Hidden Ground at Isandlwana

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

Im going to refer all the photos to the 'WOODS' maps, the maps annotated by Ron and Peter probably are the best.
All these photos show dead ground that could very easily have 'hidden' the right horn.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Looking West along the fold in the ground. This entire fold is invisible untill you climb towards the houses at the top, its the exact position that was annotated on the maps and also highlighted by L and Q.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A further view of the donga at the bottom. A key point is that this is a feader for the Ngwebeni stream so the regiments would have had access to water.
This donga/fold runs down to the main stream

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

Along side the main stream where the maps show the chest/umCijo was esconced. This is the proffered point X hill that Raw would have looked down and got his first sighting. This area is visible from the very top of the Mkwene hill. BUT only if there was a lookout there.

Something to note is that the so called piquet on top of iSandlwana could not have seen anything of this area so f he did report three columns of zulu he could only have been refering to a sighting actually of the top of Mabaso

This taken, a few years back, from the top of Mabaso where the tradional discovery point was made, thats the top of iSandlwana in the distance. A secondary issue arrises here that IF the discovery as at the top of Mabaso it would be not only visible fro isandlwana but also by all the videttes, fro iThusi, the ridge line and from the Mkwene area. Why did those piquets not respond faster to get down to the camp? Possibly they did but we dont have a record of it, why would that be as we have a record of the first mentions by Shepstone to Pulleine ( See Gardners statements ).
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is a point I believe the left horn had entered the Qwabe Valley, moving down the valley over the ridge to the right and scaring the hell out of Durnford
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I made the point above that 'if there was a piquet on top of Mkwene'. I actually dont believe there was. If it was a professional squad of soldiers that was sent to guard or act as sentry then yes it would be feasible.
In the narrative points are shown where the vedettes were, not so the piquets,
. There is a Detached Outpost at night that indicates the position well below the hill on the upslope of the ridge guarding the pathway. It would be logical to assume that their officers the next morning would be some where in their vicinity. Just to the north of the position indicated in the narrative is a slight ridge that connects onto the east of Mkwene. That area would be in the remit, being the top of the traditional pathway, of that piquet and so it would be the ideal position for a few colonial officers to look out over the plain AND potentially see and movements on the face of Mabaso and to the right of the plateau. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In terms of the videttes, they were a lot more veld savvy than the piquets and being mobile tended to wander around and so would have better oportunities for viewing across the plateau. But at the same time they were very mindful of their mounts and would in no have risked damaging them for the sake of climbing up to the top of the various hills as shown on the Narrative. They were also not great for walking around, if it couldnt be done on horseback then it couldnt be done was the attitude.

The point Im trying to make is that we must not be hide bound by the definite locations shown on the Narrative. I do believe that to a very large degree Ron and Pete got it right in the interpretations of the Wood/Henderson remarks on the maps.

And just for the hell of it, iSandlwana at dusk[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It may assist if this map is refered to, with due deference to Ron and Peter.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I miss the sunsets at Isandlwana , thanks for sharing them Frank .
90th

Nothing better Gary, G and T, sitting on the balcony taking rubbish with Shane and petting the dogs. at peace with the world. Your regards were passed on to Shane.

Thanks Frank
90th

Afternoon Frank
Sorry been out all day.
Some fantastic pictures there. You obviously did have a delightful day...and oh my that sun set.
Just been having a good old perusal of these photos whilst looking at my own maps.

Can I just confirm, how many Zulus are you placing sitting on the Nqutu plateau just before the discovery?
Are you placing the whole Zulu army (15-20,000 warriors) on there in various different pieces of dead ground or just the right horn and the chest?
Smashing pictures
Kate

Hi Kate
Sorry I got interupted earlier. I have some more photos taken facing south towards the camp from the various 'hidy holes'.
The shots I have posted would be the right gorn in the fold going up the hill. behind point X would be umCijo and portion of the left horn. The balance of the left were further to the east also dead ground, I will do those photos tomorrow. The reserve are the shots as described.
If one accepts the thoughts that the videttes were not posted up high, I know a tragic waste, then the only area that would overlook any of the areas would be from the Northern end of the iThusi ridge. And that would quite possibly have been Whitelaw, as has been recorded.
Potentially at the time of discovery portion of the left horn, the reserve would not have been visible and the left centre would have still been streaming out of the Ngwebini mouth.
Just some thoughts that still need a hell of a lot of input snarling kicking and biting.

