A view of Traghen included in Despois's study of the Fazzan's human geography in Mission scientifique du Fezzan.
One aspect of the medieval history of Kanem which has yet to be satisfactorily analyzed is the extension of the state to the Fazzan. Said to have begun during the reign of Dunama Dibalemi in the 13th century, scholars disagree on when Sayfawa rule this far north came to an end. Similarly, there is a debate about the Kanemi provincial ruler, based at Traghen, becoming autonomous and thus ending direct rule from Kanem sometime in the 14th century. Even as direct rule faded, Kanem’s institutional and cultural legacy endured well into the medieval and early modern periods. The evidence suggests that Kanem’s political and cultural influence persisted at least into the late 14th century and provided the foundations for later dynasties such as the Awlad Muhammad. This brief excursion will explore this theme through the brief external written sources, oral and written traditions of Borno, and the traditions of the Fazzan.
Since written sources from the Fazzan during this period are scarce and external sources from Kanem-Borno and North Africa are largely silent on it, scholars have come to rely on oral traditions recorded in the 19th and 20th centuries. The general narrative suggests a ruler of the Fazzan installed by mai Dunama Dibalemi at Traghen. Remembered in the region as the Banu Nasur, they appear to have become largely autonomous or semi-autonomous. Then, at some indeterminate time, another ruling group, the Banu Khorman, are said to have defeated the dynasty of Kanem origin. The new rulers reestablished their capital at Zawila but appear to have lost effective authority sometime in the 15th or early 16th century. The dynasty which finally reestablished order and survived until the 19th century, the Awlad Muhammad, appear to have established themselves in the Fazzan by the mid-16th century. Their descent from a sharif from Morocco or Mauritania and the importance of the Fazzan as a crossroads for pilgrimage and trade may have made the founder of the dynasty a convenient figure to restore order.
Much of the above overview of the history of the Fazzan is based on traditions that are actually contradictory. For example, J. Despois, in his "human geography" of the region in the
Mission scientifique du Fezzan, was told that the Guend er Roum fortress near Traghen was used by the Banu Khorman before Kanem's conquest of the Fazzan (Despois 96). But Henri Duveyrier, who traveled in the region during the 19th century, was told the Traghen fortress ruins were associated with the Banu Nasur dynasty from Kanem (276). Does this mean the area's fortifications predate Kanem's northward expansion in the 13th century? And were the Banu Khorman also present in this part of the Fazzan so early? Similarly, J. Chappelle, whose study of the Tubu populations,
Nomades noires du Sahara is an important work, suggests that Dunama Dibalemi installed a Tubu lieutenant to oversee the Fazzan at Traghan in c. 1258 (50). Once again, this is contradicted by the best chronology for the Sayfawa dynasty, Lange's, which indicates Dibalemi's reign likely ended by c. 1248. Furthermore, Ahmad b. Furtu's
chronicle of Idris Alooma's Kanem campaigns referred to hostility between Dunama Dibalemi and the Tubu. Although apparently based on oral tradition, Ahmad b. Furtu's informants spoke of a war between the Tubu and the ruler of Kanem that lasted 7 years, 7 months and 7 days (Palmer 50). Consequently, it seems rather unlikely that Dibalemi would have appointed a Tubu leader of the Fazzan at Traghen. The sources are not adequate to answer the question, but the frequent Kanuri toponyms in Traghen may be a more reliable indicator of a Kanembu governor posted there. Clearly, there is a problem in the early scholarship on this period. Assuming Dunama Dibalemi had to have been the one who ordered the killing of Qaraqush's son in Waddan and then established Kanem's hegemony in the Fazzan in 1258 cannot sustain critical analysis.
What do the few textual sources on this period tell us? The earliest, the geographical text of Ibn Sa'id, was based on a lost account by Ibn Fatima. In his account, which is largely based on Ibn Fatima's descriptions of Kanem during Dunama Dibalemi's reign, the Fazzan is included in the domains of the Sayfawa (Levtzion & Hopkins 188). This same source, however, repeated the notion that Zawila was the capital of Fazzan (194). If so, one wonders if the decision to move the Kanemi capital to Traghen was made after Dunama Dibalemi's reign, perhaps when Kaday occupied the throne (1248-1277). Alternatively, Zawila may have continued to occupy an important position as the commercial capital while the official appointed by the Sayfawa was based in Traghen. It is unclear exactly how administrative arrangements functioned and where, but Ibn Sa'id implied Kanemi domination during the reign of Dunama Dibalemi. Furthermore, Ahmad b. Furtu and the Diwan reveal this mai owned tens of thousands of horses. It is difficult to imagine Kanem obtaining so many horses for military purposes without importing at least some of them through the Fazzan. Thus, it is possible Kanem's sway over Fazzan began sometime during Dunama's reign. Additional Arabic sources affirm Kanem's intervention in Waddan by the 1250s. According to al-Tijani, the king of Kanem intervened in Waddan and had a son of Qaraqush killed in 1258 for causing discord in the land (215).
