Why Durnford was not disembowled ...

but tasker224 ? can actually trust the testimony of Mehlokazulu and other Zulu, interviewed after the war ?

Whatever the questions they have asked ...

Cheers

Pascal

24th

Everyone who was near Durnford when he was killed died ! There were no survivors were from that group, so its imposible that someone could see him do that as everyone died !



Cheers

Not entirely perhaps, no, not 100%. We all know there was an "official" version of events that happened in order to appease the great Brirish public and to cover Chelmsford's butt.

However:
1. Mehlokazulu was not the kind of man who would be intimidated into saying anything he didn't want to say. He was clever, he was no one's fool.
2. Mehlokazulu's interrogation took place because they wanted to know what happened. They would not have bothered to interrogate him if the intention was to make up the whole story.
3. Whatever Mehlokazulu's opinion of Durnford's conduct, was not important either way to the official story of events being constructed.
4. In fact it might have been more useful to Chelmsford if Mehlokazulu had criticised Durnford's conduct given that D was being set up as the scapegoat, so if anything, for him to say that D fought bravely to the end was not useful to the inquiry.

I would be happy to question or suspect Mehlokazulu's account, if there was any reason whatsoever for me to do so.
I can see no reason for Mehlozazulu to have lied at the time or later, or no reason for the powers that be to have doctored his account.

Pascal MAHE wrote:

can actually trust the testimony of Mehlokazulu and other Zulu, interviewed after the war ?

Whatever the questions they have asked ...

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal, a common theme of yours is that you ask if there are any Zulu accounts and you regret the lack of Zulu accounts on various incidents.
Then, in those instances where they exist, you ask if Zulu accounts can be trusted?
Make up your mind and show some consistency!!!
I hope your flux capacitor isn't burning out

TASKER 224 If I ask for Zulu testimonials , it's just for curiosity, this does not mean that I believe ...Not worry for me, I know what I'm doing

Just out of curiosity!!! If a Zulu came across a dead body, who he disembowle that body. Even if he hadn't killed that man.

John .
I think we've mentioned this before on here , from what I believe the individual who killed the person was / is responsible for the disembowlement , when others go past the fallen they are entitled to stab the deceased , this explains why there are numerous assegai wounds in the bodies of those on the Battlefield . For instance the Prince Imperial's body had 18 or so stab wounds , therefore all those present when he was killed had obviously stabbed him .
Cheers 90th.

Hi John,

I have posted recently on this question.
The answer is no, only the Zulu warrior who executes the coup de gras is bound by tradition and folklore to eviscerate. No one else may do so as he is then deemed to be falsely claiming someone else's kill or victory. Should this be done , the spirits will be angered.

90th,
Correct, this is where the 'washing of the spears( in blood)" . comes from. It is part of the Zulu warrior tradition.

regards

barry

Incisional the corpses, did not take place during the battle, the warriors had other things to do ...

They do this after, and it is certainly not the one who killed so and so, who ripped ...

After the battle all survivors disemboweled all the corpses , except that they could forget some when they were isolated...

It is strange that the corpse of Durnford, which was not isolated, it is not ripped, perhaps because he was not killed by a Zulu white weapon or even a Zulu ...

Maybe the Zulus do not affect those who have been killed by firearms or who committed suicide...

Cheers

Pascal

John. I have a feeling where this is going. If I'm correct, it is a possibly. However be prepair to do what Chard did when his own forces fired on him. Duck you head behind the wall.

It was traditional for the uDidi to follow the regiments with the sleeping pillows supplies etc. When battle was over the they would be called onto the field to try and help any wounded warriors and also to dispatch any wounded enemy and gut at the same time.
During battle when the killing rage was on the warriors the "the blood covered the eyes", they were intent on killing, not dissembowling, and moving on to the next kill. After the battle all the enemy were opened, mainly by the uDibi and the camp followers, healers etc. Its mainly from them that the collection of Muti happened, not the warriors. In various illustrations and commentaries the descriptions of bodies laying spread eagled was exactly for the purpose of opening the body. In the half light of dawn when the troops were leaving the battlefield this could have given rise to the belief that the bodies where staked out for torture ( not a zulu tradition ). Also as has been pointed out there were without multiple stab wounds, as Barry has pointed out, it was important for the warriors to wash their spears and with 20 000 men trying to kill 2000 thats only 1 in 10 would be able to do it to a live enemy and so the tradition of stabbing afterwards. There is a Zulu account that mentions the stabbing of the cow and stabbing of the horse and the waggons, in fact anything at all.

