documents, which is the only one among them comprising the whole history
of Bórnu, and which therefore forms the basis of our tables. The most
momentous question is,—upon what authority this document rests, and when
it was compiled. As for the first point, I have been assured by Shitíma
Makarémma (a man intimately connected with the old dynasty, who made the
two copies for me, and of whom some notice will be found in my journal)
that it is a mere extract from a more voluminous work, which he
represented as still existing, but which I was unable to procure, as it
is carefully concealed. The whole business of collecting documents and
information relative to the history of the old dynasty was most
difficult, and demanded much discretion, as the new dynasty of the
Kánemíyín endeavours to obliterate as much as possible the memory of the
old Kanúri dynasty, and has assiduously destroyed all its records
wherever they could be laid hold of.
As regards the time when the chronicle, of which the manuscript in
question is a very meagre and incorrect abridgment, was written, it is
stated that the various parts of it were composed at different times, at
the beginning of every new reign; and the question is, when the Kanúri
people, or rather their ʿulama, began to commit to writing the most
important facts of their history. This question we are fortunately
enabled, from Imám Ahmed’s work, to answer satisfactorily; namely, that
there existed no written record whatever of the history of his country
previous to the king Edrís Katakarmábi, whose reign falls in the first
half of the sixteenth century of our era. For when that writer refers to
facts of the older history, he is only able to cite as his authority
oral information received from old men versed in historical tradition;
and he evidently mentions as the oldest author of a written history, the
fákih Masfárma ʿOmár ben ʿOthmán, who wrote the history of the king in
question.
The annals, therefore, of the time preceding the period of this king and
of his predecessor ʿAli Gajidéni, appear to be based entirely upon oral
information, and cannot but be liable to a certain degree of inaccuracy
as to the actions attributed to each king, the length of their
respective reigns, and even the order of succession, where it was not
dependent on genealogy or descent. For it would be the extreme of
hypercriticism to deny that the royal family of Bórnu, in the middle of
the 16th century, could not or may not justly be supposed to have
preserved with great precision their line of descent for fifteen or
twenty generations; and in this respect the chronicle No. 1. is entirely
confirmed and borne out by Imám Ahmed, who, in the introduction to his
History, gives the pedigree of his master Edrís Alawóma up to his first
royal ancestor, while the difference in the form of the names, and one
slight variance in the order of succession, as given by these two
documents, is a plain proof that they have not been borrowed from each
other, but have been based on independent authorities.
The disagreement in question is certainly a remarkable one; but it is
easily explained. For Makrízi, in harmony with the extract from the
chronicle, names the father of the kings Edrís and Dáud (whose reign he
places about the year 700 of the Hejra), Ibrahím, while Imám Áhmed calls
them sons of Nikále son of Ibrahím; and this is the general statement of
the natives of the country even at the present time, every educated man
knowing “Dáúd tata Nikálebe,” or Dáúd Nikálemi. The fact is, that the
name Bíri, which the chronicle attributes to the father of Ibrahím the
grandfather of Edrís and Dáúd, being a variation of the form Bíram, is
identical with Ibrahím; whence it appears that Nikále was another name
of Ibrahím the son of Bíri. The same is the case with regard to the
names Áhmed and Dúnama, which are identical, if not with regard to their
meanings, at least with regard to their applications, as well as the
names Sélma or Sélmama and ʿAbd el Jelíl.
This general harmony between the pedigree of the Bórnu kings as given by
the chronicle No. 1. and the Imám Áhmed, a learned and clever man in a
high position, and in constant connection with the court, is, I think,
very satisfactory, and the more so if we take into consideration that,
from a reason which I shall soon mention, and which at the same time is
a strong argument in favour of the authenticity of these two documents,
the pedigree as given by them is not the only one current in Bórnu, but
the line of descent and succession varies greatly in one of the two
other short chronicles which are mentioned in No. 2., while the third
one, which does not appear to make any pretensions to completeness,
cannot be taken into account here. Hence, as far as regards the line of
descent or succession, I have not thought these two lists worthy of
attention, except only with regard to the reign following that of the
58th king, if we count the reign of the usurper Sʿaíd ʿAlí, the son of
Háj ʿOmár. For here the chronicle No. 1. has omitted, by mistake or
negligence, the well-established reign of Edrís ben ʿAlí, who,
succeeding to his father ʿAlí, preceded his younger brother Dúnama ben
ʿAlí, and reigned 20 years.[54]
What I have here said with regard to the authenticity of the chronicle
refers only to the line of descent and succession of the kings
mentioned; but, of course, it is quite another question, if we take into
view the length of time attributed to the reign of each succeeding king.
