Announcement ! Question and Answer Session with the renowned Zulu War Authors & Historians Mr Peter Quantrill & Mr Ron Lock   

The renowned Zulu War Authors & Historians  Mr Peter Quantrill & Mr Ron Lock have agreed to take part in a question and answer session exclusively for us on the 1879 Zulu War forum.  If you have any questions for them, please send them to me - don't post them on the open forum and I will select the best to pass on to him. Closing date for question is the end of this month (April) - hopefully we'll be able to post the replies in May date to be agreed.

Please note questions must only relate, to TMFH. 

If you would like to ask Peter & Ron a question, forward your questions to me [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wth your forum name.
I will let you know when enough questions, have been sent as both Peter & Ron are busy with other projects.

Please note Peter & Ron will not be drawn into questions relating to other authors and their work.

Question (1) 
Question  from forum member. Aussie  Inkosi
 
I have a book by the title Zulus at Bay by Denis Barker the grandson of Trooper Barker who was on Qwabe hill on that fatefull day
This book has quite a few statements giving the view that it was the Zulu battle plan to deceive the British of its location and then once knowing
After the British split its force took full advantage have you read this book and if you have what is your opinion on some of the explosive statements
It has on it seeing this was the belief of Trooper Barker who was there on that day
 
Answer. 
Dear Inkosi,
In response:
Ron has the book, I do not. The book is apparently not indexed and Ron has asked for the relevant page numbers, detailing “explosive statements.”
From my perspective, when Denis Barker wrote ‘Zulus at Bay’ (years later in 2005,) the book cannot reflect Trooper Barkers’s thoughts, whilst sitting on Qwabe Hill, on 22 Jan 1879. For example Trooper Barker could not, at that precise moment on Qwabe, have conjured up the idea that it was the “Zulu battle plan to deceive the British of its location,” or “then knowing after the British split its force took full advantage. ”
Such might be hindsight, hearsay or questionable recall of memory, whereas Trooper Barkers direct quote on page 4 of TMFH is fact, sourced from ‘Statement of Trooper W.W.Barker – Rev J. Stalker, Natal Carbineers.
In short, we do not believe that the question is relevant to TMFH.   
Kind regards,
Peter Q 


Questions from Rusteze

Three possible questions for L&Q.


1. In setting the scene for your paper, one of your main considerations is that the Zulus had "conjecturally decoyed half of No.3 Column". This perhaps proved to be one of the more contentious elements of your piece. Is it something you still stick to and if so,  is there anything you would now add to bolster the case?

2. I think that most people would agree that your paper  demonstrates, beyond serious doubt, that the annotations on the map in the KC collection is in the hand of Evelyn Wood. You also demonstrate that Wood's maps were loaned to Edward Durnford, for whom Wood seems to have had some sympathy.  My question is why do you think Wood made the annotations? Was it for his own purposes, or was it expressly done to assist Edward Durnford in making his case for his brothers actions?  If the latter, has anything else been discovered about Wood'd support for Durnford?

3. Somewhere in the subsequent discussion of your paper (I cannot now find where!) you mention that further copies of the maps are deposited in the collection of the Charles Close Society at Cambridge University Library. Do you have any further detail on these and has anyone, so far as you know, studied them?

Rusteze

Greetings  Rusteze,

Answer to question 1:
Quote from TNA (PRO)No.48: Lord Chelmsford to Colonel Stanley, Secretary of
State for War. "It would seem that the troops were enticed away from the
camp."

Question 2. 
Wood had arrived at Isandlwana with Princess Eugene, from visiting the grave
of the Prince Imperial, early 1880's.Having heard the details of the battle
via Major Clery, he then decided to make use of the colonial survivors of
the battle together with Zulu survivors that include Raw and Melokazulu, to
show him over the battlefield in detail, He then annotated the map. I think
it was originally intended for Edward Durnford. The map has proved of
extreme value in depicting both the Zulu Order of Battle together with
details of the action; probably amongst the most important primary source
material available.

Question 3: 
Information from Killie Campbell Museum, Durban, (as it was then known.)
Regrettably no further details. 

Kind regards
Peter Q


Questions from Julian Whybra.

Here are my threequestions for Ron and Peter:

Mehkokazulu 1st account describes the attack on HIS regiment by three mounted troops. TMFH uses this as being the basis of Raw’s initial discovery of and attack on the whole impi. First, THREE white mounted troops only existed once Vause’s men had joined Raw and Roberts’s. Secondly, that occurred once the right horn was moving westwards. Is therefore the TMFH premise not based on a non sequitur?

THFH states that the X on the Chatham map is annotated “Where the Umcityu first advanced.”
It isn’t. The annotation reads “Where the Umcityu were first seen”. This is has a very different meaning. Does this not accord with Raw’s statement: “We left camp, proceeding over the hills, Captain George Shepstone going with us. The enemy in small groups retiring before us for some time, drawing us four or five miles from the camp when they turned and fell upon us”. Thus does it not indicate the place where small groups of Umcityu were first seen and from where they began retiring drawing Raw 4 or 5 miles further away from camp i.e. towards the Ngewebni?

