Why Durnford was not disembowled ...

Because ,because ,guess why ...

Cheers

Pascal

This is not the proof that

Not everyone was disembowled, Durnford was probebly just missed, his watch was clogged wtih blood that made it stop working so he probebly had a chest wound, he was stripped of some of his cloths, Boots, Knife, Revolver, Hat, Belts ect.




Cheers

Ah yes! And those who have not been ripped, are those who were not killed by the Zulus, as theZulu warriors always do this they kill in battle, then who killed those who were not eviscerated

Cheers

Pascal

This is not the proof that :

I always thought those not disembowled, was out of respect by the Zulus

Quote :

Not everyone was disembowled, Durnford was probebly just missed, his watch was clogged wtih blood that made it stop working so he probebly had a chest wound, he was stripped of some of his cloths, Boots, Knife, Revolver, Hat, Belts ect.

So how could they have missed him. If he was stripped of some of his cloths, Boots, Knife, Revolver, Hat, Belts ect.

I recall reading the same OldH.

LH

There were hundreds of dead, of course some were missed !! His watch was clogged by blood so clearly he had a big wound that was leaking blood.




Cheers

A chest wound is not disenbowelment. They didn't miss him because take took his hat ect. It would have taken seconds to slit him open. I think taking items of clothing would have been classed as cleansing. ?

Oh2
It wasnt the zulu way not to disembowel anyone because of respect ! . The fact of the matter is when a zulu
killed someone in battle , they had to disembowel them as they were scared if they didnt , their own bodies would swell like those of the dead ! . This is in all the books , I dont remember the zulus actually stating that they didnt disembowel
anyone out of respect !! . If you have read it please post it as I'd like to see it . . As for why some were not disembowled , who knows , maybe those who had done the actual killing were to busy killing others or were killed themselves .
90th

I always thought those not disembowled, was out of respect by the Zulus


old historian2 ,and me I think those who say that are pro-Durnford

So how could they have missed him. If he was stripped of some of his cloths, Boots, Knife, Revolver, Hat, Belts ect.I recall reading the same OldH.

littlehand ,bravo ! Excellent ! Very well said, they missed for a reason, guess which

There were hundreds of dead, of course some were missed !! His watch was clogged by blood so clearly he had a big wound that was leaking blood.

Drummer Boy 14 If some of the dead have been forgotten, it is for good reason in connection with Zulu tradition as, guess which

A chest wound is not disenbowelment. They didn't miss him because take took his hat ect. It would have taken seconds to slit him open. I think taking items of clothing would have been classed as cleansing. ?


Impi,bravo ! Excellent ! Very well said, they missed him for a good reason, and he has not been emptied for the same very good reason, guess which

Oh2
It wasnt the zulu way not to disembowel anyone because of respect ! . The fact of the matter is when a zulu
killed someone in battle , they had to disembowel them as they were scared if they didnt , their own bodies would swell like those of the dead ! . This is in all the books , I dont remember the zulus actually stating that they didnt disembowel
anyone out of respect !! . If you have read it please post it as I'd like to see it . You need to study mo . As for why some were not disembowled , who knows , maybe those who had done the actual killing were to busy killing others or were killed themselves .


Bravo Skippy Given the mass of Zulu fighters ,Durnford was not killed by only one warrior, so something else happened, guess what

More when a man is killed in battle by the Zulu warriors , each warrior passing near the corpse, stabs his spear, this does not happen to Durnford, guess what

Cheers

Pascal

90th wrote:

Oh2
It wasnt the zulu way not to disembowel anyone because of respect ! . The fact of the matter is when a zulu
killed someone in battle , they had to disembowel them as they were scared if they didnt , their own bodies would swell like those of the dead !

90th is quite right. The slitting open of the abdomen would have been carried out by the Zulu warrior who actually killed Durnford. If the warrior who killed Durnford had been distracted and/or killed before he could carry out the act of disembowelment, there is no reason to assume that it would have been done on their behalf by another. If the man who killed Durnford was also dead, he obviously wouldn't have been able to slit open D's body, and there would have been no reason for anyone else to do it.

Perhaps this is where the respect issue comes from...

"The induna (Captain) in charge of the Ndebele impi) by name of M’jaan, forbade the practice on this occasion. His reported (perhaps apocryphal) words were . ‘Neither the bodies nor the possessions of these white warriors shall be touched. These were men of men; and their fathers were men before them! I say to you, beside these."

