Weenen massacre

The Weenen Massacre, also known as the Bloukrans Massacre, was a series of coordinated attacks by Zulu forces under King Dingane on Voortrekker encampments in Natal, present-day South Africa, on 17–18 February 1838. Following the killing of Voortrekker leader Piet Retief and his delegation at Dingane’s royal kraal, uMgungundlovu, on 6 February 1838, approximately 500 Voortrekkers and their servants, including 185 children and 56 women, were killed across sites at Doringkop, Bloukrans, Moordspruit, Rensburgspruit, and Weenen.^[1][2] A pivotal event in the Great Trek, the massacre escalated conflict between the Voortrekkers and the Zulu, leading to the Battle of Blood River in December 1838.^[3][4]

Weenen massacre
Part of the Great Trek
Depiction of a Zulu attack on a Boer camp in February 1838. The Weenen Massacre was the massacre of Voortrekkers by the Zulu impis.
Location	Doringkop, Bloukrans River, Moordspruit, Rensburgspruit and other sites around present the day town of Weenen in South Africa
Date	17 February 1838
Deaths	~532 Voortrekkers
Injured	Unknown
Perpetrators	Impis of Dingane kaSenzangakhona King of the Zulu

Voortrekker accounts allege a calculated betrayal, claiming Dingane used deceptive negotiations to lure and eliminate Retief’s party, while Zulu oral traditions depict the attacks as a defensive response to Voortrekker encroachment.^[5][6]

Background

The Weenen Massacre occurred during the Great Trek, a migration of Dutch-speaking Voortrekkers from the Cape Colony into southern Africa’s interior in the 1830s. Driven by dissatisfaction with British colonial policies, including the abolition of slavery and land restrictions, the Voortrekkers sought independent settlements in Natal, controlled by the Zulu kingdom under King Dingane, who succeeded Shaka in 1828.^[7][4] Dingane faced internal challenges, including rivalries with his brother Mpande, and external pressures from rival chiefdoms and European expansion, shaping his response to the Voortrekkers.^[8][6]

Marble relief from the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria, depicting scenes from the Great Trek.

In 1837, Voortrekker leader Piet Retief led a group into Natal, aiming to establish a Boer republic. The Zulu, aware of the Voortrekkers’ military strength and territorial ambitions, viewed their presence as a threat to their sovereignty.^[9] These tensions precipitated negotiations that culminated in the massacre.

Retief-Dingane negotiations

In October 1837, Retief met Dingane at uMgungundlovu to negotiate land rights south of the Tugela River. Voortrekker sources claim Dingane agreed to cede land if Retief recovered cattle stolen by Sekonyela, leader of the Batlokoa.^[10][11] Retief’s party retrieved the cattle and returned on 3 February 1838. On 6 February, Dingane invited Retief and approximately 70 men to a ceremonial dance, requesting they leave their weapons outside as a gesture of trust.^[3][12]

Voortrekker accounts, including Anna Steenkamp’s diary and G.S. Preller’s collections, describe this as a deliberate ruse, alleging Dingane used the cattle recovery as a pretext to disarm and kill Retief’s party, constituting a calculated betrayal.^[13][14][11] Early histories by George McCall Theal and British sources, such as *The Westminster Review*, support this, noting Dingane’s invitation as a strategic deception.^[10][15] Conversely, Zulu oral traditions, as recorded by Carolyn Hamilton and Shalo Mbatha, frame the killings as a defensive response to Voortrekker expansion, which threatened Zulu sovereignty.^[16][6] John Laband suggests Dingane’s actions were driven by internal pressures, including rivalries with Mpande, and the need to assert control against external threats.^[17][18] Norman Etherington argues that while the disarming tactic lends credence to betrayal claims, Dingane’s broader motives were to preserve Zulu autonomy.^[9][19]

Events of the massacre

On 6 February 1838, during a diplomatic ceremony at uMgungundlovu, Zulu king Dingane, wary of Voortrekker intentions, reportedly shouted “Bulalani abathakathi!” (“Kill the wizards!”), signalling his warriors to attack. Piet Retief, his son, approximately 70 Voortrekkers, and 30 Khoikhoi and Basuto allies and servants were killed, their bodies left on KwaMatiwane hill, a site symbolising Zulu retaliation.^[20][21]

King Dingane ordering the execution of Piet Retief and his Boer delegation with the command Bulalani abathakathi ("Kill the magicians"). Artwork by Richard Caton Woodville Jr., 1897.

Following this, Dingane ordered attacks on Voortrekker laagers (wagon encampments) along the Bushman’s and Bloukrans rivers on 17–18 February 1838, targeting their dispersed positions. Zulu impis (military units) struck settlements at Doringkop, Bloukrans, Moordspruit, Rensburgspruit, and Weenen, killing approximately 500 people.^[1][22] Using coordinated night tactics, the Zulu forces overwhelmed most encampments.^[17][11] Some families, such as the Bezuidenhouts, escaped to higher ground, their accounts later recorded by Voortrekker chroniclers.^[7][23][24] The settlement of Weenen, meaning “weeping” in Dutch, was named in memory of the tragedy.^[25][26]

The Bloukrans Memorial commemorating the death of the Boers trekkers during the massacre.