Lastly, it may not be diputed that Wood’s handwriting is on the maps. Presumably he got his information from the NNH officers. The Chatham maps’ accession information indicate that they were annotated by Henderson. Beneath Wood’s handwriting on those maps is another hand. The same information is written but it is overwritten by Wood. It is faint but legible. Had you done any analysis of this hand with Henderson’s?


Answers.

The first question is splitting hairs and, in our view, the phrase ‘non sequitur’ is inappropriate.

The second question relates to the Chatham map being annotated “Where the Umcityu first advanced.” Here, we were greatly assisted  in TMFH research, by the late Colonel Mike McCabe. He undertook the visits to the RE Museum and Library acquisition system on our behalf. The quote is from his work.
 Raw’s troop was not “drawn 4 or 5 miles further away from camp i.e. towards the Ngwebwni.” They were drawn in a north easterly direction, rather north. Had they continued in that direction,  the Ngwebeni valley would have been some three miles to the east.   


J.W’s final sentence reads: “Lastly it may not be disputed that Wood’s handwriting is on the maps.”
The word “may” (above) is simply not strong enough and indeed is open to argument. The word used should be “cannot.”
Quote: “Presumably he got his information from the NNH officers. “ Not to mention the critical interrogation of Mehlokazulu and Raw,” has been omitted.
Finally, the question has been asked, quote: “Had you done any analysis of this hand with Henderson’s?”  This is asked because the Chatham map’s accession indicate they were annotated by Henderson. This question however has been very clearly addressed in TMFH.
Lieutenant Alfred Henderson’s handwriting WAS also subjected to examination by the Forensic Document Examiner, but the writing clearly found to be in the hand of Wood, not Henderson.


Questions from Frank Allwell 

1
According to Mtshayanko: The induna, Sitshitshili ka mnqandi, said, "The army has been ruined, Nkosi. The izinduna ruine it. They sent it into battle. It was not sprinkled with medicines or treated with medicinal fumes. We simply went forward to fight by ourselves."

This was said at the return of the regiments after iSandlwana. How would this affect your theory that the battle was preplanned as early as 7 oclock in the morning. Surely if it was planned so far in advance, time would have been taken to 'doctor' the impi. I ask this as a big part of your theory really rests on the word of the eminent Chief Buthelezi's word that no doctoring was required. ( I sure as hell wouldn't like to disagree with the Chief, at least not to his face.)

2
My second point would be that you placed vedettes, Whitelaw I think, on Nyezi. My question would be, why would he be there? There was no perceived threat early in the morning from that area, and second to that point all the videttes were/should have been in visual communication with Scott on Amatitshane.

3
Third point would be in connection with the statement from Higginson WO33/34 inc 3 in No96, We found Captain Barry and ltn Vereker watching some Zulus about half a mile from them in the plain before stated. Would you assess the word 'plain' to refer to the flat are North of the Knoll or the actuall plain to the Eaast of the camp.

4
Higginsons statement gets completed ( senility mate).
The reason for asking about the sighting, and it does have a direct bearing on TMFH is that Ive always had a niggle over thestatements, Chard et al, of the impi moving behind 'Lions Head'/ the mountain. From anywhere in the camp to witness any impi doing that then the impi would either have to be on the plain below the ridge or on the side of the ridge. If that impi was the one refered to as seen my Vereker in TMFH it would have been behind Magaga knoll and not visible to the camp. Therefore there could have been two separate impis moving to the west.

Answers.

Thank you Frank. 
The answers from Ron and I, to the four questions, are as follows:
 
1. The Zulu army was indeed, doctored, (read Zulu Victory pages 83/5.) Also read Laband, Knight or any other authority. What Prince Buthelezi firmly confirmed was that having been initially doctored at oNdini, it would not be necessary to doctor the army again. The complicated nature of the ceremony was such, and we think that you may agree, that to perform it again on the eve of the battle would be impractical and distracting.
 
2. The placing of videttes was dependant on the whim and judgement of the officer in charge of the task. At the time of placing the videttes, early in the morning of the battle, the perceived threat was from the area of Matshana’s stronghold. However, the vedettes were placed to cover threats from all directions. Nyezi was an ideal location. It had direct, un-obscured visual contact with ‘Conical’ hill (Amatitshane). Furthermore the summit of Nyezi is slightly higher than Conical and from its summit there is a 360 degree view, not only of the battlefield and beyond, but to the northwest it overlooks Mbaso, two miles away, and part of the Ingwabeni Valley below.
Note on videttes, Red Book, page 5. “ Vidette duty and signalling were very successful taught and learnt by all volunteers ... It is said, by the signals they had learnt to make, communication can be made to the advancing column over a distance of 24 miles in three minutes.”
 
3. Barry was positioned on Magaga Knoll, and “plain” would refer to the relatively flat area north and east of Magago, not the plain to the east of the camp.    
 
4. Chard’s sighting of the impi, was clearly on Nyoni ridge, overlooking the camp. For the impi then to move in a westward direction presents a conundrum as Barry on Magago would be facing the impi. It is possible that the impi that Chard saw, retired northwards, then moved westwards and then down to the rear of the camp.

