All three men are depicted in frontal view and the high ground on which they stand provides a pretext for raising them to fit over the gable-shaped door. Mpande is a much sprucer figure than in Coetzer's sketch, his bare torso well developed with no belly fat; he wears the royal regalia, much like the final panel, but including a visible 'ibeshu' (back apron), although not the skin to cover his upper body mentioned by the committee. He is also shown with a bandolier, perhaps portraying the officer's poignard presented to him by Delegorgue (see below). Mpande looks towards a crowd of Zulu on the left, to whom he is presented as the new king by the Zulu next to him. On the other side, Pretorius stands, no longer in Voortrekker clothes, as Coetzer had portrayed him, nor in military attire as the Historiese Komitee had requested, but in a waistcoat, bow tie and long frock coat from which his sabre and pistol protrude. Missing from his customary sartorial attire is his top hat,

**1204** Coetzer's design evidently follows the recollection of Philippus Jeremias Coet(s)zer (1819–98) in Preller (*Voortrekkermense* 4, 1925, 63; see also Visagie 2011, 110): 'Pretorius then gave him his hand and said: "Panda, now you are the king of the Zulu nation!" He led him from the tent to outside the laager. Pretorius fired ten shots from the cannon, and the Boers shot two salvos from their guns' (Pretorius gaf hem daarop de hand, en zeide: 'Panda, jij is nou de koning van de Zoeloe-natie!' Hij geleidde hem uit de tent tot buiten 't lager. Pretorius deed tien schoten uit 't kanon vuren, en de Boeren schoten twee salvo's uit hun geweren).

**1205** 'Kroning van Panda. Pretorius en Panda staan op 'n rots laans [sic] mekaar; Pretorius is in sy krygsklere; (Sien Zietsman se Dagboek); voor die twee staan 'n klomp Boere, en agter hulle staan die kaffers van Panda; vuursteengewere; Panda het nie armbande maar wel armringe; sy lyf is vol velle' (Historiese Komitee 4.9.1937: 4s).

though the low crown of the hat he wears may be the result of damage to the plaster maquette. He holds a partly rolled-up document in his left hand – a counterpart to Dingane's treaty with Retief – in this case exhibiting the legal correctness and trustworthiness of the Boers. Pretorius is the only figure who looks straight at the viewer. Everyone else gazes at Mpande, not only his many Zulu followers (of whom fourteen are visible), but the throng of Boers represented by the ten men who balance them on the other side, their hats held aloft in a cheer for Mpande.

Already in his maquette, Frikkie Kruger established the symmetrical and far grander composition: he elevated the central group on a rocky outcrop as required by the Historiese Komitee, introduced figures that are merely implied to exist beyond the frame in Coetzer's drawing, and deployed four large figures in the foreground, two on either side of the door. Of equivalent status and almost filling the height of the panel, these paired Zulu and Boers suggest a balanced harmony between the former adversaries. They also provide a frame for the central scene, their poses directing the viewer's attention to the central group. This is reinforced by the angles of their weapons, now no longer associated with war, but the accoutrements of a peaceful settlement.

The full-size clay panel (fig. 24.5) follows the composition of the small maquette but settles and unifies many details. The rock supporting the elevated centre group is now more clearly developed above the door frame. Mpande wears the correct royal regalia, including items missing in the maquette, namely the head ring, earplugs, breastpiece of animal skin, small ring around the upper left arm, and two large 'izinjobo' dangling between the clearly visible back and front aprons. The head of the Zulu alongside him is now in three-quarter view, with open mouth as he addresses his people. His face, Mpande's and indeed those of all the Zulu are less exaggeratedly ethnic, and their naked torsos more classical. The Boers in the foreground are also more aligned and clarified, and the faces more individualised, following the usual practice of employing portrait models (fig. 24.6). The clean-shaven one on the far right is no longer gazing up at the hat in his outstretched hand, but is more decorous, his far arm bent to raise his hat more sedately. While the Boers' trousers are shown cropped above the ankle as they are elsewhere in the frieze, Pretorius wears full-length trousers, a tailored tailcoat and top hat, but has no sabre and pistol. Now on slightly higher ground than in the maquette, he is the tallest in the central group. Curiously, the document which he was holding is gone – an odd omission when it had reinforced the legal propriety of the Voortrekkers.

The final marble (fig. 24.1) copies the composition of the full-scale clay model for the most part, but introduces a few significant changes. The elevated rock over the door has been transformed into a designed plinth with a flatter surface for the central group to stand on, giving them a statuesque appearance. Pretorius' prominent height is further accentuated by his tall top hat projecting above the edge of the panel. Some other alterations were probably the result of the Italian sculptor's misunderstanding of Zulu dress: Mpande is portrayed without his back apron, and the very detailed surfaces of the two 'izinjobo' next to his thighs are not appropriately copied. There are also curvilinear outlines visible below the brim of Pretorius' hat and on its right side, which seem to have no purpose, but were not chiselled away by the Florentine carvers. An undated photograph shows the white marble panel in the Hall of Heroes, here provisionally mounted, with wooden clamps to hold it in place, and in remarkable contrast to the besmirched marble relief of *Saailaer* on the west wall (fig. 23.7).1206

**1206** The contrasting state of the two panels invites two contradictory interpretations, which cannot be resolved without further information coming to light. Possibly *Mpande,* which likely arrived earlier with the other corner panels, had been cleaned and installed while *Saailaer* had just been put in place, still stained from the ship's hold as we know many panels were. Or the latter might have been in place longer and become dirty during the building operations. Werner Kirchhoff also offered the interesting comment that the glass in the windows was only installed late, leaving the interior open to the elements.

**Figure 24.5:** C2. *Mpande*. 1943–46. Clay. Full-scale relief (courtesy of UP Archives; photo Alan Yates)

**Figure 24.6:** Models for portraits (Potgieter 1987, 36)

**Figure 24.7:** Map showing relevant sites and territory seized by Boers from Mpande in 1840 (courtesy of Laband 1995, 106)

## **Reading the narrative**

Who was Mpande (1798–1872), called Panda by Europeans?1207 As one of the numerous half-brothers of the first Zulu kings Shaka (1816–28)1208 and Dingane (1828–40),1209 he was a direct descendant in the royal Zulu line. Under Shaka's rule he lived the privileged life of a Zulu prince, including service in various military campaigns, for which he was 'rewarded by Shaka with at least two wives'.1210 In 1828 this situation changed abruptly, when Dingane murdered the then Zulu king Shaka to become king himself. Now being 'as vulnerable as any of his royal brothers whom Dingane had put to death, [Mpande] did his best to build up useful alliances as insurance'.1211 The danger he was in is underlined by reports that Dingane had made two unsuccessful attempts on his half-brother's life, in 1832 and 1837.1212 In the end, Mpande was able to avoid destruction for a variety of reasons, not least through the influence of Dingane's powerful induna, Ndlela kaSompisi, who protected and promoted Mpande's interests with the king, and also by Mpande's own initiative to make known that he had no kingly ambitions, a statement he endorsed by his always 'loyal and unassuming demeanour'.1213

The instatement of Mpande as the new king of the Zulu by the Boer Volksraad on 10 February 1840 is embedded in multiple histories based on contemporary reports of Boers, British and Zulu.1214 In the wake of the calamitous encounters between the Voortrekkers and the Zulu in 1838 (see *Bloukrans* and *Blood River*), and the worsening of the relationship between the two half-brothers, Mpande finally fled from Dingane's domain with his adherents across the Tugela 'to seek the protection of the Boers' (fig. 24.7).1215 This was officially acknowledged when Mpande was invited to meet the Boers in Pietermaritzburg to be interrogated by the Volksraad on 15 October 1839.1216

[Volksraad] If Dingaan had acted like you, and sent his principal captains, then the war would have been at an end.

[Mpande] Therefore you see that I come personally and deal with you in a more upright manner than Dingaan. I wish to be your friend and I will submit myself to you.

[Volksraad] What do you now expect from us?

[Mpande] As the gentlemen now give me liberty to speak, I would request of you the piece of ground between the Umslalie and Umvoti ...

[Volksraad] Do you consider yourself strong enough to wage war against Dingaan?

[Mpande] Not at the moment; but when the people hear of the peace, they will certainly come to me in crowds.1217

**1207** *DSAB* 2, 1972, 496–498.

**1208** Ibid., 655–657; Hamilton 1998; Laband 2017.

**1209** See *Treaty*.

**1210** Laband 1995, 111.

**1211** Ibid.

**1212** Ibid., 112.

**1213** Ibid., 111.

**1214** For Mpande and some of the histories around the period when he became an ally of the Boers, see Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, esp. 236–237, 536–548, 576–599, 600–602, 606–611, 624–625; Nathan 1937, 282–292; Jansen 1938, 86–102 ('Beeskommando'); Delegorgue, *Travels* 1, 1990, 82–127; Laband 1995, 107–124; Etherington 2001, 283–285, 287–288, 292–293. **1215** Laband 1995, 110; see also Bird, *Annals* 1, 236 (Narrative of Jurgen Willem Pretorius, 1834–1839).

**1216** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 536–540 (English translation); Breytenbach c. 1958, 306–308 (Bylaag 25, 1839; *De Zuid-Afrikaan*, 29.11.1839), with the minutes. The first mention of Mpande in the Volksraad minutes (Breytenbach 1953, 18 [3.10.1839: 6]) states 'that the Zulus chief Panda shall not be allowed to settle on this side of the Togela …' (Dat den Solas opperhoofd Panda niet zal toegelaaten worden aan deze zijde Togela te verblijven ...). Laband (1995, 113) provides a vivid account of the first encounters with the Boers, which must have been a strange experience for the Zulu prince.

**1217** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 538–539 (with adjustments of shortcomings in his translation); Breytenbach (c. 1958, 307):

#### **Boers instate Mpande as Zulu king**

The Volksraad decided to grant Mpande's request, but clarified that this did not give him 'any right to the land now occupied by him, and that he was to leave this part of the country as soon as his own safety should in any way allow'.1218 Contemporary accounts provide rather different figures for the Zulu who now inhabited the south side of the Tugela River. While Adulphe Delegorgue talks about '17,000 souls of all ages',1219 François Roos (1781–1853), landdrost of the Tugela,1220 who visited Mpande's new kraal with a number of distinguished Boers and Europeans (including Delegorgue) later that month on 26 October 1839, reports that they estimated the Zulu 'at more than 3,000 warriors, and more than an equal number of young men and women …'.1221 During his visit, Roos bestowed a new title upon Mpande, but linked it to clear conditions:

After having communicated to him with what view the commission had come there, and what orders we had received from the assembly of the emigrants, he was requested to prepare himself by the next morning to be solemnly installed as the head or prince of the Zulu emigrants, and to be presented to his people as such; … a cry was raised [by them] three times as a sign of their approbation. The following morning having been fixed for a feast or military dance, Panda requested that after it should be finished the same honour of firing a volley of musketry might be shown him which he had received at Bosjesmansrand [Pietermaritzburg]. On the morning of that day Panda was invited to the tent of Mr. Breda, in front of which the national flag was offered him, also a fine blue cloak presented by Mr. Parker, and a fine officer's poignard by Mr. Delegorgue, wherewith he girded himself. Panda was then seated in our court on the right hand of the Landdrost, and the other gentlemen according to their rank, on which occasion the Landdrost repeated to him the assurance of alliance and the protection granted to him by the Assembly of the emigrants, which again having been communicated to the people, a cry of joy was again thrice raised: after which it was signified to Panda that his stay on this side of the Tugela was but of temporary character, and that neither the delivery of any cattle, nor anything else of a like nature, was to be considered as giving to him any right to the land now occupied by him, and that he was to leave this part of the country as soon as his own safety should in any way allow. It was also agreed with him that in the future he should allow no punishment of death for supposed witchcraft or other ridiculous superstitious pretences.

That at his death his successor should be chosen by his people, subject to our approval.

That his title should be 'Reigning prince of the Emigrant Zulu,' until he should have been confirmed as Dingaan's successor.

That he will fulfil and comply with the contract entered into by the Assembly of the emigrants with Dingaan [see *Treaty*], in respect of the acknowledged boundary line, as well as in respect of the delivery of the stolen cattle, &c.

'Vr. Als Dingaan nu gehandeld hadt als gy, en zyne Hoofd-kapiteins tot ons gezonden, dan zou de oorlog reeds voorby geweest zyn. – Ant. Dus, gy ziet dat ik zelf gekomen ben, en dus ook opregter handel dan Dingaan, ik wil gaarne uw vriend wezen, en my aan u onderwerpen. – Vr. Wat verlangt gy nu van ons? – Ant. Daar de heeren my vryheid geven om te spreken, zoo wil ik verzoeken om het stuk grond tusschen de Umslalie en Umvoti ...Vr. Vindt gy u sterk genoeg om tegen Dingaan te vechten? – Ant. Op het oogenblik niet; doch wanneer het volk van den vrede hoort, zoo zal het zerkerlyk naar my stroomen.' The last answer does not comply with *DSAB* 2 (1972, 496), which states that 'M[pande]. informed the Volksraad, he wanted to invade the Zululand and defeat Dingane'.

**1218** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 541 (Report of the Landdrost of Tugela, October 1839).

**1219** Delegorgue, *Travels* 1, 1990, 82.

**1220** Visagie 2011, 426–427.

**1221** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 540; Breytenbach c. 1958, 309–310 (Bylaag 28, 1839; *De Zuid-Afrikaan*, 29 Nov. 1839), with the original text.

That in future he will not allow any woman, child, or defenceless aged person to be murdered; nor allow any war or hostility of his people with any neighbouring chief or tribes without the consent of the Assembly of the emigrants.1222

It is a cynical act of inversion that the Boers, who only a few years before had emigrated from the Cape Colony to escape British rule, now implemented their own colonial dominion to monitor the Zulu. Roos' account leaves no doubt that the Boers had prepared Mpande's installation, first as the 'reigning prince' of the Zulu, with much constitutional care, namely his formal approbation by his people, the legal conduct of his succession, the restrictions of his power, the acknowledgement of the (alleged) treaty between Retief and Dingane and, most importantly, the paramount control on all Zulu matters by the Volksraad.