Also Frank
I take it those first three pictures are looking north towards the Nqutu range along the dead ground with Ngwebini 'settlement' and R68 to the right ?
Kate

The one thing that indicates to me that the traditional viewpoint of the entire Zulu army being in the valley is not quite correct is the timing.
Raw and Roberts engaged the centre, with both horns engaging Durnford/Cavaye within a reasonably short time period of the discovery. No one has suggested that there was a significant lapse in time to enable the right horn to get all the way across the plateau to drop down behind Isandlwana.
If the right horn departed the valley at the same time as the centre they would have been seen, Raw/Roberts would have known they were being flanked and withdrawn quicker than they did.
I had a discussion with Ian Knight on his Facebook group page and he is still a believer of the traditional story, citing as already mentioned the view from Mkwene precluding any Zulu units being on the plateau.
The sources state the Zulu were withdrawing but do not explicitly say where they withdrew to. So the probability that they were on the plateau is pretty high in my opinion.

Kate, yes correct.
Bill
A number of the instances that cause confusion at Isandlwana are explainable. Ian is perfectly correct, IF you stand on the top of Mkwene. But as Ive pointed out above theres no real evidence any one was. Logic says there should have been but remove that element from the debate and the situation changes dramatically.
Its also self evident throughout Zulu history that part of their battle tacticts was being seen, not hiding away. The forward positions they chose could very well be just that and not a hiding place. They needed water. All the so called 'Wood" map positions place them at a point where access to water was more or less immediate.
I think we tend to make Isandlwana history very difficult for ourselves by trying so hard to explain the unexplainable that is really based on our own errors or interpretations.
Remove the Piquet from Mkwene and put it into its correct place, guarding the traditional access route to the camp, start thinking of a man and his horse for a position he would be comfortable in. Not a position that we can clamber up to in our hi Tek boots.
Then the situation starts to change.
Thik again of the observations of Pope, Brickhill and Chard. Thousands of men streaming across the ridge, 3 to 4000, all making no effort of concealment. For that to have happened they would have had to have been between the piquet ( in its historical position) and the camp. For that to be true why has nobody mentioned the shear panic that would have caused withe NNC cut of from there military protectors. There would have been a mass stampeed to get down that hill and back to the camp. If that didnt happen it can only mean that the NNC were not under threat and not cut of from the camp so not on the Northern side of Mkwene. Its all part of the same argument really.
Time for breakfast.

Cheers

Frank climb to the top of Isandula and take a 360 of the Battlefield.

Pete at my age I just manage to climb into bed !

Thank you. Great pictures! Problem I have with all of this is I've never been there so the reports, accounts, maps, history books makes it hard to visualize what the terrain is. Well guess I'll have to make a pilgrimage there someday.

Here you are Peter, photographs from the top of iSandlwana. Unfortunately I can't find my pictures taken facing north from the top of the mountain.

Bigpaulie hopefully these might help you get to grips with  what the landscape looks like. Photos taken in November 2011.

From Younghusband's position looking east across the battlefield. Bigpaulie Amatutshane (Conical Kop) is the small hill directly above the tip of the bush. Itusi is the high point to the left of it and the Inyoni ridge runs towards the left of the picture:-

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

If you look to the clump of trees in the middle of the picture and the buildings (a clinic) this is the Nyogane Donga or Durnfords donga. The position he held against the left horn. The Conical Kop can just be seen on the extreme left of the picture:-

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

From the top of iSandlwana looking south east and south towards the Fugitives trail. Mahlabamkhosi (Black's koppie) is directly above the coach:-

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

That saddle south of Black's koppie is the route I believe Alan took to get down onto the Fugitives Trail.
Hope this helps.

Kate

Thanks Kate. Appreciate it immensely.

Afternoon Frank
Couple of questions.
In your opinion what is the attitude of the 5000 warriors sitting in that dead ground? In other words are they all hunkered down, packed together shoulder to shoulder ready to pounce or are they sprawled out relaxing having a brew and a biccie?
The reason for asking I'm trying to work out how much of an area 5000 warriors would take up.

