rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Coghill - His Departure from Isandlwana Battlefield

Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 7:43 pm

The sketch of the rock in the ILN does look, to me, much more of the shape of a rock which someone would be abe to cling to in fast waters, and even to hide from shots or spears coming from the Zulu bank, than a more or less flat-topped object such as the rock said at times to resemble a coffin from above - although, of course, any rock might be welcome in such circumstances!

This well known sketch now becomes very interesting. It may have been simply one imagined by the sketcher/artist, or perhaps had actually been seen and copied on a visit to the spot some time during 1879. Given Neil's opinion on its likeness to a real rock and also the local topography, let's assume it was sketched (at least originally) by someone on the river bank before being reproduced by an artist in London, which I believe was the usual sequence. Do we have any candidate for this task? And was he merely sketching an interesting rock which he actually saw, and chose to depict as the one involved with Higginson & Melvill, or had someone told him that this particular rock was the one involved? These are the questions which come immediately to mind, aren't they?

Only one living person could have done that (although it is possible that even he may not have been able to point out with certainty the one he'd clung to, given the circumstances of his flight). This was Higginson. The big question is - did Higginson ever return to the spot? If so, it was likely to have been in the first week of Feb or on one of the other visits a few months later. Digging out the full list of those making up the colour-retrieving party on 4th Feb., extracted from the archives of the 24th Foot and sent to me a couple or so years ago by Martin Everett, I now see that among the 19 NNC officers who accompanied Black, Higginson's name comes up. So he was there. The only person who knew (or claimed to have known) anything at all about the deaths of M & C, returned to the drift a fortnight later and presumably had every chance to see where he had crossed, where he claimed M had arrived at the same rock and also where he claimed he had accompanied M & C out of the gorge. So it looks as if he had the opportunity of pointing out the rock. Who might have sketched such a rock and passed it to the ILN, however?

If Higginson had not accompanied the party, I would not think there was much of a chance of the rock having been pointed out to anyone. But he did, so the chance is there - just. Perhaps more clues can be had from ascertaining the respective positions of (a) the "ILN rock", (b) the position of the bodies (admittedly much higher up on the slope), and (c) the final resting place of the Colour pole? I think Norris Newman says the pole was found about 300 hundred yards downriver of the bodies. (He wasn't there, but did discuss the expedition of 4th Feb at length with Black).

I don't think an uncanny resemblance between the ILN rock and the rock seen by Neil is sufficient on its own to say that this is H&M's rock, even if it becomes clear that the ILN rock is now definitely real. Identification contemporarily that it was the one actually clung to is required - and even then, the reliability or otherwise of anything Higginson said about the events remains a big, big question.

Leslie: Thanks for your post (6/12). Unfortunately, despite reading it a few times, I don't really understand what you're trying to say, despite trying very hard to do so. Could you edit it for us, please? In your post of Thursday you suggest that there must be "sufficient descriptions of said rock, plus its location and eyewitnesses' accounts of Melvill clinging to it." That's just it, Leslie. There aren't! There is no description of the rock, other than it being "large." There is very little clue as to its location, other than being somewhere at the drift. And no, there is no collection of handy eyewitness accounts describing Melvill clinging to a rock - just one report by Higginson, and only that. And his account of his own activities at the drift was dismissed as an absolute pack of lies by several others who crossed a few minutes before, including one who reports being with him in the gorge. And yet Higginson is the sole claimed eyewitness of anything which happened to both Melvill and Coghill at the drift and on the Natal bank. All the books on the AZW are of no account at all if his statement doesn't hold water, nor however many times they mention coffins.

And no - there is certainly no common agreement among those who have been to the drift that any particular rock is the rock, coffin-shaped or otherwise. Other very knowledgeable locals have identified their own respective favourites. If, indeed, there ever was a rock. But it's not the rock which worries me, as I think the idea of the so-called "coffin rock" as being a positively identified rock for Higginson & Melvill can be dismissed fairly easily. More pertinent, perhaps, is that - without Higginson's account - we have absolutely no information whatsoever on the activities of either Coghill or Melvill from the moment they each separately arrived at the river on horseback. Including rocks and shot horses, and most certainly not of their being seen climbing out of the gorge by anyone, let alone hoping that a comrade was busily trying to grab a horse or two for them.

Peter

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 4:33 pm

Peter,
Interesting reading as usual from your post. Norris-Newman was at Fugitives' Drift the day after Melville and Coghill were interred and was known to sketch occasionally-- how well I don't know, but his maps show some talent and attention to detail. Although he doesn't name any companions on his visit, I can't imagine he risked it alone. Perhaps Higginson was with him and pointed out a/the rock?