When, on this occasion, Delegorgue compared the habits of the Boers with those of Mpande, it

was to the complete disadvantage of the farmers who surrounded him: great, gangling, long-limbed fellows, with clumsy gestures, awkward bearing, dull faces, faltering speech, gaping mouths, men made to drive oxen and to hold converse with them. Panda was quite different: … His bearing was so noble, the limbs so obedient to the will, the gestures so formal, that a Parisian might well have believed that Panda had frequented royal places in his youth.1223

Further on, Delegorgue reports 'various secret clauses … to be executed' if the trekkers achieved their main objective, the overthrow of Dingane, 'clauses of the greatest importance to the farmers, the cession of the bay of Saint Lucia for example', discussed below.1224 At the same time the few British authorities present in the area tried hard to protect the interests of the Crown and to discourage the Boers, still regarded as British subjects, from establishing a strong coalition with Mpande's Zulu.1225 In response to these different interests, the official declaration and protest of the Assembly of the Boer emigrants, issued on 11 November 1839, stood against the regulatory action of the colonial government 'that part of this country was sold to a number of English emigrants, and that they may soon be expected here to take possession hereof', and insisted on the binding legality of former and present land treaties with the Zulu.1226 So the trekkers publicly warned any stranger who tried to enter the Boer territory that,

… instead of finding this country the 'promised land', [he] will meet with death and massacre.

… now that we may expect every moment the arrival on our shores of thousands of poor deluded strangers with the view of driving us from our dearly-purchased and lawfully-acquired new country, the Assembly have, for the maintenance of our indisputable right to this land, obtained by virtue of treaties with the chief Dingaan, and afterwards ratified by the chief Pande … come to the following resolutions …

That in the case of any landing of strangers as emigrants in the port of Natal, without the previous consent of the Assembly having been obtained, such emigrants shall be considered as enemies of the State.1227

**1222** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 540–541; Breytenbach c. 1958, 309–310 (Bylaag 28, 1839, *De Zuid-Afrikaan*, 29 Nov. 1839), with the original text. The eyewitness report of Delegorgue (*Travels* 1, 1990, 83–88) is distinctly more vivid and openminded than Zietsman's narrative, which, in the wake of the events of 1838, is strongly coloured by Boer agendas. See also Laband 1995, 114.

**1223** Delegorgue, *Travels* 1, 1990, 87.

**1224** Ibid., 88.

**1225** See the exchange of letters and reports in Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 600–614; Delegorgue, *Travels* 1, 1990, 84.

**1226** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 544.

**1227** Ibid., 544, 546.

This passage underlines that the lawfulness of the treaty between Retief and Dingane and its ratification by Mpande were the backbone of Boer politics in Natal. After the Volksraad had appointed Chief Commandant Andries Pretorius on 4 January 1840 to lead a final commando against Dingane – called later the 'Beeskommando', literally meaning cattle commando1228 – Mpande and his army willingly joined the Boer forces and proved to be invaluable in defeating what was left of Dingane's regiments.1229 In fact, it was Mpande's army alone which, on 29 January 1840, overcame Dingane's forces in a great battle at the Maqongqo Hills, 'spear against spear and shield to shield', both parties 'probably about equal, about 5 000 each'.1230 The Boers' Secretary of War, Paul Hermanus Zietsman (1814–92),1231 reported this success to the Volksraad in the form of a detailed diary ('dagverhaal'), dated 24 February 1840, covering the events from 4 January to 14 February 1840 and written in their camp at Klip River.1232 When Dingane's last forces had either surrendered or been annihilated, however, the king himself could not be found despite the deployment of intensive Boer search commandos. As early as 8 February, Zietsman stated:

We can now positively calculate that the whole kingdom of Dingaan is totally destroyed. He has not only fled his city, but even across his borders, in the country of other nations, who gladly await him as an old decaying enemy, like the cat awaits the arrival of a mouse.1233

In the wake of this triumph Zietsman proclaimed two days later, on 10 February, how Mpande was finally instated by the Voortrekkers as the Zulu's new king and the antitype of his predecessor Dingane:

This morning, the chief commandant caused Panda and his captains to come before him, and told them 'that … he had had an opportunity of ascertaining the good faith of himself [Panda], of Nonkalaza, and all his people, and he was happy to say that Nonkalaza and his people had behaved as valiant warriors; … that our conquest over the powerful Zulu nation was obtained through Providence alone: that we should therefore not feel proud, but that we, fully justified in our claims against Dingaan, were instruments in the hand of God to put an end to the indescribable cruelties and murders committed by Dingaan, and also to deliver you and your people from the tyranny of Dingaan. According to the information I can obtain,' said the chief commandant, 'of the heathen people, it clearly appears to me that you have a claim to the kingdom of the Zulu. Dingaan has fled amongst other nations, and should we ever get possession of his person, we shall punish him by death for his unprovoked crimes committed upon us. I have now thought proper to appoint you, in the name of the Volksraad of our South African Society, king or chief of the Zulu, of the people under your command, and the fugitives, or remaining Zulu, who have escaped from Dingaan and seek your protection, and such as we shall be able to place under your government. I am also ordered to consider you as our great ally,

**1228** Jansen 1938, 86–102; Liebenberg 1977, 66–91 (map pp.72–73).

**1229** For the minutes of the Volksraad (4.1.1840: 3 & 4), Breytenbach c. 1958, 28; see also Delegorgue, *Travels* 1, 1990, 98–100; Laband 1995, 115–119.

**1230** Ibid., 116 (quote), 117. See also Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, esp. 585, 587.

**1231** Visagie 2011, 626.

**1232** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 576–599 ('Journal of the commando under Chief Commandant Pretorius against Dingaan', from *De Zuid-Afrikaan*, 10 February 1846. After Zietsman's signature, it is additionally affirmed – as on the treaty between Retief and Dingane: 'We, the undersigned, chief and other commandants, do certify that the abovementioned journal, kept by Mr. P.H. Zietsman, has been read to us word for word, and that we declare every word therein mentioned to be correct. (Signed) A.W.J. Pretorius, Chief Commandant, and H.J. [likely to be Hermanus Stephanus] Lombard, Jacs. Potgieter, Andries Spies, M. Schepers [all] Commandants. Camp, date as above.' Original text in Breytenbach c. 1958, 324–339 (Bylaag 11, 1840; *De Zuid-Afrikaan*, 10 en 17 Apr. 1840, Byvoegsels). The report of Delegorgue (*Travels* 1, 1990, 101–127), who accompanied the Boers, differs in focus and intent from Zietsman's narrative and includes important observations on landscape, Boer behaviour and personal interaction. For 'Kliprivier', see Raper, Möller and Du Plessis 2014, 240.

**1233** 'Wy kunnen nu stellig rekenen, dat het Koningryk van Dingaan geheel verstrooid is; hy is niet alleen van zyne stad gevlugt, maar zelfs over zyne grenzen, in het land van andere natien, die hem als een oude verrottende vyand, gelyk de kat de aankomst van eenen muis, verblydend inwachten' (Breytenbach c. 1958, 334). Our translation differs in tone and detail from Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 591.

and to treat your enemies as our enemies. You will not be at liberty to attack any nation previously to obtaining our permission, and on all occasions we shall assist you in destroying your enemies. I must once more repeat my satisfaction at the fidelity and courage of your people.'

Panda, who was filled with excessive joy from head to heels, could no longer restrain himself from uttering the most sincere feelings of his heart: 'Great Sir, … I thank you that I am now delivered from the oppressive tyranny under which I lived for a series of years as an outcast.  Should any nation or people ever attempt to do you any injury, … I shall immediately order my whole force to assist you, and for your sake sacrifice my whole army to a man; for I was dead, and you have restored me to life; I was cast away, and you have lifted me up again.1234 All my happiness and prosperity I owe to you.'1235

The expressions of the new Zulu king were really too many to set them down precisely; but his address was sensible beyond all expression, and I could never have expected so much from a heathen … The Zulu, when joined with us in battle, are more courageous that they ever were before, because they consider us a valiant people, and as men strong with their arms.1236

Following the events in Preller's account cited earlier, Mpande had been crowned king by the grace of Pretorius as the highest-ranking official of the Boer Volksraad. Zietsman's rhetoric underlines how purposefully the restrictive clauses of Mpande's installation and the supremacy of the Boers were reiterated from his investiture as a 'reigning prince' to his appointment as 'king' of the Zulu.1237 His narrative reads as though it needed the trekkers to save and develop the Zulu, rather than Mpande having overcome Dingane and arguably saving the Voortrekkers. In fact, 'Mpande had effectively been obliged to recognise titular Boer overlordship.'1238 He must have learned to his dismay 'that the Volksraad seized all his land from the Thukela to the Black Mfolozi (including St Lucia Bay) bounded to the west by the Drakensberg, and to the east by the ocean'.1239 As a result, 'Mpande was left by the Boers in a weak position, the vassal king of an impoverished and diminished kingdom, bleeding from the unhealed wounds of civil war.'1240 Drawing on the eyewitness account of the French naturalist Adulphe Delegorgue, John Laband appositely characterised the new situation:

Delegorgue could not help reflecting critically on the extraordinary conceit of colonising Europeans, whether Boer or Briton, who lightly annexed already populated country, not to settle there, but simply to prevent their rivals from laying claim to it. Not only was it unjust, he concluded, but foolish too, for in this case the Boers had no means of occupying or controlling the lands between the Thukela and Black Mfolozi.1241

This annexation was later reinforced by the president of the Orange Free State, Francis William Reitz (1844–1934). His story is a telling example of how new material icons ascribed to the Voortrekker past served to underpin the political mythology of the Great Trek. Reitz claimed in *De*

**1234** The phrasing is almost biblical; see Luke 15:32.

**1235** The patronising attitude of the Boers is also evident in the recollections of Philippus Jeremias Coet(s)zer, mentioned above, who recounts Pretorius' words to Mpande as: 'I will carry you like a child, and I appoint you as king of the remaining Zulus' (Daroop zei Pretorius: 'Ik zal u optillen als 'n kind, en ik stel U heden aan als de koning over de overgebleven Zoeloes' [Preller, *Voortrekkermense* 4, 1925, 63]).

**1236** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 591–593; Breytenbach c. 1958, 334–335, with the original text.

**1237** See also Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 237 (Narrative of Jurgen Willem Pretorius, 1834–39; published post 1841): 'Panda was recognized as King of the Zulus, but only in the sense of being subject to the Boer government, and bound to accept their commands.'

**1238** Laband 1995, 123.

**1239** Ibid.

**1240** Ibid., 124.

**1241** Ibid., 123. See Delegorgue, *Travels* 1, 1990, 119–121.

**Figure 24.8:** Pandaklippe (Mpande's stones), said to commemorate Mpande's crowning as Zulu king and peace treaty between Boers and Zulu. 10.2.1840 (photo https://resolver.kb.nl/ resolve?urn=urn:gvn:ZAH01:100000107)

*Huisgenoot* (May 1918) that a certain P. Uys, following the author's own investigations at the farm Boeschhoek No. 156 near the locale of Mpande's crowning, had identified two black oblong rocks as the memorial stones originally set up by Andries Pretorius, explained below.1242 Hence the stones were given a biography which gained currency in Afrikaner circles. Subsequently, they were moved to Pietermaritzburg for display next to the Voortrekker Museum (see *Church of the Vow*), here called 'Pandaklippe' (Mpande's stones; fig. 24.8)1243 – and the larger one was included in Coetzer's 1937 drawing (fig. 24.3), discussed above. Apart from their sheer existence, however, we know little about the alleged memorial stones, which were excluded from the representation in the frieze. Bill Guess stated in 2012 that Andries Pretorius himself had ordered the stones to be erected on 10 February 1840 on the banks of the upper Black Umfolozi River to commemorate both the peace treaty between the Boers and the Zulu and Mpande's coronation as the new Zulu king.1244 Guess seems to have drawn on an earlier though unacknowledged account by Daniel Pieter Bezuidenhout in 1879, which may also have served as reference for Coetzer's drawings. In patronising rhetoric, Pretorius (or Bezuidenhout), like Zietsman above, converted the success of Mpande's army into a major Boer victory:

We returned with the mounted force to the Umfolozi. There, Pretorius said: … 'I now appoint you to be King of the Zulu race that remains … Then I give you as a concession – for it is my territory, conquered by my weapons – the kingdom of Zululand.' A salvo of twenty-two guns was then fired by us in presence of Umpanda [Mpande] and his people. We graved the day and date and year on two long large stones. One of them we placed erect in the ground, and buried the other below the soil on the bank of the Umfolosi. Panda withdrew from the spot, became King of the Zulus, and remained in peace with us till his death.1245

But the extant rocks in the uMsunduzi Museum, although they appear to have been roughly shaped, bear no visible traces of the inscription mentioned by Bezuidenhuit. Based on this evidence, E.G. Jansen concluded in 1938 that the Pandaklippe in Pietermaritzburg could not be linked

**1242** Reitz 1918 ('Die gedenkstene van die traktaat tussen Andries Pretorius en Panda' [The memorial stones of the treaty between Andries Pretorius and Mpande]); Liebenberg 1977, 85.

**1243** Van Rooyen 1940, 183–186; Groenewald and Bresler 1955, 56 with fig.; Prinsloo 1987, 434–435; Guest 2012, 42. **1244** Guest 2012, 42.

**1245** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 376 (first published in *Orange Free State Monthly Magazine*, December 1879).

to the memorial stones recorded as having been set up by Pretorius' Beeskommando.1246 The Historiese Komitee did not mention the large Pandaklip, but instead insisted in its critique on Coetzer's drawing discussed above that 'Pretorius and Panda stand on a rock alongside each other'.