But even here the dates of the chronicle are confirmed in a most
surprising and satisfactory manner by the history of Imám Áhmed, who, in
relating the successful expedition of Edrís Áʿaishámi to Kánem, states
that from the time when Dáúd Nikálemi was obliged to leave his capital
Njímiye, down to the period when Edrís made his entrance into it, 122
years had elapsed. Now, according to the dates of the chronicle, between
the end of the reign of Dáúd and the beginning of the reign of Edrís,
who is expressly stated by the historian to have undertaken that
expedition in the first year of his reign, there intervened exactly 121
years. And indeed we see from the Imám’s account, that most people
thought this was the real length of the period, and not 122 years; so
well were the educated inhabitants of Bórnu at that time acquainted with
the history of their country. Perhaps also Imám Áhmed wishes here to
refute Masfárma, the historian of Edrís Áʿaishámi, who adhered to the
general opinion.
Unfortunately, the length of the several reigns is our only guide with
regard to the chronology of this history, as neither the chronicle nor
even Imám Áhmed specifies particular years with reference to any of the
events which they mention. This is indeed a very great defect, not so
apparent in the dry chronicle as in the account of the learned priest;
and it seems almost inconceivable, as he is very particular, not only
with regard to seasons, but even to months and days, mentioning with
great exactness on what day of the month his master did so and so, and
even disputing, in this respect, slight variations of opinion. If he had
only given us the date of a single year, we should be much better off as
to the chronology of the history of Bórnu. As it is, if we put out of
account other chronological data which we are fortunately in possession
of, in order to reduce to chronology the events mentioned by the
chronicle, we can only reckon backwards the number of years attributed
by it to the reign of each successive king, commencing from the death of
Sultan Dúnama, who in the year A.H. 1233 was killed in the battle at
Ngála (written “Ghála” in Arabic, but called “Angala” by the members of
the former expedition).[55]
If we now count together the years attributed to each reign, proceeding
in a backward order, and beginning with the end of the year H. 1233, we
obtain, in an inverse order, the following chronological dates for the
more important periods of the history of Bórnu.
A.H. A.D.
Beginning of the reign of Ayúma 391 1000, 1
Beginning of the reign of Humé, the first 479 1086
Moslim king
Reign of Dúnama Díbalámi, the warlike and 618-658 1221-1259, 60
daring king who spoiled the talisman of Bórnu
Beginning of the reign of Ibrahím Nikálemi 707 1307
Beginning of the reign of Edrís ben Ibrahím 754 1353
End of the reign of Dáúd, who succumbed to 789 1387
the Bulála
End of the reign of ʿOthmán ben Edrís 795 1392, 3
The reign of ʿOmár, who abandoned his 796-799 1393-1396
residence in Kánem altogether, ceding it to
the Bulála
Beginning of the reign of ʿAlí Dúnamámi 877 1472
Beginning of the reign of Edrís Katarkamábi 911 1505
Beginning of the reign of Edrís Alawóma 980 1572
Beginning of the reign of Háj ʿOmár 1036 1626, 7
Beginning of the reign of ʿAlí ben Háj ʿOmár 1055 1645
Having obtained these dates, we have first to observe that to fill up
the period from Ayúma to Dhu Yazan, the presumed ancestor of the Séfuwa,
and even known as such to Abú ’l Fedá as well as to Makrízi, and whose
age (as being that of a man who predicted the coming of the prophet) is
fixed beyond all doubt, only six generations are left. This is the
circumstance which I mentioned above as speaking greatly in favour of
the authenticity of this chronicle and its genealogies, even with regard
to the more remote times. For if it had not been necessary to preserve
scrupulously a well-established line of succession, how easy would it
have been to introduce a few more individuals in order to fill up this
blank, as has been done in the other list (_b_), instead of admitting
the palpable nonsense of attributing to the two oldest kings a reign of
from 250 to 300 years. Even Séf and Ibrahím, the first two princes of
the line, are, I think, quite historical persons, whose existence was so
well established that a conscientious chronicler could not change
anything in the number of years attributed to the length of their
reigns.