Ibn Khaldun, for his part, wrote of a gift of a giraffe from Kanem to the Hafsid ruler of Tunis in 1257. Ibn Khaldun is too brief in his description, yet he refers to the king of Kanem also as the ruler of Borno and locates their domains to the south of Tripoli (337). It is unclear if he meant the domains of the Sayfawa still extended into the Fazzan in his time or if he was referring to the period in question, but he writes in the present tense. Another 14th century writer, al-Umari, apparently had access to independent sources of information about Kanem. For instance, he relies on the authority of Abu Abd Allah al-Salaliji who personally met the ascetic shaykh, Uthman al-Kanimi (260). This source, whose nisba points to Morocco, presumably met the ascetic shaykh in Egypt or North Africa. Moreover, al-Umari described Kanem's domains stretching to Zalla in Libya (260). If al-Umari had access to informants who spoke with Kanemi ascetics and pilgrims, one may be able to surmise that his information on the borders of the state were at least partly updated. The lodge in Cairo where Kanemi pilgrims and students stayed was still active at this time, too (261). Therefore, it is not inconceivable for al-Umari's information on Kanem's border to be current. Lastly, al-Maqrizi also implied Kanem's continued domination of at least parts of the Libyan Sahara. According to him, Barqa was a northern neighbor of Kanem. This author, who lived from 1364-1442, possessed a surprisingly detailed amount of knowledge on Kanem, Borno, and neighboring regions. Indeed, from his use of Kanuri words like Afnu to refer to the Hausa and various peoples or regions in the Lake Chad area, al-Maqrizi must have had access to other sources of information on this part of Africa (354). Either through lost Arabic sources or from contact with pilgrims or students from Kanem-Borno, al-Maqrizi should be taken seriously. In contrast to el-Hesnawi, who was inclined to discount the writings of al-Umari and al-Maqrizi on Kanem's rule of the Fazzan lasting a long period, we believe the question is still debatable (El-Hesnawi 320). Certainly by 1463, however, the qaid of Tripoli received tribute from the Fazzan that was then sent to the Hafsids (322).
As the few external Arabic sources seem to suggest, Kanem's authority over the Fazzan persisted at least until the end of the 14th century. This would imply that, despite conflict within the Sayfawa ruling house and wars with the Bulala and Sao, the rulers never completely lost sight of the important commercial route that linked them to the larger Islamic world. If the oral traditions in the Fazzan are accurate, however, things began to fall apart sometime in the 1300s or 1400s. Duveyrier repeated traditions of the Banu Khorman defeating the local Kanem administrators (Duveyrier 277). Gustav Nachtigal, also drawing from tradition, argued that the Banu Nasur dynasty in Fazzan became autonomous (Nachtigal 103). Some period of lengthy conflict ensued in the Fazzan, for Despois reported similar traditions on the foundation of the Awlad Muhammad dynasty. Apparently, the Awlad Muhammad founder sought to unite groups in dispersed gasr fortifications due to endemic conflict among the Banu Khorman, Nasur, and Jahma (Despois 108). If this tradition is a reliable indicator, the Awlad Muhammad concentrated people at a Nasur gasr and gradually reestablished a unitary state for the Fazzan. This may explain why political titles of Kanuri origin were adopted by the Awlad Muhammad rulers, since their rise to power may have been through an alliance with remnants of the local Kanemi administration. Intriguingly, J. Lethielleux reported that the people of the Wadi al-Ajal sent a deputation to Borno after the fall of the Nasur dynasty due to the incessant conflict with nomads (Lethielleux 17). If so, there may have been elements in the Fazzan who solicited the aid of the Sayfawa for restoring order. It was ultimately achieved by the Awlad Muhammad, who may have accomplished it with what was left of the Banu Nasur.
