rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
The "cave" might be an good place for a bit of serious metal detecting. I was perusing "There Will Be An Awful Row...", edited by Ian Knight and his conclusion (at least in the 1980's) is that the cave portrayed in The Last of the 24th is, in fact, a fissure in the rocks in the extreme North of Isandlwana and not at all the cave that the late David Rattray thought it was. This other cave is a goodly distance from the cairn of Younghusband's stand and doesn't overlook The Saddle at all! Whichever is the correct cave, even if it's neither of these two , has got to have at least scraps of brass just out of view in the soil.

It likewise wouldn't take much of a metal detector to determine if a pile of rocks is just that or a burial cairn (see the thread about Talanane)and it would be completely non-invasive to boot. I consider that I have more respect than most for burial grounds in general and much of the area is, after all, a cemetery, but I would have no qualms about personally wandering with a clipboard, a camera, and a metal detector. I seems to me that any serious attempts to learn more about the events of that day is nothing but respectful to the dead of both sides. I'll be the first to admit however, that such amateur sleuthing has to be discouraged and the job left only to trained professionals.
View user's profileSend private message
rich


Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 897
Location: Long Island NY USA
Reply with quote
Saw...I agree with your last thoughts there. But one thing I'm concerned about is the fact that the battlefields are being looted for artifacts with the items sold for big bucks. And those buying most likely don't care how the item was found. All they perceive is how "valuable" an item they're getting if it comes from a AZW battlefield. I hate to say it but if this kind of activity goes on the archaeological stories that conceivably can still be on the battlefield will be pillaged and there'll be nothing left to study. I'm not down there and I wonder really deep down what the philosphy is protecting all the battlefields.

_________________
Rich
View user's profileSend private message
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
Putting aside the legality of metal detecting on a battlefield, anyone who buys a Rorke's Drift or Isandlwana artifact that they didn't see come out of the ground with their own eyes needs their head examining.

Peter
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Rich

Only just seen your post of 24 Feb.

Well, I would always start from a sceptical position and bear in mind at all times the facts. It seems to me one must also be ready for the most fanciful claims to be made on the flimsiest of evidence, which is what I mean by interpretation. We've seen this sort of thing already on Isandlwana.

If we start on a non-negotiable understanding that no cairns can be disturbed as part of the project, as they purport to contain - or mark the spot of - human remains, notwithstanding that this can nowadays only be the most approximate indication (if that), as a result of the several major reburials and movement of remains. They are disturbed from time to time by soil erosion, of course, and the necessary repairs can't be avoided.

My second rule would be the strict banning of any TV coverage of the project, and on no account should a proposed TV programme be linked to the investigations. That way lies the inevitable dumbing down and so called "good TV" standards that are all too prevalent. Only professionals (now there's a term!) to be involved and a report or academic paper to be produced afterwards. If any organisation or publication wants to comment on the report, fine. If the TV companies don't find anything sufficiently sensational in the report, or see nothing they can take out of context to make a story from, no doubt they'll show little or no interest, which would benefit all concerned.

Rule one reflects civilised behaviour and rule two is aimed at ensuring a minimum standard of interpretation is not hijacked by the stubborn ignorance of TV companies and their commentators. (A recent TV programme on Stonehenge excavations, Rich, had me laughing and crying simultaneously, so idiotic did they appear to presume their audience. Supposition built on speculation, guesswork and remote possibilities, but repeated and built upon sufficiently regularly that they persuade the audience (so they think) that they have raised probabilities, facts even, and presented a great story of discovery. Pah! And they call these documentaries).

So - only two rule so far. Now - objectives. What are we looking for? And what important questions do we hope they will answer?

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
rich


Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 897
Location: Long Island NY USA
Reply with quote
Peter E..

Thanks for your overview. I always knew you were a reasonable man!
I, to, don't go for the willy-nilly attack on scrub and brush withou a firm understanding of what is trying to be achieved and learned. Definitely an important attitude to have.

Re: the tv business.
uh oh. Something tells me once bitten, twice shy? On the Stonehenge fiasco you note, do you know who produced it and was that program distributed to other countries. Was it done by Fred Flintstone & Co??
(not sure if you guys in the UK will get the association but it's supposed to come over as a joke!) Generally, was the program say dumped as dubious?? Perhaps they underwrote the digging? If so, I certainly could see where problems might arise there. TV is show biz as we know and they like to rattle the cages to drum up interest in the production.

_________________
Rich
View user's profileSend private message
Mel


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 345
Reply with quote
Saw.... not too sure if a metal detector could confirm if a pile of rocks was a cairn or not without some sort of dig as a follow up?

I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to carry out a metal detector sweep into the Qwabe Valley in order to establish just how far Durnford advanced?

_________________
Mel
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Sawubona


Joined: 09 Nov 2005
Posts: 1179
Reply with quote
Mel,
A scrap of brass the size of a buckle or even a button would register through a good foot or more's worth of rubble stone, without disturbing anything. Further, any good metal detector has the capability of "discriminating" among brass, lead, and iron (steel versus iron can be a little dicey with my machine, but it's not a high end piece of equipment by any means). I'd feel confident in labeling a pile stones a burial cairn if the detector indicated that several different metallic artifacts were contained within it.
View user's profileSend private message
Isandlwana Archaeology
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 3 of 3  

  
  
 Reply to topic