Following, therefore, the hints given to us by the chronicle itself, we
fix the foundation of the dynasty of the Séfuwa in Kánem about the
middle of the third century after Mohammed, or a little before the year
900 of our era. We shall afterwards return to this circumstance.
Now we shall first see how triumphantly the authenticity of the
chronicle is confirmed in every respect by the occasional remarks made
by Makrízi and Ebn Batúta with regard to the history of Bórnu.
Unfortunately, the oldest date which Makrízi (on the authority, as it
would seem, of Ébn Sʿaíd) mentions with regard to Kánem[56], namely, an
expedition made by its king into the fertile districts of Mábiná in the
year H. 650, cannot be used as a sufficient test of the authenticity of
the chronicle, as the historian does not mention the name of the king;
but the deed itself harmonizes exceedingly well with the warlike and
enterprising character of Dúnama Díbalámi, whose reign, according to our
chronicle, falls between the years 618 and 658. Just the same is to be
said of the fact mentioned by Ébn Khaldún, who, in his valuable history
of the Berbers, which has been recently made accessible to all,
relates[57] the interesting fact that, among other valuable presents, a
giraffe was sent by the king of Kánem (to whom even at that early date
he gives the title of “master of Bórnu”) to Abú ʿAbd-Allah el Mostánser
the king of Tunis, in the year of the Hejra 655. The same historian, in
another passage of his work, referring to the year 656, mentions again
the king of Kánem as having caused the death of a son of Kárakosh el
Ghozzi el Modáfferi, the well-known adventurous chieftain who had tried
to establish himself in Wadán.[58]
But fortunately we have other data which afford us a very fair test.
According to Makrízi[59], not long after the close of the seventh
century of the Hejra (fi hedúd sennet sebʿa mayet), the king of Kánem
was Háj Ibrahím; after him reigned his son, el Háj Edrís—the historian
does not say expressly that he immediately succeeded his father; then
Dáúd, the brother of Edrís, and another son of Ibrahím; then ʿOmár, the
son of Dáúd’s elder brother Háj Edrís; and then ʿOthmán, the brother of
the former, and another son of Edrís. Makrízi adds that this last-named
king reigned shortly before A.H. 800; and then he states that the
inhabitants of Kánem revolted against the successors of Ibrahím, and
made themselves independent, but that Bórnu remained their kingdom.
All these dates given by Makrízi, as may be seen from the few most
important events which I have extracted from the chronicle, are in most
surprising harmony with the information conveyed in a dry and sterile
but uncorrupted way by the latter. Notwithstanding the slight
discrepancy in the order of succession of the later kings, whose reign
was of very short duration, and whose relationship is rather perplexing,
is it possible to find a harmony more complete than this, if we take
into consideration the only way in which Makrízi could have obtained his
information, that is to say, from merchants or pilgrims visiting Egypt
on their way to Mekka?[60]
We now come to Ébn Batúta; and we again find the same surprising harmony
between the fact regarding Bórnu, as mentioned by him, and the dates of
the chronicle. The famous and enterprising traveller of Tangiers, on his
return-journey from his visit to Western Sudán, left the capital of
Mélle or Máli (that is, Mungo Park’s Jára) the 22nd of Moharrem, 754,
and, proceeding by way of Timbúktu or Túmbutu, and thence down the Ísa
or Niger to Gágho or Gógo, and thence to Tekádda[61], in speaking about
the copper found in the mines near this town, relates that the bars made
of it were exported to Góber and Rágha (or rather Ragháy), and also to
Bórnu, and then adds the interesting fact that the name of the ruling
king of the latter country was Edrís.
Now, if we follow implicitly the dates of the chronicle, Edrís ben
Ibrahím (Nikále) ascended the throne in that very year (753) when,
according to this precious and unimpeachable testimony of the
illustrious and intelligent traveller, he actually occupied the throne.
