![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
![Reply to topic](templates/Morpheus/images/lang_english/blue/reply.gif) |
|
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_left_post.gif) | | ![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_right_blue.gif) |
Sawubona
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 |
Posts: 1179 |
|
|
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:48 pm |
|
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/posttop_left.gif) |
![Reply with quote Reply with quote](templates/Morpheus/images/lang_english/blue/icon_quote.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
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.
|
|
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/ftr_right.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_left_post.gif) | | ![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_right_blue.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/ftr_right.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_left_post.gif) | | ![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_right_blue.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/ftr_right.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_left_post.gif) | | ![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_right_blue.gif) |
Peter Ewart
Joined: 31 Aug 2005 |
Posts: 1797 |
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England. |
|
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 4:22 pm |
|
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/posttop_left.gif) |
![Reply with quote Reply with quote](templates/Morpheus/images/lang_english/blue/icon_quote.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |
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
|
|
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/ftr_right.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_left_post.gif) | | ![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_right_blue.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/ftr_right.gif) |
![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_left_post.gif) | | ![](./templates/Morpheus/images/blue/hdr_right_blue.gif) |
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
|
|
|
| ![](./templates/Morpheus/images/spacer.gif) |