Photo of the 'iron' grave marker?

Hi,

Does anyone have access to a decent pictures of the 'iron' grave marker (associated with Pope and Godwin-Austin), that I may be able to use to pin point its former location on a  plan or map of the area?

Cheers

Sime

Sime
I believe the 'Iron' grave marker was an actual flat iron rather than just a piece of metal. There are no photos in existence. So trying to position the cairn would be virtually impossible.

Cheers

Frank,

I’m going to have to contradict you there, this from The South African Campaign of 1879 by MacKinnon & Shadbolt, published in 1880:

Lieutenant Pope was a favourite with both officers and men. Besides being an excellent linguist, he was an accomplished draughtsman, and many of his sketches are to be seen in the pages of the “Graphic,” and on the walls of the officers’ guard-room at Chatham. On the spot at Isandhlwana where he fell, which was first marked by a sergeant of the 2-24th Regiment with a meat-scale, an iron cross, conveyed there by the Bishop of Pietermaritzburg, is about to be erected to his memory.

JY

Bonjour,
Pope's grave is in the same area of Blaikie and Hitchock's graves
Cheers
Frédéric
IE I have not the source in mind. Thé source is given in the essay The wrecked camp

I would assume that your thinking of the steel cross in the Colonials grave area? That particular cross has been the subject of controversy for years. The iron cross erected on the battlefield was also reputed to be a marker for a new church.
I had a 'discussion' with Col Snook some time ago about the position of the graves, he was adamant Pope died much lower down, whereas there is a Zulu account that puts him higher up, away from Durnford and the Colonials.
Cheers

Hi Fred

The reference in "The Wrecked Camp" is footnote number 135. "Major General Sir Alexander Tulloch who visited Isandhlwana in 1885 published his recollections in several newspapers e.g. the Brecon Radnor Express 27 July 1916". He talks about Pope being buried near Trpr. Blaikie, Natal Carbineers and QM Hitchcock, Newcastle Mounted Rifles.

Incidentally, this essay by you and Julian in SZW IV is an absolute tour de force. I am in total admiration for the number of references you have brought together and the accompanying 156 footnotes is simply mind boggling. You each deserve a medal!

Steve Reinstadtler

Frank Allewell wrote:

I had a 'discussion' with Col Snook some time ago about the position of the graves, he was adamant Pope died much lower down, whereas there is a Zulu account that puts him higher up, away from Durnford and the Colonials.
Cheers

Hi Frank,

As I recall the abandonment of the donga (by Durnford) and the subsequent flanking & rolling up of (a reinforced?) G Company, was in important section of Col MS's book and he says that not many of G Company made it back from this position.

However unless there was a 'Custer' type scenario, whereby a disappointing number of the 7th's officers seemed to find themselves on Custer Hill (away from their commands), you would think that P&GA died with at least some of their men.

If you accept that G Company were overran near where they were the night before on picket duty (the outlying cairns) - either some accompanied by the officers made it back towards the saddle or they did not..... so Col MS needed to have the two officers nearer to the firing line and 'discounted' the Zulu account (assuming the two myopic officers are P&GA)

I'm just musing really....I like the sound of my own keypad clicking.....

Cheers

Sime

Bonjour Steve,
Thank you very much for your kind words. We had conscious that the accumulation of footnotes was somewhere boring but as the thesis of the essay has been built by the eye witnesses themselves...
Incidentally, Tulloch evoked a map drawn by himself ...

Frank,
About the Zulu's source, have you got in mind the testimony about thé 2 officers with' glass in the eyes'?
About SNook, have you changed your thoughts about Pope's Coy action the 22 January?
Cheers
Frédéric

Frederic
Definitly no change of mind and yes the glass eye testimony.
Sime. Col Snook based a lot of his theory around Bassage. We cant discount eye witness accounts but sometimes they need to looked at carefully. So my question would be: Did Bassage know how many men were there, did he count the bodies?
As Frederic as aluded to I believe in the Zulu testimony, I believe that They did make it away from the front line. There is a broken cross, stone, on the outer limits of the Colonial cemetary, I believe that if that isn't pope then most certainly the cairns directly below contain his remains. But that's just me, no proof just a tingle in the tests when I stand there. maybe its just I always need to pee?