The very remarkable and really surprising harmony here shown to exist
between the chronicle and the dates which have come to our knowledge
from other sources, will, I hope, give to any unprejudiced mind some
degree of confidence in the authenticity of that document, and will make
him aware of its superiority over the information of a man like Leo
Africanus, or rather Hasen Ebn Mohammed el Wasás, who, though he
undoubtedly has, and will always have, the merit of having given to
Europe a clear general view of the political and linguistic groups of
Central Africa, yet, on account of the manner in which his report was
drawn up (merely from memory, after the lapse of many years), cannot be
a decisive authority on any special circumstance. Hence, when he states
that the name of the king of Bórnu, at the time when he visited the
country, was Abraham (Ibrahím), we may confidently assume that he is
wrong, and that he speaks of the illustrious conqueror ʿAlí ben Dúnama,
who restored peace and glory to that distracted country, and, on account
of his warlike character and his various expeditions, obtained the
surname el Gházi. I shall return to this subject in the chronological
table, in speaking of the reign of ʿAlí ben Dúnama.
As for the document mentioned above as No. 5., it contains a few
valuable dates with regard to those Bórnu kings who reigned near the
time when the author obtained his information in Tripoli, while for the
older times, about which the people could only inform him “_par
tradition de leurs pères_” his information is of little value. The most
important dates which it contains are those which have reference to the
time of the accession to the throne of the three Bórnu kings, ʿAbd-Allah
ben Dúnama, Háj ʿOmár, and Háj ʿAlí; and these vary but little from the
dates computed from the chronicle, and serve therefore to confirm its
accuracy.
However, it is not my design to vindicate this chronicle from all
possibility of error; but my object is to show that its general
character, dry and meagre as it is, has the strongest claim to
authenticity. Indeed I am sure that it can be fully relied upon, all
uncertainty being reduced to a space of one or two years; I may
therefore be allowed to assert that the chronological table, which I
shall give in the Appendix, is something more than a mere fairy tale.
But in this place, I think it well to offer a few general remarks on the
characteristic features of the history of Bórnu.
I have first to speak of the origin of the Séfuwa or Dúguwa. We have
already seen that the chronology of the Bórnu people, if palpable
absurdities be left out of consideration, does not carry their history
further down than the latter half of the ninth century of our era.
Accordingly there can be no further question as to whether Séf was
really the son of the celebrated Dhu Yazan, and identical with Séf Dhu
Yazan, the last native ruler of the Himyaritic kingdom, who celebrated
his accession to the throne in the famous castle of Gumdán, and with the
assistance of Khosru Parvis liberated Yeman from the dominion of the
Abyssinians. I frankly confess that, while Ibrahím the son of Séf, as
“father of the king” (as he appears to have been entitled occasionally),
seems to me to have a really historical character, I entertain sincere
doubts whether Séf be not a mere imaginary personage, introduced into
the pedigree expressly in order to connect it with Yeman. Indeed, in one
short list of Bórnu kings which I possess, several princes are mentioned
before Séf, whose names, such as Futírmi, Hálar Sukayámi, Halármi,
Bunúmi, Rizálmi, Mairími, have quite a Kanúri character. As the reader
will see, I do not at all doubt of some connection existing between the
ruling family of Bórnu and the Himyaritic or Kushitic stock; but I doubt
its immediate descent from the royal Himyaritic family.
But be this as it may, I think that Leo Africanus, who is a very good
authority for general relations, is right in stating that the kings of
Bórnu originated from the Libyan tribe of the Bardoa, a tribe also
mentioned by Makrízi as Berdʿoa. That there is an ethnological
connection between the names Bérnu or Bórnu, Bórgu, Berdʿoa, Berdáma,
Berauni, Berber, can scarcely be doubted; but to many the Berdʿoa might
seem to have nearer relation with the Tedá or Tébu than with the real
Berber or Mazígh. Sultan Béllo certainly, in the introduction to his
history of the conquests of the Fúlbe, expressly says that the Bórnu
dynasty was of Berber origin; and it is on this account that the Háusa
people call every Bórnu man “ba-Bérberche,”[62] and the Bórnu nation
“Bérbere.” This view of the subject is confirmed by the distinct
statement of Makrízi[63], who says that that was the common tradition of
the people at his time—“it is said that they are descended from the
Berbers,”—and moreover in another passage[64] informs us that the king
of Kánem was a nomade, or wanderer; although it seems that this
statement refers properly to the Bulála dynasty.
Before the time of Sélma, or Sélmama, the son of Bíkoru, whose reign
began about A.H. 581, the kings are stated by the chronicle to have been
of a red complexion[65], like the Arabs; and to such an origin from the
red race, the Syrian-Berber stock, is certainly to be referred their
custom of covering the face and never showing the mouth, to which custom
Ébn Batúta adverts in speaking of King Edrís, who ruled in his time. To
this origin is also to be referred the custom, till recently practised,
of putting the new king upon a shield, and raising him up over the heads
of the people[66], as well as the polity of the empire, which originally
was entirely aristocratical, based upon a council of twelve chiefs,
without whose assent nothing of importance could be undertaken by the
king.
