Sectarian camps

Eric, Julian believes it to be a forgery and has tried to prove it. However, others want/need more proof. An item such as this, can't be presented as fact, until all doubt is removed. Therefore, the other side of the coin is, someone has to do the opposite of Julian, and try to prove it to be authentic. 1879graves - it could be to do with how and where it was stored.

The above answered the question, no need to dictate what members should or should not be doing.
ADMIN.

Admin, I thought that would happen and understand why.

Jamie's website gives the location, if like me your not sure. Mostyn and Cavaye on Tahelane Ridge.

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

Eric
Yes

Graves
That part would be written by the recipient (in a different ink or in pencil) hence the different appearance. Note that it was not initialled to prove receipt which it should be if genuine. All this is in the article.

Saul David/ Admin
I believe that Julian has commented that he gave his word to the curator of the museum Bill/Martin. Surely then that is a good enough cause for him to with hold information.
Or do we, in this day and age, not regard ones word as binding?

Regards

Julian, with the other part being much more faded than the rest, and if the recipient wrote in pencil, then could the initials have faded completely ?

No. There is no trace of initials.
I'm posting a significant post later today. Too busy at the mo.

Next dumb question.
How does this alleged order ( forged or true) affect our understanding of the battle.
What issues are at stake here?

Eric, it is really to do with it's authenticity and should it be presented as a factual document, rather than about the role it served at Isandhlwana, at least on this topic I think. Much in the same way antiques and other historical documents, have to be checked and tested. I've now requested Julian's article myself, before it is too late for me to obtain.

I have just read Mr Whybra's article. Thank you very much for sending me a copy.
I will await your more detailed post which you mentioned earlier.
It seems convincing that the message was a forgery.
I am still unsure of how it affects our understanding of the battle either way.

All

As has been suggested above, I am (as Curator of the Regimental Museum of The Royal Welsh) privvy to some information that I can not put in the public domain. However, in terms of this current discussion, it might be useful to say that based on that information, I fully support Julian's viewpoint in this matter

Bill

In which case, Julian will be hard pressed to convince anyone the document in-question is fake, unless it is agreed to provide the missing information. As far as i'm concerned, there is no point in discussing this further. And for that reason i'm out. 

C'mon SD dont be churlish, what do you advise your students, " retain an open mind" !

Regards

I was struggling to understand it anyway. But if it's true and parts of the puzzle are missing as suggested by SD, then I will have no chance of understanding. So I won't be contributing to this discussing unless the whole story is told.

The document is a fake!

I first saw it at the National Army Museum some years back on a Zulu War day, it was framed and behind glass.

I pointed out the erroneous date on it of 1897, the person who had it disappeared with it - to where I don't know - when he returned after a short period of time, he stated "Sorted" and the date had changed from 1897 to 1879.

At least one other person on this forum will be aware of whom I'm referring to.

If the document had been genuine would that person have done that? I don't think so. As to the paper itself being genuine I believe that it is, but again I think someone here knows the answer to that one as well.

kwaJimu1879

Wow thats quite startling kwajimu.
Now I know how Pulleine felt when the Impis came over the hill..............shell shocked.

More information would be interesting.

Regards

Why are we now going down the "hearsay" road. This discussion really is becoming a bit of a drag.

If someone was trying to pass this off as the original, why would he make such an alteration in-front of witnesses. He obviously not trying to hide anything.

Quote :

I pointed out the erroneous date on it of 1897, the person who had it disappeared with it - to where I don't know - when he returned after a short period of time, he stated "Sorted" and the date had changed from 1897 to 1879.

At least one other person on this forum will be aware of whom I'm referring to.

If the document had been genuine would that person have done that? I don't think so. As to the paper itself being genuine I believe that it is, but again I think someone here knows the answer to that one as well.

Impi,

If I state something as a known fact how on earth can that be interpreted as 'hearsay'?

Springbok,

Enough for now, for despite the change I'm sure that the person still endeavoured to pass it off as the real McCoy. I know that one person who possessed it for awhile did offer to destroy it. I only realised it was still about when I saw Admin's photographs of it.