Frank,
Thank You for your answer.
About the remains of G Coy, 2-24th, some informations are also given by Col sgt Ross who belonged also to G Coy but was with LC in the Mangeni the 22 January.
About the grave of Pope, Tulloch is not sufficiently concrete, so...Incidentally, I am intrigued by your feeling about thé specific spot of his death.
Cheers
Frédéric

Frank Allewell wrote:

no proof just a tingle in the tests when I stand there. maybe its just I always need to pee?

Now that's a party trick.....years ago, we used rudimentary geophysical survey equipment to try and find archaeological features without digging (very rudimentary - nothing like Time Team - we had to record a value and put it on a grid to decipher the info - it did 'sort of' work but was not instant and very time hungry).

Maybe if the Staffordshire County Council had some tingling nads, we might have found something.

I spose that the heart of the discussion is:-

Did the Zulu (or translators/transcibers) get it right about where the event happened?
Were the two officers in question P&GA (the evidence seems to be based on monocles)?

Maybe we will never know and its probably been discussed before.

Cheers

Sime

Sime
Call it gut feel. Counting the numbers that got back to the saddle area, or the scree slope. Looking at the cairns placement, reading the reports, Zulu and others. just feels right. Theres an interesting essay coming out in January that's going to answer a few questions. And probably pose a few more, and no its not mine.

Fred

I think the thesis does a very good job of establishing what could be seen at various stages of dusk and dawn. And in bringing together the host of individual witness statements it has a cumulative impact that single quotes in other accounts do not have. In my view, it puts beyond reasonable doubt that disfigurement went beyond what might be regarded as ritual in some cases. It will be interesting to read others views once they have a chance to read the essay.

Beyond the use of the extensive footnotes in support of the thesis, I think they are in themselves a valuable resource. They must, arguably, represent the most detailed source guide to about an hour or two of activity that we have. I would suggest that they could usefully be converted into a bibliography of that short period of time when Chelmsford's force moved into and out of the decimated camp. Just another little job!

Steve Reinstadtler

Hi Frederic,

I concur with Steve's sentaments and commend you and Julian for a sterling piece of work, vis-à-vis "The Wrecked  Camp".
Now that  new  sources are being tapped for first hand information, some of which have hitherto not been scrutinized , more of the real story of Isandlawana  is finally emerging, ....as gruesome and humiliating as it was.
It is rather curious that the writers of yore all pursued the same well flogged  themes and almost regurgitated the work of the writers before them.
At the time, and in the aftermath of the ignominious 1879 defeat it can be understood  that it would be very much suit some of those players  with vested  interests to allow the unpleasant to be swept under the carpet and rather to allow a positive spin to be put on things. However the perpetuation of a denial situation did nothing to further any learning .
This  very authoratative essay should certainly be archived for the access of future researchers.


regards


barry

Steve and Barry,
As you can imagine, I am very happy by your commments.
Julian can't answer actually. Probably very soon.
As You know, it's a co- written essay and it is not me who is the respected author and historian.
Under thèse circumstances, I am reluctant to tell a lot about this essay.
I want to say that (as You know) I am unable to write an essay in English; it is Julian who translated my part of work written in French (except the quotes of course) in good English language. As Julian is a "Gentleman", He asked me to check the translation ( to be sure of my thoughts),
It's important to add that Julian considered me as an equal,
We have had a différence of opinion only on one point ( a minor point) and the "scientific evidences" gave the answer ( I was wrong).
So Steve, You are perfectly right on your first comment.
Barry, to be totally honest, I don't know all the answers to your comments but i tend to agree to some of them.

