Disembowelling.

Does anyone know the real reason for the disembowelling of the British soldiers at Isandlwana.
The Zulus were not content with just killing them, they also ripped them up.
It seems to me, to be a barbaric act that was unnecessary.

Some bodies were stabbed numerous times in order for the Zulus to wet their spears.
No wonder, the British took no prisoners in the following battles.

Cheers
Old Historian2

OH2,

I can't quote chapter and verse of where I read it, but if my memory serves me correctly the disembowelling was said to have been done for superstitious reasons, the Zulu warrior feared that if he didn't cut the body of his enemy open to release his spirit, then the ghost of the man he had killed would haunt him for the rest of his days. I don't know how true that is, or for that matter, if it was the only reason, perhaps someone more knowlegable than myself might be able to help.

cheers
bookworm

Ian Knight has written an article on this subject and is worth a read.

‘Wet with Yesterday’s Blood’ - the disembowelling controversy.
By Ian Knight

It is too long to post on this site, but if you would like to read it, please PM me

Pete, I could post it on the forum but would have to be posted over a few replies. What is the biggest post we can do?

1879Graves

PART ONE

By Ian Knight

On 12 March 1879, Major Charles Tucker of the 80th Regiment was awakened in his tent in the camp at Luneberg, in northern Zululand by a distraught Lieutenant H. Harwood, who had just escaped the devastating attack on the stranded convoy at Ntombe river. Tucker immediately gathered together as many men who could ride as possible, and set out to the scene of the disaster. His description of what he found there provides a vivid description of the aftermath of a Zulu attack, which remains chilling even after the passage of 120 years;
“As we approached the Intombe Drift a fearful and horrible sight presented itself, and the stillness of the spot was awful; there were our men lying all about the place, some naked and some only half clad. On the opposite side of the drift I need not attempt to describe to you what I saw; all the bodies were full of assegai wounds and nearly all of them were disembowelled…I saw but one body that I could call unmutilated…” 1

Tucker’s account mirrors the sense of shock that the survivors of Lord Chelmsford’s column similarly felt on their return to Isandlwana the night after the battle. “We saw the dead bodies of our men strewed about on every side, and horribly mutilated”, 2 wrote on, “the Zulus mutilated them and stuck with the assegai all over the body”, 3 observe a second, while a third noted that “Every white man that was killed or wounded was ripped up, and their bowels torn out”.4 To suffer a sudden, unexpected and astonishing catastrophe such as Isandlwana was bad enough, but the treatment of the British dead understandably worked those who witnessed it into a fury; “It was enough to make your blood run cold”, commented one man, “to see the white men cut open, worst than ever was done in the Mutiny”.5
The sense of horror provoked by the sight of men killed by the Zulus still lingers today. Just last year, the Letters to the Editor pages of The Daily Telegraph were enlivened by correspondence over this very issue. For the best part of a month, the contributors ranged freely over the subject, offering increasingly bizarre explanations, which hinted darkly at improbable witchcraft practices, and even cannibalism.
In fact, there should be little mystery surrounding the reasons why the Zulu treated the dead in such a manner, as there is a good deal of contemporary evidence from Zulu sources, both with regard to the practices themselves, and with specific reference to the Anglo-Zulu War.
The Zulus repeatedly stabbed, disembowelled, and occasionally mutilated the bodies of men killed in action – black or white – in pursuit of three distinct post-combat rituals, all of which reflected the extent to which death in combat was regarded as an important part of their interaction with the spirit world.
That the dead often bore multiple stab wounds is a feature common to all descriptions. Of course, in the fierce tussle of action, it is likely that many enemy were stabbed more than once before they fell: despite the Zulu warrior’s famed expertise with their stabbing weapons, it could clearly have been impossible to despatch any enemy with a single clean thrust every time, especially if he was parrying with his own weapon, and fighting back. Given the large wounds made by the blades of the Zulu stabbing spears, the act of inflicting death itself was likely to be messy.
Nevertheless, bodies were deliberately stabbed again after death in a practice known as ukuhlomula. The practise of homulaing a fallen enemy had less to do with delivering the coup de grace than a desire on the part of warriors taking part in the fight to mark their role in the kill. The Zulus had a distinctly communal mind-set, which was encouraged by complex pre-battle rituals, and which were intended by bind the army together as a whole. In action, therefore, those men who had been involved in the fighting but had not actually killed an enemy were still entitled to some part of the glory that was attached to the victory. In particular, the practice of hlomula had evolved in the hunt; after cornering and despatching a particularly dangerous animal, the act of participation was recognised when the men each came up and stabbed the dead beast. While the man who had actually killed it was allowed his particular share of the glory, the other members of the hunt had shared the same risks, and had played their part in its success; ukuhlomula – stabbing the corpse after it was dead – reflected this.
The same rule applied in warfare, particularly when fighting a foe that had stood their ground bravely, and had therefore been a dangerous opponent. As Mpatshana kaSodondo, who fought with the uVe regiment as Isandlwana explained,
“[our] numbers included those who had stabbed opponents who had already been stabbed by others (hlomula’d); then again those hlomula’ing became more numerous by reason of the fact that they had been fighting such formidable opponents, who were like lions…This custom was observed in regard to Isandlwana because it was recognised that fighting against such a foe and killing some of them was of the same high grade as lion-hunting. In regard to buffalo, too, anyone hlomula’ing, first, second, or third…was looked on as responsible in some way for its death”. 6