Second question if the vedettes are not on the highest points, which side of the Inyoni ridge do you think they were on?

Kate

HI Kate
One of the reports said the zulu were all sitting in rows, quietly, a second that they were advancing. So quite possibly part of the either left horn or centre was still moving out of the Ngwebini mouth. It was getting towards mid day so a such of indulence and the boys were just chilling, maybe having a sleep. So yep the brew and a possible chocie digestive.
The vedettes were a pretty maverick bunch that would I strongly imagine be moving around, around the lowere slopes to the west, the east possibly meet up with who ever was along the nyoni ridge for a smoke. There was no sense of danger, the boss was way to the east giving the upstarts a solid wupping. Sure possibly the odd sighting or so, then pop around the corner to have a word with a couple of officers from the NNC and get their opinions. Just another day in Africa.
Its just thoughts Kate. I walked around for a good few hours just 'living the area' trying to put myself in there place, them being Dinkelman and Bernning, bored out of their minds for the last few hours possibly hot and sweaty.
It was in the 40s when I was there and after an hour I was just ready for an Ice cold brown bottle, why would I be different to the guys from 140 years ago.

Cheers

gardner1879 wrote:

Afternoon Frank
Couple of questions.
In your opinion what is the attitude of the 5000 warriors sitting in that dead ground? In other words are they all hunkered down, packed together shoulder to shoulder ready to pounce or are they sprawled out relaxing having a brew and a biccie?
The reason for asking I'm trying to work out how much of an area 5000 warriors would take up.

Second question if the vedettes are not on the highest points, which side of the Inyoni ridge do you think they were on?

Kate

 Hi Kate

In your opinion what is the attitude of the 5000 warriors sitting in that dead ground?  
Hamer " And after going a little way , we tried to capture some cattle the disapeared over a ridge, and on coming up we saw the Zulu's. Like ants in front of us, in perfect order and quiet as mice and stretched in an even line"  I would say the reason why they were quite as mice is because they were found under the noses of the videttes on the Nqutu escarpment to move so many warriors so close to the videttes and not have them discovered is a master stroke but Barker did discover them at 11am but by the time he reported his find to HQ, Durnford already made his moves which is confirmed by Barkers meeting up with the rocket battery on his way back

Second question if the vedettes are not on the highest points, which side of the Inyoni ridge do you think they were on?
in my opinion Mkwene had videttes on it all morning but what the Zulus were doing at the other end is very crafty. Some time after 10am the videttes on Ithusi and the center point of the Nqutu escarpment were forced off take notice of Barkers testimony ." Shortly afterwards, numbers of Zulus being seen on all the hills to the left and front, Trooper Swift and another were sent back to report. The Zulus then remained on the hills, and about two hundreds of them advanced to within three hundred yards of us, but on our advancing they retired out of sight, and a few of us went up to this hill where the Zulus had disappeared, and on a farther hill, at about six hundred yards’ distance, we saw a large army sitting down". as you can see the Zulus on the hills are to the left front of the camp Barker here is at the base of the notch this is when Trooper Swift goes and reports to HQ and it is then, when these Zulus retire and it is only a short distance from there this army is found in that dead ground.


Kate the Zulus were playing with these videttes all morning forcing them of and doing what they liked with them. Lieutenant Davies confirm Zulu's on Itusi on there arrival confirmed by a Carbineer and even confirmes 6,000 only a short distance away,  Durnford heard this with his own ears. Go through all these sightings and were do you think all these Zulus  came from simple that DEAD GROUND. 


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]  
This is the rough location of these Zulus Barker sights these annotations are very old before I made my recent discovery.

Morning Inky
Thanks for the reply.
I'm trying to work out the physical space 5000 warriors would take up in a given area to see if they would fit into that dead ground. A warrior sitting with all his kit will take up more space than if they are standing shoulder to shoulder about to move off.