Steve and Barry,
You evoked rituals and mutilations. Many of us have in mind the sensitive and very controversial question of atrocities at Isandhlwana. A reality or a myth? At least, two well known authors in two essays have already given their point of view on this subject.
The essay The wrecked camp doesn't answer to this question. It was not it's aim . However, the subject of the "alleged atrocities" is the logic continuation of the Wrecked Camp's essay.
Cheers
Frédéric

Hopefully my copy of the essays is winging its way towards me, in the hands of one of Royal Mails finest......

Cheers

Sime

There is a discussion on here where I think there were a lot of posts re the Iron Cross Marker in the Colonial Cemetery , which may , or may not , be Pope's resting place , which for the uninitiated is near Blackie & Hancock . If Xhosa can find the pics I may've sent him ...hopefully he may wish to post them , as you are all aware I have no idea how to do so . My Latest Copy of Julian's is heading my way , looking forward to it's arrival .
90th

Hi

Are these cairns part of the Colonial Cemetery?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Cheers

Sime

Hi Sime
Yes it is , I've sent 2 pics to xHosa , who'll happily post them showing the Iron Crossed Cairn , in relation to its position to Durnford's Donga , and the Blaikie Grave , which just happens to be the Elongated Brown slab in your pic , the Iron Cross Cairn is just out of shot to the right , once Les posts the pics you'll get the layout of the area .
90th

Thanks a lot

Sime

From the 90th...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

James Blaikie's grave is the brown slab in the centre of the pic , the supposed Pope Cairn with Cross is directly above it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Picture 2 is the so called / thought Pope Cairn ( with the Metal Cross ) looking down the plain , Durnfords Donga is the very small tree line in the middle of the other tree lines.

Thanks Les , much appreciated
90th

Hi,

Thanks a lot.

just out of interest - does anyone know the significance (or not) of the small ('modern') iron cross next to the cairn?

Thanks

Sime

Hi Sime
It may be the replacement marker possibly for the Pope Cairn , I dont know how long its been there , but it was sais Pope was buried next to James Blailkie , if they were any closer they'd be together ! .
90th

Gary,

Or it may be a replacement for the battlefield iron cross in this photograph, that I have previously posted:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Graves at iSandlwana, circa 1890.
(John Young Collection)

Just a thought.

JY

Hi JY
Happy New Year to you and yours , yes it may well be , I dont suppose we'll ever know with 100 % certainty , how goes the Writing ? . Major is on Patrol with a friend of ours from here in Melbourne , they were at Morme Gorge yesterday . I'm looking forward to the final Test Match this week
90th

Steve, Barry
Thanks for the kind remarks in your post of 28th Dec. I've had and am still having pc problems thanks to Windows 10 update so am replying now while I have the chance. I agree with your remarks and, as we allude in the Wrecked Camp essay, Fred and I have a sort of 'part two' in the next volume, virtually completed, which will examine the whole question of atrocities and will no doubt be too controversial for some.

Hi,

On the photo posted by JY, there appear to be fewer cairns nearer to Blackies slab. Would this be because more burials have been found over the 120 years or so?

Also does anyone know what the side on (?) cross directly above Blackie marks?

Cheers

Sime

sime look at the first pic xHosa posted on my behalf , you can see the cross next to it's Cairn , it's quite close to Blaikie .
90th

Julian/Fred

Looking forward to Part II in that case. I was going to say that whatever conclusions others may have reached on the atrocities, those conclusions can only be based on the primary evidence you have now brought together. So it is a matter of interpretation of the primary evidence which we now all have. At some point the topic needs separating from this "Iron marker" heading.

Steve Reinstadtler

Well, actually, you have two-thirds of the primary evidence...With volume V you will be able to make a proper assessment .  The best is yet to come perhaps...
In fact, I think the ball will firmly be in the other court...and the revisionists will have to PROVIDE EVIDENCE that there weren't atrocities.

In fact, I think the ball will firmly be in the other court...and the revisionists will have to PROVIDE EVIDENCE that there weren't atrocities..... say's Julian.