Chard1879,

I believe I've answered your question in my reply to Springbok.

KwaJimu1879

Eric

See below for an answer to your point.

SaulDavid

You are making the technical aspect of the paper a part of my argument, I am not. I will not break an agreement I had with Martin Everett of ten years’ duration, nor with Bill Cainan. The forger is still out there and I will give him nothing merely to satisfy your curiosity. All my requests to previous owners of the alleged order re the watermark have received no reply. It is not an essential part of the argument. The evidence supplied in my article is sufficient to disprove authenticity. As for my being naïve, the least I would expect is that, before you criticize my findings, you read my article. It rather reduces the strength of anything you say, doesn’t it?

24th

You don’t seem to realize that there never was such an order on paper. This is not a copy of it. The whole thing is a fake.

Chelmsford

I was careful to state that the article was written in 2001 and was in the process of being updated. My reference to the current owner refers to the situation in 2001.
As for not being prepared to provide all findings such that you cannot take it seriously, read the following and then let me know who has not provided findings.

All

I suggest you all step back from this for a moment and reflect.

We are no longer living in the age of Morris-Lloyd-Clements-Giese-Featherstone where it is difficult to challenge received wisdom through books. Thankfully we are now able to pull down much of the misplaced opinion and (more pertinently) errors of fact that are presented. It is one of the blessings of the internet that you can interrogate me over my article. And I welcome that; I really wouldn’t have it any other way.

But, YOU ARE ALL MISSING THE POINT ABOUT THE ALLEGED ORDER.

When historians makes a discovery, like Shakespeare’s lost poem a decade ago or the recent new Da Vinci picture of Christ, or Hitler’s diaries, the onus is on the discoverers to present proof of their findings. I have personal experience of this. When David Jackson and I found the Durnford Papers we had to produce a paper proving authenticity, taking each document apart line by line in order to show that they were genuine, and demonstrating provenance. Then you wait for the flak. This we did in 1990 and were successful in it.

The alleged Pulleine-Cavaye order first appeared in 2000, was put on display at a military fair. Yorke included it in his book as a curiosity. He removed it from the 2nd edition in 2005 when he realized it was a fake. I’ve seen framed copies of it on sale regularly at military fairs over the last five years. This year it appears in a book as genuine again. In all this, the usual accepted procedure regarding demonstration of provenance HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE. No-ne has ever said, “Wow, I’ve made a real discovery and it’s genuine because…”. And they should have for it to be included in the Isandhlwana canon. By not having done so it immediately arouses suspicion. In fact the silence from its proponents has been deafening.

The cart was put before the horse – in fact we are still waiting for the horse! It’s all wrong.

None of you seem to realize the importance of the alleged order. It sets ALL the traditional company dispositions on their head, it completely destroys the battle’s timings (even that of the ‘missing five hours’), it denies the command of E coy by Cavaye; all the givens go out of the window.

By not having a provenance to argue against, one which would explain away all the inconsistencies and prove the alleged order’s authenticity, it makes it very difficult to argue against it. I’m arguing against a mute brick wall. It obliged me to produce the article I did and to ask the questions I had to.

Astonishingly some of you are prepared to defend a document without provenance and attack my annotated article for constructive criticism of it. And I am willing to do this under my own name and not a pseudonym.

AND NONE OF YOU IS ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS!

Bacon wrote ‘The silence of fools is a virtue’. How true!

Admin should have been asking the alleged order’s proponents:
‘How do you account for the alleged order’s timings of 11.30 and 11.45? How does that fit in with the timings of the battle and still make sense?’

Saul David1879 should have been putting to the alleged order’s proponents:
‘No-one can make a decision purely because you are deliberately withholding the alleged order’s provenance.’

Chelmsford the scapegoat/John should be asking:
'Why hadn't previous owners of the alleged order revealed the watermark specs to the RRW Museum to check authenticity?'

Instead you continue in blind acceptance. Well, in the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king.

