am examining something they all are dying to see ... ;-)

I am (almost, actually very) sure Philip's postcard is older than Sabine and Alan's.

I think we had already agreed that Sabine's must have been taken in 1919, or beginning 1920, and Alan's some time (a year or so ?) later.

Philip's must be older.

Plot 2 (post Armistice) is already there (of course, otherwise the postcard would have been useless for us), And so it must date from between the very end of 1918 and some time in 1919. But before Sabine's.

My opinion is based on :

a. The tall thick tree trunk near the right side of both Sabine's and Philip's postcard : the lower part has more twigs, so Philip's postcard certainly is older than Alan's.

b. Look at that forked tree in Sabine's postcard, near the word "Cimetière" (near that leaning broken tree). On Philip's card the right part is higher. So his card must be older than Sabine's. Apart from that I see some other tree trunks where twigs have broken off.

c. Philip's card has no fence. So it must be older than Sabine's and Alan's (remember that line on Sabine's card, looking like a 'garden hose', but in fact, as someone pointed out, a wire, slightly out of focus)

(Half an hour ago I asked Philip to have a look at the backside of his postcard. Who knows, I thought, there may be a date... While typing this Philip has just replied : no date. And added : the postcard is from a booklet of 10 large size postcards.)

B. Other elements that are worth looking at on Philip's postcard

a. Close to and behind the sign "Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery" there is a white stick. It may have a sign with something on it. But infortunately invisible (hidden)

b. Very important : the earth in front of rows A - B etc. is disturbed. It looks as if it was dug (to remove the weeds, and/or because it was known that these were graves), and the earth being looser, the level is higher. This however is not the case with the earth in front of Row A*. (Mrs. Roxy had already pointed out.) Surface not well kept, even with weeds.

Sabine's photo (a bit older) shows the same, except that there are no weeds. They may have been removed, or maybe it was in winter. (Winter 1919-20 ?)

Let me remark again : it's a bit surprising that in Alan's postcard the earth in front of Row A* is well-kept, making it look as if there were graves.

c. Alan's photo shows, near the 1st grave (cross) of A* and A a sign, the latter being "Plot 2", the former unreadable. There is no such sign on Philip's photo.

Alan's photo shows a short sign for the rows : A, (B invisible), C, D. There are no such signs (yet) on Philip's photo. Though it looks like there is "something", a stick or so.

d. On Philip's photo it is a bit easier to see and count the crosses in Row A*. Like in the other rows of Plot 2, there are 3 sets (we knew that already, based on Alan's photo). Looking at Philip's photo I think I can count :

- Set 1 : 10 crosses

- Set 2 : 10 crosses, including Gardiner. However I 'm not sure. I combined the 3 cards for that)

- Set 3 : 4 crosses, including the white one that is deep in the ground. And that there are 4 crosses is slightly interesting, because now we know that on Sabine's photo the four crosses are the only ones. No more crosses to the right of the right side of her photo.

So the total may be 24. (Maybe that was the number mentioned to Terry in his contact with CWGC ?)

e. I am having problems however with the crosses in Set 2 to the right of Gardiner.. .

In Philip's card Gardiner can be pointed out. (Please don't be confused by Jones's cross right behind it, from the photographer's point of view).

I think Torrome too.

I'm not sure about Cobbold, and about the two standard crosses and the double cross (my 16/RIRif Pioneers ;-)

f. It looks, on Philip's card, that some wooden or iron stick is in front of Gardiner's or Torrome's cross, leaning forward.

That's all. I'll be looking forward to reading other Pals' replies and comments.

Just this. The photo I attach is only 99kB, 571 pixels wide. My original (from Philip) is 458 kB, 1616 pixels wide. For those among you who intend to download and zoom in, maybe mine is more useful ? If so, let me know and I'll send it off Forum.

Aurel

[Alan_J]

Aurel,

Very interesting! I'm sure you're right that this is the earlier card, and from what I can tell from the scan, I'd agree with your other comments too - although at the size you've had to reduce to it's difficult to be sure - I would like to see the original higher quality scan if you would e-mail it please?

(My name change request for the forum came through last night, so all my posts have been renamed Alan_J rather than ww1b - as I'm sure you realise) )

Alan

[Auimfo]

Aurel,

I'll PM you my email address. I'd love to have a closer look.

Tim L.

[Guest geoff501]

That's all. I'll be looking forward to reading other Pals' replies and comments.

Aurel,

I think you are right on all counts, but could not miss the tall tree almost in the centre (slightly to the right) on Philip's card which has lost most of its height in Alan's card. I don't have the full scan of Sabine's card to check on this. Now waiting for the trained eagle eye of Mrs Roxy to date the time between the postcards exactly from the rate at which the smaller branches weathered away. I wonder how many other photos exist. I found a few on the internet today, but think they were French burials.