There may have been further confusion between the alleged Pandaklippe and the smooth rock plinth on which Mpande and Pretorius stand for the crowning ceremony in the marble relief. The plinth is acknowledged by Moerdyk in the *Official Guide* when he writes that Mpande 'had mounted a stone dais at the side of Andries Pretorius'1247 – but there is no mention of the Pandaklippe. The source of the idea for the frieze was probably Preller's account in his book on Andries Pretorius, first published in 1937, which deploys the rock not only as a fitting natural podium, but as a metaphor of the steadfastness of the new relationship:

Standing on a rock of about 20 feet long by 14 wide, with Mpande next to him, and his commando as well as Mpande's followers rallied around them, Pretorius addressed Mpande. …

Addressing Mpande's followers, Pretorius asked: 'Who made Mpande king?'

They answered that it was he, Andries – 'Antelisie.'

'No,' replied Pretorius, 'it is the innocent blood of women and children that Dingane shed.  And as long as this rock stands here … Mpande will also not be allowed to wage war against women and children. Do not ever forget this. As long as this rock stands here the alliance between us will stand.'1248

Preller's rocky dais was not only in accord with Afrikaner research of the time, but better suited the ceremonial presentation of the scene, as well as providing a useful compositional device to overcome the awkward shape of the panel over the door with its intruding frame.

A few days after Mpande's crowning, on 14 February, Pretorius, 'Chief Commandant and Commanding General of all the Burghers of the Right Worshipful Volksraad of the South African Society', issued another declaration which made the main objective of Boer politics manifest – to reign Natal, beyond British rule:

Whereas the Volksraad of the South African Society, on account of the unprovoked war which the Zulu king or the Zulu nation have commenced against the South African Society, without previously declaring the same against them, was compelled to incur expense of one hundred and twentytwo thousand rixdollars … and whereas the Zulu king … has deserted his territory and crossed the Pongola River (his boundary), … so that there is no person to whom I can apply for payment of these enormous expenses, – be it hereby made known, that for recovery of said … rixdollars, I do hereby proclaim and make known, that in the name of the said Volksraad of the South African Society, I do seize all the land from Tugela to the Umfolosi Mnyama (the Black River); that our boundary shall in future be from the sea along the Black River, where it runs through the Double Mountains, near where it has its source, and so on along the Randberg in the same direction to the Drakensberg,

**1246** Liebenberg (1977, 85 with n 72), who refers to unpublished sources, an undated acquisition entry 'Panda Klippe' and two letters of E.G. Jansen (8 and 19 September 1838).

**1247** *Official Guide* 1955, 52.

**1248** 'Staande op 'n rotsblok van ongeveer 20 vὸet lank by 14 breed, met Mpane [sic] naas hom, en sy kommande sowel as Mpande se gevolg rondom hulle geskaar, het Pretorius Mpande aangespreek. … Mpande se gevolg toesprekende, vra Pretorius: "Wie het Mpande Koning gemaak?" Hulle antwoord, dat dit hy, Andries, was, - "Antelisie." "Nee," herneem Pretorius, "dit is die onskuldige bloed van vroue en kinders, wat Dingane vergiet het.  En so lank as hierdie rots hier staan … sal Mpande ook nie toegelaat word om oorlog te voer teen vroue en kinders nie. Vergeet did nooit. Solang hierdie rots hier staan sal ook die verbondskap tussen ons blystaan"' (Preller, *Pretorius* 1937, 117).

including the St. Lucia's Bay, as also all sea-coasts and harbours which have already been discovered, or may hereafter be discovered, between the Umzimvubu and Black River mouths. These lands and sea-coasts will, however, have to be considered the property of the Society, exclusive from that which the late Mr. Retief obtained from the Zulu nation for our Society.

God save the Volksraad!1249

[Then Zietsman continues:] After which a salute of 21 guns was fired in honour of the Volksraad, and a general cry of 'Hurrah' was given unanimously throughout the whole army, while all the men, as with one voice, cried out, 'Thanks to the Great God, who by His grace has given us the victory.' … Panda was also present at this salute, but could not bear the violent roaring of our guns …: he and his captains then ran with great fear to his camp, and, for fear, stooped down on the earth at every discharge of a gun.1250

Delegorgue, who was present at this address, criticised the annexation of land which legally did not belong to the Boers as an unjust act of European colonialism, and concluded that

the measure was simply bad politics which gave a wrong example to the Cafres who saw in it the triumph of greed and covetousness … 'Thanks be to God by whose grace the victory has been given'. Can you picture this army composed of 436 men; can you imagine the voice of such an army, and the victory which such an army might win, even with the help of God? I must have facts if I am to be convinced, but I can find none here to suggest a victory worthy of a *Te Deum*. I can only humbly say that I took part in this war which ended without a single battle having been fought at which white men were present.

Delegorgue's comment, whether it be one-sided or not, sheds significant light on the lopsided rhetoric of the Boer reports.

#### **The frieze**

Returning to consider the scene in the frieze, it is first of all striking how densely populated it is, all the more so when the space is further restricted by the door's gable-shaped form. This made it necessary to reduce the scale of the three main figures in the crowning ceremony significantly if they were to be presented centrally. As discussed in Part I,1251 Kruger solved this problem by a creative spatial shift reminiscent of Raphael's *Parnassus* in the Stanza della Segnatura in the Vatican. If, in the central group, the elegant habitus of Mpande echoes Delegorgue's complimentary characterisation of the king, the urbane presentation of Pretorius seems designed to refute Delegorgue's denigration of the Boers (fig. 24.9). Overall, however, the scene was conceived as a visual reinforcement of the claims of the Afrikaner that Natal was justly appropriated by their forebears from Dingane, and additionally sanctioned by their installation of Mpande as the new king of the Zulu. In this regard, the panel is directly related to *Treaty,* where Dingane is shown signing the land grant for Retief at uMgungundlovu to substantiate the Boers' legal right to settle in and reign over Natal. Showing Pretorius holding a document in the *Mpande* maquette possibly referenced this

**1249** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 595. There are two slightly different versions of the original text in Breytenbach c. 1958, 322–323 (Bylaag 8, 1840; E.38, Republiek Natalia, no. 7) and 336–337.

**1250** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 596; Breytenbach c. 1958, 337. Here, Mpande's manifest dislike of roaring guns seems to contradict his explicit request of having a volley of musketry after the Boers had instated him as 'reigning prince' of the Zulu, but perhaps explains why the salvo of guns in Coetzer's original design was omitted. **1251** Chapter 4 ('Composition').

**Figure 24.9:** Mpande and Pretorius in *Mpande*. Marble, detail of fig. 24.1 (photo Russell Scott)

directly, although, since it was omitted in the full-scale relief, the point was finally made implicitly rather than explicitly. In the *Official Guide* Moerdyk stresses once again the accuracy that the SVK sought for the representations, explaining how the detail of the podium was based on contemporary research:

Some difficulty was experienced in ascertaining exactly how a Zulu king used to be consecrated, it being at first thought that Panda had been crowned with consecrated oil according to the Biblical tradition. It was finally decided, after an ethnologist, the son of a missionary, who had spent his life in Zululand, had questioned old Zulu, that Panda had mounted a stone dais at the side of Andries Pretorius who declared him to be the king of the Zulus. A Zulu interpreter, who stood on Panda's other side, enlightened the tribe as to what was going on.

On the panel Pretorius' followers are shown standing beside their leader, waving their hats and firing salutes from their guns. The soldiers of Panda, who stand opposite them, give the royal salute of 'Bayete!'1252

In the contemporary context of the close relationship between the Reformed Church and Afrikanerdom, it is revealing that the first assumption was that 'Panda had been crowned with consecrated oil according to the Biblical tradition'. Although finally discarded, this conjecture lends an ecclesiastical overtone to the installation of Mpande in the frieze. Even ethnography is called into play to lend the scene veracity, although the account by Preller would presumably have sufficed. Given Moerdyk's attempt to strengthen the validity of Boer claims by demonstrating the care taken to achieve historical correctness, it is more than a little ironic that his description contradicts the actual presentation in the final relief, where not a single Boer is firing a salute.1253

**1252** *Official Guide* 1955, 52.

**1253** The Boers fired a salute when they proclaimed Mpande as 'reigning prince' and Pretorius annexed most of the land of Natal (see Zietsman quote above p.540), presumably the source for Coetzer's pencil drawing (fig. 24.3).

*Death of Dingane* **(February 1840)**

**B2**

**C2D**

# **25** *Death of Dingane*

#### West wall (panel 29/31)

#### h. 2.3 × w. 2.4 m

Badly damaged by continuous vertical and horizontal fractures; numerous patches, e.g. in lower right leg of woman furthest left, left knee and lower leg of third woman from left and at Dingane's right shoulder, front apron and around lower end of tail of genets ('izinjobo') Sculptor of clay maquette: Laurika Postma

#### Stages of production

#### 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 25 27 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 **N**

#### 0 5 10 m

#### Early records

SVK minutes (4.9.1937) ― item 4s (see below, 'Developing the design')

**Figure 25.1:** D. *Death of Dingane*. 1949. Marble, 2.3 × 2.4 m (courtesy of VTM; photo Russell Scott)

## **Description**

This panel is unique in its focus solely on black people (fig. 25.1). The central figure in the foreground is Dingane, distinguished by his features, well-built frame and royal regalia similar to that seen in *Treaty*. His eyes are closed and his haggard features are marked by strong but controlled suffering. His shield and assegai abandoned beside him, the king, his fist clenched next to his heart, has fallen to his knees and his total collapse is only prevented by his outstretched right arm.  His adversary is a virile Swazi who stands tall, his legs straddling Dingane as he stabs him in the back, thrusting the assegai home with his right arm, while the other holds a knobkierie.

Behind, four young Zulu women on the left and three further Swazi coming in from the right reinforce the narrative drama. The Swazi stand ready with weapons to support the attack, and their shields provide a martial backdrop for their leader in the foreground. The women who face them are in disarray, mostly turning or moving away in distress from the defeated Dingane. In striking contrast to Dingane's cruel execution, the three women on the left, wearing only neckpieces and ornamented girdles with a small front apron,1254 are posed like nude studio models, and shown with classical proportions. With supple bodies and limbs, they effortlessly balance supplies from the royal household on their heads: a calabash, a beer vessel, and a light basket filled with household goods.1255

The Swazi are distinguished from the Zulu by more voluminous wig-like hairstyles and short skirts made of a single piece of skin. Their facial expressions are severe, emphasised by their frown lines and high cheekbones. The attackers have their eyes almost closed, not in anguish like Dingane or his women, but to intensify their aggressive downward gaze on the Zulu king.

**1254** *Zulu treasures* 1996, 150–158 ('Beads that speak'), 160–163 (neckpieces and girdles), 171–181 (earplugs); a fine speciman of a girdle is illustrated in Giblin and Spring 2016, 158 fig. 51). **1255** *Zulu treasures* 1996, 128–129 figs c4–c7 (clay-made beer vessels), 140 fig. g15 (grass-woven basket).

**Figure 25.2:** B2. Laurika Postma. *Death of Dingane*. 1942–43. Plaster, 77.5 × 84.7 × 9 cm. Maquette (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1–28; photo Russell Scott)

**Figure 25.3:** C2. *Death of Dingane*. 1943–46. Clay. Full-scale relief (Pillman 1984, 53; photo Alan Yates)

## **Developing the design**

The subject of Dingane's death was not included in the list of topics for the frieze drawn up in 1937,1256 for which Coetzer was asked to provide sketches. It had been proposed in the very earliest 'Voorstelle' list of c.1934, but, from the point of view of Afrikaner history, it was included as part of the extended story of Louis Trichardt's trek. That narrative recounted that it was his son, Carolus Johannes (1811–1901),1257 who witnessed the king's assassination after he had left his father's party at Delagoa Bay to explore possible sites for them to settle. But in Jansen's copy of 'Voorstelle',1258 this item was scored out, and it did not reappear until the maquettes for the frieze were being made, presumably recalled again because of the need for an additional corner panel.

Thus the design of the narrative seems to have been developed entirely by Laurika Postma when she began to make the maquette (fig. 25.2). Here the layout of the composition with Zulu women and Swazi warriors as a backdrop for the central group – a Swazi stabbing a crouching Dingane to death – is for the most part set. Yet, in comparison with the full-size clay (fig. 25.3), there are significant differences. Back- and foreground figures are more vividly portrayed, with the killing action of the Swazi leader more strongly articulated. The figures are stockier and modelled in a rather fleshy way in the maquette, particularly the women. The figures are also more closely packed together, and the buttocks of a fifth woman are visible on the far left, behind the sturdy female in the foreground. While three women wear the small aprons of the final panel, here two have fuller skirt-like aprons. We can also see more of the torsos of the Swazi as they hold their shields lower, and their leader looks down at his victim. Dingane's weakness is dramatically expressed by his slumped and suffering body, and his left hand splayed over his heart. The central woman in three-quarter view behind him is moving to the left, judging by the way her apron moves, but she turns her head as if she is looking back at the Swazi. However, our reading of the figure is disrupted by the unfortunate overlap of the right arm and assegai of the Swazi next to her.

In the full-scale clay the composition was changed in favour of a more ceremonial staging of the figures, although the disturbing overlap mentioned above remained. Dingane is posed parallel to the picture plane and his left hand is no longer splayed but clenched.  His younger adversary now holds his head high. Like his companions in the background, who are characterised by grimmer faces and reduced movement, he is less animated and more statuesque, suggesting a cold and calculated act. In general, all the figures are more slender and less fleshy, yet the nakedness of the women is made more explicit as all wear reduced aprons, and their profiles and buttocks are more pronounced. This is clearest in the foreground figure, as the back view of a fifth woman has been removed.