Source:The Last Stand of the Shangani Patrol

Zulus interpreted the swelling of the corpse to be the spirit of the dead warrior trying to escape the body.
The slitting open of the body by the man who had made the kill was done to allow the spirit of the dead man to escape. To not do this was to anger the dead man's spirit and Zulus didn't want to upset spirits!
Therfore, disembowelling as we call it, was done out of fear of the dead man's spirit and consideration, so can be looked at as a mark of respect.
Certainly not done out of brutality, disrespect or savagery - this is a complete misunderstanding of the Zulu culture.

I think every member on the forum knows why the Zulu disemboweled. But the original question was. Why wasn't Durnford disemboweled.

John .
The men killed in the Shangani werent killed by Zulus , they were killed by members of the Matabele nation in what is today known as Zimbabwe ! Not all of the peoples ( Tribal ) of Afirca
believed in Disembowlment ! Although there is a difference between disemboweling ( Ritual ) and disemboweling ( Mutilation - Blood Lust ) . The Zulus did , and as Tasker states, it was seen to be the resposibility of the killer to do the disembowlement .
90th.

Ray63 .
I doubt it and obviously not ! . Not all on here will be as learned as yourself on the theory or practice of disembowelment .
90th.

The Zulus did not meet Durnford more than another, why they have not emptied? Because, because Will say the

Pascal MAHE wrote:

The Zulus did not meet Durnford more than another, why they have not emptied? Because, because Will say the

Pascal, you keep repeating the same question?
Here is my suggested theory again, in case you missed it above:

If the man who killed Durnford was also dead, he obviously wouldn't have been able to slit open D's body, and there would have been no reason for anyone else to do it.

Yes it's true, Tasker, a corpse can be only eviscerated by the Zulu warrior who killed the person ...

But if the victim was killed by bullets or isijula​​?

The Eventration is allowed ?

Or maybe the Zulu warrior who killed Durnford was killed before his ritual practice ...

Or Durnford was killed off, and the Zulus did not know which of them had hit ...

Or Durnford was not killed by the Zulus ...

Normally, each warrior passing near a corpse must hit him with his spear, putting the bodies into pieces, given the mass of warriors passing near the corpse and the mass of blows received and this has not happened to the corpse of Durnford ?

Cheers

Pascal

The question is a little more complex, after the battle the udibi boys were given free range on the bodies, it was there job to kill of any wounded and open up the bodies that had been missed. So why didnt they attend to Durnford. Is it possible he was recognised from his time on the Border commision and his attendance at the coronation.

Cheers

Quote :

Is it possible he was recognised from his time on the Border commision and his attendance at the coronation.

Totally agree, and of course him sympathy with the Zulu course. As led by the Colenso's

springbok9 wrote:

The question is a little more complex, after the battle the udibi boys were given free range on the bodies, it was there job to kill of any wounded and open up the bodies that had been missed. So why didnt they attend to Durnford. Is it possible he was recognised from his time on the Border commision and his attendance at the coronation.

Cheers

Possible Springbok. So why would they have done Durnford a dis-service, and NOT opened up his body?

I thought the udibi boys and girls, accompanied the army ONLY three days after his departure in campaign ...???

Hi Springbok / Littlehand .
I agree with Tasker , by not disemboweling Durnford havent or didnt they do him a dis- service as his spirit cant escape !
Littlehand you said you think they had sympathy for him because of the Colenso's and his work on the Boundary commission , then why if he was so respected , was his spirit not set free ? . Then again I've read of others who werent disemboweled in some reports and they were in others , saying someone wasnt disemboweled may not actually mean he wasnt ! This could also have been a way to placate the family and friends of those who were well known . Once again the enigma of Isandlwana lives on ! .
90th

For tor same reason they didn't do it, to those involved in the Jameson raid a few posts back.

Impi.
If you are talking about the Shangani patrol I suggest you read my post . They werent zulus in that raid , therefore didnt or dont have the same ritual beliefs , the shangani Patrol happened in Rhodesia now Zimbabwe ! . As I said not all the tribes of Africa had the same beliefs .
Cheers 90th.

The Zulu's showed their respect to a brave man in the following manner "Igatla!"

"At the end, according to the few British soldiers who escaped, the Zulus went mad with bloodlust, killing even the horses and the mules and the oxen. They disemboweled each dead British soldier so that his spirit could escape his body and not haunt his killer. And if an enemy soldier had been seen to be particularly brave, the impi cut out his gallbladder and sucked on it, to absorb the dead man's courage, and bellowed, "Igatla!" - "I have eaten!"

Extract from"When a Crocodile Eats the Sun by Peter Godwin"

The Zulus are big disgusting, it does not touch the gallbladder of other peoples, they did not have enough of them ...

