rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 2:36 pm

Does anybody know what became of all the debris removed from the battlefield by Alfred Boast during the months of February and March 1883? I believe that the battlefield was cleaned up after a number of complaints from visitors to the area, but did any of the the recovered items ever make their way back to Britain?

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:52 pm

Peter

I think it was more to do with bones being seen on the surface, due to the weather washing away the soil, that was upsetting to some visitors.

These remains, were then reburied, either where found, or, if I'm correct, in the area of St. Vincent's.

As for items, they may have ended up in a local museum.

Coll

Posted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:39 pm

The Boast reburial operation was the last official clean-up, I believe. Other than the human remains which Coll mentions, I suspect there was little more than junk to clear away. Much of it (retrievable personal effects etc) had already been cleared by then but there was still plenty of detritus to pick up or observe throughout the 1880s, as many travellers (Leyland, Mitford & others) who published their experiences have told us. The new Anglican mission also utilised some of the scrap metal in their building operations and in their re-directing of waterflows on the slopes below the plateau from 1880 onwards. The heavy human "footfall" of the 1880s - both St Vincent & the college were built there in this decade, with ceremonies involving thousands - was followed by plenty of military movements during the following 30 years. If not quite Piccadilly Circus, this quiet and relatively inaccessible corner of S Africa certainly saw many comings and goings.

I dare say any odd little items of interest found by Boasts's team and afterwards may well have found their way to England.

Peter

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:12 am

Most of the debris was bought back by wagon to fort Melvil under the directorship of Charles Bromhead, where it was sorted and mostly burned and buried in pits.

I disuccsed this matter with Adrian Greaves some time back via e-mail, as at that point it was not know where the pits where, a tantalising thought of what could be in them, I thought they would be quite easy to find as burned debris have quite easy to find charatreristics even if covered with topsoil (30 years of finding and digging up Victorian refuse tips for a hobby).

I did manage to glean some information on my last visit that these had actually been excavated by a South African collector in the 1980's who had also excvated the garrison dump at Khambula. Most of the items from there is at Mtonjaneni Museum.

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:18 am

There were numerous 'clean-ups' prior to Boast.
One of the most interesting comments was made by Lt.M.O'Connell, 60th Rifles in his proceeding to Isandlwana pursuant to Garrison orders of 16 April 1880 ' for the purpose of reburying the dead.'
He recorded that when the grass was burnt, a Mr. Johnson, 'the missionary' could bury bones that were not visible at the time.
I have a poor photocopy of St.Vincents Church prior to the battle and but a few paces away' is a small building. The caption reads:
" To the left [ of St. Vincents Church] a small building housing the bones of 'unknown warriors' Zulu and British, picked up by Margaret Johnson (wife of the missionary) when going for walks on the battlefield and the vicinity."

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:09 pm

Peter

Yes, the Black & Marshall visits and burial operations of 1879 were followed by Bromhead's reburial and clean-up party of Sept that year, before O'Connell's reburial and "gathering in" task of 1880. All before Alfred Boast's big 1883 operation.

Your quote about the grass burning is interesting. I wonder if he is referring to the 1880 season (which, if around August, would be well after O'Connell had left the site on 26 March). I think he must be (do you have a date for this quote?) as Charles & Margaret Johnson left Isandlwana soon after his ordination in March 1881, almost certainly before that year's burning season arrived, so would only have been at Isandlwana during one burning season. (Although distant grassfires were visible from Isandlwana around July 1879, I don't think the battlefield itself was burnt that year). Mitford was at Isandlwana in Feb 1882 & says the burnt grass was still evident (rather late, do you think?) under the western slope of the mountain, whereas within Shepstone's walled grave it was still green, the flames having not touched it. Presumably this refers to the 1881 burning, although I would think the grave's grass would have been brown if untouched - and, if green, then why not the surrounding area by that time too? Puzzling. They were certainly still burning close to Isandlwana throughout the '80s and '90s, anyway, though I doubt close to the mountain.

Do you think O'Connell meant that the Johnsons could locate bones after the burning season which the burial parties couldn't find in the long grass in, say, March?

I'm puzzled by you reference to a picture of St Vincent's before the battle. Is this a slip of the pen?

Charles & Margaret lived in a grass hut - which they built themselves - between Jan 1880 & March/April or so, 1881. Until that time they called the mission St Augustine's (possibly at the suggestion of his former colleague, Rev George Smith, after the latter's alma mater, although it was a common mission dedication anyway). They took the name with them to the new mission at Hlubi's HQ, & the Bishop eventually decided to dedicate the new church at Isandlwana to St Vincent, laying the foundation stone in October 1882. Margaret kept a diary and, I believe, also left a photo album. Although she was gone from Isandlwana by mid-1882, I still wonder whether some of the photos of the Isandlwana mission buildings in the '80s & '90s are her work.