Does Barker say anything of interest in "A Colonial..." (can't find my copy at present)? I recall his ancestor had a great deal to say about Higginson and he (Barker) was at the Drift during the crossing of the fugitives as well.

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 9:32 pm

What has not really been considered is that the orginal Drift pre-dated the war by many years, we have got to consider the NNC, who, would know this crossing point almost like we would know the backroads of our own district to miss the traffic. Irrespective of the terrain in 1879 I firmly believe they would go with the flow!. If Smith Dorrien had to leap from the high point, why was he there and not in the Sandy bay.

The track which I saw would have been quite defined, unlike the modern well trodden Fugitives Trail, (or the white painted arrows!!!, not there in 1879). If the Native horse and NNC who we already in action knew this was the place of sanctuary this would have been the the magnet to head to.

in a six feet flood would much of the rocks which we have all skidded and slid over trying to get to Natal without getting the top half of our bodies wet actuallt be expose in a flood, well, no in a word. And if those which are submerged anything to go by impossible to grip as they are water polished like gemstones.

Mel, my sides still hurt after the half hour me and Jonesy spent watching you and Cluffie (Siamese Twins) crossing, sorry mate but we belly laughed and still chuckle about it now.

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:34 pm

What Neil hasn't mentioned, is that I had about �2000 worth of camera gear around my neck and had forgotten the waterproof bags. Falling was not an option. Laughing

Peter,
The location of the recovery of the colour pole is shown in a sketch by Harford on Page 71 of Ron and Peter's "The 1879 Zulu War" As you will see it is about four hundred metres down stream of the large pool and just before the river enters the gorge.
A further clue to consider is that Higginson states that Melvill pulled him off the large rock into still water. With the river in a fast flowing state this could only be in the backswim of the large pool just slightly downstream from the rock shown in the ILN sketch.

Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 11:13 pm

Sawubona

I had missed the point that Noggs went along afterwards. And, as you say, quite possibly not alone (in fact, he'd have had to have someone to guide him, let alone as protection). He has confused the dates, as do many accounts, as although the 4th and 5th are often given for the two expeditions, I think the 24th archives confirm the 3rd and 4th (see also the chapter on "The Queen's Colour" in Keith Smith's latest book, Studies in the AZW, where he discussed this point). So Noggs was there on the 6th, it seems. And, as you say - might he have done a little sketch? I haven't got L&Q's reprint of the ILN - any clues in there, anyone?

Yes, Barker's grandson (Denis) does elaborate. Barker's original account and Higginson's report are well known and appear in several works & are used and discussed widely - see IK's in The Sun Turned Black, and Keith Smith also includes both accounts in his Selected Docs of the AZW. The way I read Ian's, it even allows for the possibility of both Barker's and Higginson's accounts being reconcilable. The whole problem once again (sorry about this!) is Morris. (Yes, wonderful writer - I too admire his great prose and also his indefatigability in researching in those days in the difficulties of his position, and agree that he was, in many ways, a modern pioneer of the subject & that we are all in his debt - but he shouldn't have persisted in making so much up. Not mistakes or sloppiness - but deliberate fiction, repeatedly. Yarns). He read Higginson's account and no doubt Barker's. So how does he arrive at his story? You tell me.

Anyway, DB adds to the written account in his Zulus at Bay: A Colonial Chronicle. There is much that is not original in the book generally and one or two points to raise an eyebrow at. And oral history is fraught with dangers, of course. However, he relates what his grandfather told his family, expanding upon the written account. It goes a bit further then L&Q in ZV, who also flagged up this discrepancy. The gist is that Higginson was found down in the bottom of the valley, alone and horseless, by Barker, when the latter & his companions (Tarboton etc) had got at least halfway up the hill/slope/gorge. Barker had gone back to see if he could locate Hawkins, his mate, hoping that the figure he could see was him. But it was Higginson. He helped him anyway, got him onto his horse, only for H to ride off, up and away, without waiting for B. B's comrades had, by arrangement, gone on towards Helpmekaar and waited along the route. Hoping that B (and perhaps Hawkins) would be along soon, they saw, instead, Higginson arrive - and they recognised B's horse straight away. He told them he'd found it in the gorge, which, to the Carbineers, implied that B was in difficulties or worse. Recovering B's horse from H, they went back to look for him, only to come across thepoor b----r staggering along the route, having outrun some Zulus since leaving the river after having to run for his life out of the gorge. H, by now no doubt embarrassed, said he had been intending to send the horse back for him! These shocked Carbineers therefore gave no credence whatever to H's story about M & C's end and were utterly disgusted by his behaviour. However, up against the full weight, later, of the Glyn's & Symon's reports (based on guess who?), who was going to listen to the claims of a 19 year old colonial?