I am working away from home until next Wed, not near a pc and not near my notes. I’ll pick this thread up when I return. Read my article carefully; it answers most of the points already raised.

Quote :

If I state something as a known fact how on earth can that be interpreted as 'hearsay'?

Were there any witnesses to back- up, what you are saying. You see although you are telling us this, we are the third party. So unless you can provide witness statements, photographs ect. It be come's hear- say evidence. We don't know you, and you could be making this up, to add weight to this discussion. No disrespect meant.

Julian. I find it odd that you are now telling us, what kind of questions we should be asking. But what's really puzzling me the most is this.

You have been a member of the RDVC for many years. There are many well known authors and Historians there, who will possibly ask the question you want to hear. So why would you want to discuss this issue on this forum.

What is your agenda..

I am enjoying this debate greatly and look forward to hearing more from Mr Whybra. As an aside the other place has not had much activity of late and that is not good as the point of a forum is to discuss.

Quote :

Astonishingly some of you are prepared to defend a document without provenance and attack my annotated article for constructive criticism of it. And I am willing to do this under my own name and not a pseudonym.

If you were Ian Knight, Peter Quantrill, Mike Snook, Ron Lock, or Adrain Greaves. It might be a different story.

Dave wrote:

Quote :

Astonishingly some of you are prepared to defend a document without provenance and attack my annotated article for constructive criticism of it. And I am willing to do this under my own name and not a pseudonym.

If you were Ian Knight, Peter Quantrill, Mike Snook, Ron Lock, or Adrain Greaves. It might be a different story.

Sorry am I missing something here.
This is the sort of innuendo that lead me to title this thread "sectarian camps" What exactly are you saying with this post?
Please could people stop talking in riddles. Mr Whybra sort of did it when he first started now others are doing it.

Sure am glad I stick to the reference side of the forum.

Anyway spent sometime on the web. (Like I do) found this.

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

At least Julian should credit us, with getting more replies on this forum, even if we're asking the wrong questions. The problem of course is, they all agreed with Julian from the on set. Not so easy here. " fire away boy's death or glory"

No shouting chaps. But is this correct.

Quote :

24th You don’t seem to realize that there never was such an order on paper. This is not a copy of it. The whole thing is a fake.

The written order has never existed.

It was a verbal order, which someone has written down and claimed to be a written order.

The paper its written on, is exactly the same type and age as what was used in 1879.

Am I up to speed so far..

This debate is very interesting, I have been following it for sometime now, and after reading the post above of kwajimu1879, I should have thought that when he witnessed the document being taken away, and then the document being brought back with the date altered from 1897 to 1879, and then being replaced back in the case, that would have shown that the document was indeed a fake.

It seems a shame that some people will go to a lot of trouble to try to alter history by 'throwing a spanner in the works' and trying to mislead people by 'leading them down the garden path', what are they trying to gain by doing this, does it give them some sort of buzz?

Ah well, it takes all sorts to make a world.

Martin.

Chard1879,

I think you should read up on hearsay. It would be hearsay if I said that I heard it from someone-else, and therefore not admissible. I'm no charlatan unlike some who have been named in this debate.

At least two members of this forum, other than myself, should have an inkling about this fake, and who perpetuated it.

kwaJimu1879

kwajimu, I'm finding myself being in the same situation as Eric, regarding the sort of riddles appearing, which for all I am grasping this discussion well enough, there is some clouding of the issue, as in, you mention 'I'm no charlatan unlike some who have been named in this debate.', and you also mention of knowing 'At least two members of this forum..', who have some knowledge of the subject in hand. Could you please clarify both of these sentences, even in a pm, as I'm at a loss. Obviously, the real names of the people that you mean, must be getting used on the forum, as those with alternatives as usernames are unable to be identified. I'm really trying to understand all this, including reading Julian's paper. Thanks.

Colin, this is what is making this thread frustrating, for us to form an opinion we need the whole story. Jimu says there are two persons on the forum who know, but for what ever reason he will not be able to tell you, even in a PM. Perhaps now you can see why SD bailed out, it's a pointless excercise.