Regards 
PQ & RL

Some good questions. And some very good answers. I didn't submit any questions as I knew for every question asked there would be an answer, based on primary sources. It's a remarkable piece of work.

Thanks Ron and Pete.
Will spend a couple of days looking at your replies but on a first read there seems to have been raised more questions.
Regards

Thanks Peter and Ron for the time you spent on the above topic

Firstly sorry for not providing the page numbers for the explosive statements i will below

I first become aware on the missing five hours from my tour guide i used as he was taking me around the Anglo Zulu War battle sites back in 2012 and 2014 the most enjoyable time of my life the tour guide name is Major Paul Naish I noticed his name acknowledged in Ron book Blood on the Painted Mountain. i have all your books in my vast collection in fact the book Zulus at Bay the Major sold me his copy.

I agree with the missing five hours with the difference that i believe that Chelmsford was delebritilly baited out and that Ntshingwayo kaMahole pre planned the trap in which Chemsford
literally ran with it. What gives it away is that Dartnell was originally faced with 200 Zulu and later in the day numbers swelled to approx 2,000 these numbers can only come from the main impi
Ntshingwayo can be the only one being the one in charge able to realease these warriors from the main army funny is it all those fires being lighted up at Mangeni while the real threat at Ngbweni not one fire was permitted to feed or keep the warriors warm over the night of the 21st. The fires had a purpose the fires dont speak but they spoke for the Zulu on that day.

Yes Denis Barker has not indexed his book. I dont believe Trooper Barker conjured up the Zulu battle piece when he was on Qwabe but he was putting all the pieces together from the time he arrived at Helpmarker we all know his lucky escape from the camp on that day and its one of the stories of many that got us all involved in the Zulu War he is a living eye witness seeing very few survived that day.

Page 212 During the day Matshana himself had met up with the Zulu commanders to discuss their own strategy planes

Page 215 A large number of fires had been seen on the nearby Magago heights these had been delibertely lit in order to give the impression that many more Zulus were arriving on the scene

Page 238 The version of the discovery of the main Zulu army now accepted as authentic is that Lieutenant Charles Raw in his account submitted later to the Court of Enquiry. It is based on what he saw when sent out with Lieutenant Roberts onto the plateau where he came across the main Zulu army obviously waiting for regiments sent to the Malakatas to rejoin them

Thank you Ron and Peter for your responses to my questions. I will try and get along to Cambridge at some point and take a look at the Charles Close Society maps. I suspect though that they are litho copies retained by the Intelligence Branch of the War Office and passed on (with much else) to the Society. I note that the copies held in the Chelmsford Papers at the NAM are described as "pulls", which I take to simply be copies taken from the printing plates - the Cambridge copies are probably the same.

I find it interesting that you think Wood specifically intended the annotated map to help Edward Durnford refute the case against his brother. It is clear from Wood's comments in his biography that he thought highly of Colonel Durnford. He is, perhaps, the best informed and most significant supporter of Durnford and cannot be so easily dismissed in the way that Fanny Colenso and Edward so often are.

I agree that the Campbell Collection map, and its analysis, is amongst the most significant prime evidence we have. I know your objective in carrying out the TMFH analysis is to demonstrate the true location of the attacking Impi (and much of the subsequent discussion is about that). But I think what is says about Wood's attitude towards Durnford is equally important. To my mind it sits alongside the discoveries at Chatham by Jackson and Julian Whybra.

With many thanks.

Steve

Hi Ron and Peter

Many thanks for the answers.

For the record I do not dispute that it is Wood's handwriting on the maps ("may not be disputed" meaning "is not allowed to be disputed").
My question on handwriting analysis related to the underwriting in pencil which, though faint, is still legible and is clearly in a different hand to Wood's overwriting. It is of this underwriting that I was asking regarding a comparison to Henderson's hand.
This is important of course because if it were Henderson's this would simply be an approximation of where X was because he wasn't there, while his information as to the position of DH and Durnford's withdrawal would be accurate because he was there.

Lastly, despite Mike McCabe, I can tell you that 'where the Umcityu were first seen' is written on the Chatham map as referring to the 'X'.

I am looking at the reproductions of the Chatham/Campbell Collection versions of the map " the Country Around Isandhlwana". The Chatham map appears on page 25 of Julian's "Studies in the Zulu War 1879 - 1". The Campbell Collection map appears as appendix C of TMFH and contains the side notes by Wood.

Two questions.

1. Where does it say, on the Chatham map, that X references "where the umcityu were first seen" ?

2. Leaving aside the naming of the Zulu regiments in capital letters on the Campbell Collection map (already acknowledged elsewhere as a modern addition by Ron and Peter), the original manuscript naming of the regiments does not seem to match on the two maps. My understanding (and here it gets complicated) is that both maps were first of all noted in pencil and then overwritten in ink. On the Chatham map this is said to have been done by Henderson. On the Campbell Collection map the ink overwriting is by Wood but Julian feels that the pencil underwriting is in a different hand. If it is Henderson again, why is it different to the Chatham map?

