rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:47 pm

Double D
I'll answer you point by point.
First, there is no forensics without the history. The provenance of an artefact is established before any discussion arises about what it has to tell us.
Secondly,you wrote: "Historically there is every reason to discredit the bands I pictured. I don't claim them as bonafied." This just seems to endorse my previous remark.
Thirdly, I would need to know which bands you are referring to "that are documented to have come for the battlefield and have cut marks?" I personally do not know of any which have cut marks similar to the ones in your photo.
Fourthly, you wrote: "If you wish to attack my premise then take some of the verifiable origin bands with cut marks to a forensic scientist-tool mark examiner and have him discredit them or even explain the cuts. Attack the evidence not the person." (A) Where are these bands with cuts you refer to? (B) I have not 'attacked' any person, nor would I do so. My previous e-mail was directed at the so-called 'evidence'.
Fifthly, you wrote: "Historically speaking is based upon the theory of the presenting historian and is just that theory." In this case, the presenting historian (me) is basing his opinion on the fact (not theory) that the photographs, presented by an anonymous contributor on this website (you), of pieces of metal of unknown origin, claimed to have come from Isandhlwana, claimed to be ammo box straps, and claimed to have been found by another anonymous person beyond reproach (in the opinion of the anonymous contributor), have no provenance and cannot be used as a basis for historical interpretation.

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:26 am

Discreditation by personal attack.

You attack the credibility of the bands I display and ignore the idea I am presenting using these band as an example.

First do you deny that some authorities on the subject support their theory that ammunition boxes were diffcult to open by the cut marks found on bands recovered "with provenance" from Isandlwana?

Do you deny that bands exist "with provenance" from Isandlwana that have cut marks on them?

Do you know of any historical record in which mention is made of attempts to open the bands by cutting?

If no historical records exists reporting band being cut does that make a claim that bands were cut during the battle invalid?

If no historical record exists reporting bands being cut, wouldn't a forensic exam of a band "with provenance" from Isandlwana be useful to help establish that band cutting took place? Or, not?

By focusing on the provanence of examples I present, you are diverting the discussion from my theory that the bands "with provenance" from Isandlwana should be examined forensically and see what information can be gleaned from them. They may support this extreme measure to open ammuniiton box theory, they may not.

To rely strictly on one science is narrow minded. To use all the sciences together is being open minded.

To focus on the provenance of the bands I display is narrow minded. To forensically exam the bands "with provenance" from Isandlwana is open minded.

So why is it you object to forensic exam of bands "with provenance" from Isandlwana?

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 5:06 am

Double D

You are asking for comment on something that none of us can physically touch or examine and without us knowing from where and from whom these bands orginate. I, for one, have not heard of cut bands being sourced from Isandlwana but then that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist. Forensic examinations is the only thing that can conclude this and since none of us are able to do that, the question you raise is ephemeral at the best.

I'd caution you in engaging Julian in debate who is well-respected on this forum and has a wealth of knowledge that well exceeds a lot of us. But far be it for me to tell a man to desist in stirring the viper in his nest.

However, it will be interesting to see how you fare.

Respectfully
Dawn

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:24 pm

Double D
I think simple answers to the questions/comments you raise will be best and in the order that you raise them:
1. Wrong, nowhere have I attacked you personally. Quote me an example and I'll apologize.
2. Yes I do attack their credibility.
3. Please quote me the examples and 'authorities' to which you are referring.
4. I am not aware of any specifically with cut marks on them. Quote some examples.
5. No, none, not by the British side. Although mention is made by some Zulus of their breaking open the ammo boxes in order to get at the contents.
6. Yes, it does, because there is no supporting evidence.
7. Yes it would be useful if one were to exist - not that it would 'prove' anything though. Please supply the reference to the band with provenance of which you write.
8. I repeat, where are these bands with provenance?
9. What 'sciences together'?
10. I have a feeling you're taking this far too personally and I repeat, which bands are you talking about? Where are they?
11. I don't object to any forensic study of 'bands', if such exist, where did you get that idea from?
And now more generally. You are not being specific in your examples. Can you please name us the whereabouts of one example of an ammunition strap with cut marks (with provenance from Isandhlwana) and we can commence a discussion. Otherwise we are whistling in the wind.

