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
25th March 2004	Isandlwana photo By Allen Graham Some of you out there must have a viewpoint on this. I have mentioned it to a couple of AZ historians, but it seems of no interest. It's hardly earth shattering, but here goes. The Lloyd photograph of Isandlwana taken in 1879, seen in numerous books. I happened to scan on to my computer, and whilst in Microsoft Photo Editor I zoomed the area at the north slope, and there looks to be a cross, It is barely visible on the normal size, but if you can zoom/magnify, it is clearly a cross, which seems quite large if you compare it to the waggons & horses in the foreground. I just wondered if anybody can agree with me on this on this, and add any views or comments. It seems strange that there is one solitary cross, at such an early stage after the battle(I think the photograph was taken in May or June), also am I right in thinking that fighting never really took place in that area of the battlefield? Just wondered Allen
Date	Replies
25th March 2004	John Young Allen, I've looked at what I presume is the same photograph, just now. I can see a distinct projection on the slope leaning towards the crag, but I can't see it as a cross, unlike you. Looks more like an outcrop of some sort. I'm actually looking at an original Lloyd rather than a reproduced version. I have cross-referenced the photograph with a photograph taken by B. Kisch, taken after the waggons have ben removed, but debris still litters the battlefield, that photograph is a side, rather than an angled view. However, the comparsion proved inconclusive. There was a cross, of sorts, on the battlefield, quite early on. A Sergeant of the 2nd/24th marked the spot where Lieutenant Charles Pope's body was found with a meat-scale. John Y.
25th March 2004	Peter Ewart Don't think any of my published versions are distinct enough to make anything out. (Trying to find the clearest example - are we alluding to the lower of the two post-battle snaps in the batch of pics between 320 and 321 in Morris, for example? The bottom one is the Lloyd, isn't it?) Is it possible to pinpoint it with more exact directions? On the skyline or not? A cross was erected in the December on Macrorie's direction after the dedication by Macrorie, Usherwood, Smith, Wheelwright, Hlubi etc., but this was placed on the mound where the carbineers had been buried, intended to signify the spot where the mission would be built. However, when Bishop McKenzie was appointed it was decided the ground was too hard & rocky there and the lack of water made it unsuitable, so the northern edge of the battlefield became the site of St Vincent instead. The spot was chosen and marked out in around March/April 81. If the cross on the photo exists, it is too early for the Macrorie structure, assuming the usually accepted date of May/June 79 is correct. Peter
25th March 2004	John Young Peter, That's the one I'm guessing Allen's on about. Look on the skyline of the lower slope, if you take the 'd' in the beyond, come down in a straight line and I think that's what Allen thinks is a cross. I've done a high res' scan on this, if that's of any use. John Y.
26th March 2004	Allen Graham John & Peter Many thanks for your replies, it Is difficult to explain in text, but just so we are looking at the same thing: the photo I scanned came from IAN KNIGHTS 'ZULU WAR THEN AND NOW', page 84, and the cross is on the skyline, in the middle of the right hand slope. Again, it is just about visible on normal size, but slightly zoomed, it definitely appears as a large cross! Could it be a memorial unrelated to the war? were there missionaries around that area at that time ? How many photos of isandlwana exist taken in 1879? I suppose all have appeared in books, or would you think any exist in a private collection? I am still quite intrigued by what I'm convinced is a cross on the slope of isandlwana in 1879. Allen
26th March 2004	Peter Ewart Got it. I've only tried a magnifying glass & can see the darker dot at the top of the vertical piece, but if it is to resemble a cross then it seems to me that it is not a rudimentary couple of sticks, as one would expect, but a typical stone cross with a plinth that you'd see on a grave - so rather unlikely (assuming it's the right bit on the right picture Allen's referring to). If the date of the photo is May/June 79, there had been before then only a couple of hurried visits to the site (Wilson Blacke etc) with a cursory examination and collection of sundry debris, hadn' there? And as Allen says, this "cross" is quite large, given the distance and the size of the wagons etc in the picture. I suppose the "plinth" could be a rock or rudimentary cairn in which to jam the vertical spar but the absence of any account of the raising of such a memorial in March or May is the strongest argument against it, isn't it? It's also some way off from where most of the fallen were found, unless a particular member of Younghusband's company fell early on in the skirting of the shoulder and was recognised by one of the visiting parties. I suspect a tree or piece of bushy scrub, with which the slopes are adorned, even if - admittedly - more so now then then. Peter
26th March 2004	Peter Ewart Allen I posted this morning's contribution before seeing your further message, which has just come up. Checked the photo on p84 of Knight & Castle, which is the same one but much clearer; however, the "cross" looks less like a cross in this version (in my copy, anyway!) Again, I've only tried with a magnifying glass, but the top bit looks more of a large round black blob now. There was no mission on or near the site before 1879/80 but the mountain would definitely have been familiar to traders, gun-runners, etc., as it is so close to the old track from Rorke's Drift - one of the few convenient border crossing points in the area - to Ulundi, and it is certainly possible that traders had stayed in or at a nearby Zulu homestead in the past and lost one of their number. (It was common for a trader to park his wagon at a homestead for a good few days). The nearest missions to Isandlwana before 1879 were, I'm reasonably sure, the Swedish mission at Rorke's Drift (relatively recent) and the Norwegian mission a few miles NNE of RD on the Zulu side, founded in 1870 and called Emzimyati. (A variant of Mzinyathi? If so, it was neverthless much nearer the River Ncome than the Mzinyathi/Buffalo). I believe that this Norwegian mission was the same abandoned station which Hlubi commandeered when he returned with his Basuto people to the area in 1879/80, not far from what soon became St Augustine's. The pre-1879 British missions at kwaMagwaza and St Paul's were way off to the east and all the Scandinavians and Americans further still to the south and east, nearer the coast, on both sides of the border. After 1879 the British created many stations in the Isandlwana area but the Europeans most likely to have been familiar with Isandlwana BEFORE 1879 were traders, even though the track passed south rather than north of the mountain. Peter
26th March 2004	John Young Allen & Peter, I think the answer is on page 85 of the same book, what on roughly the same spot now? - A tree. I conject if there had been a tree on the site in 1879, "Tommy Atkins" would have taken an axe to it to boil his billy. Your black blob, Peter, may well be new growth. I see where you're both coming from, but on the original, which is obviously far more clearer than the modern reproduction, it most certain isn't a cross. John Y.