Steve

rusteze
1. In the photo provided by the RE Museum it is just off the edge of the photo unfortunately as a sort of key.
2. I cannot speak for the Campbell map, but the Chatham map I believe might be underwritten by Henderson and overwritten by Wood. That is what my question to L&Q referred to.

JW wrote:

1. In the photo provided by the RE Museum it is just off the edge of the photo unfortunately as a sort of key.

Well if it's just off the edge, and sort of a key, how does anyone really know what it means?

John
It's on the border of the map as a key and just out of the shot of the photo rusteze refers to.
It is marked 'X' and then with the legend mentioned.

Thanks Julian. It is not at all unusual for these kind of documents to first be completed in pencil - much easier to cope with in the field than messing about with pen and ink. Your idea that Wood may have done the inking on both maps is an interesting proposition. It could support the hypothesis that he completed a second version expressly for Edward Durnford with a fuller description of the battle added.

Steve

Steve/Julian
There are so many interesting issues with these maps, one in particular leads me to believe that the map designated No 1, in Studies in the Zulu War, the Chatham map, was produced AFTER the map marked No 2, Campbell Collection, used in TMFHT. In the illustration used by L and Q only three regiments are named whilst the first mentioned has all the names attached to the locations. Could it then be assumed that the Campbell map was a work in progress that was completed in England?
Like wise the map from Chatham designated No 1 has notes missing that are on the Campbell Collections map designated No3.

Cheers

rusteze
For information, all the notes in the keys of both Chatham maps David and I placed on our 'compilation' map on p. 23 of Studies in the Zulu War I so that the reader had ALL the information, no matter how apparently trivial or insignificant, included on both. (As time has told, it seems to have been the 'trivial' that has held the greatest significance.)
To be utterly clear to those other forum members who are inclined to get the wrong end of the stick, these are NOT our annotations but appear on the originals.

Thanks Julian, understood.

I am becoming more interested in the reason the maps were annotated than in their geographical interpretation (sacrilege I know to those that like to argue the odd quarter mile here or there).

The sequence in which they were produced is also quite hard to fathom at the moment.

Both sets of annotated maps were in England to start with, and have probably been for most of the time since they were completed. The only reason the Campbell Collection maps are in KZN now is because they were purchased, from an American collector,  as part of the Wood Papers.

It seems to me that they were not produced at the request of Fanny Colenso either. It is clear now that Wood applied the (final?) annotations to the Campbell maps, perhaps after his trip to South Africa with Empress Eugenie, and lent them to Edward Durnford who duly returned them. At the time the original litho copies had been produced by the Intelligence Branch, in January 1880, FC was in England and keen to get on and publish her book. If she had requested the annotated maps why did ED get them from Wood?

The question is why were the annotations made, at whose request and who by?  I don't think we have satisfactory answers to those questions aside from Wood's involvement and possibly Henderson.

I note that the Intelligence Branch produced the maps in two states, the first  in January 1880 which form the basis of the two annotated sets we now have. And again in January 1881 for reproduction in the Narrative. The fact that the 1881 printing was of a second state implies that changes had been made since the first state was printed in 1880. We know that it was not the manuscript annotations on the Chatham maps that were reproduced. I cannot recall seeing an un-annotated (clean) version of the 1880 maps to compare with the 1881 versions in the Narrative (which must, in some way, be different). But it seems likely to me that the Chatham maps represent an attempt by RE to update the 1880 version that was not subsequently used in 1881. I cannot fathom any connection to Wood at the moment. He may well have had a copy of the 1880 versions but why would he have the annotated Chatham redraft.

The standard Intelligence Branch distribution of its products in 1877 was to about 160 recipients (so long as they were not secret at the time, which I don't think these were), so there are probably more out there to be found.

Steve

rusteze

For the record I do not believe that these are Wood's annotations.  I believe they are Henderson's annotations which have simply been gone over in ink by Wood.  Who else would bother to include such detail as to which of the two troops on the plain was on the left/right?  Who else would know?  Who else could have marked on a map the locations of these troops and other features with such precision?  Not Wood certainly.  He wasn't there.  To get it right, Wood would have asked Henderson to draw on the map himself as appropriate.  Such info could ONLY have come from Henderson or Davies and, I must remind you, that it is Henderson's name on the accession entry in the Museum covering BOTH the maps AND the annotated Brickhill article (note that these annotations are initialled A.F.H.).

Wood was an interesting and interested man.  He would want to know what happened that day.  He would not want to repeat others' mistakes.  He had the opportunity to talk with survivors (Henderson and Raw) to cover the action on the plateau and across the plain and he had the opportunity to walk/ride the ground.

The 'underwriting' is interesting because:

1) if it is ONLY Henderson's hand then Raw did not mark the map himself.  Therefore any markings relating to Raw's troop (and I include the 'X' here) would have come from Henderson and therefore, because he wasn't on the plateau, can only be approximations or guesswork.  What Henderson did or saw (and placed on the map for Wood) can be regarded as reliable; what he believed or guessed (and placed on the map for Wood) is open to interpretation.  Henderson could NOT have known exactly from where the "Umcityu were first seen" - even if he was told this information by Raw, Henderson's opinion can only be his best estimate on a map covering ground he had not seen.

