The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum

(Back To Topic List)

Date	Original Topic
1st January 2003	That eclipse again By Keith Smith Over the holiday I have been trawling through the back pages of this forum (and was amazed at what I found, tsk, tsk) and noticed that the information given about the eclipse on 22nd January 1879 is incomplete. There are three Zulu references, and three non-native: 1. Mbonambi warrior, Mitford p. 28. 2. Nokhenke warrior, Mitford, p. 31. 3. Zulu boy in � Zulu Boy's Recollection, ed. by C. de B. Webb in Natalia No. 8, Dec. 1978, p. 19. 4. George Mansel, in a letter to Col. Edward Durnford, Wood Papers, Killie Campbell Africana Library, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal 5. Trooper Symonds diary, Symons Papers, Talana Museum, Dundee, KwaZulu-Natal. 6. Commandant Schermbrucker, letter to Col. E. Wood, in WO 33/34, p. 253. The eclipse was annular at its point of maximum obscuration off the west coast of Africa but due to its path well north of Isandlwana, the eclipse was seen there as partial. The time was supposed to be 2.29 pm (according to the Natal Almanac, 1878, p. 5.) Modern timing for maximum obscuration at Isandlwana was 12.35 Universal Time, to which one needs to add two hours to get to the correct local time. (Thanks to Dr Steven Bell, HM Nautical Almanac Office, Didcot, UK, who ran the calculations for me using the Isandlwana lat. and long.) However, in 1879, Pietermaritzburg was 2 h 13m ahead of London (there being no International Time Zones until 1884), so that might make the local time at Isandlwana 2.48pm. Take your pick! Keith Smith
Date	Replies
1st January 2003	Peter Ewart Keith (et al) There is also a short but interesting piece on the eclipse by Ian Knight in AZWHS Journal No 7 (June 2000), in which he considers some possible reasons for the comparative lack of contemporary references. From memory, I don't think this article was mentioned in the discussion, which I also enjoyed on a "back-postings trawl" of this site. It includes a graph showing the peak of 65% attained at about 12.30 (+ 2hrs local time, as above) so concurring with an approx local maximum loss of daylight at around 2.30. Interestingly, in his superb book "Hill of the Sphinx" (p47, para 1) in drawing on the accounts of the two Zulus interviewed by Mitford, David Jackson states "there was an eclipse of the sun between three and four." If we assume from this that he means the peak was perhaps around, say, 3.30, is there a difference of opinion on the time of the peak? (Mitford, obviously, does not offer anything other than a general remark that it was noteworthy and curious). Perhaps David Jackson does not mean to infer at all that the peak itself was about an hour later than other accounts imply, merely making the point (correctly of course) that between 3pm and 4pm the eclipse was still occurring. Given that he argues, as far as I can see, that the fighting went on much later than many other accounts have stated, it looks as if he is suggesting that the comparative darkness would still have been noticeable at this late time, even though apparently a 65% eclipse would not have reduced daylight that appreciably, even at it's peak. Unless I've missed it, the author doesn't refer to the eclipse at all in his 1965 article (SWBM 1999 version) or, at least, not in that part of the text where he has inserted it in his book. Which all goes to show that the ambiguity of the timing of virtually everything that day is the most fascinating and frustrating thing of all! Any ideas? Peter
2nd January 2003	Keith Smith Peter You are quite correct in your response: I noticed David Jackson's timing with interest and wondered where he got it from. My information from Dr Bell said that there was a maximum of 56% obscuration of the sun, which suggests that there was not a great deal of light lost. This might be another reason for its not being noticed. I haven't seen Ian Knight's article. With regard to determining time, see my entry below before Xmas, which I think has still not attracted any response. Keith