Take your pick as to whose story is likely. Higginson's? Or Barker's and his mates? I can't see how one can be right without the other - at least from the time Higginson was out of the water. A very strange and unnecessary story for the NCs to make up, if that's what they did. Who knows if the rest of his account in the river is also cock-&-bull? Coghill's dad supported him when things got hot for him - but you'd have to say: "He would, wouldn't he?"

We can try to understand what happened by looking at B's or H'saccounts, or both - but definitely not Morris's version!

Who knows?

Interesting points by Neil tonight but its late & this is too long again!

Peter

P.S. Mel - thanks. Just seen yours, but bedtime!

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:04 am

Sorry Mel,I should have added the bit about the cameras, That said Cluffies thumb has never been the same, the stick still has the imprint on it!.

I could mention here my Coghill Theory.. what do you think?, is it worth it or will I get hounded off the site!!!!!!.

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:37 am

Go for it!

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:54 am

Jamie

I daren't!, Myself and Mel have a theory, but thats all it is, it involves Coghill, Popes compnay, Durnfords retirement, the right flank, being semi cut off and a long way around. Thats it... I'm off,

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 12:31 pm

Neil

Now that sounds like the beginning of a very interesting new topic.

I'd really like to know more, as many others would.

Coll

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:00 pm

I will if Mel backs me up on this......Mel? dare we?

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:27 pm

Come on Neil & Mel, you can't leave us all wondering !!

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 1:34 pm

OK, my theory, thats all, nothing else.
Mike, John, everyone ,this is a slant before I get tied to a wagon wheel and cut open like a sheep. (Being a Derby County fan doesn't help).

So, the theory. gulp!,Missing times, etc, but worth a bit of a debate.
In Jan 2006 Myself and Mel Hunt sat on the rocky outcrop on the end of the line where Pope's company were positioned. A few things fell into place, bare me out on this.

On the ground facts:
A) This is one of the only clear positions on the battlefield, apart from the HQ command position that you can clearly see Durnfords Donga and the associated land beyond as the vantage point is good.
B) Without doubt Pope was making some headway toward Durnford as he was out on a bit of an extreme.
c) When Durnford retired, oblique past Pope he inevitably left Pope exposed to side and frontage and now a matter of time to near wipe out.

So, our theory........please, its a theory... (why do I think I am going to be hung out on this?.)
a) In his position Pope would have no doubt seen the Zulu left horn beginning to extend and outflank Durnford to the right of the Donga, so could the command Tent.
b) Pope could have moved off toward the right rear of Durnford to present an extended defence, indeed he did seem to be going oblique down the slope until he had to stop and then go on the defence. Until that time his view was good to his right, but poor to his left, so he would be reluctant to move.
c) What was Coghills job as senior officer in Pulleins command, baring in mind his incapacity with his knee off saddle?, in many respects being able to deliver specific orders to those company commanders who were out of eyeshot of the command tent.
d) without doubt, the Command tent could see, quite clearly without even telescopes etc the Durnford was being over extended and the tide of the right horn were heading and extending past him, the naked eye even today is quite enough. The centre was hoding its own.
e) Did Coghill (or anyone else.. in which case who) ride down to inform Pope of a strategic reposition, to close the inveitable plug in the far right of the line which would allow Durnford to slot in the gap to Popes Left.
f) If Coghill did, and rode to a position that he was satisfied from his own observation would allow for a tactical line adjustment, what happens then?. Did he become cut off in the rapid dissolvement and left out on a limb, if he does, where does he go?
g) Well, he could ride on the outside outer edge of the left horn enveloping movement, over Malhabamkhosi, with a view to getting back into the rear of the camp by outpacing the left horn.
h) He gets over the lip of the range, only to find his re-entrant now being cut off by the right horn, so, he goes for broke and rides outside this rapidly closing pincer, until he begins to meet the first fugitves. He is now seen on the trail with others.

OK debate this..I am off to Katmandu on a slow boat where I cant be found.

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 3:47 pm

Interesting theory. Wink

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:22 pm

Neil,

However we can do an indepth survey on the spot together in January and report back.

Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:50 pm

Thank you Neil i was losing the will to live..and who could shoot you down,it could all very well have played much like you discribe.Wolsley's remark's on Melvill and Coghill are well documented, and what a vain,waspy,bitchy little martinet he seems to be emerging as.but the fact remain's although the sighting's of Coghill were sparse i have to wonder just what was he doing that morning, anybdy who has had a badly wrenched knee knows the pain is so intense that any movment is to be avoided. his mate's knew it was a significant injury caused by Pat Daly.s Assagai/chicken.so did that mean he was on light duties hobbling about the camp,being more preferable to being mounted and the constant bumping of said knee.by the way i.m a rabid man city fan,i should be over the moon/parrot. but i just seem slightly forboding times.regard's Leslie.