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 4:31 pm

Why Dawn! Thank you! I never knew you cared!

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:47 pm

You might start with this post right here. Donald Morris-- Ammunition--Again.

There is a long debate about those ammuniton boxes and the cut marks frequently come up. It's not a new topic.

I might add also Julian you posted to that thread and quoted the bit about the bands being pried by the bayonet, and I agree with totally on your comment that a Zulu would have been more likely to use a bayonet than assagai. The assagai would have bent or broke in the effort. So the idea that bands might have cut marks is not new to you.

And again what I am trying say is that bands "with provenance" from Isandlwana with cut marks should be examined by a forensic scientist who specializes in tool mark identification. Mr. Rattary bands, those mentioned in the post your responded to would be a good place to start. ...and once that is done then the origin of that bands marks would be known.

Wouldn't solve the argument. The science would only tell you what made the cut marks. It would not tell you when it was made, or why it was made.

You could go back to the provenance arguement.

I am not taking this personal. I am having a good time. I fully recognize when you tilt at wind mills you stand a good chance of getting knocked of your horse.

And also I truely do believe you were using your eloquence to make a personal attack, harping and hammering at provanence in attempt to discredit me and ignoring my argument that forensics could give an explanation to part of this ammunition box debate. Focusing on the bands I posted and ignoring those bands you refered to, is smoke and mirriors. Have you every looked at any bands, looking specifically for for tool marks?

Set my bands aside. Who cares what the provenance of my examples are, the point is the tool marks.

Lets talk about those bands with provenance that have been the focus of the debate, they should be examined. Do they in fact have cut marks. The source of the marks should be indentified if they can.

Have Mr. Rattaray bands been examined. Yes, I know provenance, Morris picked them up in 1960....and the battle was 80 years earlier. Do they even have cut marks at all. I would almost be funny if the source of this point in the debate , wasn't even marked.

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:48 am

Double D
1] The Donald Morris band has never been examined by anyone. No-one knows where it is. There is no evidence it IS what he said it was i.e. an ammunition strap. Morris himself never said there were cuts on it.
2] On the contrary the idea (specifically) of cuts IS new to me.
3] And again, I am saying name me one band, with cuts, with provenance, from Isandhlwana. If one exists, by all means send it where you will.
4] Correct, it would not.
5] I do not make personal attacks. I resent your writing this. You "truly believe" I was doing this!!! Quote me a line representing a personal attack please or retract the remark. I have better things to do with my time than to discredit a contributor hiding behind anonymity presenting theories based on no evidence. I did focus on the bands you portrayed (a) because you plastered photos of them all over the screen and (b) because I don't know of any other bands with cut marks. I referred to no other bands.
6] "Set my bands aside. Who cares what the provenance of my examples are, the point is the tool marks." With respect, if the bands aren't genuine, and if you ignore any attempt at establishing provenance, discussions about tool marks aren't worth the candle.
7] I repeat, name me the bands with cuts with provenance you are referring to.
8] So, Mr. Rattray has ammunition bands. I'm afraid the rest of your sentence doesn't make sense.
I shall not be responding to any further contributions from you on this subject unless you desist from personalizing the matter and unless you refer specifically to provenanced ammunition bands with cut marks you are aware of. If you cannot do this I shall assume you do not know of any.

Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:20 pm

Julian reading your latest post makes me think we actually are some what in agreement on this topic.

You are saying you are unaware of any bands with cuts. You say show me bands with proven provenance with cuts.