Peter

Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:49 pm

Peter,
O'Connell described the grass 'At present as high as a man's waist and very thick and rank.'
He left Isandlwana having completed his mission on 26 March 1880, saying that 'It would be useless to go over the ground a third time as the grass would not burn for some months.'
The dry season commences in May or so, and it is reasonable to assume that burning could commence in late July/ August 1880.
O'Connell's assumption was that having burnt the grass, the Johnson's would then be able to organise further burial of bones in 1880 which is explained by the reference to Mrs. Johnson in the photo.
There is a footnote to O'Connell's report that indicates that ' Johnson has assured me he would gladly undertake this task.' The footnote is initialled by E.H.S.
Yes, indeed a slip of the pen. The erection of the right hand extension of St. Vincent's Church was made only after the Anglo-Boer War.
To my mind the restoration of St.Vincent's Church should be given the utmost priority. As the years slip by the deteriation becomes more marked - all too sad that a historical landmark such as this is allowed to decay. The immediate church area is the graveyard for both British and Zulu fallen. All that is required is the grand sum of sterling 15/ 20,000 or thereabouts, seemingly an impossible task.
Peter

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:07 pm

Stop me if this off-topic, but to what extent did the impi remove their dead from the battlefield? By the time Chelmsford returned to the camp, would it be fair to say that a number (perhaps even many) of the Zulu fallen had been taken away, or were they left by and large where they were?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:49 pm

There aren't any mentions of 'battlefield debris' being recovered in Alfred Boast's report of his work at Isandlwana in February 1883.
His diary notes that between 12th February and 8th March 1883 his team "dug" a total of 298 separate graves - and that, "usually from 2 to 4 skeletons or remains were deposited in each."

He maintained a daily tally of the number of graves completed and in which area of his team were working, along with an overal map of the battlefield and surrounding area.

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:44 pm

Paul,
It is a fair assumption that perhaps most of the Zulu dead were removed when the Zulus evacuated the battlefield prior to Chelmsford's arrival.
Secondary report from Capt W.P. Symons written at RD March/April 1879,
( Courtesy Brecon) states:
" To increase the difficulty of counting loss, we know the Zulus will not allow the numbers of their killed in battle to be seen or even counted, and for this reason after a victory they always carry off their dead. If left overnight or for many hours, they will not touch a dead body, not even one of their own people."
Lt. Mainwaring's Sketch Map of Isandlwana that marked the graves of the dead on both sides showed that many Zulu bodies were found concentrated,( presumably a rapid-type burial) in the immediate vicinity of St.Vincent's Church in a Kraal, as well as bodies concentrated in another kraal just below the stand made by C/Sgt Wolfe.
Many more from memory found in a ravine a mile or so away, but I cannot lay my hands on the source.
Mehlokazulu's report: "We buried nearly all our dead ( as many as we could) and besides this we had a lot of wounded to carry away."
Peter

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:40 pm

In your debt, Peter.

However, with what you say being the case, how was it that the British post-battle comments arrived at the inflated estimates of Zulu casualties they quote? There can be no question but that the impi's losses were fearful; but how did Chelmsford and his staff know that in the immediate aftermath of Isandlwana, and where did they get their numbers from? Were they relying upon information from Zulu informants?

Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:51 pm

Paul

Laband (Kingdom in Crisis, p90):

After the battle, those of the Zulu army who did not immediately disperse stayed encamped close to the battlefield for three days, mainly on account of the large number of wounded whom they could not move, many being in a critical condition. There were also the dead to be considered. Although there is some evidence that the Zulu slain were left where they had fallen, with each corpse simply covered with a shield, whenever a friend or relative (who had that obligation) had been able to locate it, it seems clear that most were decently buried or hidden away in dongas, antbear holes and mealie-pits.

But how many Zulu dead were there? The British, who had been driven from the field, could only estimate. Naturally, they initially multiplied Zulu casualties to unrealistic levels to compensate for their own defeat. Later, they would admit that not nearly so many Zulu had been killed as they had imagined - or hoped. Nevertheless, the Zulu considered Isandlwana their worst battle as regards casualties.

Sorry if you've already consulted this passage! Laband cites several sources for his statements, and obviously bore in mind the usual Zulu custom of removing their dead and burying them, or - if practicalities dictated - merely covering them with shields, as at R/Drift. (At Khambula - and presumably Ginghindlovu & Ulundi - even this procedure was simply not available to them because of the flight and pursuit).

The Ngwibeni valley, the original bivouac of 21st/22nd, is the location Laband refers to for the three day halt near the battlefield. I still wonder if some were buried/attended to during that period, although the passage PQ quotes suggests not. Perhaps that group of young lads ("dead was everything" etc) who went down there to explore the field during that time simply possessed the boldness of youth!

It has also been suggested that, quite apart from the encumbrance of so many wounded, and all the heavy loot they carried off, the Zulu eventually left in quite a hurry, after seeing Chelmsford's force returning at dusk. Certainly the men in the column reported many Zulu moving off from the camp to the hills to the north.

The numbers for Zulu casualties seem to be pure guesswork & speculation. The Zulu had no idea, nor did the British. All 1879 estimates were guesses and so has been every estimate since. Laband is positive that many (hundreds?) must have died in the ensuing weeks & months. He concludes by accepting that no-one can be more accurate than the guess of the offical Narrative of Field Operations, that is "not less than 1,000." It seem probable, however, that the Khambula casualties far exceeded this figure because of the slaughter of the pursuit.

Clearly, the early British burial operations would have come across many Zulu bodies which were ignored. In 1880, Charles & Margaret Johnson found wild dogs a nuisance because they came to feed on the easily disturbed Zulu dead. The 1880 and 1883 reburials, whch I believe ventured further afield, must surely have gathered in many Zulu bones which were re-interred under cairns along with their foe.

Peter