Interestingly enough, during the 120th anniversary re-enactment of Isandlwana in January 1999, the Zulu amabutho walked across the field at the end of the ‘battle’, repeatedly stabbing the ground next to the ‘bodies’ of the fallen British red-coats, in a symbolic representation of ukuhlomula. This was a spontaneous gesture, which had not been suggested by the advising historian, or, indeed, included in the re-enactment ‘script’.
The second ritual, the custom of disembowelling a fallen enemy – qaqa – was directly related to the Zulu view of the universe, and its relationship with the world of the living. Prior to embarking of a campaign, the Zulu warriors were prepared for war in a complex set of rituals which set them aside from civilian life, and protected them against the harmful effects of mnyama – literally ‘darkness’ – the harmful spiritual consequences that flowed from shedding human blood. They could not return to ordinary society until they had undergone the counterpart cleansing ceremonies at the end of the campaign, for fear of contaminating their families with mnyama.7 As part of the cleansing rituals, it was necessary that certain practices be observed with regard to the bodies of men who had killed in battle. Specifically, it was necessary for a warrior to remove part of the clothing of a man he had killed, and to wear it until he had undergone the necessary cleansing ceremonies. This practice was known as zila – to abstain from ordinary, every-day customs while in a dangerous state of spiritual pollution. Men who had killed in battle, but not yet been cleansed, were known as izinxeleha, and those who had particularly distinguished themselves by their tally in battle were said to be “wet with yesterday’s blood”.
As part of these observances, it was also necessary to slit open the stomach of the enemy. In the hot African sun, any corpse begins to putrefy quickly, and the gases given off by the early stages of decay cause the stomach to swell. In Zulu belief, this was the soul of the dead warrior, trying to escape the after-life. The man who killed him was obliged to open the stomach, to allow the spirit to escape. If he did not, he would be haunted by the ghost of his victim, who would inflict various horrors upon him, including causing his own stomach to swell, until eventually the killer went mad. To allow the spirit free passage, a cut was made vertically down the stomach, from sternum to groin. Furthermore L.B.Z. Buthelezi, the modern Zulu poet, has suggested that as part of the ritual it was necessary for the killer to run the blade of his spear along his tongue, touching the blood.8 The purpose of this remains obscure, but probably has to do with the killer gaining supernatural ascendancy over his enemy by ritually ‘eating’ his spirit; it is perhaps no coincidence that the Zulu cry of exultation is battle is “Ngadla” – “I have eaten.”
That both practices were followed at Isandlwana, Ntombe and elsewhere are testified not only by British observations on the corpses, but by Zulu accounts. According to Mpatshana,
“It is the custom for one killing another to take off the deceased’s things and put them on, even the penis cover. He zila’s with them by so doing…If he has killed two or more he will take articles from each and put them on. He will not put on his own things until the doctor has treated him and given him medicines…We took the Europeans’ things at Isandlwana; they were all stripped. This was done to zila with”.9

Mehlokazulu kaSihayo, an attendant of the king who had been named in the British ultimatum for his part in the border raid of June 1878, was also present at Isandlwana with the iNgobamakhosi regiment. He made several references to the subject of stripping and disembowelling the dead in a long and comprehensive account of the war which was recorded when he was brought before a magistrate in Pietermaritzburg in September 1879;
“As a rule we took off the upper garments, but left the trowsers, but if we saw blood upon the garments we did not bother…All the dead bodies were cut open, because if that had not been done the Zulus would have become swollen like the dead bodies…I heard that some bodies were otherwise mutilated”.10

It is not clear whether the disembowelling was always carried out in the immediate aftermath of the victim’s death, or later, once the full fury of the fighting had passed. Certainly, at least some bodies were disembowelled immediately. Trooper Richard Stevens of the Natal Mounted Police survived Isandlwana, and had clearly glimpsed terrible sights, even as he fled the camp;