24th, I was okay with the discussion before, though struggling in some areas, but it is really two posts by kwajimu that are puzzling me most of all. At least, for the moment that is.

This all goes to make my original post more valid.
I post under my real name but it appears that there are some who do not and who have agendas either way.
So there are allegations of fakes, allegations of missing orders allegations about other forums.
An antiquarian book dealer friend of mine who helped Lock and Quantrill source the original Zulu Frontiersman document warned me about this sort of petty behavior.
Who are these two other forum members? Why would it be different if Lock and Knight etc were here?
This is really sad behavior all round.

Can someone please tell me how this is an interesting thread. I can't make head or tail of what it's about. MrG posted a comment, is anyone able to answer it. Then it might give everyone else some indication.

And what's the problem with members not wishing to use their own name. For all you know I could be Col: Mike Snook.

sas1

Not using your name is fine but if you are an established author and you are setting about undermining another author then you really should not hide behind a nome de plume. If you are Col Snook then great he is a recognized expert and author and it would be great to have him participate. Usually he posts under his own name when he is on the Victorian Wars forum.

I do believe that Melvill gave the order to withdraw in Pulliene's name, verbally. Not with a written order. I do believe there are enough curious aspects to this written order to consider it to be a fake, but only in my own opinion. It is these mystery men and the mysterious incident referred to, that are causing me the confusion. Why mention them and/or it on the forum, without more proof for us, when it'll be obvious from the outset, that we'll not have a clue who or what he is talking about or if it is true, due to the fact we don't know who he is. Julian Whybra has presented this in his own name, which is very clear, but kwajimu I don't know. Knowing his name, as well as the mystery men and any witnesses to the mysterious incident, may help get us on some solid ground, to form more in the way of logical conclusions on our part. Even Sherlock Holmes would say this is a three pipe problem.

Wow, great debate. It’s hard to jump in but I have a few points/questions.

1.
I have also seen this document float around and change hands over the past few years. The last public sale, (that I am aware of anyway) was at auction in 2007
the sellers description was as follows:

"HAND WRITTEN ORDERS FROM LT COL PULLIENE TO LT CAVAYE DURING
THE BATTLE OF ISANDLAWANA 22ND JANUARY 1879. THIS FIRST GENARATION
COPY HAS BEEN AN EXHIBITION PIECE SINCE 1999. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT
VARIOUS ZULU WAR EVENTS IT IS A TOTALY CONVINCING REPLICA OF THE
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT PROFFESIONALLY DISPLAYED IN A PURPOSE MADE
PINE FRAME SUPERB RARE COLLECTORS ITEM".

You can also see reference to this auction in the above post and link to another forum.

I will state up front that I have read Julians paper and I agree with his conclusions. However in fair debate I would be interested to hear from those who believe the document to be original, what information has been uncovered since this order was publicly sold with the description from the seller himself as a “First generation copy…… totally convincing replica of the original document” that it is now actually believed to be an original document?

2. If this document is genuine, are we back to believing that Cavaye was not in command of E coy?
and who were the “NNC on your Left?”

4. Does anyone have any information on the other Wilson Black papers mentioned? Were these other orders, letters, journal entries?

Last question, maybe this should be in the other thread but I thought it relevant to ask here as well. I saw that Julian also commented on the 8:05 Pulliene order in the thread with the pictures of the AZWHS event in September. From the pictures and comments I believed this was the original order. Could someone who attended the event clarify this?

Interesting debate. Thanks to everyone for making it so.

Regards, Jeff

Hi Guys
We seem to have a clouded issue.
possible i can help to uncloud the effects of this note.

Firstly I believe that attacks on Julians Character are really unworthy, attack his research ( if you dare ) but not the man.

What we can corroborate at present.