I'm still not sure though how they would have moved that many warriors onto the plateau without being seen from Mkwene. Mist or no mist that is a lot of men to shift and the spoor in the grass behind them would be clearly visible to Barry's NNC piquets on Mkwene even if the men were not.
There is a reference somewhere which I will try and dig out that , I think from the top of my head, states that the evidence of the movements of the Zulu army could be seen in the landscape months after the battle.

Also what of all the other Zulu accounts who state it was not their intention to fight on that day. (I appreciate what happened at Nyezane). No intention to fight means no deployment of the army and no early positioning.
Just thoughts at the moment as am still looking at the evidence.
Cheers Inky
Kate

Hi Kate
The statement on the impi travelling across country was about the movement from Siphezi across to Ngwebeni. Tradition says there were two lanes flattened so much it was visible untill the following growing season.
I still dont believe that the army was being moved forward to attack on the 22nd, merely getting into an advanced position. Dont forget the catalyst for the attack was Raw et al interupting the impi smoke break.
500 warriors relaxed would have to use up a minimum of three to 4 sq m. so 2000 meters or just over an acre of ground.
Not a lot of space really.

No intention to fight means no deployment of the army and no early positioning.

Why would that be the case? Manoeuvring your army does not necessarily mean an immediate engagement. As Snook pointed out a Zulu army of 20-25,000 men required an enormous amount of real estate to deploy in accordance with their tactical doctrine. If we agree that if the discovery had not taken place the Zulu would have attacked on the 23rd January. Normally they attacked at dawn (What is the phrase "Horns of the morning" ??) so when would they have deployed?

Deploying the army would take some hours, so if a dawn attack was planned then they have only two options: 1: Deploy in the middle of the night, with all the dangers of getting it wrong plus the army would then be tired or 2: Deploy during daylight hours so the commanders know the army is more likely to be in the correct jumping off point.

Hi Kate

There is more than enough ground there for 5,000 warriors, the dead ground covers the Donga to the ridge itself a distance of around 800 years and it is much more wider remember they came from the direction of Nyezi, not from the cut in the land  further back. Go to my video on You tube that will give you a better idea the amount of space they had, and it has over 10,000 views in just over one year

You said the following "I'm still not sure though how they would have moved that many warriors onto the plateau without being seen " what they saw was the screens and at the very same time another 5,000 moved behind Isandlwana acording to all the videttes on Mkwene. The reason no defensive action was taken lays on the doorstep of Durnford infact those Zulus retiring were there to bait Durnford out of camp and he fell for it.

How then can the videttes on Mkwene and Trooper Barker both be wrong they saw what they saw between the hours of 9am and 11am two massive Zulu Impis.

As there is scant information as to how the videttes were behaving that morning I found this in a letter dated the 12th January which describes the Victoria Mounted Rifles vidette behaviour down at the coast.

"Much curiosity was expressed throughout the day as to what the Victorians on the hill top were seeing and doing. Their videttes were seen posted along the ridges, and now and then the main body of the corps would disappear from view, only to re appear at a further point,, being evidently engaged in reconnaissance"

Now could Scott have been doing the same if, as Colonials, they were using the same techniques?
This might help you Frank with your idea of Scott's men being fixed to static positions.
Kate

AUSSIE
I'm not entirely sure what you meant by
"...another 5,000 moved behind Isandlwana acording to all the videttes on Mkwene. The reason no defensive action was taken lays on the doorstep of Durnford infact those Zulus retiring were there to bait Durnford out of camp and he fell for it."
How do 5,000 Zulus moving BEHIND (i.e. westwards) Isandhlwana bait Durnford into moving (eastwards) across the plain? Or have I misunderstood you?

Hi Julian

I am speaking about 2 groups one went behind Isandlwana and was seen by Higginson, Bary, Vereker and Sergeant Major Williams and 100 NNC on Mkwene at 930am you can find this in Higginson 17th Feb testimony this is the right horn pre deploying.

And the second group of Zulu's those retiring { around 600 Zulus } confirmed by Lietenant Cochrane these are the ones which baited Durnford out and there was another 5,000 in the dead ground about a mile from Mkwene these where waiting for Durnford to make his mistake I posted a photo of the, location, these 5,000 are confirmed by Barker at around 11am

Aussie
Perhaps it might have been better for clarity's sake to refer to the latter group in relation to Durnford rather than the former in your Wednesday post. It wasn't the fact of the movements I was querying, it was the correlation between the two remarks. The existing post is a bit of a non sequitur.