PART TWO

“I stopped in the camp as long as possible, and saw one of the most horrid sights I ever wish to see. The Zulus were in the camp, ripping our men up, and also the tents and everything they came across, with their assegais. They were not content with killing, but were ripping the men up afterwards”.11

At least one Zulu account agrees the disembowelment followed swiftly on death. Kumbeka Gwabe of the uKhandempemvu ibutho described how he killed a soldier at Isandlwana;
“At Isandlwana I myself killed only one man. Dum! Dum! Went his revolver as he was firing from right to left, and I came along beside him and stuck my assegai under his right arm, pushing it through his body until it came out between his ribs on the left side. As soon as he fell I pulled the assegai out and slit his stomach…”12

Although no post-mortem studies were carried out on the corpses of British soldiers killed in the war of 1879, a report on the body of the Prince Imperial confirms the practise of hlomula, and suggests that a slight cut to the stomach was sometimes sufficient to serve as a nominal disembowelment;
“There was a large gash in the abdomen exposing the intestines, which were, as in the case of the trooper, uninjured…The gash…is not, I feel assured, inflicted with any idea of mutilating the corpse of the slain enemy, but simply because it is a belief among them that if this coup is not given, and the body swells, as it would by the generation of gases of decomposition, the warrior who neglected this precaution is destined to die himself by his body swelling. Apart from the gash which was in every case inflicted after death, for no blood had flowed, there was no mutilation whatever. Many of the wounds were so slight that I think they must have been inflicted after death, all members of the party probably ‘washing their spears’ in pursuance of some ceremonial regulations on the subject of a dead enemy”.13

There was, however, one aspect of Zulu ritual that did result in true mutilation of the dead. It was a universal belief that body parts from a fallen enemy could be added to the ritual medicines with which an army was prepared before a campaign to devastating effect. These medicines were known as intelezi, and were spattered on the assembled impi by specialist izinyanga – war-doctors – before it set off on campaign. Parts from a dead enemy – particularly one who had fought bravely – would be an enormous boost to Zulu itonya – the mystical force which ensured supernatural ascendancy in battle. Since a number of izinyanga undoubtedly accompanied the army which triumphed at Isandlwana, they would presumably have taken the opportunity to collect the raw materials for such medicine from dead soldiers. These parts would have been used when doctoring the army for later fighting, such as the Khambula campaign of March 1879.
Specific parts of the body were thought to hold the courage of the enemy, and this dictated the pattern of mutilation. Mpatshana described an incident during the civil wars of the 1880s when Zibhebhu kaMaphitha, chief of the anti-royalist Mandlakazi section “…fetched intelezi medicines from a deceased man. Pieces were cut off him. A piece was taken from his forehead; it was taken by a doctor…His rectum, penis, bone of right forearm (throwing arm), also the cartilage from the bottom of the breast-bone were taken…The rectum is taken so as to cause fear by causing ‘agitation’ of the stomach, and to bring on diarrhoea. This is the method of causing fear. The doctor then treats his own impi with these bits of human flesh”.14

For reasons yet to be fully explained, facial hair from dead Europeans was also highly prized in this context. When, at the outbreak of the Bambatha Rebellion in 1906, a police patrol was ambushed in the Mpanza valley near Greytown, and several policemen killed, one of the corpses was mutilated for medicine in a manner similar to that described above; in addition, however, the top lip was removed, since it boasted a particularly fine moustache.
While it is unlikely that many of the dead were so mutilated at Isandlwana – simply because it required a specialist to remove the necessary items – it undoubtedly did happen. Indeed, Archibald Forbes’ graphic account of the state of the bodies at the time of the first burial expedition in May 1879 is highly suggestive, “Every man had been disembowelled,” he wrote, “some were scalped, and others subject to yet ghastlier mutilations”.15

Despite deep-seated settler fears that these mutilations were carried out before death, and therefore mounted to torture, there is no evidence that this was in fact the case. Indeed, during the frenzy of battle it was usual for the Zulus to kill everything they came across, not only enemy soldiers, but non-combatants, oxen, horses, and even pet dogs. With just one exception, it proved impossible for the Zulu commanders to induce their men to take live captives, and it is extremely unlikely that men would have been captured for the purpose of preparing ritual medicines – especially when parts taken from a dead body were considered just as efficacious. In the one case which has often been cited as an example of ritual torture – that of Trooper Raubenheim, killed on 3 July 1879, whose body was used to prepare the army on the eve of the late great battle at Ulundi – the accusation does not stand up to a rigorous study of the evidence.16
The injuries inflicted by the Zulus to the bodies of the British dead were neither wilful nor cruel, but actually reflected both a deep spiritual belief and the respect the Zulus had come to feel for their enemy, seemed little consolation to their comrades at the time. However; the circumstances were too painful for such a huge gulf of cultural misunderstanding. Indeed, in the weeks following Isandlwana, any Zulu scout who fell into British hands could expect little mercy from men who had seen the devastated field at Isandlwana.

