Chess in Borno (Tsatsarandi)

 

A diagram of a Kanuri chessboard from Meek's "Chess in Bornu, Nigeria."

The game of chess has a long but poorly known history in Borno. According to a report on Borno based on information from North Africans who visited the region in the late 18th century, chess was a game played by elites. This brief report supports the few facts known about chess when Meek was in Borno. While he thought the rules of the game were the same as Western chess, a correction by P.G. Harris in 1930s indicated that this chess variant was played somewhat differently. In fact, the rules resemble North African/Middle Eastern forms of chess, which is no surprise since the game likely arrived from those regions. What's interesting to us is the use of Kanuri terms for various pieces, like the mai for king or the chiroma for the queen. And apparently castling was not allowed, nor were pawns allowed to promote to another piece. Players hissed when they put the opponent's king in check, too. One can surmise the game was also played in Hausaland, where Hausa names for the pieces of the game were known.

Borno's Musketeers

Whilst perusing John Hunwick's Timbuktu and the Songhay Empire: Al-Sa'dī's Ta'rīkh Al-Sūdān Down to 1613 and Other Contemporary Documents we came across some intriguing allusions to Borno. In a translated source written by an unnamed Spaniard in 1591, some information pertinent to Borno reached the writer. According to his unclear sources, the ruler of Borno possessed 500 musketeers. The story about the conflict with the Turks is somewhat garbled and if relevant, might have been a reference to past disagreement over a fortress in the Fazzan. Intriguingly, the source does match other sources that speak of a Turkish presence in Borno (Anania, Ahmad b. Furtu) in the last few decades of the 16th century. 

The Fazzan and Kanem

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.

Revisiting the Tura

A problematic part of H.R. Palmer's list of Tura mahrams in the 3rd volume of Sudanese Memoirs.

One of the more interesting components of the Kanuri population are the Tura. Gustav Nachtigal, who wrote copiously about Borno and its peoples in the late 19th century, saw them as an essentially Teda group who became indistinguishable from the Kanuri peoples of Borno. In addition to Nachtigal's observations of their origin, H.R. Palmer translated a large number of mahrams from the Beni Mukhtar branch of the Beni Habibi Tura. Some of these Tura mahrams claim to refer to the ancestors of the Beni Mukhtar Tura in 12th century Kawar. While we have discussed this aspect of their past in another post, we want to take a look at the other mahrams issued to members of this group by the Sayfawa rulers of Borno. Doing so helps to unveil their deeper origins in Kawar, their possible ties to the Fazzan, their Tubu origins, and their claims to sharif descent. 

First, who are the Tura? In the fourth volume of his Travels, Barth referred to their Tubu connections and their chief, the Dirkema. In the second volume of his Sahara and Sudan, Nachtigal referred to them multiple times. The office of Jerma was the chief of the Tura. In his charge were the royal stables, personal security of the mai, and an administrative distict on the Komadugu Yoobe near Gazargamo (Nachtigal 251). Muhammad Nur Alkali, however, argued that the officer in charge of the royal stables was the Mulima. It is possible that some holders of the position in the time of Sayfawa may have been Tura, but Nachtigal made an error. As previously mentioned, Nachtigal also noted the Tubu component in the Tura. They were also associated with Dirki in Kawar, so the chief was called Dirkema. In Borno, they shared the Kanuri speech and manner of life (173). Even the Sugurti included a Tura sub-section (173). Indeed, the Tura population were also linked to the dignitary called Fergima. Nachtigal thought this title went to the person with general supervision of Dirki in Kawar (255). 

Other observers and scholars have clarified matters, at least partially. Hamidu Bobboyi, in his fine dissertation, wrote of the Tura as a group tied to Borno's long-distance trade. They were given the settlement of Lalori and a local leader, the Ghuzuma, by the Sayfawa. Indeed, Alib. Umar's daughter was said to have married Ali Kellu, a Tura, who received the title of Suganderema and the right to collect the "corn tax" in Gazargamo (Bobboyi 128). The Tura were similarly important in the horse trade (140). Essentially, Bobboyi uses the Tura mahrams to present a brief overview of their history.  Other studies do the same. For instance, Le Sourd's "Tarikh el Khawar" alludes to the Tura briefly as the "Terras" who lived in Kawar before the Kanuri. Another colonial-era author, J.R. Patterson, translated a praise song to Zerma Ibrahim, son of a princess and son of Margi, of the Tura tribe. This song, which he entitled "The Song of the Zakkama to the Zerma" in Kanuri Songs, is said to date from the reign of Ali b. Umar in the 17th century. Furthermore, it corroborates Nachtigal's association of the office of Jerma to the Tura. A marriage alliance with the Sayfawa dynasty is also explicit, although there is no sense of Ibrahim as a leader of the Tura in Borno.