Changes in the female figures may also have been promoted by Postma's access to a nude model. Although he does not provide the names of any of the models in this scene, Hennie Potgieter recounted in 1987 that 'after much difficulty Laurika [Postma] managed eventually to find a young Black woman willing to pose in Zulu dress of only a hip covering, provided there was a screen erected around Laurika and her'.1259 There are also modifications of pose, as for the woman in the centre background, made more distinct by representing her body in frontal and her head in profile view. But when Romanelli's sculptors copied the full-scale clay into the stone-hard surface of the final marble (fig. 25.1), they reduced the physical essence of many details such as a nuanced rendering of flesh, the depiction of nipples, the texture of hair and the individual ornaments

**1256** ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7, quoted in Part I, Chapter 2.

**1257** *DSAB* 1, 1968, 799–802; Visagie 2011, 498–499.

**1258** ARCA PV94 1/75/1/7: the various lists of proposals are discussed in Part I, Chapter 2; see fig. 69.

**1259** 'Na baaie gesukkel het Laurika uiteindelik 'n jong Swart vrou gevind wat bereid was om in Zoeloedrag van slegs heupbedekkings te poseer, mits daar 'n skerm om Laurika en haar opgerig word' (Potgieter 1987, 47).

decorating the girdles and loin cloths. In the end, the more naturalistic narrative in clay is transformed into an idealistic representation in marble.

The final marble was badly broken in a fall that happened when the panel was first delivered to the Monument site.1260 The severe damage is still noticeable and has impaired the recognisability of motifs. This is obvious for the raised left arm supporting a calabash of the woman who covers her face in mourning, clearly visible in the full-scale clay but hardly evident in the marble. Here, poorly patched deep fractures run through the arm, whose visibility was anyway diminished by its very shallow relief.

**1260** Dagbestuur 21.4.1949: 7: 'Mnr.

**Figure 25.4:** Map showing the Maqongqo and Lubuye (not Lubuya as on map) battle sites, Phongolo River and Lubombo Mountains in upper section (courtesy of Laband 1995, 106)

## **Reading the narrative**

Coming after *Mpande* in the sequence of the frieze, *Death of Dingane* is placed in the correct order historically, as his demise followed a series of grave setbacks for the Zulu after their defeat at Blood River in late 1838. About half a year later Dingane launched a full-scale attack against the Swazi, who ruled the land north of Natal, beyond the Phongolo River.1261 It was an 'attempt at conquest and occupation', to re-establish his kingdom beyond the reach of the land-hungry Boers who, since their victory at Blood River, had appropriated large parts of Zulu Natal.1262 But again Dingane's army was defeated, now by the Swazi in the valley of the Lubu stream (fig. 25.4). Even worse was the crushing defeat of his remaining militia by his half-brother Mpande on 20 January 1840 at the Maqongqo Hills, which led to Mpande's ratification as the new Zulu king by the Boers, depicted in the preceding panel. Here the story is picked up after the Boers had tried in vain to capture Dingane, who had fled with his followers towards the Lubombo Mountains1263 – a desperate move as this was the territory of his Swazi enemies. In 1921, the Zulu Socwatsha ka Papu clarified to James Stuart:1264

When Dingana heard that the Boers were coming, and not Mpande's *impi*, he said, 'Let us take all (*kukula*) and go.' He said that all his people – cattle, womenfolk, *amabuto* – should go with him to the place of Somkande. He said, 'Never again will I face up to guns (*isitunyisa*).' So his people all went off; they made for the uBombo in the country of the Nyawo.1265

Here Dingane had ordered a traditional homestead to be built in the dense bush on the slopes of the Hlathikhulu hill, which he called eSankoleni, meaning 'the secluded spot'.1266 This region was 'in the territory of Silevana, the regent for Sambane, of the heir to the Nyawo chieftainship'.1267 And it was here, probably around March 1840, that Dingane was eventually killed, although most historians are rather vague when it comes to the great Zulu king's end.1268 How this was later understood to have happened is described at length by several Zulu interviewed by James Stuart between 1898 and 1921, whose reports largely confirm each other and are thus invaluable.1269 Hence we continue with the narrative of Socwatsha, the most detailed of these:1270

It is said that when Dingana's great men were alone they said to one another, 'Where are we going? We are being killed by fever (*umkuhlane*). We are leaving the country of our people, the country of the Zulu.'   They said, 'Let the *amankengane* [foreigners] be decoyed into doing it.   They said, 'Wo! Let amaSwazi be fetched.' So men went off to the amaSwazi.

**1262** Ibid.

**1270** For additional Zulu reports of the killing of Dingane, see *James Stuart Archive* 3, 1982, 260–261 (Mmemi ka Nguluzane, 20.10.1904); ibid. 4, 1986, 68 (Mtshapi ka Noradu, 3.4.1918); ibid. 5, 2001, 8 (Nduna ka Manqina, 27.4.1910); ibid. 5, 2001, 52–53 (Ngidi ka Mcikaziswa, 5.11.1904); ibid. 6, 2014, 228 (Tikuba ka Magongo, 26.11.1898).

**1261** Laband 1995, 110

**1263** Ibid., 119–121; Etherington 2001, 285; *James Stuart Archive* 6, 2014, 129–131 (narrative of Socwatsha ka Papu, 30.8.1921).

**1264** For Socwatsha, a well-educated Zulu, see Ndlovu 2009, 99–100.

**1265** *James Stuart Archive* 6, 2014, 131 (29.8.1921).

**1266** Laband 1995, 119–120. See also Lugg 1949, 163; Bonner 1982, 44.

**1267** Laband 1995, 120.

**1268** For more detailed accounts, see Lugg (1949, 163–168), Becker (1979, 281–284, 282–283: 'During the early hours of a morning in March [1840] … the Nyawo had come … to kill Dingane'), and Laband (1995, 120–121).

**1269** For the James Stuart Archive in Durban, see Wright 1996.

The amaSwazi said, 'Are these abaNguni coming to kill us?' The Zulu replied, 'No. We have come to make a plan. The *amabuto* [warriors] will be sent off elsewhere.  The *amabuto* will never go into the *izixotsha*.

This was told … only to the *izinduna* [headmen]; the *amabuto* did not know of it. They were not told. When the amaSwazi agreed, the order was given to the *amabuto*, 'Go out from this place [eSankoleni]. Go to the cattle posts. There is an impi which wants to eat up the cattle of the king.' The cattle posts had been built some distance away; none of them were close by. The amaSwazi were told that the *amabuto* would go off that day, and that they should come in the night. Indeed they came. They made for the *isigodhlo* [the private royal enclosure] where the king used to sleep. Hau! They surrounded it, and stabbed him, wounding him. He escaped and ran off into the forest at kwa Hlatikulu. People who did not know that the amaSwazi had been called went running to raise the alarm at the cattle posts. The *amabuto* came back. When they arrived, not all the amaSwazi had yet gone into the caves (*imihume*). The *amabuto* stabbed them, and drove them off …  For were we not invited (*ukubita*) by you?  The *amabuto* said, 'Hau! What are the *amankengane* saying?' They went back, but they could not find where the king had been stabbed. They looked for him and found him. They found him sitting up; he was not lying on the ground. He said, 'O! The *amankengana* have wounded me here,' and he showed them the wound. 'Go and fetch my medicines (*ubuhlungu*) and give them to me to drink.' The *izinduna* went to fetch the medicines from his place.1271 They washed a small pot, poured water in, stirred it, and gave it to him.  In a very short while he died.1272 People were killed for the *umgando* ceremony, together with black cattle for burying him.

The Zulu people then went back in a body to the Zulu country. They left Godide ka Ndhlela, saying that he should represent the people who had buried Dingana, for he was the heir of his father (the heir of Ndhlela, Dingana's chief *induna*).1273 The people then went back to Mpande.1274

Socwatsha alone reports that the izinduna had conspired with the Swazi to have Dingane killed. His narrative suggests that the king, after his devastating defeats of Blood River, Lubuye and Maqongqo, had become increasingly unpopular with his own people and lost their loyalty. All the other Zulu accounts agree that Swazi killed Dingane, but do not go into the reasons, and explanations by later historians differ as to why and even who in fact executed the Zulu king.1275 For example, Harry Lugg, a high magistrate of Pietermaritzburg, argued in 1949 against the general belief

that Dingane was put to death by the Swazis, [as] information recently obtained from a number of old men of the Nyawo tribe is to the effect that he met his death at the hands of certain leaders of their tribe, supported by the Swazi. The probabilities appear to favour this version, as he was well within Nyawo territory at the time. By people distantly situated, the Nyawos could easily have been mistaken as Swazi.1276

**1271** For Dingane's antidotes and poisons, see especially *James Stuart Archive* 6, 2014, 44–45 (Socwatsha ka Papu, 26.9.1904).

**1272** In another interview Socwatsha said that he 'does not know if the *izinduna* intended to kill Dingana or whether they made a bona fide mistake' (*James Stuart Archive* 6, 2014, 45), while Ngidi ka Mcikaziswa claimed (ibid. 5, 2001, 53), 'I never heard that the king was given the wrong medicine (poison).'

**1273** He was chief of the Ntuli part of the Zulu people; see Knight 1995, 273.

**1274** *James Stuart Archive* 6, 2014, 131–132 (30.8.1921); see also Socwatsha's other reports on pp.13–14, 44–45.

**1275** Henry Cloete (1899, 117) concluded in his 1850s lecture on Retief in Pietermaritzburg that Dingane found shelter by 'the Amasuree, but who, it is supposed (for I believe there is no actual authentic account of his death), murdered him to ensure their own safety from his constant and fearful forays upon them and the adjacent tribes'.

**1276** Lugg 1949, 163 (for Lugg, see Cope 1979). The account on Dingane in *DSAB* 2 (1972, 196) tends to support this view, saying Dingane 'fled north across the Pongola, where, it was believed, he was captured and put to death by his old enemy, the Swazi king, although there is now fairly convincing evidence that it was in the Ubombo mountains that D. was killed by members of the Nyawo tribe, possibly supported by Swazi warriors'.

**Figure 25.5:** Head of dying Dingane in *Death of Dingane*. Marble, detail of fig. 25.1 (photo Russell Scott)

**Figure 25.6:** Dying Dingane in *Death of Dingane*. Marble, detail of fig. 25.1 (photo Russell Scott)

Later John Laband reasoned that the Nyawo supported the Swazi to attack the Zulu king, because he and his people had consumed all the Nyawo's 'precious store of grain', had failed 'to hand over the cattle they had promised in return' and were 'calculated to draw hostile armies into the area'.1277 Laband continues that it was the regional Nyawo chief Silevana who 'cast his throwing spear at him [Dingane] with all his force'.1278 The varying narratives do not allow us to conclude whether Zulu, Swazi or Nyawo killed Dingane. Finally, a remarkable detail of Dingane's end was kept secret for over a hundred years: the location of his burial. It was only in the late 1940s that the Nyawo helped Lugg discover Dingane's last resting place and thus make it public.1279

The visual narrative of the frieze does not engage with the complicated detail of historical accounts, but has everything to do with the Voortrekker view of Dingane as a treacherous villain who deserved to meet an ignominious end. When the Boers gave up on their quest to find him, P.H. Zietsman, their Secretary of War, announced on 8 February 1840 that Dingane had not only fled his city, but across the border to the lands of another nation, who await their 'old decaying enemy, like the cat awaits a mouse'.1280 Denied direct revenge on their prey, the Voortrekkers – although without first-hand knowledge – circulated sensationalised accounts of Dingane's death, relishing gory details in lieu of action. Especially repulsive is the narrative of Daniel Pieter Bezuidenhout (1814–95), published in December 1879 in the *Orange Free State Monthly Magazine*:1281

[On] the other side of the Umguza River, at Bamboesberg, … Sapusa took him [Dingane] prisoner. On the first day (according to the statement of the Kafirs), Sapusa pricked Dingaan with sharp assegais, no more than skin deep, from the sole of his foot to the top of his head. The second day he had him bitten by dogs. On the third day, Sapusa said to Dingaan: 'Dingaan! are you still the rain-maker? Are you still the greatest of living men? See, the sun is rising: you shall not see him set!' Saying this, he took an assegai and bored his eyes out. This was related to me by one of Sapusa's Kafirs who was present. When the sun set, Dingaan was dead, for he had neither food nor water for three days. Such was the end of Dingaan.1282

Apart from the fact that this contradicts Zulu and Nyawo accounts, the Swazi king Sobhuza I, whom Bezuidenhout calls Sapusa, had in all likelihood already died by the time this account claims he had taken Dingane prisoner.1283

In the *Official Guide*, Moerdyk avoided these gruesome details but commented that 'after the drama of the death of Retief and his men … it was necessary to punish him [Dingane] for the evil that he had done'.1284 The scene embodies this intention as, although it does not depict any form of torture, it is designed as a merciless end for the Zulu king. The focus of the frieze is on Dingane's total abasement, all the more acute because he is represented in full regal attire (figs 25.5, 25.6). The tall Swazi standing behind him pushes an assegai with ease into the king's back and forces him, like a wounded animal, to crawl, dragging himself along the ground, his suffering captured in his death portrait with anguished facial expression and closed eyes. The king's impotence is underlined by a last futile attempt at resistance when he raises his clenched left fist to his heart.

**1277** Laband 1995, 120.

**1278** Ibid. However, Ngidi ka Mcikaziswa (*James Stuart Archive* 5, 2001, 53) reported on 5.11.1904 that, after Dingane was stabbed by a Swazi, the 'Nyawo people now armed … [had] chased off the Swazis'.

**1279** Lugg (1949, 164–168) found the grave on 27 February 1947.

**1280** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 591; Breytenbach c. 1958, 334: 'als een oude verrottende vyand, gelyk de kat de aankomst van eenen muis, verblydend inwachten.'

**1281** For Bezuidenhout, see Visagie 2011, 58.

**1282** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 375–376. For further outrageous stories about Dingane's death circulated at the time when the frieze was conceived, see Nathan 1937, 294 (repeated, without question, by Bonner 1982, 45).

**1283** Though the year of Sobhuza's death is not known, it has often been linked to 1836, while Philip Bonner (1982, 41) argues that it was 'much more probable … in 1839', still preceding Dingane's death.

**1284** *Official Guide* 1955, 52–53.

**Figure 25.8:** Jan Juta. *1700. … native life … as developed under Christian and governmental teaching.* 1934. Oil on canvas, 150 × 58 cm (South Africa House, London; Freschi 2006, 217 fig. 27)

**Figure 25.7:** Dingane's wives in *Death of Dingane*. Marble, detail of fig. 25.1 (photo Russell Scott)

His women turn away helplessly, and no male supporters can be seen. In contrast to *Treaty*, which portrays the Zulu king in full power, here Dingane is doomed to die in wretchedness.