[Roxy]

I'll get Mrs Roxy on it right away.

..when she's finished shopping...

Roxy

[Aurel Sercu]

To all,

Well, it seems that this Topic has come or is about to come to an end... No new more elements, and the basic mystery appears to have been solved. Thanks, to all who joined efforts and gave all of us a good time. I think I can say we all learned a lot, and let's hope that we can use our new gained knowledge to serve others in the Forum who may have similar problems.

Of course, anyone who thinks he or she can add interesting additional material is welcome. But meanwhile : we started with a mystery, let's end with another one.

A Cemetery That Used to Have a Row ... Was That Disappeared Row Another Memorial Row ?

Not at all related to Potijze Chateau Grounds Cemetery, but to Strands Military Cemetery, north of Ploegsteert village, between the village and Ploegsteert Memorial, and a little west of Ploegsteert Wood.

Below is a cemetery plan. I went there yesterday because I am doing a piece of research with regard to a New Zealand man (Charles Sciascia, 1st Bn. Wellington, fallen 1/8/17).

A few things in general about this cemetery :

- Begun in Oct 1914

- A dressing station was nearby

- In use again April - July 1917.

- These original plots are I to VI, that is the upper part of the horizontal part of the T-shaped cemetery.

- The rest of the cemetery, i.e. the lower half of the horzontal part of the T, and the 'leg' of the T, that is plots VII to X are post Armistice (over 750 graves)

Yesterday I was interested in a man in Plot V, row F, that is in the original part of the cemetery. For my research I had to know who were his 'neighbours', and also who was in the row behind him. (If there had been an Unknown New Zealand soldier this would somehow have been interesting for my research.)

So I had a look at the row behind "my" Row F, and ... to my surprise ... it was gone ! Disappeared ! There is no Row E in that Plot V ! Only Row A, B, C, D and F. And where Row E should have been : only an empty space. And yet, the other Plots I, II, III and IV have a Row E, but that Row E apparently is not continued in Plot V ! Where is it ? Where are the 10 (?) graves that used to be in it ?

And there must have been a row indeed. For otherwise the present Row F would have been named E ! And the men now buried in Row F, at the time would have been buried closer to Row D.

Do not suggest : maybe Plot V Row E was removed because the War Stone was too near. For then Row F would have had to be removed too.

Maybe I am making (another ?) silly (?) mistake again, but I really would like to know. Fortunately Terry D. is busy with other things, and hopefully he will not discover this Mystery, for I would hate to bother him with this !

Below is the Cemetery Plan, and in the following post I will post a detail.

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

And a detail (top right part).

[Guest geoff501]

Burials seem to be roughly in date order, but there is over a 2 week gap between rows D and F.

Did you get them all?

A.1. 13652-CALE-ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY-05/06/1917

A.2.

A.3. 781447-FIRTH-ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY-05/06/1917

A.4.

A.5. 781122-BAXTER-ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY-05/06/1917

A.6. 297265-POWELL-ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY-06/06/1917

A.7. 949-MACLEAN-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-BETWEEN 07/06/1917 AND 09/06/1917

A.8. 1079-COOK-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-07/06/1917

A.9. 1859-THOMPSON-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-07/06/1917

A.10. 5723-HUXLEY-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-08/06/1917

A.11. 8278-CHADWICK-ROYAL ARMY MEDICAL CORPS-07/06/1917

A.12. 2100-HINDMARSH-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-08/06/1917

A.13. 84773-CUNNINGHAM-MACHINE GUN CORPS (INFANTRY)-07/06/1917

A.14. 1113-HETHERINGTON-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-11/06/1917

A.15. -HYETT-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-02/06/1917

A.16. 14080-DONNAN-CANTERBURY REGIMENT, N.Z.E.F.-05/06/1917

B.1. 116934-LEWIS-ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY-10/06/1917

B.2. 909-SMEATON-AUSTRALIAN PIONEERS-09/06/1917

B.3. 37484-MARKLEW-ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY-10/06/1917

B.4. 170134-BLACK-ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY-10/06/1917

B.5. 765-DAWSON-AUSTRALIAN PIONEERS-11/06/1917

B.6. 5122-RYAN-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-10/06/1917

B.7. 1211-MACLEOD-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-10/06/1917

B.8. 66098-SEED-MACHINE GUN CORPS (INFANTRY)-10/06/1917

B.9. 4637-KAJEWSKI-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-07/06/1917

B.10. -HAMILTON-AUSTRALIAN MACHINE GUN CORPS-07/06/1917

B.11. -DOYLE-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-10/06/1917

B.12.