I am saying that there are those who argue this ammunition box issue and cite cut marks as proof to support their position in the argument. I say show these bands to a tool mark examiner.

I do not know where any bands with proven provenance are with cuts. If I have seen bands in museums, I didn't look at them looking for cuts. I only thought of the cuts issue when I saw the bands pictured. That bands do or do not have cuts is not my argument.

Now in the post of yours in the Donald Morris thread you quote back from Alekudemus post "...marks of the bayonet."

Perhaps we have an issue of semantics based on differing back grounds. Marks, cuts, tool impressions all the same to me. Now thinking as a historian you might not think forensics. I'm no historian, I am an investigator, when I see or hear a comment like that I think tool mark--forensics.

Where I went wrong with you, I think is in my July 20 post. I said these bands are from Isandlwana. What I should have said was these bands are alleged to have come from Isandlwana. I didn't provide provenance and was wrong to leave the word alleged out. For that, I apologize.

You seemed to fixate on that omission and challenged my credibility for presenting the band as being from Isandlwana without provenance. For my omission, I suppose I should expect nothing less.

You did not find fault in the premise of my post. It is in my premise that I think we can work together.

You say you are unaware of any cut bands. I say if any cut bands exist, they should be forensically tested to determine how the cuts, marks or impression them where.

Anytime we see someone referring to prying bands off ammunition boxes from Isandlwana you can say �Show me the bands and prove they are from the battle� and I will say �show me the forensic report on the tool marks that were made supporting they were pried of�

You can bet every time I visit a museum I am going to be looking for marks on bands.

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 9:54 pm

Why is someone going to cut,smash the bands off an Ammo box?? there is no reason too, even under duress it is far easier to smash the lid off, even smash the box against something hard, not waste time cutting the box bands???

If these cut bands exist, its more likely they were after the battle, as the metal would have been more important, something akin to native Americans or maoris who took metal bits off equipment leaving items that whites would have found more appealing, those cut bands would have made great pot hangers.
just my tuppence

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:18 pm

scarletto7 wrote:

Why is someone going to cut,smash the bands off an Ammo box?? there is no reason too, even under duress it is far easier to smash the lid off, even smash the box against something hard, not waste time cutting the box bands???

If these cut bands exist, its more likely they were after the battle, as the metal would have been more important, something akin to native Americans or maoris who took metal bits off equipment leaving items that whites would have found more appealing, those cut bands would have made great pot hangers.
just my tuppence

Exactly!!!

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:25 pm

Double D
I can assure you I have made use of forensics as an historian. In looking at the number of forgeries associated with Isandhlwana over the last few years it has become increasingly important (vide my article on the Alleged Cavaye-Pulleine Order in the next issue of the (Real) AZWRS journal).
The whole problem with Morris's ammo band is that he stated (and I remind you that no-one has ever seen this band, knows where it is, neither does it have any Isandhlwana provenance, neither is it proven to be the genuine article) that it had a large dent in it consistent with having been prised over a screwhead. Morris said that this MUST mean desperation on the part of the British in trying to open the boxes and that this MUST mean the failure of the ammo supply. Before I continue note that a dent and prise mark are not the same as a cut mark such as the ones shown in your photos. You only and specifically mentioned cut marks. The idea never occurred to Morris that it might have been Zulus trying in desperation to get at the contents. It never occurred to Morris to find out how the British opened the boxes. The result is no-one takes seriously Morris's 'proof' any more nor its implcations. Now, back to your posting; I do not know of any ammo bands with cuts. I have no objection to forensic examination of anything from Isandhlwana if it sheds light on what happened there. I don't necessarily believe though that any such examination of an ammo strap (if one can be found as you describe) would provide evidence of anything other than damage done post-battle by victorious Zulus trying to open the boxes with various implements.