References

1 Letter by Tucker, 19 March 1879, reproduced in Frank Emery’s The Red Soldier, 1977.
2 Letter by Lt. William Weallans, 2/24th, 26 January 1879, reproduced ibid.
3 Letter by Sergeant W.E. Warren, N/5 Battery, letter first published 29 March 1879, reproduced ibid.
4 Private Cook, 2/24th, letter first published 29 March 1879, reproduced ibid.
5 Private Farrell, 2/24th, letter first published 27 March 1879, reproduced ibid.
6 Account of Mpatshana in Webb and Wright, eds., The James Stuart Archive, Vol. 3 1982.
7 For an eye-witness account of these rituals, see Mpatshana, ibid. For a full description, see Ian Knight’s The Anatomy of the Zulu Army, 1994.
8 Interview on BBC Wales radio, January 1999. A photograph of a warrior mimicking this practice appeared in the South African press at the time of the Isandlwana re-enactment.
9 Account of Mpatshana, Webb and Wright.
10 Account by Mehlokazulu, given 27 September 1879, reproduced in the Zulu War supplement to the Natal Mercury.
11 Letter by Richard Stevens, dated Helpmekaar 27 January 1879, reproduced in Emery.
12 Account of Kumbeka Gwabe, supplement to the Natal Mercury, 22 January 1929.
13 Report in the Times of Natal, reproduced in D.F.C. Moodie, Moodie’s Zulu War, 1988.
14 Account of Mpatshana, Webb and Wright.
15 Archibald Forbes, account in The Daily News, 10 July 1879.
16 See Was Raubenheim Tortured? By Ian Knight in Issue 74, September 1993, issue of Soldiers of the Queen,
the Journal of the Victorian Military Society.

I was going to post.

"disembowelling of the dead was required to allow their spirits to leave. In addition, the warriors were required to wear something of their victims. On leaving the battlefield, the zulu warriors were expected to undergo a cleansing ritual"

However I think 1879Graves does the job nicely.


S.D

1879Graves thank you for this excellent transcript relating to disembowelling. Consequently I’m unable to eat the dinner my loving wife has prepared for me.
Intestines, A lip with a moustache, rectums taken out. Once again thanks for the details, my fault for starting this topic. All very interesting.

Cheers
One sick Old Historian2

Old Historian.
I see your point, No holds barred there. But if you don't want your dinner, sent it over i'm staving. :lol!:

Regards

Pete.

Pete, to late. Its in the dog. :lol!:

Send your dog over, I'll eat that as well.


S.D

On serious note. I thinks 1879 Graves as shown us the reason's behind the tradition of Disembowelling once a killl had been made.
it was most likely seen as mutilation and nothing more by the officers and soldiers, mainly because they had no knowledge of Zulu traditions.

Just out of interest the bodies of Melvill and Coghill did not suffer the Zulu tradition of disembowelling, has it is belived they were killed by a neighbouring tribe.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Was Durnford's body left un-touched.

Regards

Pete.

Yes I must agreed. 1879Graves has without doubt shown the reasons behind the disembowelling. I now understand why it was done, instead of being a barbaric act upon brave dead soldiers.

It must have been a dreadful sight for those that returned to Isandlwana after the battle.
But like I said no wonder the British were less tolerant when it came to pay back.

Cheers
Old Historian2

Was there a reason why? Durnford, Melville, Coghill, was not disemboweled. And was any other officers spared the Zulu tradition of disembowelment at Isandlwana.

Cheers

Old Historian2

There is one school of though with regards to Melville & Coghill. They were killed by friendly natives (NNC) on the Natal side of the river and not by Zulus. This cannot be proved or disproved. The NNC are believed to have removed the red cloth headband to look like Zulus?.

Thanks 1879Graves.
I have read that Melville and Coghill were killed by another tribe, who had been threaten with death if they did not kill the British soldiers. However I do believe the Zulus were responsible for the killings.

I was starting to wonder if its because the Zulus had some kind of respect for the ones they did not disembowel, I would like to find out why only a certain few was left intact so to say.

Cheers
Old Historian2

Old Historian.

I read somewhere that Durnfords body was left untouched out of respect, but some clothing was removed, by those that took part in the killing.
Maybe it was because he was known throughout the Zulu kingdom. And he did have some respect for the Zulu.