All that said, it's still a bit of a tall order to posit that the Zulus' manoeuvrings were intended to draw Durnford (or rather Pulleine, because the Zulus at that point would have no idea Durnford was there) out of the camp. The Zulus would from their scouts know that the British had very little cavalry in camp - not enough to warrant trying to entice out of it - and they'd know that the British would not dream of marching infantry out to leave the camp undefended. In fact, in light of Zulus' previous experience of European warfare, they would have known that sightings of them making encircling movements are MORE likely to galvanize an enemy into laagering - the opposite of what you think they intended.
Don't you think, really, that the Zulu movements were what they ultimately turned out to be: pre-battle manoeuvring into pre-decide attack positions?
The fact that eventually two groups of 50 mounted men north and another two east, whom the Zulus could never hope to encircle, did go out, is surely an accessory after the fact.

Julian
How I got to that conclusion is because of Barkers Discovery the Nqutu escarpment during that morning had countless sightings of Zulus there one minute and then retired the next Durnford was told this just before he entered HQ tent, then again confirmed by Lieutenant Davies then again closer to 11am with Barker but this time he work out their purpose an army was concealed one mile from Mkwene waiting for the British to follow them up, this just happened to be Durnfords doing.

 it's still a bit of a tall order to posit that the Zulus' manoeuvrings were intended to draw Durnford 


What is the best method to draw your opponent out of the safety of the camp ?  to Lure him out ?
perhaps Zulus retiring. 



Don't you think, really, that the Zulu movements were what they ultimately turned out to be: pre-battle manoeuvring into pre-decide attack positions?

 Ninty nine percent of us still believe the Zulu army is quietly hidden miles further away this is not true. Thousands are seen moving behind Isandlwana for what purpose ? scouting, clearly to close the trap. Then another 5,000 one mile from Mkwene arriving sometime after 9am. 10am Higginson returns to camp from Mkwene and only around 15 minutes after arriving in camp Higginson confirms the videtes on Mkwene reports Zulus are retiring. For what purpose ?  Did those Zulus retiring know there was a hidden Zulu army there,  of course they knew. this is confirmed by Barker.

Please Tell me why no one in 140 years has bothered locating this hill Barker makes his discovery perhaps if you can place a time line on it, it may reveal something.

AUSSIE
Of course you're entitled to your opinion but what you've said smacks too much of trying to make the known facts fit the story you want to tell rather than telling the story that the facts dictate.
What you write or parts of it MAY have been true but you can't say that it WAS so.

Julian

The facts are Barker sighted a large army a short distance from Itusi less than hour before its discovery

the issue is what the books currently say are wrong

I know what I am saying goes against what is currently written but we need to focus and locate Bakers Discovery and put a time line on it, its there.I think Frank has located this spot

Aussie
Well, I think that the fact to bear in mind that what Barker sighted was written/published in 1911/1912, over 30 years after he saw it.  With that amount of time having passed, can any timing, deduced from his account as to when he saw it, be relied upon?
Can one then reasonably make an assumption based upon an unreliable conclusion?
I just don't think one can.
On that we'll have to agree to differ and wait till some additional corroborative or conclusively negative evidence comes to light.

Your correct that its found in Stalker book published 30 after the event but that does not mean Barker wrote it down then, I went to Barker burial site I need to confirm from his headstone the year he died.

Can you confirm 100 per cent he wrote it down 1911 - 1912. A testimony around 5 pages long would not have been dictated 30 years after the fact, believe me

I welcome your evidence showing when it was dictated or when he first wrote it down.

Julian has there ever been any conclusive evidence stating the discovery took place in the Ngbweni valley if so provide that to. I would love to have it, Its based on presumption that is all.

AUSSIE
But equally, can you prove it was not written in 1911?

Julian read it again of all the testimony's its most likely the longest one, it goes into fine detail, it mentions names, no one would have went into that detail 30 years after the fact, as you know over time you forget things

I remember some one on the forum  saying Lietenant Davies testimony was given 50 years after the fact nonsense it was given February of the same year.  