Cavaye was sent onto the ridge by Pulleine/Durnford ( its debatable who sent him but not that he went). Cavayes company was E company. When on the ridge he split his company and semt Dyson and twenty men of to the left flank.
Shepstone arrives back at the camp to inform Pulleine he needed asstistance. This around the time Gardner arrived. Between 12 and 1 ( Gardners statement to the COI)
Essex was sent up to the ridge.
On his way up he passed Mostyn and F company climbing to the top. ( See Essex statement )
When Mostyn got to the top he filled in the gap between the two sections of E company.
Stafford and Shepstone anchored the right flank.
Mostyn was there for no more than 5 minutes before Melvill arrived and asked Essex to assist him in withdrawing the line ( Essex evidence at COI ) This verbally. This then well after 12.
Essex had trouble getting down the hill and when he had succeeded the firing line was formed.

If the note is genuine then it puts that whole sequence in question. And there are to many statements connection to it, Barker, Brown et al.

Secondly Cavaye was E company, how could E company be supporting him?
How could Pulleine, well out of sight on the plain know the relative positions?

This is what Julian is refering to when he talks of his rebutal.

The Scientific analysis of the paper watermark ink etc is something to confirm that rebuttal.

Dont get to confused in linking the two issues.

If nothing else, keep an open mind.


Regards

Hi Springbok.
I'm firmly in your camp and I couldnt have described it better . Good effort to piece all that together .
I think its difficult to Attack not only Julian himself but his work , he has been studying , researching
this battle for a long time and has unearthed many authentic documents . Didnt Bill Cainan the Curator
at Brecon say in one of his posts that the message has been proven to be fake ? . If Bill's happy
enough to say as much I'm more than happy to believe him . What is the problem ?????. .
cheers 90th.

Chelmsford the scapegoat
I don’t know how long you’ve all been interested in the AZW. The pseudonyms mean I don’t know any of you bar one or two. In 1999-2000 there was a hubbub when the alleged order first appeared. Everyone was suspicious of it for obvious reasons and waited for the provenance which wasn’t forthcoming. I wrote the article in 2001 to nail the thing finally – it was intended for publication in the AZWRS Journal which subsequently but eventually lapsed – I hung on at the journal editor’s request but the journal didn’t get going again. By the time I realized the journal wasn’t going to happen, the whole alleged order ruckus had dried up – everyone realized it was a fake. Ask John Young, ask Lock & Quantrill, ask Keith Smith, ask Bill Cainan. The alleged order popped up at fairs as a curiosity only.
Suddenly ten years later it’s re-published and everyone (from presumably a ‘new’ readership audience) gasps and thrills. I didn’t raise this topic. Someone else did and I commented (almost casually) that what was all the fuss about, the thing is known to be a fake, and has been for yonks. Suddenly, astonishingly, everyone rises up in its defence. They had swallowed the story whole without questioning anything and I was being told I was naïve! I am being told I’ve withheld ‘evidence’ and I’ve withheld nothing which would aid my argument or detract from it. Believe you me, if I had it, I would include it.
I have no agenda. I’m after only the truth. I’ve studied this battle for 45 years. And when I say ‘studied’ I don’t mean reading secondary histories. I first wrote to D.R. Morris in 1966 asking him to justify something he’d written. One of my relatives was killed at Isandhlwana and I want to know why. I’m also an historian and I don’t like history being miswritten. I’ve worked as a Research Fellow in two universities both in the west and behind the Iron Curtain before it folded and I know what’s expected in terms of justification and evidence and I know how the truth can be twisted or take on a reality of its own (if it’s said often enough).
None of the previous paragraph counts for anything much in this argument but you asked me what my agenda was – what a very 2011 concept that is - so I'm sorry if you feel I've gone off-topic. The question was asked; I've answered it. I don’t have 'agendas'.

Dave/John
You have not requested a copy of my article so you have no right to comment on it. Including technical specs re the genuine 8.05 order does my argument no good unless I have the technical specs of the alleged order with which to compare it. I don’t have them so I’m not withholding anything. Read the article.

Little hand
No it’s not so easy here. For different reasons perhaps. But education is a matter of light, liberty and learning.