2) if it is Henderson and Raw's hands then all information can be taken as reliable.

3) if it is all Wood's hand then (on the basis of the RE Museum accession entry) Henderson (and perhaps Raw) pointed at the map and instructed Wood where to place and mark the actions.

Personally I think (1) is correct.  This would open a whole new can of worms rergarding 'X'.

Subsequently after Wood's use for the maps had finished, he might at Edward Durnford's instigation have sent/given the maps to him to use as he wished.  That occasion would provide the opportunity for Wood's going over the pencilled annotations in ink.

Julian

Is this a fair interpretation of what you are saying?

Wood takes clean copies of the 1880 maps with him when he accompanies Eugenie to South Africa. He walks the Isandhlwana battlefield and interviews a number of people including Raw and Henderson. Henderson (and possibly Raw) annotate the maps for him. He returns to the UK and supplies Edward Durnford with the annotated maps, adding his description of what occured  down the right hand side of one of them and inking in the pencil annotations by Henderson/Raw (the Campbell maps). These maps end up in Wood's papers.

Henderson has also retained copies of the maps he/Raw annotated for Wood in South Africa and these end up in Chatham?

Steve

Wood interviewed Mehlokazulu, amongst others, is it not feasible that the arrangement of the regiments were given by them and at the same time pointed out from their position where the first 'white men' spoted them so establishing point 'X'
I would have no doubt that the information on the maps came from a variety of sources, including the Zulu so I don't believe that one can categorically state that 'only' Henderson could have located 'X'

Regards

Rusteze

This a fair interpretation of what I am saying:

Wood takes clean copies of the 1880 maps with him when he accompanies Eugenie to South Africa. He walks the Isandhlwana battlefield and interviews a number of people including Raw and Henderson. Henderson (and possibly Raw) annotate the maps for him. He returns to the UK with the annotated maps, adding his description of what occurred down the right hand side of one of them and inking in the pencil annotations by survivors (the Campbell maps). These maps end up in Wood's papers.

Wood supplies Edward Durnford with a second set of the maps Henderson (and possibly Raw) annotated in South Africa (and inked in by Wood) and these end up in Chatham.

Frank

That's quite true. Wood did interview many others, Mehlokazulu included, who may have been responsible for 'X'.
One of the ways in which it might be determined whether the information on the maps came from a variety of sources, is to analyse the underwriting of the Chatham maps and make a comparison with Henderson's hand.

Both

I can only speak for the Chatham maps which I know are underwritten in pencil and overwritten in ink. This applies to all writing on these maps.

I have only photocopies of the Campbell maps. I can see some underwriting and therefore do not know whether it is universal. I do not know if this underwriting is in pencil or faded ink. Can you or anyone else enlighten me?

Julian
Your comment: Wood supplies Edward Durnford with a second set of the maps Henderson (and possibly Raw) annotated in South Africa (and inked in by Wood) and these end up in Chatham.
Its the Chatham set that contains the most information in regard to the location of the regiments, and the handwriting ( Nodwengu, undi and uve ) is consistent on both sets and that is consistent on CC map 3. Consistent from a laymans view I must add. So Woods master set of plans ( Campbell Collections) were not updated but the 'Durnford/Chatham' set were.
Also what appears to be missing from the Chatham set are the two other 'X' marks the spot notes. One on the ridge slope 1 Co 2/24th? and *Last Stand 1/24th. I only have the illustrations from your article Julian but could you confirm that?

Regards

Thanks Julian.

I am still left with a niggle, which comes down to your initial question in all this about the underwriting. If, as you suggest, Wood passed a second copy of the maps to Edward Durnford based on the ones annotated for him in South Africa by Henderson, why are they underwritten at all? Would he not simply have copied his originals? You say the underwriting in the Chatham maps is Henderson's and the inking is Wood's. If there is underwriting in the Campbell maps (and I note what you say about only having seen photocopies) this is surely Henderson's as well - hence he must have done it twice.

Keith Smith in his "Annotated Maps of Isandlwana" piece (most recently in "Dead was Everything") speculates that the Chatham maps were copies made by Edward Durnford of those sent to him by Wood. But if so, how can they be in Wood's hand?

Am I missing something obvious? Perhaps I need to spend a while in a darkened room!

Steve

I cant see any underwriting on the Campbell maps

Frank
I quite agree, there may not have been any first or second sets, simply duplicate sets one of which was more annotated than the other.  Chicken and egg?
Yes, I can confirm that those two marks are missing from the Chatham maps.

Frank - re underwriting on the Campbell maps, look on the right where Ngobamkosi is written.  Just above it and sloping downwards to cross with the inked word, it is faintly written (in pencil or in faded ink) again.  
Just above this the word Umbonambi is written.  Above and sloping away to the upper right Umbonambi is also faintly written (and obviously in a different hand).
Underwriting is visible in numerous other places but not in all.

Rusteze
We are all in a darkened room.  So, point by point...

"Wood passed a second copy of the maps to Edward Durnford based on the ones annotated for him in South Africa by Henderson"
Actually I think it's the other way round (but see my reply to Frank above).