Nevertheless, some of the traditions are contradictory about the legacy of Kanem's rule. To Despois, who was told of Kanem forces allegedly destroying Brak el Afia and the village of Maafen, the blacks of Kanem had a bad reputation (Despois 61). Lange, however, has proposed that Brak was attacked by Idris Alooma of Borno in the 16th century, not the period of Kanem's rule. Lange based this on Ahmad b. Furtu's chronicle of Idris Alooma's Borno campaigns, referring to an episode in which the mai returned from the hajj and attacked a place called Burak. This Burak was likely the Burak in the northern Fazzan where traditions recall a place destroyed by Kanem (Lange 117). Lange even goes so far as to suggest Borno may have retained or reinstalled a garrison at Traghen in the 16th century, from which the attack against Burak was launched (118). Further evidence of this is required, but it would affirm the idea of a more positive or at least neutral view of Kanem's authority in the 13th and 14th centuries. In truth, El-Hesnawi himself was told a tradition by a Fazzani elder of Aqar which reflects a more positive view of Kanem's period of rule. According to this informant, a large delegation of Fazzanis, from 6 nomadic groups, arrived in the capital of the ruler of Kanem to ask for Kanemi families to revive agriculture (El-Hesnawi 318). This problematic account could be referring to the settlement of slaves to work in the date-groves of the Fazzan. Alternatively, it may contain a kernel of historical veracity on the large-scale movement of free people from Kanem into Fazzan during the 13th and 14th centuries. Either way, it represents a positive tradition of Kanem for its settling of 6000 men and their families into the Fazzan and a revival of agriculture after the politically tumultuous years following the fall of the Banu Khattab of Zawila in the late 12th century. The shared tie of Islam also paved the way for peaceful communication since the Fazzani delegation was initially assumed to be invading infidels by Kanem. Fortunately, "But when the Kanemis saw the Fazzanis camped near their capital, performed the daily prayers and showed no signs of hostility, they recognized them as Muslims creating no danger" (318). Ultimately, the annexation of the Fazzan under Dunama Dibalemi may have been welcomed for providing political stability, security, and the revival of the economy.
But what was the nature of the Kanemi authority of the Fazzan? Some possible clues may be seen in the political structure of the Sayfawa state. Lamentably, our sources are richer for the Borno phase of this dynasty. Nonetheless, we have noted the survival of Kanuri political titles under the Awlad Muhammad sultans. Thus, they too had a yarima, kaigama, and galadima. It is possible that the local Kanemi administration used such titles like the Sayfawa court within the Fazzan. It is also possible that the idea of a dignitary whose title followed a cardinal direction may have been in place. The Awlad Muhammad, for instance, posted a brother of the sultan at Traghen as "Sultan of the East," or "Sultan el Shirghi" (Lyon 207). Furthermore, the local administration may have utilized the chima system for land grants and tribute collection on date-groves and gardens. The Banu Nasur may have also successfully, for a time at least, rebuilt or maintained gasr fortifications at key sites in the Fazzan. Traghen, their political capital, certainly benefited from this. Zalla and other important sites for the trade and pilgrimage traffic through the Fazzan would have necessitated security. Lyon, when traveling in the Fazzan in the early 19th century, heard the story of 500 donkeys who perished during the construction of Traghen's citadel (207). Undoubtedly, the large-scale immigration of people in conditions of security must have been the greatest contribution to the region's prosperity. With security for trade routes, free and enslaved people could move to or through the Fazzan, restore and expand oasis settlements. This may be the origin of the Oualad Kassoun of Traghen, a group Despois identified as the most ancient lineage there (Despois 250). Such families with deep roots in sites like Traghen also reshaped the towns and villages of the area based on their town and villages in Kanem and Borno. Clearly, this would explain the preponderance of Kanuri terms for castles, wells, springs, and other place names. Or the appearance of a dendal at Murzuk. Further ties to Kanem and Borno may have developed through the Tura traders holding the position of Zeilama, who may have contributed to the growth of the trade in horses for Kanem's military expansion in the 1200s.
In summation, we have presented evidence for the survival of Kanem's rule in the Fazzan into the late 14th or early 15th century. The administration at Traghen likely mirrored aspects of the Sayfawa court, and it is possible that the Awlad Muhammad partly borrowed Sayfawa court titles via the example of the Banu Nasur dynasty. Exactly when they became autonomous is ambiguous, but a breakdown of state authority must have occurred by the early 15th century. Due to distance and the frequent conflicts of the Sayfawa with the Sao and Bulala in the 1300s, the Kanemi official posted at Traghen was perhaps autonomous. His position may have been similar to the later galadimas of Borno who possessed great local autonomy on Borno's frotier. Then, the enigmatic Banu Khorman, who may have been of Berber or Arab extraction, were said to have defeated the Banu Nasur and made Zawila their capital. Traditions collected by Despois, however, hint at a possible alliance of the Awlad Muhammad and the Banu Nasur. The period of Kanem's rule in the Fazzan may have also facilitated economic growth with immigration and increase in trade through this vital trans-Saharan route. The oral traditions, sadly, are contradictory. Despite their limitations, they do provide evidence for a relatively durable Kanemi government which shaped the subsequent Fazzani regime, the Awlad Muhammad. The few external Arabic sources on Kanem during this era likewise affirm a long-lasting Kanemi influence in the Fazzan.
Bibliography
Barth, Heinrich. Travels and Discoveries in North and Central Africa: Being a Journal of an Expedition Undertaken Under the Auspices of H.B.M.'s Government in the Years 1849-1855. New York: D. Appleton, 1857.