Cheers

Hi Springbok9

Yes indeed, we will never know why it has not been emptied...

In my opinion the Zulus did not ripped men who were not killed by bladed weapons ...

Cheers

Pascal

I don't think the disembowelment was so much in respect as self defense, certainly, bodies can be mutilated from anger, revenge, hatred, and various other emotions.
I have a copy of " A Zulu King Speaks" Cetshwayo discusses all their laws, beliefs, customs. But I can't find anything in this book that relates to Disembowlement. Cetshwayo must have known that the British did not see this in the same light. Therefore he would have made some refrence to this is this book.
Unless I have missed it.

Quote :

Littlehand
Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:01 pm  
John. I have a feeling where this is going. If I'm correct, it is a possibly. However be prepair to do what Chard did when his own forces fired on him. Duck you head behind the wall.

Perhaps I will save that for another time. When it suits.

Yes indeed, we will never know why it has not been emptied...

Yes, you have said before

Can anyone point me to at least one reliable, primary account that clearly states that Durnford was NOT disembowelled?

Theres a few from those who found his body, none of them mention him being disembowled. Which if he had, they would have mentioned it.

Yes, it is certain that it would have been mentioned , if it has been ripped ?

As he was a colonel,there may be hidden the thing whether it happened, , and then the body has not been recovered on the day of battle, but long after and those who recovered, Legists doctor was not Legists doctor ...

So, no primary reports that state he had "NOT been disembowelled."
Given that almost every man HAD been disembowelled, one would expect a specific statement to say that Durnford was NOT disembowelled, if this was contrary to the norm.
I really don't think that his disembowelling would have been mentioned, unless the specific question had been asked. It is certainly not something that would have been told to relatives, unless they had specifically asked.
Until someone can prove there is a reliable report which categorically states Durnford "had not been disembowelled" then I will consider this whole thread to be redundant.

if there is not a reliable report states categorically Which Durnford "had not beens disembowelled" is that it has been and it has perhaps not been reported, as was the norm for all bodies found at Isandhlwana and then there's also the fact that he was a lieutenant colonel, so he may be entitled to a more decent from the medical examiner ...

Tasker
I see yout point, however I dont recall any evidence at all that says specifically that the Col did not have measles ! Must we assume therefore that he did?
Sorry not trying to be fascetious merely showing how impossible it is to prove a negative.
There are a lot of statements about the body, how it was clothed, red waist coat, jacket etc. Even I recall a description of the wounds ( I would need to go through the statements to find that one) and without specific mention I would have to believe there was no ritual ripping. Its highly possible that there are a miriad of others that werent gutted, just not reported.

Cheers mate.

Yes SPRINGBOK 9, I read somewhere on this forum, a description of his injuries, so the question remains the same:

Why Durnford was not disembowled ...

But such an eventration could be hidden in the medical report, for decency, given the rank of Durnford ?

Cheers

Pascal

Simple answer Pascal.................... he was a very brave man................ to many guts!

The Zulu knew his reputation ? And his body is not touched for that ?

Or actually at Issandhlwana, his courage was so real and so impressed the Zulu ,that they did not touch his body, like the buggle at the Fatterman massacre...

But both men were brave in the battle, there were other bodies that have not been gutted ?

And my theory on the death by weapon fires, this prohibit Zulu postmortem rites ?

Cheers

Pascal

springbok9 wrote:

Tasker
I see yout point, however I dont recall any evidence at all that says specifically that the Col did not have measles ! Must we assume therefore that he did?

Yes! If everyone else had the measles! (If he didn't, this would be unusual and therefore would have merited special mention).