Not sure on Melville and Coghill. (Coghill worn a blue tunic) and it was stated that many of the survivors worn blue tunics, it has also been written that the Zulus were only interested in killing those that worn the Red tunic's

sas1

Came across this.

The Zulus took no prisoners and killed any they could including Pulleine and Durnford. Approximately 60 British regulars escaped, none of whom were wearing red coats -- Cetshwayo had specifically ordered his men to kill all the men wearing the red coats. The surviving British soldiers were either officers wearing their dark blue field uniforms, troopers with the Royal Artillery (who wore light blue uniforms), or members of irregular cavalry units such as the Natal Mounted Police.

Cheers
Old Historian2

Sorry to dig up this again but ??

It seems it was not just a case of disembowelling, Could this incident have taken place because the Zulus under Narcotic Influence?


Pete your post.

Subject: Interview with Mehlokazulu Kasihayo (The Battle Of Isandlwana)


A) No. our main weapon was the assegai. Our tactics consisted in firing two or three shots and the charging rapidly. All the bodies were cut open, because if we hadn't done so, the Zulu would have inflated like the dead bodies. I only know one case of a man whose head was cut off. I heard that the bodies were mutilated somewhere else.


Q): Where was the man with the head cut off ?

A: At the entrance to the camp, where the white people were fighting in a back formation. (He was talking about the linear position of the companies with their backs to the mountain)

Let’s say the incident with the beheading of a Soldier at Isandlwana was true, then the question has to be why did this happen?

Lets look at Joseph Williams: Private B Company 24th Regiment.
His body was dragged outside after he had killed 14 Zulu. They took revenge on him, mutilating him probably while he was still alive.

He had killed 14 Zulu before they got to him, and he was not kill quickly they made him suffer before death.

Maybe this poor individual who lost his head had also caused much destruction on the Zulu, before they took their revenge by beheading him.


S.D

He also mentions that other bodies were mutilated somewhere else. It would be interesting if he had mentioned the location of the other bodies, He seems to be talking outside the realms of their normal cutting open of the bodies.

Just a bit of topic. I came across this artical.

Hello,
I'm a 32 year old woman that had an unusually vivid and almost surreal
dream around 10 years ago that was unlike anything I have ever experienced
before. In it, I was myself (technically) but in another body - that of a 13 year
old girl with long blond hair living in Africa (I think as a settler). We were in a
type of village/compound living in basically thatched huts with other white
people. I had a father with red hair and beard and mustache that seemed to
be either a teacher or basic doctor or researcher (uncertain) and an aunt. My
mother had died. I was an only child. In this 'compound' I recall enjoying the
beautiful surroundings.. the tall grasses, the animals, the sunsets... at some
point i recall a meeting place where there was stress around the adults
relating to an important tribal black captive that had escaped from our
custody and was subsequently killed during his attempted escape. There
were fears of retribution and revenge and it seemed that everyone was very
nervous about what would happen. The next thing I recall is nighttime and I
am in my hut with my father by a kerosene lamp. Suddenly we hear noise
and the light of fires and I see that our compound is being ambused by a
tribe in full head-dress with large cleaving or axe-like weapons. They are
torching huts and screaming with ferocity. My father begins to panic just as
the doorway is filled with the presence of a tribal warrior with a maniacal 'ask
no question before acting' look. My father screams for me to run or hide but
I can't move as I watch him hit by the axe. I recall literally thinking that this is
it for me, I watch the axe come towards me in shock. I feel no pain and with a
sudden jolt I am now floating outside my body up towards the roof of the hut.
As I watch I see the tribal man slicing open our insides and actually recall
wondering why he is doing this to us as we are so obviously dead. I float
upward and the dream ends.
I have literally no knowledge of African history but wondered if it would be
possible to confer whether any of these events seem like something that had
happened in the past. After the dream I looked up on the internet various
violent episodes between Dutch settlers and Zulu tribe near Natal in around
1830s... I also read that Zulu warriors would slice the abdomens of their
enemy after killing them to 'release evil spirits'. This really shocked me as it
was very similar to my confusion during my dream after I had died... Do you
think this might have been a past-life reincarnation?? I would have been
more skeptical if I had prior knowledge of African history or had any vested in
interest in this time period, but I was completely 'green' on the subject. As
well... seeing myself as someone else, who looked different, and had a
different family and different family structure was unlike any dream I had
experienced previously or since then... It still haunts me some 8 years later.
Just wondering if you think there is something valid here or if it was just a
fluke?

To many hallucinogenic mushrooms I'm affraid.

S.D