What about the conclusive evidence showing the location of the discovery ?

AUSSIE
First, Barker.  Your remark about Davies is irrelevant.  It is dated.  There is and has never been any doubt about that date.  Because person A in 2020 makes a mistake about its date on this forum does not in any way validate Person B stating as a fact that a different account was written contemporaneously when there is no evidence that it was.
I have read Barker's account many dozens of times.  Yes, there are details and names.  That's to be expected.  All the accounts have those, deeply imprinted in the man's memory.  But, as to timings and the order of events, these cannot be corroborated by a second account.  Barker did not forget things but he did become confused or forgetful about the order in which they occurred, and in attempting to write them down, I suspect tried to make sense of them himself timewise.
All that can be said re Barker's account, and the ONLY evidence there is, is the publication date of Stalker's book: 1912 and the assumption, for that it has to be, that Barker's account comes from just prior to that date.
Secondly, the Ngwebeni.  You are putting words into my mouth.  I have never said that the discovery took place in that valley.  I don't think anyone has.  The discovery took place some way forward of that position - perhaps the mysterious point X - during the manoeuvrings of the impi.  I do believe that the bulk of the Zulu army launched its attack, post-discovery, from the valley because the contemporary, corroborated Zulu evidence says so.  Look at the statements of the Zulu Deserter, the Mbonambi warrior, Mehlokazulu and Uguku to name but a few.  Are they all speaking about the same valley?  Logic says they are.  I will quote from them if you wish but I don't really think it is necessary to waste the space on the forum.

Denis Barker in his book: 'Zulu's at Bay', writes "Much of what I have written ( referring to himself) is also derived from his own version of the battle, which he narrated to Rev Stalker.

Aussie Inkosi
William Barker died in June 1914 .
90th

Hi Frank
Not sure I understand what you mean in regard to Denis Barker ? , he can't have Narrated to Stalker as the book was Published in 1912 ? , do you mean Denis's father spoke to Stalker ? .
90th

Evening Gary
The quote is from Denis Barkers book referring to his grandfather's narration to Stalker. Page 229, 6th line from the bottom of the page.

90th
I interpret Denis Barker's remark as meaning that he has given his own interpretation of the battle based on his grandfather's account as narrated to Stalker, i.e. it is just as valid as anyone else's interpretation based on Barker's account and contains nothing new apart from new opinions, suppositions and conjecture (unless of course he was able to find corroboration from another as yet unidentified primary source).

The point of the post was to show that Barker did not write his story but NARRATED it directly to Stalker. Shees ! Trying to get a point cross can be stressfull, the story was told when the book was written, probably 1910 1911 or so. Then published 1912.

Calm, Frank, calm, not all of us are as young as you...

Hi Frank
HAHAHAHAHAAHA must've been lost in translation !! , I wasn't sure who you were talking of ! .
Julian
I'm not saying Barker's account isn't valid , I'm with you on it's validity ! .
90th

Hi all

According to ZULUS AT BAY page 230 Barker was on Qwabe this corresponds with Symons maps but it does not say he was there all morning, the critical location of all  this is his location when they noticed Zulus on the hills [ I say this is the Nqutu escarpment near to the notch which is very close to Amatushane were Scott was stationed and the videttes took their reports to him ] and Trooper Swift is sent back this is around 15 minutes before discovering this large army I am still fully confident of my research and my theory as goes with when Barker first gave his testimony that is in no mans land.

Aussie theories abound. As I said when you first promulgated yours, stick with it, refine it and believe in it.
Its nothing to 'Trifle' with.
Cheers MAte

Thanks Frank

For your encouragement, the only thing that will convince me that I am wrong is that some new confirmed testimony comes out.  Had a great break through concerning the way I will set up this website things a slowly going forward

I Know deep down I am around 95% correct that the location trooper Barker sighted his army is the same army Raw and Roberts [ after all its the same route Raw and Roberts travelled ] discovered that morning only being a short distance from Itusi, I just need to be ready with any feedback from the Historians. 