"Why are they underwritten at all? Would he not simply have copied his originals?"
Perhaps he asked Henderson to make two copies?  

"You say the underwriting in the Chatham maps is Henderson's and the inking is Wood's. If there is underwriting in the Campbell maps (and I note what you say about only having seen photocopies) this is surely Henderson's as well - hence he must have done it twice."
If there is underwriting on the Campbell maps, then your remark may be true.  Or it may belong to Raw/Davies/A.N.Other.

"Keith Smith in his "Annotated Maps of Isandlwana" piece (most recently in "Dead was Everything") speculates that the Chatham maps were copies made by Edward Durnford of those sent to him by Wood. But if so, how can they be in Wood's hand?"
Precisely.  They can't have been made by Durnford.  And this would also be to ignore the RE Mus accession entry notes.

As for missing the obvious:
A customs officer observes a lorry pulling up at the border. Suspicious, he orders the driver out and searches the vehicle. He pulls off the panels, bumpers, and wheel cases but finds not a single scrap of contraband, whereupon, still suspicious but at a loss to know where else to search, he waves the driver through. The next week, the same driver arrives. Again the official searches, and again finds nothing illicit. Over the years, the official tries full-body searches, X rays, and sonar, anything he can think of, and each week the same man drives up, but no mysterious cargo ever appears, and each time, reluctantly, the customs man waves the driver on.
Finally, after many years, the officer is about to retire. The driver pulls up. "I know you're a smuggler," the customs officer says. "Don't bother denying it. But I'm damned if I can work out what you've been smuggling all these years. I'm retiring now. I swear to you I will do you no harm. Won't you please tell me what you've been smuggling?"
The driver replies, "Lorries."

These 3 from the Campbell maps. The underwriting is on the "Battle-field" map and not on the "Country Surrounding" map, so far as I can see. I have to say that the underwriting and the inking look the same i.e. Wood's.

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

Steve

Look at the initial letter of Umbonambi. Still think they're the same hand?

Hmm. I don't think it's the initial letter. All you can see is "bonambi", the initial letter is obscured by the inking.

Steve

Sorry, I looked at the other map for signs of underwriting. As there is underwriting on the Chatham map, and that is reputably a litho copy of the CC map then surly there should be equivalent writing on the CC map. Or are we only referring to underwriting on the Battlefield map alone?

Frank

I don't think the Chatham map is a litho copy of the CC map - they would not go to the expense of doing that and had they done so they would have had the manuscript annotations properly engraved. Only two states of the maps were produced lithographically - the ones which form the basis for the Chatham and CC maps and the ones produced a year later for the Narrative. So the annotations on both the Chatham and CC maps were done by hand in my view.

Steve

rusteze
Look between the inked first m and b of Umbonambi - the capital U of the underwritten Umbonambi is between and above those two letters and is as clear as day on my photocopy (I have an enlarged extra enhanced copy, I admit) and it's very different to Wood's inked 'U'.

Frank
The one is not a lithographed copy of the other.

Julian

I am squinting like mad at my copy but the pencil letter between the first inked m and b still, to me, looks like the b of bonambi. I have also tried starting from the last letter i and working back, with the same result. If your's is "clear as day" I cannot argue, but my doubts, together with the distinct similarities between the other pencil and ink names still incline me to think they are all by Wood.
How do the pencil names on the Campbell copy compare with those on Chatham?

Steve

Julian Whybra wrote:

rusteze
Look between the inked first m and b of Umbonambi -  the capital U of the underwritten Umbonambi is between and above those two letters and is as clear as day on my photocopy (I have an enlarged extra enhanced copy, I admit) and it's very different to Wood's inked 'U'.

Frank
The one is not a lithographed copy of the other.

Julian can you post your copy.

rusteze

I've been squinting too.  Apologies, you are quite right  - it is a pencilled capital B - Bonambi.  The swirl at the beginning of the B fooled me into thinking it was part of a U.  In a way even better.  Would the overwriter have prefaced Bonambi with an Um- if it were the same man?

I've looked at the pencilled names on the Chatham/Campbell maps and on initial inspection they are appear to be in the same hand - or at least most of them do.  The Ns of Nokenke and Nodwengu are radically different at times.  Really a close professional examination of all the hands on both sets of maps needs to be performed - which is why I asked the question in the first place.

Morning Julian

Still trying to get my head around it. Fascinating stuff.

I have cobbled together a comparison of a portion of the Chatham/Campbell battle-field maps. These are the inked annotations and they appear to me to be in different hands - the Campbell version being by Wood. But what strikes me about them is that the drawn lines of advance are exactly the same on each map - much more so than you would expect if they had been produced by different people. This is true for the rest of both battle-field maps.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I am not so sure about the "country surrounding" maps. The dotted advance lines don't appear to be quite the same in the Chatham/Campbell copies and certainly appear to meet the start lines in different places.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I agree the handwriting question will not finally be resolved without further expert comparison.

What I still don't quite get is why both sets of maps didn't end up in Wood's papers. One set produced for him by Henderson (and perhaps others) and one he produced himself for Durnford which we know were returned to him.