B.13. 1736-CORDER-AUSTRALIAN FIELD ARTILLERY-15/06/1917

C.1. 12393-RYALL-AUSTRALIAN ARMY MEDICAL CORPS-07/06/1917

C.2. 20885-WHITECROSS-AUSTRALIAN FIELD ARTILLERY-07/06/1917

C.3. 1236-ROPER-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-07/06/1917

C.4. 1653-CRONIN-AUSTRALIAN PIONEERS-07/06/1917

C.5. 61729-JOHNSON-ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY-07/06/1917

C.6. 31796-ALEXANDER-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-14/06/1917

C.7. 26061-DAVIES-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-14/06/1917

C.8. 32315-FRANDSEN-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-14/06/1917

C.9. 29957-WILLS-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-14/06/1917

C.10. 2/1672-SIMPSON-NEW ZEALAND FIELD ARTILLERY-15/06/1917

C.11. 31869-MUNRO-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-16/06/1917

C.12. 20885-NIKERIMA-NEW ZEALAND MAORI (PIONEER) BATTALION-21/06/1917

C.13. 1893-MARVELL-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-22/06/1917

C.14. 97612-CRONKSHAW-ROYAL GARRISON ARTILLERY-24/06/1917

D.1. 27116-SHEPHERD-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-21/06/1917

D.2. 21492-CAUSER-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-21/06/1917

D.3. 29586-OWENS-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-21/06/1917

D.4. 15940-MONAGHAN-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-23/06/1917

D.5. 18700-PINHEY-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-23/06/1917

D.6. 23/888-READ-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-23/06/1917

D.7. 10960-KNAPP-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-23/06/1917

D.8. 33318-EDGECOMBE-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-23/06/1917

D.9.

D.10.

E.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

F.1. 718-HERROD-AUSTRALIAN PIONEERS-11/07/1917

F.2. 6743-CROWDER-AUSTRALIAN INFANTRY, A.I.F.-11/07/1917

F.3. 2169-MCLENNAN-AUSTRALIAN PIONEERS-17/07/1917

F.4. 23835-JACK-WELLINGTON REGIMENT, N.Z.E.F.-20/07/1917

F.5. 24/1760-MURNANE-WELLINGTON REGIMENT, N.Z.E.F.-23/07/1917

F.6. 15724-HILL-WELLINGTON REGIMENT, N.Z.E.F.-27/07/1917

F.7. 29400-HARVEY-WELLINGTON REGIMENT, N.Z.E.F.-01/08/1917

F.8. 780808-STEVENSON-ROYAL FIELD ARTILLERY-06/08/1917

F.9. 21359-WATERTON-NEW ZEALAND MACHINE GUN CORPS-09/08/1917

F.10. 27192-ANDERSON-NEW ZEALAND RIFLE BRIGADE-11/08/1917

[ianw]

It would appear that making room for the war stone may have resulted in movement of a number of graves.

Geoff's post would suggest that we need to clarify the position with regards to the late June/early July burials.

[Aurel Sercu]

It would appear that making room for the war stone may have resulted in movement of a number of graves.

Ian,

Maybe you overlooked this in my posting, but I had anticipated that argument. If Row E was in the way for the War Stone, then Row F was in the way even more. And the latter was not removed.... So ...

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

Geoff,

Interesting list ! Thanks.

I think that somehow this supports the possibility that there had been a Row E indeed ?

Maybe I should try to find, in the cemetery, a dozen or so N.Z. men who fell end of June - beginning July 1917 and who were (re?)buried together ?

(Of course I don't know if indeed there was much military activity in that area in that period, resulting in N.Z. casualties...)

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

Just trying to help visualize things.

This photo shows Plot V, Row F. Graves 1 - 9

(I was kneeling close to grave 10, which is not on the photo. And the War Stone was more or less behind me.)

Behind this Row F is the space where Row E used to be / should have been.

Aurel

[Terry Denham]

Individual graves and whole rows were sometimes removed when they contained foreign national burials if the foreign government made such a request.

The foreign nationals were usually being concentrated to their own national cemeteries (French, Belgian etc) or sometimes back home in the case of the USA. However, not all such nationals were moved and I do not know if this was the case in this instance.

German graves were not moved from CWGC cemeteries for this reason as is seen in this case.

[Aurel Sercu]

Individual graves and whole rows were sometimes removed when they contained foreign national burials if the foreign government made such a request.

(...)

and I do not know if this was the case in this instance.

German graves were not moved from CWGC cemeteries for this reason as is seen in this case.

Thanks, Terry. That's clear.

However, I don't see how this is what could have happened here. Geoff's list shows that almost all men in this plot, in the rows nearby are Australian / New Zealand.

