While Guy reveals the continuity of military tactics and practices of the Zulu, there are missing aspects to his overview. One of these is the role and use of firearms by the Zulu. From his account it is clear that firearms were not employed as military technology by the Zulu at this time. The obvious question is why? Did Zulu warriors deliberately avoid using firearms? If so, what reasons were behind the Zulu not adopting guns or firearms? Or was it more a question of control? Did the colonial authorities seek to ensure that the African populations were deprived of access and ownership of firearms? If so, what were the processes of control, deprivation and confiscation, and how effective were they? Surely, throughout their contact and conflict with colonial forces throughout the nineteenth century, the Zulu would have learnt from their experiences of engaging with an enemy armed with firearm

ependent on imported parts and cartridges’. 14 The trade musket was more suited to hunting or crop protection, rather than military uses such as slave raiding and capture. Richards and Northrup also show that large quantities of cheap industrial firearms were produced and traded into Africa; the Bonny gun and the Angola gun being two prime examples. This not only demonstrates the demand for cheap firearms, but also the ‘subtleties and interregional differences of African demand’. 15 As Northrup stated:

Another reason why the cheaper arms would have been more sought after by African populations is that many of them could be repaired in situ by their owners. Many of the more expensive and modern weapons were machine-made and so difficult for owners to mend or maintain. The cheap muskets made for Africans could be repaired by the owner or local African gunsmith. In many of the regions where firearms became an important feature of local life, blacksmiths and gunsmiths proved vital service industries. 20 Africa may not have had an armaments industry of its own, but there was definitely a lively small-scale firearm repair and service industry, the history of which has yet to be written.

Furthermore, there are a number of other aspects of the firearm trade that remain largely untold

All things considered, the history of firearms in Africa should still be seen as an exciting field of study

l. Relying on colonial descriptions of African peoples of the region, they characterized the Khoisan and Griqua as skilled with weapons, a facility that enabled them to resist colonialism for a while. The Xhosa were both good and bad marksmen, while the Mfengu were skilled and dangerous. The Sotho were "indifferently armed and were poor shots" before the 1870s, when they became "crack marksmen." The Zulu never integrated firearms completely into their military tactics, but by the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 some Zulu shot well because, according to a British government source, they had received instruction from redcoat deserters.4

l. Relying on colonial descriptions of African peoples of the region, they characterized the Khoisan and Griqua as skilled with weapons, a facility that enabled them to resist colonialism for a while. The Xhosa were both good and bad marksmen, while the Mfengu were skilled and dangerous. The Sotho were "indifferently armed and were poor shots" before the 1870s, when they became "crack marksmen." The Zulu never integrated firearms completely into their military tactics, but by the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 some Zulu shot well because, according to a British government source, they had received instruction from redcoat deserters.4

The Comaroffs' approach offers a good starting point from which to investigate what everyday practice meant, ideologically, with respect to firearms - carrying them, caring for them, storing them, not to mention hunting and fighting with them. It happens that skills with guns and the perceived and real links to political power weapons and skills conferred were debated extensively in southern Africa in the nineteenth century. Everyday practice as it related to firearms, as well as the representation of everyday practice, was highly ideological, as may be seen in the efforts of those who wished to regulate the spread of guns. Nineteenth-century settler politicians often made highly politicized claims about skill and

e much-sought-after elephant, fostered a preference for large-caliber weapons. By the eighteenth century a distinct local pattern of firearms design had begun to emerge, which can be understood as a technological response to the region's ecology and economy. Local settlers mainly used military-style flintlocks, similar to the British Brown Bess, or another and even larger type of musket. The earliest examples of the latter, dating from the eighteenth century, were made in the Netherlands for export to the Cape. Some were "four-bore," 1.052-caliber (26.72-millimeter) muskets that fired a four-ounce ball, and others were "eight-bore," .835-caliber (21.2 millimeter) muskets firing a two-ounce ball. They could be charged with as much as 14 drams (0.875 ounces) of powder, in contrast to the .75-caliber Brown Bess, which fired a 1.45-ounce ball using less powder. A .75-caliber m

weapons. By the eighteenth century a distinct local pattern of firearms design had begun to emerge, which can be understood as a technological response to the region's ecology and economy. Local settlers mainly used military-style flintlocks, similar to the British Brown Bess, or another and even larger type of musket. The earliest examples of the latter, dating from the eighteenth century, were made in the Netherlands for export to the Cape. Some were "four-bore," 1.052-caliber (26.72-millimeter) muskets that fired a four-ounce ball, and others were "eight-bore," .835-caliber (21.2 millimeter) muskets firing a two-ounce ball. They could be charged with as much as 14 drams (0.875 ounces) of powder, in contrast to the .75-caliber Brown Bess, which fired a 1.45-ounce ball using less powder. A .75-caliber musket could kill an elephant at short range with a well-placed shot, but the larger muskets fired a heavier, more destructive ball, and were made specifically for hunting elephants and other big-game animals.18

port complete guns from Britain.19 Hunting guns occupied a special niche in colonial southern African culture. They came to be known affectionately as sanna, a word derived from the Dutch snaphaan (snaphaunce, an early type of flintlock) and were also called roer, a Dutch word for gun derived perhaps from the sound of a gunshot. Their

saddle. At first, 44-inch barrels were popular because hunters liked to stop the horse, lean over the saddle, and rest the stock on the ground while loading. But a gun with such a long barrel can be awkward to manipulate on horseback, which is why cavalrymen preferred carbines and pistols. Later, as it became clear that shorter guns could be sufficiently powerful, mounted hunters also came to prefer them. In southern Africa the trigger mechanism was also adapted to riding: many African muskets required a heavy pull on the trigger to prevent accidental discharge during a fall from a horse.22 22. Lategan, 524-25. Tylden

Even so, by the 1880s rural settlement was proceeding apace, and game animals were growing scarce. Young Boer men relied less on their guns to earn a living and therefore practiced less. The old percussion-lock muskets and rifles gradually lost their appeal. Though they remained less expensive to own and easier to repair, they also required more skill to use effectively than modern breechloaders. With a large-bore muzzle loader, every shot could be adjusted to the circumstances, but every shot had to count: guns had to be fired at close range, and it took so long to reload that a missed shot could result in the shooter being gored or trampled by the qu

Taking the links between projectile weapons and rain-control, in indigenous southern African epistemology, into account (Sinclair-Thomson and Challis 2017), I suggest that the painting of firearms in rock art was another form of control, one which sought, by incorporating new material culture into existing epistemologies, to either ensure, or defend against the effects of gunfire.