A reliable report that lists the Colonel's injuries in detail would convince me. (As yet, I am yet to be convinced that he wasn't disembowelled). Let me know if you can point me to it.

Hi Tasker

I think that DB14 had described his injuries on this forum in the past ...

Cheers

Pascal

Thanks for the pointer Rascal. Found this by DB14 on another thread:

A Zulu heard Durnford yell out the word "Fire" repeatedly, and then when their was a rush he saw Durnfords body

"With his arm in a sling and a big moustache surounded by Carbineers, Soldiers and other men he did not know."

His body was found like this.

A stalwart Zulu covered by his shield lay at the Colonels feet. Around the Colonel almost in a ring lay a dozen dead men half being Natal Carabineers all riddled with assegai stabs. Clearly they had all rallied around Durnford in one last gallant attempt to cover the flank of the camp.

Also this

Yesterday Dr. Thrupp (a civilian from London, who came out as special surgeon for one year and is going home again) called here and brought a watch which he had taken from the body of an officer on the morning of January 23, to see if we could recognise it. It was Colonel Durnford's. The body was found lying within the camp, near to the hospital, with some two hundred others lying around him. It was not mutilated

Now I would just like to find the source of this. Can anyone help?

Tasker

If you look at the thread Durnfords Watch a member of Dr Thrupp's family was selling Thrups account of what he
saw at isandlwana in a book, a section was posted by LH.



Cheers

Very well and we have come to the original question:Why Durnford was not disembowled ...

This is not normal it is not. If we should find others who are not, and also at Isandhlwana ,we could make comparisons...


Cheers

Pascal

Pascal, you asked me a question a couple of days ago. This is the man that can give you the answers, just be careful of the questions.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Have fun

Look at what Thrupp says when he found Col. D body

"It lay head downwards, and was only partially stripped; a mess waistcoat, and the shirt beneath it,
had been torn open, and hanging from a slender chain, fixed into a button-hole,
was a small gold watch and bunch of charms. The expression of the face was peaceful,
and the corpse apparently disfigured by only one long deep wound."


So he was clearly stabbed.


Cheers

Thanks Springbok9 and DB14

Drummer Boy 14 wrote:

Look at what Thrupp says when he found Col. D body

"It lay head downwards, and was only partially stripped; a mess waistcoat, and the shirt beneath it,
had been torn open, and hanging from a slender chain, fixed into a button-hole,
was a small gold watch and bunch of charms. The expression of the face was peaceful,
and the corpse apparently disfigured by only one long deep wound."


So he was clearly stabbed.


Cheers

I wouldn't read too much into this DB and notice Thrupp's appropriate use of the word "apparently." Thrupp did not carry out a post mortem here and so might well have missed gun shot wounds. Gun shot wounds in a dead body are far more difficult to locate than you might think, particularly if there has been massive blood loss. The wounds can close up and be virtually invisible to the naked eye alone.
"One long deep wound" sounds a lot more like an opening up/ slashing/ disembowelling wound than a stab wound!
An experienced pathologist would need several hours to examine a body and be sure he had located all the GSWs.

To my knowledge, Jabez Moliffe , one of the Zulu Amakolwe from Edendale was sent to Isandlwana with the express instruction to recover Col Durnford's body from the battlefield and return it to Pietrmaritzburg for final interrment in the military cemetery at Fort Napier, in the city. This was done. He however made comment on the condition of the body saying there was one bullet hole and multiple stab wounds in the upper body and a large slash on the face. No comment was recorded , coming from him, about evisceration.
So, that gives us a clue that Durnford's actual cause of death may have been the gunshot wound. This finale was confirmed by Mehlogozulu in his sworn statement to General Sir Evelyn Wood at Isandlwana in June 1880; saying that a Zulu did not kill Durnford, but that he shot himself.
Many statements were taken during Gen Wood's tour of Zululand at the time of the French Royal visit. During the tour Fynn's Police were tasked to bring all of the Zulu leaders in to Gen Wood so that he could quizz them on their part in the war , and more particularly the Isandlwana battle.
At this time, one of those Zulus also questioned was Zabanga, who told Princess Eugenie how he executed the coup de gras on Louis Naploeon.