Steve

Steve
'What I still don't quite get is why both sets of maps didn't end up in Wood's papers. One set produced for him by Henderson (and perhaps others) and one he produced himself for Durnford which we know were returned to him.'
Possibly the set that was returned wasn't the second set, just the first and the second was retained by Durnford.
I believe the provenance of the Campbell Collections is that they were donated by an American with the rest of the Woods papers, is that a fact?
In like manner the Chatham has the accession name of Henderson.
Would there be a possibility of reversing country domiciles here to say that the South African ( Campbell Collections) came from England via whatever American route and the English set ( Chatham) were sent from Durnford to Colenso and then back to Chatham. The English set does seem to have more data, in regiments positioning, and knowing the Colenso/Zulu relationships could have come via them onto the map.
Likewise there exists the possibility that Wood learns of the 'last stand' and the possible company close to the ridge and marks them on his copy of the map subsequently.
Potentially the fact that a map set is in England and another in South Africa could be the confusing issue.
Just a few wild thoughts.

Frank
Just to be clear for other readers, the RE Museum accession entry states that the maps were annotated by Henderson but it doesn't say who donated them to the museum.  The curator at the time believed (because all the Durnford Papers were entered in one block with the same prefix-number) that they all arrived simultaneously from one donor.  One of them was extracted from Miss F.E.C.'s letter of 29.6.1885 and it might well be that the Durnford Papers' donor was Frances Colenso and that includes the two maps and the annotated Brickhill article.

Julian makes an important point that Henderson is recorded as the author of the annotations on the Chatham maps and not necessarily their donor. But if their source is Frances Colenso why is Durnford borrowing and returning the same maps from Wood? I don't think Henderson could have had them to make his notes before FC left for England, so they must have come to her later via Wood? But why not give her the set which had his fuller explanation? (i.e. the ones borrowed by Durnford her collaborator). I do like a good mystery.

L&Q say that the Wood papers were purchased by Killie Campbell Collection from an American collector in 1982 for $3,200.00. So you are probably right that they spent most of their time in England.

Steve

Perhaps they came to F Colenso later via E Durnford.  That's a more likely scenario than from Wood, don't you think?
I'm sure that the Chatham donor would have been Fanny or Edward or perhaps both!

So my hypothesis is a possible.
Wood creates the original plan, with or without assistance.
Wood sends plans to Durnford
Durnford copies.
Sends to Colenso
She has the plans amended ( I would believe by a Zulu present at the battle)
Later sends/donates to the museum
Wood/ his family for whatever reason sell to an American
American sells to Killie Campbell.

If the Chatham maps are in Durnford's hand yes, without doubt. If they are in Henderson's I still don't get it.

Steve

Steve wrote:

But if their source is Frances Colenso why is Durnford borrowing and returning the same maps from Wood?

Good question!!!!

Just to tie up a loose end I have now had a look at the versions of the two maps under discussion that are held at the National Archives at Kew. An image of each of them follows.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Copyright National Archives

As expected, neither of them carry any manuscript notes, so they are not directly relevant to the debate about the history of the Chatham and Campbell Collection versions.

But, as they are clean copies of the January 1880 first state printing a comparison between them and the second state maps that were produced in March 1881 for the Narrative is possible.

There are significant additions to the second state maps that must have been incorporated by the Intelligence Branch during 1880 when the Narrative was being compiled.

On the second state "Country around Isandhlwana" map seven additional points have been added. The ridge on which Lord Chelmsford halted for breakfast. The ridge on which Lt Col Harness halted. The new camping ground. The scene of Dartnell's skirmish. The spot where Lonsdale met. The low ground where Lord Chelmsford halted to await Col. Glyn's arrival. The ground where the battery came into action: 7.45pm.  The map also shows, by dotted lines, the route taken by Harness with 2 Cos. of the 2/24th.


On the second state "Battle-Field of Isandhlwana" map we have. Full details of the layout of the camp.  The outposts by night and, further out, the outposts by day. The defensive line at about 1pm. The Cos. and the NNC locations on the ridge at about 12.15pm. There is also a note, at the point on the plain where the road crosses the donga, which says Mounted Men Durnford.

I find one thing particularly striking. The two sets of maps compiled by Henderson and Wood are predominately about the directions taken by the attacking Zulu impis. They say nothing about the defensive positions (other than by Durnford). In total contrast, the Narrative maps show all of the defensive positions and the manoeuvrings of Chelmsford but nothing at all about the Zulu attack lines.

I wonder why?

Steve

rusteze
I think the answer lies in the fact that anything Henderson/(Raw) said about the inner camp defence would have been speculation.  The Henderson/Wood map simply states what Henderson/(Raw) could state with certainty and about what they personally could vouch for.  They knew nothing with any certainty of the deployment of the Imperial coys.
Wood may of course have spoken to the Imperial officers and ORs who escaped.  I doubt if the ORs would have been able to state with certainty pictorially anything on a map - this was something they were just not used to doing.  As for the officers, they should have been trained in this, but even if Wood did speak to them, look at where each of them was.  Their individual knowledge was limited and their collective knowledge probably contradictory and difficult to piece together.  Nevertheless I don't discount the possibility that some were interviewed by Wood and that maps were produced.  The numbering on the maps alone indicates this.  Why bother to number maps just 1 to 3?  If so, then they if they survive, perhaps maps numbered 4 onwards remain to be found in some repository somewhere between Durban and Brecon.  
The RE Museum, if you've ever been there, has basements as vast as the building itself which are not unlike the RD hospital - dusty little rooms off main corridors, each containing cupboards, drawers and map chests with much unviewed and properly-indexed material.  When people write 'what else remains to be discovered about the AZW?', I think to myself 'LOTS'.