This reading acquires an even sharper edge when we compare *Death of Dingane* with *Murder of Retief*. While the Boer is shown upright like an unfailing Christian martyr, the collapsed Zulu king is his exact opposite. While Retief's men were with him to the end, Dingane has been abandoned by his soldiers. While Retief witnesses his men being brutally slaughtered around him by the Zulu, Dingane's wives and the Swazi form a line of spectators who attest to his final downfall.  He who had been an assassin is now the victim.

In one key respect, however, the scene is not a reversal of Zulu vengeance on the Boers, for, as recounted above, the Boers failed finally to defeat and put an end to Dingane: it was Mpande who decisively defeated the king's army, and it was the Swazi and/or the Nyawo who killed him. The focus of this scene is therefore on black people only, and thus absolves the Voortrekkers from complicity in a cold-blooded murder. It surely implies that only blacks undertook ruthless assassinations, while the Voortrekkers fought openly and fairly, and only when provoked.

The inclusion of Dingane's women serves to make another point: they highlight his heathen polygamy, and the women's lack of loyalty as they prepare to leave him, carrying his possessions, in contrast to Christian Voortrekker women who always stood by their men. And there is telling otherness in the nakedness of the Zulu women also, a nakedness that is expressly accentuated in those figures who, like Greek and Roman caryatids,1285 raise their arms to support the objects on their heads (fig. 25.7). It is a common trope for the depiction of African women, and one that can be seen in Juta's depiction of three women carrying calabashes in his 1934 murals at South Africa House in London (fig. 25.8) – although they are clothed as a sign of the influence of colonial Christianity, albeit with clinging sarongs which accentuate, and even in one case expose, their full breasts.1286 Perversely, while *Death of Dingane* is virtually denying that black people are capable of civil conduct, the scene invites the viewer to take pleasure in the nude female forms. Moerdyk himself seems to indulge in this kind of colonial voyeurism when he writes about the marble relief:

The exceptionally fine modelling of the native figures should be noted. It is noteworthy that throughout the frieze natives are never depicted as inferior beings – they are always represented as worthy opponents, very well developed as far as their physical characteristics are concerned.1287

While self-righteously disclaiming any partisan prejudice, this outrageous statement in fact implies that a well-developed physique is an African's only outstanding quality.

**1285** Although different to the famous maidens (*korai*) of the Erechtheion in Athens, the gesture of the Zulu women echoes numerous other caryatids of the Classical tradition; see Schmidt 1982; Schneider 1986, 103–108; Vickers 2014. **1286** Freschi 2005, 24–25 fig. 10; the mural is labelled in clear-cut colonialism 'native life … as developed under Christian and governmental teaching'. **1287** *Official Guide* 1955, 53.

*Return* **from Natal over the Drakensberg (after 1843)**

# **26** *Return*

West wall (panels 30–31/31)

h. 2.3 × w. 4.29 m (full width of panel 30 and 0.69 m of panel 31) Broken into three pieces during transport: vertical fracture near centre through panel 30; diagonal fracture from edge of left mountain under the feet of central Voortrekker joint between panels 30 and 31 through woman on the right; restored fractures on vertical edges Sculptor of the clay maquette: Frikkie Kruger

Stages of production

	- Annotation: 'Terugtog oor Drakensberg' (Return over Drakensberg)

#### Early records

SVK minutes (4.9.1937) ― item 4t (see below, 'Developing the design')

Wenke (c. 1934–36) ― item II. Dr. L. Steenkamp, mnre A.J. du Plessis en M. Basson, A. 'MAATSKAPLIK' (Social), 3. 'Verhouding met ander volksgroepe' (Relationship with other ethnic groups), d. 'Dingaan' (Dingane), xiv.

 Marble, 2.3 × 4.29 m (courtesy of VTM; photo Russell Scott)

## **Description**

Five pairs of oxen pull a wagon uphill, from left to right, over almost impassable rocky terrain (fig. 26.1). The foremost animals disappear behind a tree that divides this event from *Convention*, the last scene of the frieze. The open rear of the wagon is loaded with two big sacks, and below them on a rack rests a well-stocked chicken coop. The goods are carefully tied to the wagon, while a barrel dangles under its chassis. Two trekkers in the centre stand one behind the other, their legs spread to support their pulling steadily on two sturdy thong-ropes to stabilise the precariously poised wagon. The first, sleeves rolled up and his front leg braced on a steep slab, is younger and clean-shaven under his brimmed hat, while his bearded companion is hatless and wears braces over a long-sleeved shirt. Two further trekkers in hats are busy behind the line of oxen, one swirling an enormous whip to drive the oxen forward, while his comrade on horseback, a gun slung over his shoulder, points reassuringly ahead.

In contrast to all this action, three Boers on the right, probably a family, calmly watch the scene before them. As onlookers they intensify the focus on the difficult operation of moving the wagon over dangerous boulders, particularly the woman whose kappie is directed like a spotlight illuminating the task. Her immaculate dress is copied in the small pigtailed girl in front of her, although the girl carries her kappie by its ribbons. The scene is closed on the right by the tallest and most prominent figure, a man whose right foot is raised on a rock, a stationary echo of the two active men securing the wagon. With coiffured beard and more formal dress, he seems a man of status, possibly older, given his use of a stout stick, and probably a veteran of battle since he has his left arm in a sling.

The nearly impassable terrain is an idealised depiction of the famous Mont-Aux-Sources, the distinct backdrop providing a simplified view of the Drakensberg amphitheatre (figs 18.9, 26.5). This places the narrative some 200 kilometres north-west of Pietermaritzburg. Hennie Potgieter, who is normally at pains to stress the authenticity of all aspects of the frieze, claimed that the three aloes carefully portrayed in the foreground are incorrect, as that species does not grow on the Drakensberg (fig. 26.10).1289 However, botanist Neil Crouch suggests that, although they lack finer detail such as short spines on the leaves, they could be aloes which are found in the region, *A. spectabilis*  in the case of the larger and *A. pratensis* the smaller. He also pointed out that, because only the latter is flowering, the time of year must be early spring to mid-summer.1290

**1289** Potgieter 1987, 38.

**1290** We are very grateful to Neil Crouch for his input, and to Philippa Hobbs, who approached him on our behalf. *A. spectabilis:* Klopper and Smith 2010. *A. pratensis*: Trauseld 1969, 14–15 with fig.; Hilliard and Burtt 1987, 66.

**Figure 26.2:** A2. W.H. Coetzer. Reproduction of first sketch for *Return*. June 1937 (courtesy of ARCA PV94 1/75/5/1; photo the authors)

**Figure 26.3:** A3. W.H. Coetzer. 'Terugtog oor Drakensberg'. After September 1937. Pencil, 13.3 × 30.4 cm. Revised first sketch (photo courtesy of Museum Africa, no. 66/2194O)

## **Developing the design**

Apart from *Treaty*, this is the only scene of which we have two perfect mirror images in the preparatory sketches. In the reproduction (fig. 26.2) the ox wagon is being pulled from left to right, yet in the revised pencil drawing (fig. 26.3) it is in reverse. Whether the Gestetner reproduction was unintentionally produced with the stencil back to front, or Coetzer deliberately inverted the revised pencil drawing is not known. He might have been concerned about which of the two images would work best with the still undeveloped rhythm of the frieze, although there is little evidence of a consideration of the continuity of the relief in his sketches in general. But, whatever the reason behind the reversal, the movement from left to right taken from A2 is appropriate for the frieze, and avoids the incongruity of oxen and wagon disappearing into the corner, instead carrying the eye towards the final scene.

Coetzer sets the scene for the further development of *Return* in his first drawing as seen in the reproduction. The front part of a wagon, depicted in some detail, enters the picture at an angle in the left foreground. Four pairs of oxen pull it uphill over rocky ground and exit the frame on the far right as they move behind a gnarled tree, only the hindquarters of the leading beasts visible. Although the animals are generalised, Coetzer creates some liveliness by showing their horns at different angles and their tails flicking in different directions. In the centre, two trekkers, who lean back at an angle, help to stabilise the advancing wagon by jointly pulling on a thong which is fixed to its front, the first man bracing himself with one foot against a rocky outcrop. A bearded trekker, who stands on the other side of the oxen, swings his whip to keep the animals in line.  The other Boers climb the steep slope alongside the oxen – a woman with a young girl carried piggyback and a man bowed under the weight of a sack. Their movement draws us into the scene in the same direction as the wagon is travelling, while a dog ahead of them turns its head to take us back to the oxen it watches.

At the Historiese Komitee meeting on 4 September 1937 only a minor alteration was required:

Back over the Drakensberg. The sack must be in the wagon.1291

Obedient to the request, Coetzer removed the sack in the revised – and reversed – drawing (fig. 26.3), and replaced it with a small boy to match the girl the woman carries, and the two children look at each other engagingly.

In the background there is a panorama of two flat-topped mountains. Four rocky outcrops in the foreground on the left rise up dangerously, which suggests the difficulty of the journey and the treacherous terrain, even further developed with the tonal details of the revised sketch emphasising the stony ground. The hard toil of the Trek is expressed in the ponderous progress of the ox wagon and the onerous task of the couple carrying their children uphill step by step. In Coetzer's gloomy monochrome painting (fig. 26.4), the hardship of crossing this extreme terrain is even more pointedly portrayed. Here the ox wagon comes in from the right, as in the revised drawing, with parts of its canvas cover torn. Emphasised by the diminishing scale of the oxen as they ascend then disappear over the escarpment, the rocky steepness of the terrain seems almost impassable. Instead of the couple carrying children on their backs, we now find a woman who appears to have given up the battle, seated with her head in her hands, while another offers her water. The painting's mountainous backdrop is taken from Coetzer's sketch of *Descent*.

**1291** 'Terug oor die Drakensberge.

**Figure 26.4:** A4. W.H. Coetzer. *Terug oor Drakensberg*. c. 1937–38. Monochrome oil on board, 27.5 × 62 cm (courtesy of DNMCH, OHG 900; photo the authors)

Like the sketches, the oil painting has a strongly horizontal format, reflecting the original intention in Moerdyk's layout to have the scene crossing more than one panel, although it no longer overlaps the corner. This may explain the unusual decision to have this scene extend into the next in the frieze, sharing space on the panel that depicts *Convention,* with a tree as a natural divider between them*.* The long format allowed for a wide landscape to accommodate the ox wagon that traverses it and portray the resplendent Mont-Aux-Sources amphitheatre beyond (fig. 18.9). There was possibly also a concern to extend the scene to create better balance with the expansive *Departure* on the other half of the north wall – as well as matching *Descent* diagonally opposite on the south wall.

For *Return* we have a rare image of the clay maquette supported on an easel at Harmony Hall, before its translation into plaster (fig. 26.5). In this and the surviving plaster maquette (fig. 26.6), while there are fine details, the liveliness of Coetzer's narrative composition is gone. The action is now more frozen and the scene neatly compressed into the picture frame without a single cut-off figure or object. As in the reproduction (fig. 26.2), the wagon moves from left to right, but is now shown at an angle and almost tilted, and its view rather foreshortened. No one sits on the front box but, because the rear of the wagon can now be seen and the back flaps are drawn back like curtains, the load is visible, including the sacks required by the Historiese Komitee. Also lashed in place is a chicken coop on an extended rack (fig. 26.8), while a barrel swings between the wheels. Although five pairs of oxen still disappear behind a tree on the far right, they have been fitted into the format as they pull the wagon uphill, and their tails are now standardised to hang vertically.

The two centrally placed trekkers in shirt sleeves, bearded in this case, continue to stabilise the wagon by pulling it in their direction, their poses similar, though the second figure no longer has a hat. In the relief they use separate thongs, unlike the single one in the sketches, and that of the first Boer is coiled around his waist for extra purchase, the end hanging free between his legs. He stands on a rocky outcrop with both feet more securely placed than in Coetzer's sketches. Two further trekkers with hats are on the other side of the oxen, their smaller scale, like the diminishing oxen, suggesting distance. One holds a long whip and the other who is on horseback with a gun over his shoulder gestures ahead. There are now three figures on the right, taking the place of the

**Figure 26.5:** B1. Frikkie Kruger. *Return*. Clay. Maquette on easel (courtesy of Kirchhoff files; photo the authors)

**Figure 26.6:** B2. Frikkie Kruger. *Return*. 1942–43. Plaster, 78 × 152.7 × 8 cm. Maquette (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1–28; photo Russell Scott)

**Figure 26.7:** C2. *Return*. 1943–45. Clay. Full-scale relief (courtesy of Kirchhoff files; photo Alan Yates)

dog and adults with piggyback children. The new figures are not shown labouring up the hill, but stationary and turned inwards to watch the efforts with the wagon, closing off the composition and focusing our attention on the arduous crossing.  Rocky terrain dominates the foreground.

While the full-size clay (fig. 26.7) follows for the most part the small maquette, it introduces some important changes. Now the wagon is less foreshortened so that it occupies a more prominent position, and it has a single back flap drawn to the right, which still affords a clear view of the sacks within the wagon, as well as the chicken coop below, meticulously copied in the final marble (fig. 26.8). The first trekker in the centre no longer has the thong around his waist, and has his weight more convincingly distributed on the rock at his feet as though it was a pedestal and he a sculpture. There are many other new details too: the organic forms of three painstakingly depicted plants offset the harshness of the boulders in the foreground (fig. 26.10); the girl has pigtails and the woman's dress shows evidence of the study of actual Voortrekker garments; the beard and the features of the wounded trekker are finer, based on a portrait of Frikkie Kruger's father, according to Potgieter (fig. 26.9); the tree next to him is more elaborate; the Boers on the far side of the wagon are smaller, yet the whip has become enormous; the gun of the riding trekker is on his other side so that his pointing arm is less obscured. Curiously though, the alternation of upward- and downward-turned horns for the pairs of oxen has been retained throughout from the very first sketch. In contrast to the maquette, both the rocks and the mountains are modelled more compactly and are less sharp-edged, making them appear more staged.