Chapelle, Jean. Nomades noirs du Sahara. Paris: Plon, 1958.
Despois, Jean. Géographie humaine. III in Mémoires de la Mission scientifique du Fezzân, Vol. 3. Alger: Imbert, 1946.
Dewière, Rémi. Du Lac Tchad À La Mecque: Le Sultanat Du Borno Et Son Monde (XVIe - XVIIe Siècle). Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2017.
Duveyrier, Henri. Les Touareg du Nord. Paris: Challamel Ainé, 1864.
El-Hesnawi, H. W. 1990. Fazzan under the rule of Awlad Muhammad. A Study in Political, Economic, Social and Intellectual History. PhD. diss. School of Oriental and Africa Studies, University of London, 1986.
Gray, Richard. “Christian Traces and a Franciscan Mission in the Central Sudan, 1700-1711.” The Journal of African History 8, no. 3 (1967): 383–93. http://www.jstor.org/stable/179827.
Hopkins, J. F. P., and Nehemia Levtzion (editors). Corpus of Early Arabic Sources for West African History. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2000.
Hornemann, Friedrich. The Journal of Frederick Hornemann's Travels, from Cairo to Mourzouk: The Capital of the Kingdom of Fezzan, in Africa in the Years 1797-1798. London: G. and W. Nicol, 1802.
Lange, Dierk. A Sudanic Chronicle: The Borno Expeditions of Idrīs Alauma (1564-1576) According to the Account of Aḥmad B. Furṭū : Arabic Text, English Translation, Commentary and Geographical Gazetteer. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1987.
__________. Le Dīwān Des Sultans Du (Kānem-)Bornū: Chronologie Et Histoire D'un Royaume Africain (de La Fin Du Xe Siècle Jusqu'à 1808). Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1977.
__________. “LES LIEUX DE SEPULTURE DES ROIS SEFUWA (KANEM-BORNU): TEXTES ECRITS ET TRADITIONS ORALES.” Paideuma 25 (1979): 145–57. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23076442.
__________. "Un document de la fin du XVIIe siècle sur le commerce transsaharien." In: 2000 ans d’histoire africaine. Le sol, la parole et l'écrit. Mélanges en hommage à Raymond Mauny. Tome II. Paris : Société française d'histoire d'outre-mer, 1981. pp. 673-684. (Bibliothèque d'histoire d'outre-mer. Études, 5-6-2)
Lange, Dierk, and Silvio Berthoud. “Al-Qasaba et d’autres Villes de La Route Centrale Du Sahara.” Paideuma 23 (1977): 19–40. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40341580.
__________. "L'intérieur de l'Afrique occidentale d'après Giovanni Lorenzo Anania (XVIe siècle)". Cahiers d'histoire mondiale, 14, no. 2 (1972): 299-351.
Lemaire, Claude. "Mémoire des observations que le sieur Claude Lemaire, consul de france au royaume de tripoly, a fait en voiagent le long de la coste de derne et du golfe de la sidre, en 1705 et 1706, et sur diverces relations qu'il a eu du soudan, qui signiffie pais de nègre" in Omont, Henri (editor). Missions archéologiques françaises en Orient aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Part 2. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1902.
Lethielleux J., Le Fezzan, ses jardins, ses palmiers. Tunis, Institut des belles lettres arabes, 1948.
Lyon, George Francis. A Narrative of Travels in Northern Africa in the Years 1818, 19 and 20, Accompanied by Geographical Notices of Soudan and the Course of the Niger. London: J. Murray, 1821.
Martin, B. G. “Kanem, Bornu, and the Fazzan: Notes on the Political History of a Trade Route.” The Journal of African History 10, no. 1 (1969): 15–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/180293.
__________. “AHMAD RASIM PASHA AND THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FAZZAN SLAVE TRADE, 1881-1896.” Africa: Rivista Trimestrale Di Studi e Documentazione Dell’Istituto Italiano per l’Africa e l’Oriente 38, no. 4 (1983): 545–79. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40759666.
Miss Tully. Narrative of a Ten Years' Residence at Tripoli in Africa. London: H. Colburn, 1817.
Nachtigal, Gustav and J. Gourdault (trans). Sahara et Soudan. Paris: Hachette et Cie, 1881.
Palmer, H.R. Sudanese Memoirs: Being Mainly Translations of a Number of Arabic Manuscripts Relating to the Central and Western Sudan, Vol 1. 1st ed., new impression. London: Cass, 1967.
Thiry, Jacques. Le Sahara Libyen Dans L'Afrique Du Nord Medievale. Leuven:Peeters Publishers, 1995.
Venture, M. "Notions sur le royaume de Fezzan et sur la route qui y conduit en partant de Tripoly de Barbarie", Bulletin de la Société de géographie de Paris, 2e série t. 4, (1835): 185-195.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