Julian, who are these so called revisionists?. i sense ego in that last statement!. i will read your
latest co authored work.. where once again you go to material which is in the public domain and
then present them in your own inimitable fashion.. i have no problem with the fact that the Zulu
were maddened and incensed that their country was ruthlessly invaded and that some of those
who died at Isandhlwana were brutalized and desecrated post mortem.. but you seem to suggest
that after, your research will never be challenged! well that well might be the case. all the main
participants are dust and we are left with the scraps that remain. did the Zulu mutilate the dead?.
i firmly believe so, and have thought that all along, it comes as no great shock to me. cheers.

Xhosa
By revisionists I meant the current view as presented by most modern historians/writers which is most firmly as Barry stated that the claims of atrocities were just 'grauelpropaganda'.
Ego, possibly...I do think that it's one of the better things I've (co-)written, thanks to Frederic.
Yes, we went to material in the public domain BUT material which has not been seen/used before and we do not 'present' them in a 'fashion' - we very much allow the writers to speak for themselves.  As you say, you've not yet read the essay for yourself yet.  I think you'll find it very interesting and the writers convincing, when you do.
I certainly don't suggest that our research will never be challenged.  I rather welcome challenges (I know Fred does or he would never have agreed to work with me on this!) and I always approve if a challenge results in a proven, more accurate version of what happened.
As for 'scraps'...there are plenty of those and ones that are generally not known but there is plenty of material which can lead to fundamental changes in the interpretation of events at Isandhlwana.  
I am pleased that you believe that the Zulus mutilated the DEAD and are not shocked.  You are therefore half-convinced anyway.  Many are not however.  And as for the LIVING...?

Julian Whybra wrote:

I certainly don't suggest that our research will never be challenged.  I rather welcome challenges (I know Fred does or he would never have agreed to work with me on this!) and I always approve if a challenge results in a proven, more accurate version of what happened.

Bonjour
Of course, I do like debates...with persons intellectually honest.

IE: Congretulation to Xhosa; he posted the first personal attack and the essay is not yet published.

Amité
Frédéric

Thank you Julian, i am really looking forward to reading the articles.

Bonjour
Of course, I do like debates...with persons intellectually honest.

IE: Congretulation to Xhosa; he posted the first personal attack and the essay is not yet published. Salute

Amité
Frédéric


Personal attack!!!. where?. i have no control of your interpretation of my comment's. there was
certainly no personal attack. i had the temerity to raise a few points and observation's. would
you... when you understand that.. withdraw that statement. i know you are french and english
is of course not your mother tongue, but you are ofay by now of subtle nuances, when this has
permeated your brain you might see that you ' jumped the gun ' and saw an attack when there
was none offered or intended. see no offence in this. xhosa

No comment

You seriously offer that! with a smile.. Cowardly.

Xhosa
I think what Fred intended to say was that the specifics of atrocities will appear in the 'continuation' essay to be in volume V. Our essay in Volume IV is concerned with disproving the oft-repeated claims that it was "too dark to see anything in the camp". Naturally, along the way there are mentions (lots of them) of the carnage about which, by and large, we make but little comment (although, as I've said, "the writers speak for themselves"). Having in the vol. IV essay established the proof re visibility, we are able to address the atrocities themselves in vol. V.
You have not read the vol. IV essay and have conflated the two essays' contents, hence Fred's comment.
I can assure you that it is never easy to go against the established view and Fred and I have taken great care to be sure of what we've stated (Fred, as it happens, I know to have been meticulous in digging out never-before seen material in order to place it in the public domain). I know that I speak for Fred as well as myself in saying that we shall both welcome challenges to our inimitably-presented argument, but whoever does so had better be sure of their evidence. We shall see.

Ofay? I know you are English and French is not your mother tongue. But, see no offence. Happy new year Les.

Steve

xhosa2000 wrote:

You seriously offer that! with a smile.. Cowardly.