**Figure 26.8:** Chicken coop and sacks on wagon in *Return*. Marble, detail of fig. 26.1 (photo Russell Scott)

**Figure 26.9:** Models for portraits (Potgieter 1987, 39)

**Figure 26.10:** Aloes growing in stony ground in *Return*. Full-size clay and marble, details of figs 26.7 and 26.1 (photos Alan Yates; Russell Scott)

Motif and composition in the full-scale clay and the finished marble (fig. 26.1) are almost identical. A major difference between the two, however, is the finish, hand-modelled for the former and chiselled for the latter. Here especially the workmanship of the boulders highlights the difference. In clay the rocky shapes display varied texture, but in marble the shape is more cubic and the surface standardised by the use of a bull point chisel (fig. 26.10).

**Figure 26.11:** 'South Africa 1834–48' (Walker 1934, foldout after p.377)

## **Reading the narrative**

Why did numerous trekkers begin to leave Natal after 1843? After the crushing victories over Dingane at Blood River (1838) and the Maqongqo Hills (1839), the Boers lost no time in taking command in Natal and, on 10 February 1940, instated Mpande as the new Zulu king, the topic represented, together with the ultimate downfall of Dingane, on the two previous reliefs. Only four days after Mpande was installed, Andries Pretorius, 'Chief Commandant and Commanding General of all the Burghers of the Right Worshipful Volksraad of the South African Society, Port Natal, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army placed under [his] command by the Volksraad', ordered the raising of the flag of the recently founded Republic of Natalia, and requested P.H. Zietsman, the Secretary of War, to read a proclamation defining its territory (fig. 26.11).1292 It was a barefaced act of colonisation: the Volksraad seized all the Zulu land from the Thukela to the Black Mfolozi River, bounded to the west by the Drakensberg, and to the east by the ocean with 'all sea-coasts and harbours which have already been discovered, or may hereafter be discovered, … exclusive from that which the late Mr. Retief obtained from the Zulu nation for our Society' (see *Treaty*).1293 Their territory was now enormous, stretching from the Mzimvubu River in the south, all the way to the Black Mfolozi in the north. However, this first self-proclaimed Boer republic was short-lived as it caused major upheavals for both Zulu and British in demographic, economic and political terms.1294

Despite the Boer republic's claim to much of Mpande's land, he remained its '*de facto* ruler',1295 making traditional chiefly demands of his subjects. Why tens of thousands of black people began to leave his kingdom and flood into the Boer republic has been debated; whether they came as refugees to be free from Zulu rule as advocated by John Laband, or 'empowered by the ambition of chiefs [to stake out territory], not by the dissatisfaction of ordinary people', as argued by Norman Etherington.1296 The Boers may have welcomed the newcomers initially as a labour source, but soon introduced counter-measures to control their vast numbers, and planned to transfer those that were unwanted beyond their southern borders. These and other related events threatened the stability of the north-eastern frontier of the British dominion, and 'this fear fused with existing humanitarian concerns and long-term strategic and economic interests [was] to persuade [Governor] Napier to intervene once again in Natal'.1297

A pivotal role was played by Boer women when it came to defending Boer interests. In early May 1842, for example, when the British repossessed Port Natal (Durban), Adulphe Delegorgue reported that the women 'were inciting their husbands to fight [the Crown] and these cold men, suddenly stung into action, had begun to feel the stirrings of enthusiasm'.1298 Following a preliminary victory over the British at Congella near Port Natal on 23 May,1299 the Boers were confronted with a superior force sent under Lieutenant Colonel Josias Cloete on 25 June, and withdrew to Pietermaritzburg.1300 Only a few weeks later, on 15 July 1842, the British forces advanced to the town and required the Boers to submit to the queen's authority,1301 and the Volksraad surrendered unconditionally:

**1292** Bird, *Annals* 1, 1888, 595.

**1293** Ibid.; see also Laband 1995, 123.

**1294** For the Republic of Natalia, see Russell 1903, 179–198; Nathan 1937, 276–282, 294–318; *DSAB* 4, 1981, 66–67; Ballard 1989, 122–124; Laband 1995, 123–125; Etherington 2001, 288–294; Giliomee 2003, 166–169.

**1295** Laband 1995, 124.

**1296** Ibid., esp. 124–125; Etherington 2001, esp. 287–288 (quote, 287).

**1297** Laband 1995, 124–126 (quote, 125); see also Etherington 2001, 289–293.

**1298** Delegorgue, *Travels* 2, 1997, 37; see also Etherington 2001, 291; Giliomee 2003, 169.

**1299** Lonsdale 1981. See also Delegorgue, *Travels* 2, 1997, 36–43.

**1300** Ibid., 43–46; Laband 1995, 125–126; Etherington 2003, 291–294.

**1301** Breytenbach c. 1958, 416–417 (Bylaag 11, 8.7.1842).

We the undersigned, duly authorised by the Emigrant Farmers of Pieter Maritz Burg, Natal, and the adjacent country, do hereby tender for them and ourselves our Solemn Declaration of Submission to Authority of Her Majesty the Queen of England.1302

It was not before June 1843, however, that the British began to establish their power over the area with the arrival of Her Majesty's Commissioner Henry Cloete in Pietermaritzburg.1303 A year later, on 31 May 1844, the Republic of Natalia formally ceased to exist when it was annexed as an autonomous district of the Cape Colony. On 15 July 1856 Natal was established as a separate colony of the British Crown.1304

Many Boers did not wait to see the proclamation of British sovereignty in Natal, but began to leave from 1843, although we have little reliable evidence of exactly how many people left Natal and when1305 – and there were more departures to come. They disagreed with Cloete's appeasement policy, especially the settlement of land claims, which did not satisfy their 'earth-hunger'. They also objected to the lack of protection against black people and the abolition of the colour bar.1306 Here again women took the lead to stir up their men.1307 The redoubtable Susanna Smit headed a delegation of Boer women who, on 8 August 1843, interrupted the Volksraad's negotiations with Cloete, and confronted the commissioner with their utter abhorrence of British rule. Mrs Smit emphatically pronounced that the women

had been deputed to express their fixed determination never to yield to British authority; that they were fully aware that resistance would be of no avail, but they would walk out by [sic] the Drakensberg barefooted, to die in freedom as death was dearer to them than the loss of liberty.1308

As discussed in *Women spur men on,* in ironic contradiction of her own statement Susanna Smit and her husband did not leave Pietermaritzburg but spent the rest of their lives there. It is a reminder of the fact that a considerable number of Voortrekkers decided to trek no further but to stay in Natal and live under British rule. Andries Pretorius was among those who remained there initially, even though he was excluded from the general amnesty granted to the Natal trekkers by Josias Cloete in the first article of the peace treaty concluded between the British and the Boers on 15 July 1842. But at the very end of the agreement it was conceded to him by the same Cloete in an additional article:

In consideration of Mr. A.W. Pretorius having cooperated in the final adjustment of these Articles, and of his personal humane conduct to the Prisoners, and his general moderation, – the Amnesty granted in the 1st Article is hereby fully extended to him.1309

A further incident of open Boer insubordination was recorded about a year later. On 4 September 1844 most of the representatives of the newly elected Volksraad refused to take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown, and the old Volksraad that served when the area was first annexed as a district of the Cape Colony, which had initially agreed to the queen's authority, had to continue in office.1310 There was also dissatisfaction that the British forbad the enactment of the Boer plan

**1302** Ibid., 418–419 (Bylaag 14, 1842).

**1303** Ibid., 435–438 (Bylaag 4, 1843, 'Proclamation By His Excellency Major General Sir George Thomas Napier …'), 438–444 (Bylaag 5–17, 1843); see also Cloete 1899, 160–196 ('Lecture V: Submission to the Crown').

**1304** Bird, *Annals* 2, 1888, 394–395 ('Annexation of the District of Natal to the Settlement of the Cape of Good Hope', 31.5.1844); Laband 1995, 125.

**1305** A systematic analysis of the data provided by Visagie (2011) would help to shed more light on this matter. See the general remarks, for example, by Nathan 1937, 317–318; Laband 1995, 125–126; Giliomee 2003, 172–173.

**1306** Russell 1903, 201 (quote); Le Cordeur 1960, xix.

**1307** For their role in Pietermaritzburg and the strong divisions along Boer gender lines, see Giliomee 2003, 168–169. **1308** Bird, *Annals* 2, 1888, 259; see also Walker 1934, 311–312; Nathan 1937, 276–277; Etherington 2001, 293–294; Giliomee 2003, 169. For a fuller quotation, see *Women spur men on*.

**1309** Breytenbach c. 1958, 419–420 (Bylaag 15, 1842); see also Liebenberg 1977, 182–184.

**1310** Bird, *Annals* 2, 1888, 418–419 (Major Smith to Secretary of Government).

to demand and if necessary force Africans to leave their farms if they had settled there after British annexation: such numbers had flocked into Natal that it was claimed that this threatened the security of the area.1311 These controversies no doubt led to the exodus of more Voortrekkers. When Pretorius and 'the great majority of [Natal] trekkers abandoned their farms early in 1848 to seek independence on the Highveld', he declared: 'For liberty we sacrificed all.'1312 It was the second time that Pretorius and his compatriots had had to give up their farms in a British colony – first the Cape,1313 and now Natal. And a reverse process followed. As soon as Boer discontent had 'denuded Natal', British immigrants began to flood the district.1314

Sir Harry Smith, since 1 December 1847 new governor of the Cape Colony, who appeared to have some sympathy with the departing trekkers, visited Pretorius and some of his men on 1 or 2 February 1848 in Natal.1315 He reported on this meeting on 10 February in Pietermaritzburg:1316

On my arrival at the foot of the Drackenberg [sic] Mountains I was almost paralysed to witness the whole of the population, with few exceptions, 'trêkking'! Rains on this side of the mountains are tropical … and these families were exposed to a state of misery which I have never before saw equalled … The scene here was truly heart-rending.1317

Smith's sympathy seems to have been short-lived, however. In response to the massive treks back over the Drakensberg he acted swiftly and, only a day or two after this meeting, issued a proclamation at the trekkers' camp at the Thukela River by which he annexed with a single stroke of the pen the whole area between the Orange and the Vaal rivers as the Orange River Sovereignty (fig. 26.12), pre-empting any Boer intentions to settle there independent of British rule.1318 The following month Smith clarified that the British resident, Major Henry Douglas Warden, with a small force would be placed at present-day Bloemfontein as the chief authority.1319 This was an extraordinary act of seizure as no one, 'not Tau the Lion nor Mzilikazi nor Barends nor Bloem nor Moshweshwe nor even Potgieter … had ever claimed such dominion'.1320 Pretorius and his followers did not take long to react. In July they forced Warden and his British troops to leave Bloemfontein.1321 And in the same month some nine hundred Natal and Transorange trekkers signed a bitter lament about their experience with British rule, written by Pretorius in Bloemfontein to Governor Smith (18.7.1848), stating

… we perceive, in a manifesto, that you threaten us with a war of military power; which appears to us very unjust to constrain us on lands which we have justly bartered from the natives – to them having been allowed self-government and all privileges of liberty; and we whites must be governed by laws which come from another place (or country).

One might ask, are we then worse, are we more contemptible than the coloured population? To them are acknowledged and secured the lands they have inherited; to them are allowed self-government and their own laws; but as soon as we whites are on the same lands, which we have justly obtained

**1311** Ibid., 419–426; Liebenberg 1977, 212–215.

**1312** Giliomee 2003, 172–173. See also Hattersley, 1936, 15: 'By 1848, most of the farmers had already abandoned the district.'

**1313** See *Arrival.*

**1314** Hattersley 1936, 16 (quote), 38; Ballard 1989, 126–128.

**1315** For Sir Harry Smith, see Moore Smith 1902, vols 1&2.

**1316** For Sir Harry Smith and the Boers, see Etherington 2001, esp. 313–319.

**1317** Liebenberg 1977, 268 (quote from the *Graham's Town Journal*, 19.2.1848, 'Sir Harry Smith's progress'). See also Nathan 1937, 332; Giliomee 2003, 172.

**1318** Theal (1916, 277) and Nathan (1937, 368) date the proclamation on 3 February 1848; see also Giliomee 2003, 172. For Warden, see Barnard 1948; Etherington 2001, 310–311, 315–319; Tweed 2013, 27; and *Convention*.

**1319** Nathan 1937, 368–369.

**1320** Etherington 2001, 314.

**1321** Theal 1916, 281–283; Nathan 1937, 370–371.

**Figure 26.12:** South Africa, 1847–54. Red-coloured districts annexed by Governor Sir Harry Smith, those lightly coloured becoming part of the Cape Colony (Moore Smith 1902, opp. p.236)

from them, these privileges are immediately taken from us, so that we may justly say that we do not even share equally with the coloured tribes; but that now, though all other creatures enjoy rights and liberties, we are constantly constrained to be in fetters …

Now, we state to Your Excellency, and we state it to the world, we state it as men with clear hearts and much experience, that we white cattle farmers cannot, with any feeling of security, under Her Majesty's jurisdiction, reside in a country inhabited by so many coloured people, especially as they are left to their own laws, and we are placed under other laws. We repeat again, as well to Your Excellency as to the world, that had we perchance been coloured, it might perhaps be possible, but now we find it impossible, because we are white African Boers …

And now we arrive at the great mirror of Natal … How did we obtain possession of that country – unjustly or easily? No; we obtained it justly from a Sovereign power [see *Treaty*]; and subsequently it cost us the blood of dearest wives and children [see *Bloukrans*] … And where is this country now? Still in the possession of the owners? …

And now comes the great and weighty question! Did Government take possession of the country upon the majority and at the desire of the proprietors of the said country, or because it was right to do so? Oh, no! … It took place with power alone. But where is the word of right? Can any one call that right which first deprived us of our liberty and country whilst we were living in peace and quietness … ? …

Where are then the former proprietors of the land? Here they are wandering in the wilderness of South Africa. …

Oh, these hardships you will never eradicate from the heart of an African Boer, neither with promises nor with threats; you will cause a further flight and dissatisfaction, but never a silent submission. And thus we have severely suffered; … for liberty, we sacrificed all! …

But we wish to entreat Your Excellency to leave us unmolested and without further interference, on those grounds which we have justly obtained from the legal proprietors, and thus we shall exclaim to the world and our Creator …, that we have not yet been totally extirpated.1322

Pretorius' statement makes clear how Boer resentment entangled perceptions of British dominion with native privilege.