Casualties and victims

The Weenen massacre resulted in an estimated 532 deaths, one of the deadliest events of the Great Trek. Historical estimates, based on Voortrekker records, indicate 185 children, 56 women, 41 men, and 250 Khoikhoi and Basuto allies, retainers, or wagon drivers were killed.^[1][10][9] These figures, drawn from survivor testimonies and burial records, remain approximate due to the destruction of some encampments.^[9]

The loss of children and civilians became a cornerstone of Voortrekker remembrance, shaping Afrikaner identity. Survivor accounts, such as Anna Steenkamp’s diary, describe devastating violence, fuelling narratives of persecution and justifying later conflicts like the Battle of Blood River.^[13][7] Modern historians, including John Laband and Carolyn Hamilton, emphasise the often-overlooked Khoikhoi and Basuto victims, integral to Voortrekker communities but marginalised in early records.^[1][16]

While the death toll is widely accepted, its interpretation varies. Zulu oral traditions frame the attacks as a defence against settler expansion, reflecting disputes over land and sovereignty.^[16]

Aftermath

The massacre galvanised the Voortrekkers, who rallied under Andries Pretorius. On 16 December 1838, they defeated Dingane’s forces at the Battle of Blood River, securing Natal for the Natalia Republic.^[3][27]

The massacre entrenched Boer narratives of Zulu treachery, shaping Afrikaner identity and justifying retaliatory campaigns.^[7][11][28] British observers, as noted in *MacMillan’s Magazine*, viewed the massacre as evidence of Zulu aggression, influencing colonial policies in Natal.^[19][22]

For the Zulu, the massacre and Blood River weakened Dingane’s authority, leading to his overthrow by Mpande in 1840.^[16][6][17] The event strained Zulu-Boer relations, contributing to long-term regional tensions.^[9][29]

Historiography and interpretations

Voortrekker and early colonial perspectives

Voortrekker accounts, such as Anna Steenkamp’s diary and G.S. Preller’s collections, portray the massacre as a calculated betrayal, emphasising Dingane’s deceptive tactics in disarming Retief’s party.^[13][23][11] George McCall Theal and British sources like *The Westminster Review* reinforce this, describing Dingane’s invitation as a premeditated trap.^[10][15] These narratives, prevalent in 19th-century accounts, framed the Zulu as treacherous to justify Boer and British colonial expansion.^[30][19]

Zulu and modern scholarly perspectives

Modern historians offer nuanced interpretations. John Laband argues that Dingane’s actions were a strategic response to the Voortrekkers’ military and territorial ambitions, driven by internal rivalries and external pressures.^[17] Carolyn Hamilton and Shalo Mbatha, drawing on Zulu oral traditions, suggest Dingane viewed the Voortrekkers as invaders, justifying the attacks as a defence of his kingdom.^[16][6][18] James Stuart’s analysis of Zulu governance highlights Dingane’s need to assert control amidst challenges like Mpande’s rivalry.^[31] Norman Etherington notes that while the disarming tactic supports the betrayal narrative, Dingane’s motives were rooted in preserving Zulu autonomy.^[9] The scarcity of contemporary Zulu written records complicates definitive conclusions.^[3]

International and critical perspectives

The massacre resonated globally. British periodicals like *The Westminster Review* and *MacMillan’s Magazine* framed it as evidence of Zulu hostility, shaping colonial attitudes.^[15][19] A Chinese-language history of South Africa highlights the massacre as a key event in the Great Trek, illustrating its international significance.^[32] The South African Communist Party’s analysis frames the massacre within colonial oppression, critiquing Voortrekker expansion as a driver of conflict.^[33] These perspectives underscore the massacre’s role in shaping global and critical narratives.^[34]

Recent scholarship seeks to balance these views. Scholars like Etherington, Hamilton, and Mbatha emphasise contextualising the massacre within colonial encroachment and indigenous resistance, critiquing the betrayal narrative for reflecting colonial biases.^[9][6][35]

Legacy

The Weenen Massacre is commemorated through memorials like the Bloukrans Monument, the town of Weenen, and the Weenen Museum, which preserves Voortrekker artefacts.^{[26][29][36][37]} In Afrikaner tradition, it symbolises resilience and persecution, a view reinforced by modern scholarship on Afrikaner identity.^[28][38] Post-apartheid scholarship and education seek to reconcile settler and indigenous narratives, framing the massacre as a complex clash of colonial and Zulu interests.^[7][6][29] The event remains a key topic in South African curricula, reflecting its enduring significance.^[29][24]

See also

• List of massacres in South Africa