M.Cooper
It was reported in 2000 that the NAM had said that the paper was consistent with paper from that period. 130-year old paper can be easily obtained. Google it and and you’ll see. The question is whether it’s the same type, make, and watermarked paper as the genuine 8.05 order and I don’t believe it is. I have no first-hand knowledge of this which is why provenance is so important.

Another person back in 2001 witnessed the incident kwajimu mentioned and told me about it afterwards second-hand. Including that in my article would have been classed as hearsay and so was not included.
Technically kwajimu is right, what he witnessed was first-hand and not hearsay. However I have only stuck to hard facts in my article and don’t want to get involved with what others might class as dubious evidence from unprovenanced sources (ring any bells?).

24th
It is not a pointless exercise. Discard all the side issues. Concentrate only on what is presented as a factually-evidenced case and think for yourself. If you honestly believe that after all I’ve presented (me, not anyone else) that the alleged order is genuine, then I'll respect you for that and I look forward to hearing your reasons.

Eric
I agree (but that is a private matter). I understand the anonymity behind internet postings but I only ever post under my own name if I expect to be taken seriously.

Dundee boer
The order exhibited in the photo was NOT the original order. That resides in the RRW Museum. Those who’ve read my article will know that the original was torn in half 1982x1992 and the bottom half was presumably stolen. Martin Everett and Bill Cainan will confirm this. I do have a full-size photocopy from before 1982; I daresay others have too which would result in the framed version in the photo which shows a full-sized sheet of foolscap.

Springbok
As a side issue and a point of information, it was Durnford who sent Cavaye on to the ridge. Essex corroborates this but it is a small fact that writers have generally missed (except Jackson of course).

And now I really must go. I have a train to catch.

Julian
in the statement from 24th January Essex makes no mention of Durnford ordering Cavaye to the ridge.
That statement was made by Chelmsford in his summary of the COI and attributes the information to Essex. Jackson 'assumes' that the information was given to Chelmsford at Helpmakaar on the 23rd by Essex.
Its still only conjecture, and given Pulleines reluctance to give Durnford two companies its highly speculative.


Regards

I'm not sure that it could have been Durnford sending Cavaye to the ridge, as I think Lt. Melvill, as before, would again have expressed his opinion in the HQ tent.

Can someone please answer my question below.

Quote :

24th You don’t seem to realize that there never was such an order on paper. This is not a copy of it. The whole thing is a fake.

The written order has never existed.

It was a verbal order, which someone has written down and claimed to be a written order.

The paper its written on, is exactly the same type and age as what was used in 1879.

Am I up to speed so far..

Hi Springbok .
You may find this interesting , some of this you have stated previously but stay with me here . The Following
is from ' Zulu Battle Piece ' by Sir Reginald Coupland . This is Note B ( from p.115 ) situated on p 136.

The statement that Durnford gave the order for the Co of the 1/24th to occupy the spur appears only
( As far as the author is aware ) in a memorandum drafted by C'ford , with the aid of his staff , no doubt,
sometime after the event . This memorandum was put at the disposal of the Hon. G. French who quotes it at length in his ' Lord Chelmesford and the zulu war ' ( London 1939 ) , p 144 -151. Part of it supplies the names of witnesses in the margin , and seems therefore ( as the author suggests ) to have been compiled from the evidence given at the court of enquiry ...... Here is the Kicker ! .... Against Captain Essex's name stands the following ; '' At the same time that Col Durnford left the camp , a company of the 1 / 24th under Lt
Cavaye was sent out on picket to a hill to the north of the campabout 2200 Yds distant . This was done at Col. Durnfords order.'' . The official text of Essex's evidence at the court ( C. 2260 , p. 83 ) corresponds closely , though not precisely , with the memorandum , but , after recording the dispatch of Cavaye's Co ,
nothing is said as to ordered it . The text runs on ; The remainder of the troops were ordered to march to their private parades ' - surely by Pulleine , not Durnford. .... Springbok , Whats that I hear you say ............. Clear as mud !. And I agree . Another piece of the puzzle , a round peg for the square hole .
cheers 90th.