Coming back to *Return*, the scene reflects some of the emotions associated with the trekkers' retreat from Natal in Afrikaner memory. The drama and determination of pulling a heavily loaded ox wagon over the steep barrier of the Drakensberg cements the belief in the courageous determination of the Voortrekkers to achieve independence. The scene is given greater weight not so much because it refers to a particular event of history, but because it is prototypical. In contrast to Coetzer's lively drawing, the marble transformed the enormous struggle to return across the Drakensberg into a staged event that embodies the fullest awareness and appreciation of what Boers were able to achieve. The Boer family on the right watching the ongoing progress of their trek reinforce this impression: their calm demeanour suggests that they are captivated by a triumphant performance within the ideal setting of the Drakensberg amphitheatre and confident of its success. The wounded but otherwise immaculate male figure seems to personify the belief that the hardship and jeopardy of the past are manageable and will not cause lasting harm. And, despite the almost impassable terrain, the trek is gradually advancing because everybody is playing his or her appointed part perfectly, positioned correctly, even dressed with propriety. The message is clear: whatever the trekkers, young and old, may have faced, they kept together, stayed on course and overcame all obstacles.

In the *Official Guide* Moerdyk promotes a similar reading of *Return* in which the trekkers embody the principles of inexorable Afrikanerdom:

After the annexation of Natal by the British the die was cast and the decision taken: Back again across the Drakensberg to seek elsewhere in the interior for the independence which had been lost in Natal. The panel depicts the return across the mountains, with Mont-aux-Sources in the background. The wagons are heavily laden and long spans of oxen are necessary to pull them up the precipices.1323

Within the frieze, the stout-heartedness of the Voortrekkers and the mountainous terrain in *Return* are similar to *Descent,* which shows a trekker family too, although here on their way into Natal after having surmounted the Drakensberg – indeed, it might be the same little family some years later. In *Return* the direction of their travel is reversed, but their indomitable will remains the same. This comparison is also manifest in the composition of the frieze as the scenes are placed diagonally opposite each other and in the same narrative position: *Descent* is the first scene of the south wall, *Return* the first of the north wall.

In the visual narrative, regardless of any challenge, the Voortrekkers never abandoned their ultimate goal, to strive at all costs for liberty and independence. They were ideal role models for contemporary Afrikaners.

**1322** Du Toit and Giliomee 1983, 223–225; Giliomee 2003, 173.

**1323** *Official Guide* 1955, 51.

**27 Sand River** *Convention* **(17 January 1852)**

**A2/A3**

**B2**

**C2/C3**

**D**

# **27** *Convention*

West wall (panel 31/31) h. 2.3 × w. 2.82 m Restored fractures on the vertical edges Sculptor of the clay maquette: Peter Kirchhoff

#### Stages of production

#### Early records

SVK minutes (4.9.1937) ― item 4u (see below, 'Developing the design')

Panele (c. Dec 1934–36) ― item 13 'Die erlanging v.d. vryheid (a) die konwensies 1852 en 1854' (The achievement of freedom (a) the conventions of 1852 and 1854)

Wenke (c. 1934–36) ― item I. F.A. STEYTLER (a) 'Ondertekening van die Sandrivier-Traktaat' (Signing of the Sandriver Treaty)

Moerdyk Layout (5.10.1936–15.1.1937) ― scene 23 on panel 30/31 'Konvensies 1852 [and] 1854' (Conventions 1852 [and] 1854)

Jansen Memorandum (19.1.1937) ― item 7.23 'The Conventions of 1852 and 1854'

0 5 10 m

**Figure 27.1:** D. *Convention*. 1949. Marble, 2.3 × 2.82 m (courtesy of VTM; photo Russell Scott)

## **Description**

Nine men are gathered around a small table covered with a plain cloth in front of a tent: four Voortrekkers and two British soldiers witness three dignitaries who attend to the convention, the central focus of the scene (fig. 27.1). These three are united in being clean-shaven and formally dressed with bow-tie, frock coat and long trousers. The balding dignitary, seated on a chair on the right of the table, one of the two British commissioners, signs the paper with a quill, while the two standing men look on intently. The tall second commissioner in a top hat stands behind the signatory's chair, resting his hands on its back. The third dignitary, on the opposite side of the table, is Andries Pretorius, expectantly awaiting the conclusion of the formalities. His central position stresses his importance, as does the apex of the tent opening behind his head.

Framing Pretorius are two Boers, one in support immediately behind him, with oddly depicted hands clasped behind his back, and another on his left, presented frontally with a muzzleloader like a formal guard. Both are bearded and wear Voortrekker dress and hats. Behind are two more Boers nearer the tent that fills the background – a young boy and an older bareheaded bald man with full beard, the latter carved in very low relief so that he appears to be in the distance. All look towards the table, reinforcing the importance of the act.

Two officers on the far left stand in front of the tree which divides *Convention* from *Return*. Their distinctive garb copies the officer's dress uniform of the Cape Mounted Rifles that served from 1827 to 1870 (fig. 27.12). The officers, the foreground one with his left hand on the hilt of his sword, wear a corded busby with bag and plume; a dragoon jacket with frogging, pointed cuffs and a pelisse over their left shoulders; a cross-belt; a barrelled sash; and fitted trousers buttoned at the ankle and strapped under the shoe. The careful depiction of the soldiers' uniforms is an excellent example of the sculptors' determination to endow their representations with historical veracity. The painstaking depiction of the folding stool, which rather unexpectedly appears in the foreground, provides Voortrekker detail.

**Figure 27.2:** A2. W.H. Coetzer. Reproduction of first sketch for *Convention*. June 1937 (courtesy of ARCA PV94 1/75/5/1; photo the authors)

**Figure 27.3:** A3. W.H. Coetzer. 'Konvensies van Zand Rivier binne in 'n Tent'. After September 1937. Pencil, 13.4 × 15.3 cm. Revised first sketch (photo courtesy of Museum Africa, no. 66/2194L)

## **Developing the design**

The reproduction (fig. 27.2) shows Coetzer's drawing in its original state, before it was later partly revised (fig. 27.3). The reproduction is dominated by a large rectangular table covered with a plain cloth, placed just right of centre and parallel to the picture plane, with six men grouped behind it. Two figures are the focus, one seated at the table writing and, the other, a tall man on the left, who bends over him observantly, his left hand on the writer's chair and the other on the table. They are both concerned with the paper that is being signed near the top, framed by an inkpot and book on the table. Coetzer includes other everyday details, such as the writer's foot resting on the table spar and a hat propped up against a table leg, visible beneath the short table cloth. There is also a top hat on a riempie chair in the foreground, partly cut off by the frame. The removed hats and the bare heads of all the participants may suggest the solemnity of the occasion. The four bystanders who watch the formal act probably represent the two groups involved. The two on the far right are definitely trekkers, recognisable by their buttoned-up flap trousers, and the beard and neckerchief of the one next to the writer. The dress of the two clean-shaven men in suits on the left is not distinctive, but they are presumably British. It is the only indoor event depicted by Coetzer in the sketches, indicated by a cottage pane window and, next to it, a document in a rustic frame hanging on the wall at a slant.

At the Historiese Komitee meeting on 4 September 1937 the following alterations were requested:

Signing of the contract. The man is signing too high on the document; the statute book of Van der Linde must also be shown here; study an authentic table cloth in the Africana museum; the signing took place in a tent in the veld; show many Boers including likenesses of the following A.W. and M.W. Pretorius, Paul Kruger, Schutte and Visagie (portraits can be obtained from Prof. Engelbrecht).1324

Coetzer adjusted his drawing in response to the critique, and added modelling, hatching and tone which are further accentuated by new bold outlines (fig. 27.3). He kept the figure composition unchanged but erased the window and the picture frame (although both are still faintly visible) to set the scene inside a tent with supporting tent pole and a view through the open canvas to distant mountains. A longer fringed cloth on the table eliminates the view of men's legs and feet beneath it, and the Boer hat leaning against the table leg has disappeared. The writer's head is given more prominence, while his arms are further foreshortened so that he signs the paper at the bottom. However, Coetzer did not follow up the Historiese Komitee stipulation to introduce more Boers and the portrait features of important Voortrekkers, although he adjusted the dress of the men, and endowed one of the two British figures on the left with a moustache. The trekkers wear traditional short jackets with fewer buttons than the British ones. The man standing next to the signatory on the right is difficult to identify: while his short belted jacket has many buttons, more like the British ones, the form of his beard is in accord with a trekker. The other men on the right definitely seem to be Boers, and the tall one who leans over the table is most likely Pretorius. Perhaps the top hat that rests on the chair next to him was meant to identify him, as he wears it in *Arrival*, *Blood River* and *Mpande*, although ultimately he would not have a hat in *Convention*.

When Kirchhoff made the small clay maquette (fig. 27.4) to create a blueprint for the full-scale relief, he redesigned the figures in Coetzer's pencil drawings substantially, with only Pretorius' position maintained. This is a sole example of one of the sculptors apparently having access to Coetzer's revised drawing rather than the initial design, as Kirchhoff shows the event taking place in front of a tent, not inside a room, the modification required by the Historiese Komitee. Or perhaps Kirchhoff adopted the tent, together with stool and tree, from another Coetzer drawing,

**1324** 'Ondertekening van traktate.

**Figure 27.4:** B2. Peter Kirchhoff. *Convention*. 1942–43. Plaster, 79 × 87 × 9.5 cm. Maquette (courtesy of VTM Museum VTM 2184/1–28; photo Russell Scott)

**Figure 27.5:** C2. *Convention*. 1943–45. Full-scale relief. Clay (courtesy of Kirchhoff files; photo Alan Yates)

'Reconciliation between Potgieter and Pretorius', which Manfred Nathan had published in 1937 (fig. 27.8). The sculptor composes a rather stiff signing ceremony with three more onlookers than Coetzer's drawing for *Convention* and, instead of being inside it, they are staged outside the curtain-like backdrop of an open ridge tent. The table, now with turned legs, is still centred but smaller, the cloth is long but without fringes, and the view, like Coetzer's, is slightly from above so that the document is clearly visible. Now three men are directly involved in the act of signing and distinguished from the other figures as formal dignitaries by their bow ties and long buttoned-up coats, similar to those worn by Boer leaders in *Presentation* and *Inauguration*. Kirchhoff moved the signatory to the right side of the table and hence to profile view, and added a further figure behind him, who wears a top hat and has his hands on the chairback, taking account of the fact that there were two British assistant commissioners. The figure Hennie Potgieter identified as Pretorius (fig. 27.9) stands at the opposite side of the table and leans on it lightly with both hands.

While the dignitaries' dress does not clarify who is Boer or British, the six bystanders are clearly marked by their different attire. Four of them are Boers: all bearded and wearing short Voortrekker jackets, they are grouped with Pretorius, one in profile behind him and the others in a receding row on his left. They are shown in frontal view, two with brimmed hats, and the foremost one with a gun. On the far left are two officers arrayed in the uniform of the Cape Mounted Rifles (see below). Depicted in three-quarter view and facing sternly to the centre, they overlap each other, and the one in front has his left hand on his sword. Behind the officers looms the left half of a tree whose other half occupies the far right of *Return*. Thus Kruger and Kirchhoff, when designing the narrative's last two scenes, considered the continuity of adjacent panels, and employed this tree as a common boundary marker, a unique feature within the iconography of the frieze, and unusual evidence of planning for its continuity at the maquette stage.

There are surprisingly few changes from the maquette to the full-size clay (fig. 27.5). Apart from the general refinement of detail and some additional folds alongside the tent opening, the sculptors made only marginal adjustments: the document on the table is wider and signed lower down; the second Boer from the right is young and has no beard; the length of the muzzleloader is slightly reduced; the trousers of the British officers are buttoned; and the tree branches are more elaborate. Although Hennie Potgieter identified only one life model, for the Englishman on the far right, the figures have generally acquired more distinctive facial features. When the Florentine sculptors copied the scene into marble (fig. 27.1), the lively modelling of faces and fabric in clay was diminished in the formal hardness and micro-crystalline surface of the stone. When the final marble was being installed inside the Monument, the space for it proved to be too small: thus a considerable part of the back of the standing English dignitary had to be trimmed, which resulted in the loss of most of his right leg.

**Figure 27.6:** Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (ZAR) in 1881 (Cachet 1882, foldout map opp. p.330, photo Roy Hessing)

#### **Reading the narrative**

In early 1848 Pretorius had led a large group of trekkers from Pietermaritzburg beyond the borders of the new Orange River Sovereignty (fig. 26.12), established by Governor Sir Harry Smith in early February that year in an ad hoc response to the Boers' departure from Natal. In July a Boer commando led by Pretorius forced the British resident of that sovereignty, Major Warden, and his '57 men, including 16 recruits and 42 others, composed of civilians residing in the village, leaders, drivers, and eight deserters' to leave Bloemfontein, as discussed in *Return*.1325 Smith 'at once offered a reward of £1,000 "for the apprehension of this treacherous rebel Pretorius"',1326 and only a month later, at the end of August, a superior force of eight hundred British regulars under the governor's command defeated Pretorius and his men in the battle of Boomplaats, some eighty kilometres south of Bloemfontein.1327 To secure British interests for the future, Smith instructed Warden, after he was reinstated as resident, now with a force of some 250 men, to build a new rampart called Queen's Fort.1328 The Boers had to retreat and fled north over the Vaal River to the Magaliesberg area, near Hendrik Potgieter's sphere of influence. There Pretorius established his new headquarters, situated near modern Pretoria, where he continued to build a strong following.1329 This domain was the forerunner of the future Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (fig. 27.6).