Correct,
Once the blood lust was up the Zulu warriors went on a savage killiing spree.
However I think the clue to the answer of the question as to why Durnford's body was not eviscerated is given by Droeglever, who recounts that Durndord's body was recovered with one bullet hole in it.

Now , if this is true, either the shooting was accidental, ie FF, or the Zulu who shot him, did not have a assegai to eviscerate him. Or, thirdly,the wound was self inflicted.

Now in this regard Mehlogazulu's account (posted some months ago on this forum) made a categorical statement that a Zulu warrior did not execute the coup de gras on Durnford .
This possiblity is born out by the fact that a Zulu warrior was bound by folklore to free the spirit of his slain foe by releasing it from the enemy's intestines , where it resides. However, conversely, a warrior MAY NOT, release the spirit of someone else's slain foe as he could just as equally be haunted for the rest of his life by the spirit of the dead man.
It was also part of the warrior tradition to dip his assegai blade unto the blood of any dead enemy whom he came by on the battlefield, thus the multiple wounds in Durnford's upper body.

regards

barry

The wound was self inflicted

If Durnford's body was not slit open - and as 90tth alludes - perhaps it was, but these details were spared from his relatives to relieve them of further distress - the only logical answer as far as I can see, is that the warrior who killed Durnford was slain by one of the men fighting alongside Durnford, before the warrior had an opportune moment to "free the spirit" of Durnford.
I don't doubt the blood lust thing. The English army showed the same gory lust for blood and savagery after the battle of Agincourt. However, the feeling of exultation that the Zulu would have derived from the disembowelling and the washing of their spears, would go hand in hand with both their cultural beliefs of freeing the spirits, and, the innate behaviour of young virile men who had just won a great battle.

the warrior who killed Durnford was slain by one of the men fighting alongside Durnford, before the warrior had an opportune moment to "free the spirit" of Durnford.


This is what I think sometimes Tasker, but not all the time

Barry

Your comment that Durnfords body had a single bullet wound on it ? Where does it come from ? Whats the account ?

I read as many accounts of Durfords body being found when i did that article on papers being stolen and
never came across the mention ?



Cheers

Barry.

Quote :

Or, thirdly,the wound was self inflicted.

Rumour dd have it an officer shot himself because he knew he had done wrong!!!

The wound was self inflicted + Rumour dd have it an officer shot himself because he knew he had done wrong!!! =

Dave

Don't start with Thomas Thomas again



Cheers

What, what ?

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Dave

Don't start with Thomas Thomas again



Cheers

Pascal, Dave has quoted from the letter of Thomas Thomas, a proven fantasist/liar whose letter has been completely discredited and as such the comment is worthless.
Dave, it would benefit you to read the various discussions on Thomas' letter which you can find right here on this forum. It would be more factually correct to qupote from "Zulu"!!! LOL

Thanks ,thanks ,tasker ,tasker

Never mind who said it, it was said. Thomas wasn't at Isandlwana, but he must have heard it from somewhere. No one as look to see where this rumour started. It's not something someone would make up, if he hadn't heard it.

And Zulu? They did that mean?

Dave

He made up most of his letter Why would that section be any more reliable ?



Cheers

No Zulu evidence for what happened at Durnford after his death , it's weird ?

How is it ?

Thousands died that day, why would one man be remembered over all the others ?



Cheers

Come on DB he heard that rumour from somewhere. We have something to say an officer shot himself, but we have nothing to say he didn't. Let members makeup their own minds. It can't be proven either way.

Not even your hero Jackson can dispute that!!!

DB 14 : Because a penguin, it is noticed ...

24 th: Why commit suicide when there is no risk of being tortured, the Zulus are not Pathan ...

24th wrote:

Come on DB he heard that rumour from somewhere. We have something to say an officer shot himself, but we have nothing to say he didn't. Let members makeup their own minds. It can't be proven either way.

Not even your hero Jackson can dispute that!!!

The contents of Thomas' letter are full of untruths. Even in a civil court, once a witness is shown to be a liar, the rest of his evidence is treated with the same disregard. Rumour is just that - rumour! Look it up!
Even The Sun wouldn't use Thomas' letter today if it were to write an article on Durnford, post-Levenson enquiry!!!

There are no other Zulu, Colonial or British accounts that report an officer to have shot himself.
There ARE both Colonial and Zulu accounts that mention Durnford's actions at iSandlwana, ranging from the most derogatory being Henderson's - but even he does not suggest that D shot himself, to Mehlokazulu's account in which he reports that Durnford and the men around him fought superbly until they were overcome. And unlike Thomas, Mehlokazulu was actually there at D's last stand.