26th March 2004	Allen Graham Peter Thanks for taking an interest in this, I think your use of the magnifying glass is probaby not as good as the computer magnification that I used, but at least someone now agrees with me that there is something cross-like on that slope.( I was a liitle disappointed by the response of couple of AZ historians I'd already approached on this). And because of your reply, I think we can rule out anything done by the missionaries. Once again thank you for the reply you have provided, I found it both useful and informative. I do have more than a passing interest in the AZ war, and having only recently discovered this discussion forum, it is great to know that knowledgable people like youself, are on hand to inform so readily. Allen
26th March 2004	Allen Graham John I have only just read your further message, I would just like to say that what I said to Peter, also applies to you. Appreciate you taking an interest Allen
26th March 2004	John Young Allen, Name & shame 'em, we don't mind. Providing they not members of my society! Do you want a high res' scan of an original? John Y.
27th March 2004	Peter Ewart Allen Yes, my magnifying glass is not so useful, although I still think a tree or bush is what it is. Trees in that part of the world have a habit of throwing their main branches out horizontally. (There's probably a technical name for it). And I'm sure it would have been mentioned in the many accounts by officers, men, travellers etc., since. One small point regarding its location. Looking more carefully at the Lloyd snap and any modern equivalent, it is possible to misunderstand the angle. I think the tree/cross may not be actually on the northern slope but on a spur reaching out from the middle of the mountain in an easterly direction, so is actually above the centre of the camp, the picture being taken from the SE or SSE, and the slope on which the object is seen actually blocks out the view of the northern part of the mountain altogether. I'm more than happy to stand corrected on this point, however, as I still find some photo angles at Isandlwana easy to mis-judge. Peter
27th March 2004	Joseph Well I've been looking at photos from the book and from a scanned original sent me by John Young. (thanks mate!) I see what I think everyone is talking about, but am not conviced its not just a rock outcropping or a tree. I have enlarged it using my computer and it is still inconclusive. I'm not saying a cross is out of the realm of possibilites... just not likely. Another thought is this, could it be a soldier on the mouhtain and we are seeing his silhouette in combination with rocks, trees, shadows, etc.? There are riderless horses clearly seen in the picture, and several soldiers spread about... perhaps this is another one who had trekked up the slopes a bit. Although I think that is not likely either as it would be far too big for a man at that distance. If you figure the size of a man compared to the horses, and then this (cross/tree/rock/man) is considerably farther away from the camera than the horses, then a man would be significantly smaller. Thus is the problem of trying to solve a mystery so old based upon one picture taken so long ago with equipment that was questionable at best. I like new topics sparked up though... gets things stirred a bit. My two cents, Joseph
29th March 2004	Allen Graham John Thanks a lot, can I take you up on your offer of a high res' scan of an original? That would be good. Allen
29th March 2004	Joseph I have looked at Allen's picture and I must admit I DO see a cross in it. However, comparing the two photos... one from John young and the other from Allen, the area in question is SLIGHTLY different. Without more evidence, I think there must have been some outside speck of dust or something that got onto the photo used in the book when copied. In John's photo there is NO discernable horizontal section that would make "it" a cross, in Allen's photo there IS a horizontal section that makes "it" a cross. I can clearly see why Allen is excited about this. Logically it seems more likely something was (accidentally, as in a substance gets on it when scanned/copied) added to a copy than taken away. I must give a compliment to Allen for finding something NEW simply by noticing what none of the rest of us have in looking at the well known picture. Based solely upon Allen's photo I would agree there is a cross. Joseph