Xhosa, you misinterstood the meaning of my .
Me too, I love you, unless I misunderstood again your post.
Now, you have two from me

Thank you Fredrick, no you did not misunderstand me, my words are honest
and plain, and so with the spirit of the new year i say that.. i love you too.
i look forward to reading your article. xhosa

Hi,

Nice to see the 'Entente Cordiale' is back on track......

I for one,  would be more surprised if the Zulus did not mutilate the dead, most cultures have at sometime, mutilated the dead for either war trophies or for superstitious/religious reasons (or even for judicial purposes)

I am slightly surprised that there seemed to be very little torture of prisoners, or least very little evidence for it  (I dunno about the skeleton with the rope around its neck or the meat hook debate). I can’t recall much about that fella who was captured at Hlobane, being harmed.

A ‘report’ went around some years ago that a number of Zulus were buried alive/wounded at Rorke's Drift, after the battle.

I sometimes fail to see why this is such a controversial subject.

I look forward to reading the essay, when the postie shifts himself.

Cheers

Sime

One mans mutilation is anothers tradition!

A Zulu tradition involves multiple stabbings of bodies, 'ukuhlomula', later arrivals at a killing will 'hlomula'. Its a mark of respect to a fallen enemy. Those wounds will be inflicted many many times all over the body and could be construed by the unenlightened as mutilations.
Didn't the American Indian tribes have a similar tradition of Counting Coup?
Are these well established traits mutilations or the signs of a victor paying homage to a respected enemy?
Again there is the process of disemboweling, 'qaqa' the deeply religious significance must never be underestimated. For a warrior to kill an opponent and fail to open the stomach will trap the dead persons spirit, that spirit will haunt the warrior to death. Its a serious issue.

To repeat 'one mans mutilation is anothers tradition'.
Does that put me into the category of revisionist? Hell I hope so, Ive been trying to revise thinking on the battle for years.

Padre George Smith of Rorkes Drift. by Canal William Lummis MC.
Pp60-61
Explains; "We rode over the field and selected a good spot for the future memorial Church on the site of the late camp of the 24th, and having erected a small iron Cross that we had brought with us on a cairn of stones to mark the site......"
The dedication was read by the Bishop of Maritsburg and attended by
the Ven, Archdeacon Usherwood
The Rev George Smith
Canon Johnson
Mr Fynn
The Civil Resident Mr WheelWright.

Cheers

Frank Allewell wrote:

Didn't the American Indian tribes have a similar tradition of Counting Coup?

Hi Frank,

Counting Coup was originally a form of bravery (we 'Browns' call it stoopidity) in the face of the enemy. Some tribes staked their sashes to the round as a sign that they would not run, some (really stoopid) warriors tied string around their penis and similarly staked the string to the ground (to equally show they would not leg it). The classic Counting Coup was winning kudos for hitting an enemy with a hooked stock (the coup stick).

The mutilations carried out by the American Indians were also an insurance policy, should they meet their enemy in the afterlife (cutting the trigger finger off, destroying/removing the eyes of a dead enemy)

Apparently, Custer had a awl stuffed in his ear by a squaw so he would hear better in the afterlife

Indian women (and children) took part in the mutilations, when possible.

I have read that the Apaches thought that the longer (AKA more horribly) a prisoner took to die, the greater 'power' his captors/killers would gain from the event.

Scalping (reputedly 'taught' to the Indians by the French/British in the Canadian Indian Wars or at least made more popular by the Europeans) showed that you had killed an enemy, had the courage to stay around performing the task, also scalps were traded or swapped (scalping is very common in many cultures - Anglo Saxon being one of them) but on the other side of the equation Indian scalps were sold on the East coast to tourists.

Cheers

Sime

All very interesting, but there is surely just one simple question that governs the issue. Did this happen post mortem in all cases? Perhaps we should await the presentation of the rest of the evidence before making our judgement.

Frank

On the subject of the iron cross, it seems much more likely to me that Bishop Colenso would have brought one out to mark the future location for a church than as an individual grave marker. If it was intended as the latter he surely would have brought more than one. Has anyone seen a reference to this occasion in Colenso's writings?

Steve