3rd January 2003	Peter Ewart Keith Besides the technical data, which is acknowledged to an Andy Willmott, Ian Knight's article also makes the point, as others have, that no surviving diaries of those at Inyezane or Hlobane that day record anything on the eclipse. He does mention that the uMbonambi warrior actually said that it was the smoke which made the sun appear dark, although it depends on how one reads this man's words as quoted by Mitford - perhaps he meant the combined effect of the darkening sun & the smoke. Also, the author quotes Hamilton Browne's statement about the shadow on the hills and that officer's belief that it must have been the Zulu army beginning their attack as there was not a cloud in the sky. I think IK quotes this to emphasise the sunny day rather than the possibility that the shadow may have been something else. Going by the 1999 experience with a much stronger eclipse, I've no doubt that there was little or nothing noticeable to anyone, especially as they weren't expecting it as we were. And I can think of no reason for any of Chelmsford's forces to glance up & notice the crescent effect, as it would take a few moments of forcing one's eye to remain fixed to the sun, with the obvious discomfort & no discernable change in strong sunlight. It is strange that Symon(d)s mentions it and also the Nokhenke chap in detail! In the other direction, Smith, Witt and Reynolds had a perfect view and peaceful location on Shiyane, provided they were still up there at about 2.30. They may well have noticed something, but their own later reflections on that day dwelt on other (more exciting) matters and perhaps there was no reason to recall it or connect the two afterwards, in writing at least. I was also surprised that your query on times and watches met with little response, but on checking I see that it has done so fairly recently. Peter
3rd January 2003	Keith Smith Peter Mitford says clearly that the Mbonambi warrior was referring to the eclipse (see note 1, p. 28) and it is interesting too that he is the only contemporary individual to state that it was annular, which it was not at Isandlwana. I guess that he checked this our long after the event. You will know that Hlobane took place on March 28, so one would not expect any note about it from there, but Schermbrucker was close to Wood, if not actually serving with him in the 4th Column. By the way, the spelling is "Symons'" - I have his signature on a copy of his diary. Keith
3rd January 2003	John S Radburn Keith Please explain yourself regarding the inferance regarding the remark, regarding your Schermbrucker paragraph, please continue i.e. the reference regarding the eclipse. And what's his signature got to do with it. Regards John R
3rd January 2003	Peter Ewart Keith I'm probably nit-picking, but the way the warrior's quote is worded by Mitford does allow for some ambiguity, I think, now that it has been pointed out. Not only is Mitford's footnote an obvious attempt to explain after the event the warrior's remarks for the benefit of the reader (as you say, by 1883 he had learnt of it himself) but the uMbonambi chap does specifically mention the smoke. Okay, he does say "the sun got very dark, like night.." but appears to qualify or clarify this by explaining that it was because of the smoke. I admit, however, that this could be read another way, with the smoke combining to make the darkness from the lack of sun even worse, but I wonder if, in the translation, we may have lost some of the original meaning, in which he may have inferred by "the sun got dark" as meaning "the daylight went" because of the smoke. After all, would any eclipse expert acknowledge that the sun could possibly have gone dark at 56 or 65%? I don't know if Mitford spoke Zulu or had his interviewees interpreted - I've checked briefly through the Greenhill version's intro & can't see anything. The man no doubt made the statement once and it was taken down as well as it could be, but we don't know if Mitford already knew of the eclipse when he spoke to the man, or whether he learned later and thereby understood the quote differently. Just as importantly, the warrior's earlier sentence is: "...there was so much smoke that I could not see ..." One thing's certain - I bet neither he nor Mitford would have dreamt that these words would be chewed over 120 years later!!! In mentioning Hlobane, I was referring to the little outing Wood and Buller's force had on Zunguin Nek, adjacent to Hlobane, on the 22nd Jan., when they were all on the heights at the very moment the battle at Isandlwana was in full swing. Yes, Symons. I thought you or Ian Knight had added a "d" so I stuck in the alternative to cover both options, only to see now you didn't use it and nor did IK!!! I must have seen it elsewhere at the same time or imagined it. Peter
4th January 2003	Keith Smith John I am sure a careful reading of the conversation between Peter and I above will clarify things for you. Peter is, of course, quite right to point out that the words of the warrior are ambiguous and much would depend on the accuracy of the translation. Keith