regards

barry

Hi Barry
A number of your points need to be substantiated.
I cant seem to locate the description you refer to of Durnfords body by Molefi!
Mehlokazulus statements refer to the figure shouting fire repeatable then mentions his body laying amid a ring of compatriats,
I cannot find any reference to a statement that Durnford shot himself by Mehlokazulu.
Wood most certainly did not interview ALL the zulu commanders, nTshingwayo was never interviewed, and whilst Wood alludes to statements by those who where there being more accurate than the European records, they are not identified beyond Mehlokazulu and possibly Raw ( even the later is conjecture from Lock and Quantrill ).

Im really happy to be proved wrong

Cheers

So Durnford was not emptied because he committed suicide ?

... "That saying did not kill a Zulu Durnford, he shot himself That goal" ...

There are some who are happy beings on the forum with such crap ...

For me Durford was shot dead by a Zulu warrior and this is the reason why it has not been gutted ...


My question is: Zulu treat it the same way the body of a man shot and killed, the corpse of a man killed by stabbing ?

Zulu warriors believed that the firearms were for the cowards and perhaps they thought that those who were killed by firearms were not worth much either and that they were unworthy of a post-mortem ritual...

This is why Durnford was not disembowled ...


Durnford had no reason to commit suicide because he faced not the Pathans ...

Cheers

Pascal

I too have read Mehlozazulu's statement, and unless it was censored, I can not recall reading the bit about suicide. if I had, I am pretty sure I'd have remembered that.
Is Pascal the Rascal correct?
Did the Zulu not disembowel men who had been killed by the bullet?

Hi Tasker .
Maybe The Rascal has made or is making a generalization , I dont have supporting evidence either way to be honest.
Pity we dont have an aged zulu on the Forum who may be able to clear it up one way or the other ! .
Cheers 90th.

Ken or possibly even Brett may have the answer Tasker.

Cheers

Hi
I do think that they disembowel opponents killed only with white weapons and therefore

considered courageous , would be a good track ...

And I do not be surprised that this is so ...

Find me one guy killed by bullets that have been ripped ...

Like what the Zulus did not it can be to liberate the souls of the dead, after all they did it for

the people killed in action ...

And certainly not for those killed by bullets...


Cheers

Pascal

90th wrote:

Hi Tasker .
Maybe The Rascal has made or is making a generalization , I dont have supporting evidence either way to be honest.
Pity we dont have an aged zulu on the Forum who may be able to clear it up one way or the other ! .
Cheers 90th.

It would be really great if there were some Zulu members, or people with Zulu heritage on this forum.
I wonder if Pete could find a way of reaching this audience?

Quote :

It would be really great if there were some Zulu members, or people with Zulu heritage on this forum.I wonder if Pete could find a way of reaching this audience?

Would be good to see, how they look at the Zulu War, bearing in mind, in their eyes it was unjust.

Which one ?

If you really like to get that sort of feedback going contact iSandlwana Lodge or FD Lodge or Rorkes Drift Hotel. All three of them employ descendants of warriors in an advisory roll.
Send some e mails of and see where it goes.

Cheers

And do, why not Durnford was disembowled ...

Pascal MAHE wrote:

And do, why not Durnford was disembowled ...

Exactly Pascal, that's what I'd ask...eventually. Not sure about email though, it'd have to be over a few evening drinks.

Be nice if these guys you speak of were members of the forum, Springy.

TASKER I say that the Zulus did not disembowel the killed by bullets, it flows naturally when you know the Zulu disdain for firearms ...

Was it not out of respect, to fellow braves...

barry wrote:

At this time, one of those Zulus also questioned was Zabanga, who told Princess Eugenie how he executed the coup de gras on Louis Naploeon.

regards

barry

Considering Xabanga was killed at Ulundi that would have made for an interesting conversation. Where do you get your stories from Barry?



Cheers