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:54 pm

Julian,

We are in total agreement here. Any cut marks found on bands could be fairly simply identiifed forensically. Pry marks would be on the bottom of the bands and might be dents or cuts, the screw holes surely would be pulled if prying was done. The marks on the bands I picture are on the top of the band and the screw holes are not pulled or bulged from prying.
My guess is that scavengers in recent times made the cuts on the bands shown.

In the 6 short months I have been in South Africa I have learned that the AZWH Industry is going strong. I don't know how many JEN-U-WINE Zulu spears, bullets and cartridge cases from the "actual" battlefield I have been offered. And some of it with provenace. Some of it obvious fakes. Martini bullets used in the battle did not have grease grooves. I want none of it.

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:30 pm

I'm glad, if nothing else that we have pax. Be aware though that the fake industry does not only exist in RSA. This last few years has seen document forgery re the AZW in the UK and one regular contributor told me about an antique shop in London displaying a wooden Cross with soldier's name on 'from Isandhlwana' (fake of course with invented soldier's name too). I could scarcely believe him so I went to the shop to see it for myself. Lo and behold, there it was and no doubt some unwary punter has fallen for it. But then, large numbers of people are making money out of the AZW legitimately (however much of a bandwagon it sometimes appears) so it's hardly surprising that criminals will follow.

Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 7:37 pm

DD

1. As you are aware, it is very widely known that Morris claimed to have picked up the remains of an ammunition box copper band at Isandlwana and that he subsequently used this claimed find to support his ammunition shortage theory; indeed, he hailed it as proof that his idea had been right all along. (I'm not sure when the find was supposed to have occurred but I don't think it is mentioned in my 1966 hardback edition of TWOTS).

2. You may also be aware that it is very widely known that David Rattray has or had in his possession the remains of an ammunition box copper band apparently picked up at Isandlwana. As far as I understand - and I'm obviously open to correction here - the band mentioned in (1) above and DR's band are one and the same. If not, then I entirely misunderstood (or have mis-remembered) DR when he held it up to show a group of visitors (including me) at FDL six years ago.

(I hasten to add that, far from accepting Morris's claim that it supported his ammunition shortage theory, DR made it clear that he considered it did no such thing; indeed his comments were quite light-hearted).

I don't think the discussion between you and Julian can go anywhere until we know whether (a) the band you photographed is - or is understood to be - the one I mention above, or (b) whether it is a different, second band, whose finder is known and who has made it perfectly clear exactly when and where he or she found the band and - hopefully - can demonstrate this without doubt. (If there is so much as a single extra or third party in the chain between you and the original finder, forget it). It is much easier to suggest that an artefact "has provenance" than it is to convince a healthily sceptical listener. In fact, unless you saw the thing (article "b") pulled from under a rock yourself, DD, I'd say forget it.

If it is not the Morris/Rattray example (assuming, of course, that the Morris one is the Rattray one) I would find it very difficult to believe that there is yet another one hanging around. Needless to say, even if it was another example, no "cut mark" of any sort would lead me to believe it carried the slightest significance, even if the world's most eminent forensic expert solemnly pronounced his/her views. Sheer common sense and the most elementary knowledge of the battlefield site between 1879 and today dictate this.

Is it the FDL version? Or did you see it pulled from the ground yourself?

Peter

P.S. It may seem harsh, but I suspect there are those on this forum for whom Morris's book contains so many fantasies that they would nowadays raise an eyebrow about the very claim of the copper band find in the first place.

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:35 pm

Peter,

I claim no provenance for the bands I display. The provenance of the bands I post are irrelevant.

They are for what is refered as "instructional purposes only" to show tool marks and generate some thought on how forensics can identify the source the tool marks. The point is not that they are or are not from Isandlwana. They could have come from the trash out behind the house. The are for demonstration purposes only.

The Point I am trying make is that in the Great Ammuntion box argument when some one brings up tool/pry/cut marks as part of their argument that an forensic exam could identify the source of the tool/pry/cut marks.

Don't read any more than that into my post. It's identifying the tools mark and nothing else.