Julian

I can see why, for the reasons you set out, that the defensive positions might not appear on the Chatham/Campbell maps. But the omission of the Zulu lines of attack on the Narrative maps is harder to understand. If I was being ungenerous I might say that, had they been included,  they would tend to show Lord C's meanderings in  an even poorer light. By the time they were produced there was plenty of information available to allow their inclusion.

Two small points of passing interest. The copies of the first state maps at Kew and in the Campbell Collection seem to have the same hand colouring of the road in brick red and the major rivers in blue. I have not seen a colour image of the Chatham maps but I assume they are the same. I guess they would not have hand coloured too many copies.

The second point is the placing of Durnford's defensive line, to the right of the road along the donga on the Narrative map and further south of that as indicated by the dots on the Chatham annotation. Probably not significant though.

There is no doubt there are endless nooks and crannies in old government buildings that remain unexplored. I worked for some time in the Treasury building in Whitehall which has extensive basements, many of which were extended for war time operations. Churchill's War Rooms, now open to the public,  are just a part. You could easily descend to a point were the water table of the Thames caused quite extensive flooding - dark, wet corridors extending into the murk. They found a room with old Customs and Excise muskets stored, and hundreds of wooden tally sticks, notched to record the tax takings at an earlier time! I wonder how the RE Museum authorities would feel about someone rooting through their dusty cellars?

Steve

rusteze
Back in the late 1980s we were left to our own devices. Now, for insurance reasons, no-one is allowed down there unaccompanied and even then for a specific reason.

Elf and safety has a lot to answer for.

Steve

Julian we do tend to focus on Raw/Henderson but for issues within the camp Wood did spend time chatting with a variety of people. I would refer you his speech in 1881 at PMB when handing out medals to the Carbineers. Plus of course in addition to his three visits to iSandlwana, he had time to question all the local survivors in PMB. I do mention his three visits because he references those in his speech.

Regards

Frank

Frank
Well I know that but the reason the focus is on Henderson is because it's his initials on the item in question and in the accession entry plus the information on the map could only have come from him. It's true that others could have supplied odd details - even the 'X' - but all that would be speculation.
The colonial survivors would have come from the volunteers, police and NNC/NNH. Looking at the battlefield, what they would have contributed would relate in the main to the fight in the donga with Durnford.

Julian
Your comment: Wood may of course have spoken to the Imperial officers and ORs who escaped. I doubt if the ORs would have been able to state with certainty pictorially anything on a map - this was something they were just not used to doing. As for the officers, they should have been trained in this, but even if Wood did speak to them, look at where each of them was. Their individual knowledge was limited and their collective knowledge probably contradictory and difficult to piece together. Nevertheless I don't discount the possibility that some were interviewed by Wood and that maps were produced
My response: Julian we do tend to focus on Raw/Henderson but for issues within the camp Wood did spend time chatting with a variety of people. I would refer you his speech in 1881 at PMB when handing out medals to the Carbineers. Plus of course in addition to his three visits to iSandlwana, he had time to question all the local survivors in PMB. I do mention his three visits because he references those in his speech.
Your response: The colonial survivors would have come from the volunteers, police and NNC/NNH. Looking at the battlefield, what they would have contributed would relate in the main to the fight in the donga with Durnford


Sorry possibly its the flu, but your opening comments seemed to cast doubt on if or not Wood had spoken to others. My responce was to point out he had, and documented that.

When we discuss information on the map that could only have come from Henderson, are we specifically referring to the DH? And its position? Seeing as Wood did spend time in the RD area and Hlubi lived in the area is he not a possibility? Again the various riders that approached Durnford, could they not be able to point out on the ground who was where in the Quabe valley? They wouldn't have to be learned in map reading, just be able to backtrack and physically show Woods the appropriate place.
Wood does actually say: " and was on the first occasion accompainied by men who had fought with us and a Zulu induna who fought against us."
My point being that just because Hendersons name is prominent does not need to be an automatic guarantee that the information comes from him. Sorry again must be the flu, but I cant see the initials on the maps, just the newspaper cutting.

during hi

Frank

I have never been in any doubt that Wood spoke to others. I know that full well.

When discussing information on the map that could only have come from Henderson, I am specifically referring to the DH and its retreat rearwards to the donga/camp.

Hlubi is a distinct possibility, I agree, for his physical contributions (as opposed to pictorial) to the mapmaking.

Flu, eh? Had that three months back. A really lousy strain. It took me a good six weeks to feel back to my old self. Get well soon.

No sneezing over your posts Frank - I don't want it thank you!

Steve