Thanks again mate

Aussie
Can I respectfully remind you that Zulus at Bay is not a primary source.  That Barker was on Qwabe is merely an author's opinion and any reader has to ask himself on what is the author's remark based.  If the reader doesn't get a fully-evidenced, 100%-corroborated-by-at-least-2-separate-primary-sources then that author's opinion is so much shouting in the wind.
One cannot base an interpretation of the course of the battle based on a secondary source that happens to fit in with one's general opinion of the drift of events.  In any serious academic circle it would be laughed out of court.
I'm not being critical of you; I am suggesting that you do need to refine your thoughts and, as you yourself say, "be ready for any feedback from historians".

I'm not sure why we are placing such importance on Barker's account.

If made just after the battle he will be suffering the effects of trauma and trying like all witnesses do to make sense of all the jumble in his head.
If made/narrated the following century his statement will be even more shaky and unreliable.
Who knows how many outside influences could have been brought to bare on his memory to effect his story.

As a witness his evidence is sketchy, patchy and quite frankly all over the place.

Six miles from camp???? Really? That is well beyond Nyezi. Itusi is just under three miles away.
"We left the camp at 4am ...arriving at sunrise." So it takes him approx one and a half to two hours on horseback to get to Ithusi or wherever he was.
There a large time gaps in his narrative.

He bounces backwards and forwards all over the battlefield throughout the morning, two miles this way, one mile that, up hills, down hills and then rewinds the clock with Hayhow before going back to the RB. He mentions directions such as heavy firing to our left. Well that all depends on which way he was facing during all this bouncing?

He claims the RB didn't fire a single shot yet every RB survivor says they did. A black powder Hales rocket is purposefully loud and visible. It a physiological weapon but he didn't see any rocket screaming over the ridge.

Apparently part of the British firing line was 'nearly two miles form the camp'. That puts them to the east of Amatutshane!!!

He says he gets back to camp about 10.30am or 11am. How does he know? Did he have a watch or has someone told him that afterwards.

In fact, and this is important, he says later "from what I heard afterwards" re the escape route. Even later, at Dundee, he says he had a meeting with 18 other survivors. These men are talking to each other, getting their own version of events right in their heads and filling holes in each others stories to make them fit.

He flees the camp after seeing Zulus all over the camp stabbing soldiers, sees the guns overturned gets half a mile down the trail but then goes back with Tarburton and from a small hill can see the devastation.  That small hill can only be  Mahlabamkhosi. Where are all the Zulus at this point?
Then he has to 'fly' as the Zulus are following fugitives up. What was happening before then?

After crossing the river the The Zulus were firing at them.
According to Barker their firing was very accurate from 900 yards away. Accurate firing from 900 yards with an old Tower musket firing potlegs. I didn't realise the Zulus had sniper training

Then after losing his horse he runs three miles, thats three miles, in soaking wet uniform and riding boots.
Then after being fed and watered at Helpmakaar he rides off leaving the small garrison to defend itself.  Very admirable.

Amongst all the inaccuracies above, we then say that from his statement  exactly which hill he was on at a specific time when he claims he 'found the large army'.
So he found the large army? Hmmm. Sounds good doesn't it, very exciting. A cracking yarn to tell his grandchildren.

Now I'm not saying you are wrong Inks me old chum and I admire all your work on this. You've been to the battlefields and looked at the ground which is vital in understanding all this and in depth research that reaches a negative conclusion is still good research as it eliminates a possible theory helping us reach the true meaning.

But be careful.
Barker is a very,very poor witness. (and I know, I've dealt with a lot over the years)
His statement is shaky and inaccurate.
We cannot look at him in isolation (or with just that other shady character Higginson) and exclude all the other evidence.
In a court of law a trainee barrister would tear Barker to pieces.

Kate
Just read your post Julian.
The problem is when looking at iSandlwana a lot of the primary sources would have been laughed out of court.

Kate
I have to agree with you about Barker, though I might not have been so direct.
I also partly agree with you that SOME of the primary sources would be laughed out of court but not all.
Many of course were not written for official reasons or for posterity. They were simply letters home not intended to be used over a century later as 'evidence'. The importance of all of them is where they overlap, corroborate one another (often by chance), and provide an order to events (though not timings) such that a narrative can be sought.
Quite different from secondary sources on which nothing can be based!