rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDINGS AT THE DRIFT

Posted: Sat May 02, 2009 8:44 am

Dear All

A simple question please - as I'm a long way from home and access to the usual sources. Somebody has asked me about the construction of the old 1879 buildings at the drift and I want to give them a decent reply. I can remember a few details off the top of my head but I don't want to run the risk of mis-remembering any details. Could somebody do me the favour of providing some broadbrush notes. What I'm talking about is not the layout of the doors, rooms and windows, but the materials used in the construction of the various walls. For example the gable ends were not the same as the long exterior walls, and I think, unless memory fails me, the interior partition walls were something different again. Rendered or not rendered would also be of interest. Roofs were obviously thatched.

So any snippets of source material on the buildings would be of use.

Thanks in advance

As ever

Mike

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:17 pm

Please the question couldn't be simpler - can somebody help - just by looking into an Ian Knight or my own book (I don't have a copy with me in Sudan) and noting what it says about the materials used. eg gable end stone, side walls fired brick, interior walls mud brick - or whichever combination is correct.

Thank you

Mike

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 2:30 pm

Mike,

Have just got on-line at home - can you tell that the ZERO ALPHA was in the UK for the long w/e?![always marry a techno whizz!]

I am checking your book now. Wait out.

AMB

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 3:35 pm

Mike,

From your work, 'Like Wolves on the Fold'

�It was fortunate that Jim Rorke had constructed the end-walls of his buildings from stone, as three of them would be exposed to direct attack as integral parts of the perimeter. The side walls were made of conventional bricks and seemed robust enough; fortunately it was possible to drive loopholes through them with a bayonet. The interior partition walls between rooms were made from mud-clay bricks and were much less strong than the external walls.�

From Ian Knight's 'British Fortifications in Zululand 1879'

�They were long, low bungalows with open verandas and thatched roofs, the end walls built of roughly dressed stone, and the side walls of locally made bricks. The interior walls were of sun -dried mud brick, plastered over.�

Hope this is of assistance.

Jeff
(Hope the italics are of assistance. - Alan)

Posted: Mon May 04, 2009 3:38 pm

sorry , not sure why I can't get italics up on the titles.

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 7:05 am

Dear Jeff

You are a gentleman sir and I am most grateful to you. Exactly what I needed.

Yours as ever

Mike

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 3:19 pm

Interesting, perhaps, that these two European buildings - which the Zulu eventually tried so hard to destroy - were built by Zulu labour, although from which side of the river I'm not sure.

Writing in 1882, Bishop Wilkinson (Bp of Zululand, 1870-75) tells us:

The Zulu are not only apt, but very anxious to learn the arts and crafts of the white man's civilisation, and many become most proficient in them. One of the best blacksmiths in Durban is a Zulu. I saw one of the two houses being built at Rorke's Drift, which were so gallantly defended by a handful of our soldiers, and it was being built by Zulus; Mr Rorke raising the corners only, and leaving the rest to native hands.

Peter

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 5:40 pm

Mike,

Apologies, clearly Jeff (well done, Sir) got back to you before I could. Do you need anything extra?

AMB

Posted: Wed May 06, 2009 11:54 am

Hi Peter and AMB

That's a really interesting quote and I think is reflected in the famous photo of the post conflict [fortified] storehouse. I've been zooming in on a couple of high res images I have and there's definitely something interesting going on at the front left corner (as you look at the photo) of the building where larger blocks appear to give way to bricks. Also the right hand gable end of the storehouse, in the long shot of the post, taken from the rear, looks like it's brick not stone.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Mon May 11, 2009 9:41 pm

Colonel,

Something further:

From Knight's 'Nothing Remains But To Fight' (p99, referring to the Hospital):

According to Hook,..'the ends of the building were of stone, and the side walls of ordinary bricks, and the inside walls or partitions of sun-dried bricks of mud. These shoddy inside bricks were our salvation.�

Knight goes on, �Modern archaeological evidence has supported Hook�s account; the interior walls were apparently built of bricks of mud mixed with dagga, plastered over and either painted or papered.

AMB

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:08 am

Excellent. Thanks chum.

Made it back to A.K. and am working on fixing the position of the zareba. I have two possible sites but am slowly eliminating one. Should get back again this week subject to appropriate levels of guile and cunning - if you know what I mean. I believe I have Beresford's Gardner position on the high ground the night before; confirmatory work ongoing.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:16 am

Colonel,

RD Building. Glad further was of interest. Was actually looking for details of the water cart incident for the Lt (I thought Bromhead lead the charge, but details seem to have passed me by last night - too long a day, me thinks!). Any ideas?

AK. Good to hear that you made it back. Did you need assistance or by own means? Weather still the same? [K brought over broad brimmed hats from GE for future expeds!]. Sadly, I think you'll have gone by the time I call in your neck of the woods again. I look fwd to reading all about it. Are you to rtn to AK?

Keep safe,

AMB

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 7:22 am

AMB

It was Bromhead. Somebody else will chime in with the exact reference, but off the top of my head have a look in Hook's accounts - also possibly Chard's reports.

AK. Yes. Very soon.

As ever

Mike

Posted: Tue May 12, 2009 4:50 pm

Colonel,

Looked at the Archives of Zululand last night, but still failed to find it! I�ll have another look tonight. As I said, I also would have some Bromhead, if asked, however, TY for your confirmation. Now looking for the source to back this up!

Keep safe,

AMB

Posted: Wed May 13, 2009 1:38 pm

The Rev. Smith mentions Bromhead leading a "bayonet charge," (in order to clear the front of the hospital before it was abandoned), but there doesn't appear to be any specific mention, in any contemporary account, that Bromhead later lead the party that went over to fetch in the water cart.

[TWOTS has Chard leading the party]

Hook states that he was one of a party, of three or four, who volunteered to go and get the water cart - again with no mention of Bromhead being involved.