Pretorius' arrival added fuel to the fire of the old rivalry between the two Voortrekker leaders, Potgieter and Pretorius. Their contention became even more complicated when Potgieter claimed supreme authority over the whole of the Transvaal, although the ultimate power over all political, legal and constitutional affairs remained with the Volksraad or Burgerraad (citizens' council), which he and his people had instated in Potchefstroom four years previously in 1844.1330 The arrival of Pretorius and his followers in the Highveld challenged the existing power structures and strained the relationship between Pretorius, Potgieter and the Volksraad. The majority of the Boers, however, favoured unity over a fragile co-existence of three or four small independent republics, which would only prolong discord. On 23 May 1849 a general meeting of the burghers at Derdepoort in the Magaliesberg resolved that the white inhabitants of the four Transvaal districts should unite, their affairs be administered by one government and the Volksraad be the supreme authority.1331 Subsequently, to avoid further personal conflict, in January 1851 the Volksraad appointed a commandant-general for each of the districts: Pretorius and Potgieter for their adherents in the central and southern regions respectively (the latter also for Soutpansberg in the north), Willem François Joubert (1824–91)1332 for Lydenburg in the east, and Johan Adam Enslin (1800–52)1333 for Marico in the west – a distribution of power that did not, however, resolve the difficulties.1334 First Potgieter and then, once he had withdrawn, Pretorius investigated the prospect of formal independence for the Boers residing north of the Vaal River with Warden and Smith. In October 1851 Pretorius informed Warden that he, with Frederik Gerhardus Wolmarans (1788–1872)1335 and

**1325** Schoeman 1992, 30 (letter from Warden to Smith, 24.6.1848). Dalbiac (1902, 182), however, stated that Warden 'had but 57 men of the Cape Mounted Rifles under his command'.

**1326** Leyds 1906, 70 (quote), 78 (the reward was £1,000, not £2,000 as claimed by Nathan 1937, 338, 378).

**1327** Dalbiac 1902, 182–186; Nathan 1937, 370–377; Oberholster 1972, 214–215 no. 10 (site); Thompson 1975, 143.

**1328** Oberholster 1972, 212–213; Thompson 1975, 144; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s\_Fort\_Military\_ Museum.

**1329** Nathan 1937, 332–334. For the wider context, see Etherington 2001, 315–319; Giliomee 2003, 172–175.

**1330** For the rivalry between Potgieter, Pretorius and the Volksraad, see Nathan (1937, 333–340), Liebenberg (1977, 293–296) and Giliomee (2003, 170–171), while Etherington (2001, 295–299) analyses Potgieter's political, economic and strategic interests in the northern Transvaal.

**1331** Nathan 1937, 333–336.

**1332** Visagie 2011, 246.

**1333** Ibid., 171.

**1334** Theal 1916, 374–375; Nathan 1937, 335–336; Giliomee 2003, 173.

**1335** Visagie 2011, 623.

Nicolaas Johannes Grobbelaar (1812–98),1336 had been empowered by the Boer Council of War (Krygsraad) and the 'people' to proceed to sovereignty and to discuss this subject with the British.1337

Rather unexpectedly, Pretorius' negotiations of the Boers' political requirements were supported by Lord Henry George Grey, the Colonial Secretary in London, who had become increasingly disturbed by Governor Smith's politics in the north of the Colony.1338 Smith's annexation of the Orange River territory, for example, had encouraged both British and Boer to make huge land claims to the consternation of the black peoples who lived in the new sovereignty.1339 Against his own intentions, the governor had also failed to win the trekkers as white allies 'to settle border disputes with African chiefdoms, subjugate Africans into a labour force, and establish commercial relations with the British colonies'.1340 After the bitter defeat of British forces by Chief Moshweshwe's Basotho in the Battle of Viervoet,1341 and the outbreak of the Eighth Frontier War with the Xhosa, both in 1851, the English-language settler newspaper in Bloemfontein, *The Friend*, described the public resentment without reserve: 'We see a war of races … the declared aim and intention of the black man being to drive the white man into the sea.'1342

The British Crown again stepped in. On 7 May 1851 it appointed two special assistant commissioners on behalf of Lord Grey: Major William Samuel Hogge (1812–52) and Charles Mostyn Owen (1818–94), both with considerable previous experience in South Africa.1343 They were sent to the Colony as subordinates of Governor Sir Harry Smith to investigate the affairs in the Orange River Sovereignty, namely 'the occupation of land'.1344 In late November they arrived in Bloemfontein.1345 Still en route from the Eastern Cape, Hogge wrote to his wife Nina (Helen Julia née Magniac) about the parties involved:

Land speculators, combatant missionaries, unreasonable, ignorant, disloyal Dutchmen, black savagism and not a little backyard Englishism are fine ingredients in the cauldron of confusion … The whole state of affairs is going on his [Sir Harry Smith's] personal conduct and mad, arrogant precipitancy.1346

In late November Hogge and Owen arrived in Bloemfontein.1347 Now things happened quickly. On 11 December Hogge and Owen received a letter from Pretorius asking how they could commence negotiations and where the delegations should meet.1348 On 23 December the British commissioners consented to receive an authorised Boer delegation from the Transvaal to reach a formal agreement, and to facilitate this they published the proclamation cancelling the warrant of arrest for Pretorius and the reward of £1,000 offered for his capture after the battle of Boomplaats.1349 The conference was set to take place on 16 January 1852 at the farm 'Kromfontein, Midden-Zandrivier', owned by Petrus Albertus Venter (1790–1858), near the junction of Koolspruit with the

**1336** Ibid., 205.

**1337** Nathan 1937, 336–338.

**1338** Lord Grey confessed in his last letter to Hogge (7 July 1852), which he wrote to him without knowledge of his untimely death about a month earlier: 'I made a great mistake in not recalling Sir H. Smith after the convict business [with Adam Kok, beginning as early as 1848], this might perhaps have averted the calamity which occurred' (Tweed 2013, 105).

**1339** On the land speculation, see Etherington 2001, 315–316; Giliomee 2003, 173–174.

**1340** Ibid., 175.

**1341** Thompson 1976, 152–155; for the topography see Raper, Möller and Du Plessis 2014, 332 (Modderpoort).

**1342** Giliomee 2003, 174.

**1343** For Hogge and Owen, see Tweed 2013.

**1344** Ibid., 40–45 (quote, 40) see also Theal 1916, 324–327.

**1345** Etherington 2001, 319; Tweed 2013, 77–81.

**1346** Schoeman 1992, 105–106.

**1347** Etherington 2001, 319.

**1348** Theal 1916, 372–377.

**1349** Ibid., 373–374; Nathan 1937, 338–339; Tweed 2013, 82–83.

Reading the narrative **591**

**Figure 27.7:** Map showing the site of the Sand River Convention in the Orange Free State (https://mapcarta.com/14261228/Map)

Sand River (fig. 27.7).1350 Some days before the meeting Hogge gave his wife a graphic foretaste of the event, evidently more a festive celebration than a sober arbitration:

such a collection of *Mynheers* from all parts can seldom have been seen in south Africa. It is a pity we have nobody here that can draw as there will be some scenes worthy of the old Dutch masters – two wagons of brandy have already gone to the scene of action …1351

The fifteen Boer delegates, led by Pretorius, arrived in the company of some four hundred trekkers – yet without approval of the Volksraad and Potgieter, and no representative of his people among the delegates.1352 The British turned up with an impressive military entourage:

Major Hogge and Mr. Owen arrived at the place escorted by five lancers, with one hundred men of the 45th [1st Nottinghamshire Regiment] under Captain Parish, supported by thirty-five of the Cape Mounted Rifles and one field piece …1353

There were further visitors to witness the spectacle of this extraordinary conference. Chief Moshweshwe, for example, sent his principal councillor and some attendants, and many of the local traders showed up as well.1354 In the end the two delegations needed no more than a day to come to a mutual agreement, formally recognising the independent Boer republic. The resolutions of the conference were signed on 17 January: for the British by 'Major W. Hogge and C.M. Owen, Esq.,

**1350** Situated at the N1, some 140 kilometres north-east of Bloemfontein (Raper, Möller and Du Plessis 2014, 448). For Venter, see Visagie 2011, 590 (quote).

**1351** Tweed 2013, 83.

**1352** Dalbiac 1902, 192.

**1353** Ibid.; Tweed 2013, 83–84.

**1354** It is difficult to confirm whether Louis Henri Meurant, the founder of the *Grahamstown Journal* (see *Murder*), was present as one of the translators, as has been claimed (http://esat.sun.ac.za/index.php/Louis\_Henri\_Meurant).

Her Majesty's Assistant Commissioners for the settling and adjusting of the affairs of the eastern and north-eastern boundaries of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope'; and for the Boers 'the following deputation from the emigrant farmers residing north of the Vaal River: A.W.J. Pretorius (commandant-general), H.S. Lombard (landdrost [chief magistrate]), W.F. Joubert (commandantgeneral), G.J. Kruger (commandant), J.N. Grobbelaar (raadslid [council member]), P.E. Scholtz, F.G. Wolmarans (ouderling [elder]), J.A. van Aswegen (veld-cornet), F.J. Botes (do.), N.J.S. Basson (do.), J.P. Furstenburg (do.), J.P. Pretorius, J.H. Grobbelaar, J.M. Lehman, P. Schutte, J.C. Kloppers'.1355 In signing, both parties affirmed that

Hogge unexpectedly died on 11 June 1852, just five months after having signed the convention.1357 In the last letter to his wife Helen Julia (née Magniac) on 27 May, his outlook on South Africa's future was rather grim:

**1355** For the convention, see Theal 1916, 374–379; Nathan 1937, 336–342; Thompson 1975, 156; Etherington 2001, 319; Giliomee 2003, 175.

**1356** Eybers 1918, 357–359 no. 177; Tweed 2013, 85 fig. 15 (confidential copy of the convention, 'Printed for the use of the Cabinet, October 6, 1881'); https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Sand\_River\_Convention.

**1357** Tweed (2013, 102–112) provides a detailed narrative of Hogge's last months. The inscription of his 1852 memorial was copied in 2013, when family relatives commissioned a new granite slab in place of the old headstone. Hugh Tweed, who reports about the Anglican Church 'service of rededication of the grave' on 29 April, concluded (ibid., 122):

**Figure 27.8:** W.H. Coetzer. 'Reconciliation between Potgieter and Pretorius' (Nathan 1937, opp. p.340)

That this wretched country composed of the heterogeneous material it is should ever become permanently quiet is impossible – but at least we will endeavour to come to a clear understanding about the inhabitants as to the share of the burden they will take upon their shoulders for poor John Bull cannot afford to be the Don Quixote of South Africa any longer.1358

When Lord Grey lamented Hogge's untimely death in a letter reporting to the former prime minister, Lord John Russell, on the Cape Colony, he praised the assistant commissioner's 'public service [as being] of the very highest importance', and continued with a more positive prospect:

… the prevention of a new war in the Orange River Sovereignty, at a time when it must have led to the most calamitous consequences, is mainly owing to his exertions, and to the sound judgement he showed in circumstances of no ordinary difficulty; and I believe almost the last act of his life was to conclude an arrangement, calculated to secure the peace of that part of Africa.1359

Although neither the Volksraad nor Potgieter had authorised Pretorius and the other delegates to sign such a convention, in the end there was hardly any opposition as the Boers, by now some twenty thousand, recognised how vital the Sand River Convention was for their future, in founding a co-operative and independent republic of Transvaal.1360 Potgieter and Pretorius made their peace on 16 March 1852, a significant event originally intended for inclusion in the frieze, but ultimately excluded, although Coetzer made an independent sketch of the scene (fig. 27.8). On the same day the Volksraad ratified the convention, 'almost without a dissentient'.1361 On 24 June Sir John Pakington, the new British Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, signified 'his approval of the convention and of the proclamation giving effect to it'.1362 It is interesting to note that the longest paragraph of the convention specifies the regulations and restrictions related to trading ammunition and firearms, while other crucial issues, such as the prohibition of slavery and the annulment

**1360** For the number of burghers, see Giliomee 2003, 175.

'After 161 years, William Samuel's memory was rekindled and should, *Deo volente*, endure for at least another century and a half.'

**1358** Schoeman 1992, 107.

**1359** Grey 1853, 245–246; Tweed 2013, 111.

**1361** Nathan 1937, 339–340.

**1362** Theal 1916, 379.

**Figure 27.9:** Models for portraits (Potgieter 1987, 39)

of all former treaties between the Colony and the 'coloured nations' north of the Vaal River, are brief and have no further subtext.

In 1853, shortly after the deaths of both Potgieter and Pretorius, the Volksraad decided to establish a new district, out of portions of Lydenburg and Rustenburg, with a new centre, to be called Pretoria in memory of Andries Pretorius.1363 Later that year the Volksraad resolved that the name of the new Voortrekker republic should be 'The South African Republic, north of the Vaal River' (after 1857 Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek).1364 And only a few months later, on 30 January 1854, by signing the Bloemfontein Convention, the British Crown also renounced all dominion and sovereignty over the territory between the Orange and Vaal rivers, by then the home of some fifteen thousand burghers.1365 This paved the way for recognition of the second independent Boer republic, named the 'Orange Free State' (*Oranje-Vrijstaat)*, in 1854, though Giliomee remarks that the 'two new republics were states in little more than name'.1366

As Moerdyk has it, by the signing of the Sand River Convention 'the Great Trek had reached its logical conclusion'.1367 This was only true for the Transvaal trekkers, however, not yet those south of the Vaal River, although early suggestions for topics for the frieze had included both the 1852 and the 1854 conventions.1368 And, under the terms of both, black people remained utterly disadvantaged. Despite British uneasiness about the Boer treatment of Africans, Hogge showed that he shared some of their prejudices when he wrote to his wife in the same letter we quoted above:

… the Black gentlemen are fighting amongst themselves which is the best amusement for them, unluckily they take very good care not to hurt each other much 'for hawks will not pick out hawks' eyes'.1369