Aurel

[Terry Denham]

Why concentrate on Row E? Rows F, D, C are also incomplete.

Were there ever any graves in those rows? We have no evidence of that yet.

[Guest geoff501]

Geoff,

Interesting list ! Thanks.

I think that somehow this supports the possibility that there had been a Row E indeed ?

Aurel,

Burials for the 'missing' period seem to be in Plot VI, row C (and elsewhere), which is just to the right on the plan. Perhaps the ground could not be dug (tree roots?), but the row letter was reserved in case it was populated later. Why the break in this row C - more trees? Just a wild guess.

[Guest geoff501]

This photo shows Plot V, Row F. Graves 1 - 9

(I was kneeling close to grave 10, which is not on the photo. And the War Stone was more or less behind me.)

Behind this Row F is the space where Row E used to be / should have been.

Aurel,

Looks like quite mature trees between Plots IV, V and Plots VII - X. Any idea of their age? Might support my tree theory. Trees between the rows have since been removed.

[Aurel Sercu]

Why concentrate on Row E? Rows F, D, C are also incomplete.

Terry,

True, F, D and C are incomplete.

But my question is : when Plot V was laid out,

1. why leave the space between present D and F open ?

2. why not name present Row F Row E ? (Though in a way I understand that it would not 'look" good on the plan, because the Rows E in the 5 plots would not look continuous, not linear).

And then there is that puzzling (?) 2 or 3 week time gap between V.D and V.F, as Geoff pointed out.

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

1. Burials for the 'missing' period seem to be in Plot VI, row C (and elsewhere), which is just to the right on the plan.

2. Perhaps the ground could not be dug (tree roots?), but the row letter was reserved in case it was populated later. Why the break in this row C - more trees? Just a wild guess.

Geoff,

1. Well, that's solved then.

2. That could make sense indeed. Maybe not such a wild guess.

Aurel

[Aurel Sercu]

Looks like quite mature trees between Plots IV, V and Plots VII - X. Any idea of their age? Might support my tree theory. Trees between the rows have since been removed.

Geoff,

It's clear you love gardening !

Their age ? No idea, but quite old I guess. Whether they are more than 90 years ?

You are not suggesting that next time I should take my saw with me and count the rings, are you ?

Let's all wait until Sabine produces an old Strand Military Cemetery postcard !

Aurel

[Guest geoff501]

It's clear you love gardening !

Aurel,

You should see the state of my lawn - the dog is in charge of the maintenance and she's not doing a good job. I was puzzled a few weeks back when you had to cut the grass. How do you get it to grow?

Their age ? No idea, but quite old I guess. Whether they are more than 90 years ?

You are not suggesting that next time I should take my saw with me and count the rings, are you ?

If they are oak, must be pre-war. The one I used to climb many decades ago has not gained an inch!

Let's all wait until Sabine produces an old Strand Military Cemetery postcard !

I was just about to ask we start a search for postcards.

[Guest geoff501]

2. why not name present Row F Row E ? (Though in a way I understand that it would not 'look" good on the plan, because the Rows E in the 5 plots would not look continuous, not linear).

Graves seem to be populated row by row (A,B,...) regardless of the plot, so it still 'looks good' when sections are skipped. However this one is a mystery, a 1914 casualty in Plot 6, presume his original burial was nearby and moved here. SDGW has the same date.

Name: KING, SAM

Initials: S

Nationality: United Kingdom

Rank: Private

Regiment: 18th (Queen Mary's Own) Hussars

Age: 23

Date of Death: 15/10/1914

Service No: 7954

Additional Information: Son of Rose King.

Casuality Type: Commonwealth War Dead

Grave/Memorial Reference: VI. A. 11.

Cemetery: STRAND MILITARY CEMETERY

[ianw]

What's the chance that any postcard or photo found will obscure rather than illuminate things !

The presence of a tree would indeed be an excellent reason for a row not to be used and burials adjacent to trees must have not been uncommon. Trees could have also occcupied the other empty areas

Many trees must have been latterly removed from our cemeteries. I wonder when this programme was mostly undertaken ? Simultaneously with others being planted in more convenient places ?

[Guest geoff501]

Their age ? No idea, but quite old I guess. Whether they are more than 90 years ?

You are not suggesting that next time I should take my saw with me and count the rings, are you ?

Aurel,

I found a reference on the web for a rough estimate of tree dating. Measure the girth in cm at a height of 1.5m. For oak divide this by 1.88 to get the age in years or 2.5 for ash, beech or elm. I'm not sure how accurate this is and was unable to confirm the method (I think the Forestry Commission may have a method but could not find it). I suspect there could be large errors, especially with irregular shaped trunks. However much safer than carrying a chain saw or core drill on your bike and not likely to invoke the wrath of the head gardener