We have a very curious statement concerning the Bórnu empire, emanating
from Lucas, the traveller employed by the African Association[67], and
based on the authority of his Arab informants, principally Ben ʿAlí, who
no doubt was a very clever and intelligent man. He describes the Bórnu
kingdom as an elective monarchy, the privilege of choosing a successor
among the sons of a deceased king, without regard to priority of birth,
being conferred by the nation on three of the most distinguished men of
the country. He does not say whether these belonged to the courtiers, or
whether every private individual might be called upon promiscuously to
fulfil this important duty; but the strict etiquette of the court of
Bórnu makes it probable that the former was the case.
Be this as it may, the choice being made, the three electors proceeded
to the apartment of the sovereign elect, and conducted him in silence to
the gloomy place in which the unburied corpse of his deceased father was
deposited; for till this whole ceremony was gone through the deceased
could not be interred. There, over the corpse of his deceased father,
the newly elected king seems to have entered into some sort of
compromise sanctioned by oath, binding himself that he would respect the
ancient institutions, and employ himself for the glory of the country.
I shall have to mention a similar custom still prevailing at the present
day in the province of Múniyó, which belonged to that part of the empire
called Yerí, while the dynasty of the Múniyóma probably descended from
the Berber race. Every newly elected Múniyóma, still at the present day,
is in duty bound to remain for seven days in a cave hollowed out by
nature, or by the hand of man, in the rock behind the place of sepulchre
of the former Múniyóma, in the ancient town of Gámmasak, although it is
quite deserted at present, and does not contain a living soul.
But that not only the royal family, but even a great part of the whole
nation, or rather one of the nations which were incorporated into the
Bórnu empire, was of Berber origin, is still clear so late as the time
of Edrís Alawóma, that is to say, only two centuries and a half ago; for
in the report of his expeditions, constant mention is made of the Berber
tribes (“kabáíl el Beráber”) as a large component part of his army, and
constantly two parts of this army are distinguished as the Reds, “el
Áhhmar,” and the Blacks, “e’ Súd.”[68]
This part of the population of Bórnu has separated from the rest, I
suspect, in consequence of the policy of ʿAlí, the son and successor of
Háj ʿOmár, a very warlike prince, who, in the second half of the 17th
century, waged a long war with Ágades.
Viewed in the light thus shed by past history, the continual and
uninterrupted warlike expeditions made by the Tawárek at the present
time against the northern regions of Bórnu and against Kánem assume
quite a new and far more interesting character.
Now if it be objected that the Kanúri or Bórnu language does not appear
to contain any Berber elements[69] (which indeed it does not), I have
only to adduce the exactly parallel example of the Bulála, a brother
dynasty of the Bórnu royal family, descended from the same stock, who,
having settled and founded a dynasty among the tribe of the Kúka, in the
territory of Fíttri, still continued to speak their native language,
that is the Kanúri, in the time of Leo[70], but have now entirely
forgotten it, adopting the language of the people over whom they ruled;
and similar examples are numerous.
A second point which deserves notice is, that the Kanúri even at the
present day call people in general, but principally their kings, always
after the name of their mother, and that the name of the mother’s tribe
is almost continually added in the chronicle as a circumstance of the
greatest importance. Thus the famous king Dúnama ben Selmʿaa is known in
Bórnu generally only under the name of Díbalámi, from the name of his
mother Díbala; and the full form of his royal title is Díbalámi Dúnama
Selmámi, his mother’s name, as the most noble and important, preceding
his individual name, which is followed by the name derived from his
father. It is also evident, even from the dry and jejune report of the
chronicle, what powerful influence the Walíde or “Mágira”—this is her
native title—exercised in the affairs of the kingdom; I need only
mention the examples of Gúmsu (“gúmsu” means the chief wife) Fasámi, who
imprisoned her son Bíri, when already king, for a whole year, and of
Áʿaishad or ʿAisa, the mother of Edrís, who for a number of years
exercised such paramount authority, that in some lists, and even by many
ʿulama at the present time, her name is inserted in the list of the
sovereigns of the country.