In order to explore the origins of this group, one must engage with Palmer. Palmer, whose Sudanese Memoirs and Bornu Sahara and Sudan contain many primary sources, was very much a product of his time. His scholarship often relies on faulty etymological reasoning and a racialized theory of sub-Saharan African history. Nonetheless, he did collect and translate many traditions and manuscripts in Borno. Thanks to his Sudanese Memoirs and Bornu Sahara and Sudan, several Tura mahrams and a girgam are accessible. But using these sources requires very careful interpretation. Nonetheless, they provide tantalizing clues for the origin of the Beni Mukhtar Tura. Indeed, of all the documents on them included in the mahrams, the Beni Mukhtar appear in 6. They are always said to share an origin with the Beni Habibi Tura, too. In their mahrams, they are linked to the horse trade, Dirku in Kawar, sometimes the Tubu (who intermarried with them in Kawar), and sharif ancestry through Hassan. In addition, their genealogies suggest their forebears were Zeilama, or chiefs of the Fazzan, before Dirku.

What do the mahrams suggest historically? Consulting the third volume of Palmer's Sudanese Memoirs is quite revealing. The earliest mahram to mention a Tura is actually attributed to the Hummay, who reigned in the late 11th century. According to this source, which focuses on Muhammad b. Mani for his role in the Islamization of Kanem, refers to a Tura Tuzan (Tuzar?) as a pillar of the kingdom (4). It is unclear who this person was, but it suggests that a "Tura" who likely hailed from Kawar received a grant of immunity from Hummay. The next mahrams which refer to the Tura, said to date from the late 1100s during the reign of Abd Allah Bakuru, allude to conflict with the Tuareg of Air. This is actually plausible, and the mahrams suggest the active intervention of the mai in Kanem to resolve conflicts. The "Tura Mahram of Dirkuma Ibrahim" explicitly connects this history to the Beni Mukhtar (6). If this genealogy is accurate, then the ancestors of the Beni Mukhtar, who were linked to the Beni Habibi (in Kawar?), must have been Kawarians referred to in external Arabic sources. Their location in Kawar, a region known for its trade in alum and its importance as Kanem's main artery to the north, led to an early Islamic presence there by the 9th century. By the late 12th century, natives of Kawar, like the poet Abu Ishaq Ibrahim al-Kanemi, born in Bilma, was said to have Banu Sulaym Arab ancestry. It would seem that the "discovery" of Quraysh ancestry might date back to these early encounters with Arabs in the Fazzan and Kawar by the mid-11th century.

Unfortunately, there is a gap in the historical record for the next Tura mahrams. After first appearing in their records and traditions in the 11th and 12th centuries, the Tura next appear in a mahram issued by the court of Idris Alooma. In this "Tura Mahram Idris Bugalmarambe," the Tura presented a horse as a gift to Idris Katagarmabe. Then, the document tells us that the Tura were excused from military service in the time of Idris Alooma (r. 1564-1596). In fact, the mahram reports that Idris Alooma abolished the requirement of the Tura to travel to Dirku and Zeila, no longer requiring them to import horses from Egypt (6). This mahram does not explicitly reference the Beni Mukhtar, but it is implied to refer to the same group. That they wanted to cease their arduous trade in horses is also significant. It is in the 16th century we find written sources that allude to the horse trade between Borno and the north. Leo Africanus, for example, wrote of the trade of slaves for horses in Borno. Anania, writing later in the 16th century, similarly noted the large-scale trade of horses from North Africa to Borno via the Fazzan. This trade in horses is not mentioned in earlier, medieval sources on Kanem despite the importance of cavalry for Sayfawa military expeditions or raids. Moreover, the previous mahrams said to date from the late 1100s do not mention horses at all. Sometime between the 12th century and the 16th, the Beni Mukhtar (or a related Tura group) must have either expanded the scale of their horse trading activities or shifted to the trade in horses. The titles of Zeilama might be a reference to this period where their influence in the Fazzan facilitated the movement of horses from North Africa. Was this during the period of Kanem's suzeraintry of the Fazzan? While the Banu Nasur ruled from Traghen, were the Zeilama Tura overseeing commerce from Zawila?

The following Tura mahram is also dated to the reign of Idris Alooma. Simply a girgam for Dirkuma Muhammad, it lists his origins among the Beni Mukhtar. It attributed the origins of Laluri as a Tura town to Idris Alooma. It affirms the other mahram exempting the Tura from military service. However, it does not include any mention of voluntary Tura trading expeditions to Dirku or the food and supplies they were to receive from the Figidoma, Yawama, and Tagama (7). Given the many military conflicts that occurred during Idris Alooma's reign, it is intriguing that he ended the requirement for the Beni Mukhtar to trade horses. Was this due to changes in the nature of the horse trade at this time, making the Beni Mukhtar less necessary? Ahmad b. Furtu's chronicle of his ruler's campaigns did include a conflict against the Tubu in Kawar, perhaps hinting at new trade relationship for horses.

The subsequent mahram, "Tura Mahram Hamsawa," elucidates the Tubu Dibiri origin of the Tura Beni Habibi Hamsawa. This mahram implies that the Tura Beni Habibi stayed in Dirku, where a Tubu named Adam married Hafsa. Their descendants became known as the Tura Beni Habibi (8). A similar girgam for the Tura Habibi Aisawa also hints at a Dirku base for the Beni Habibi. In this case, yet another Tubu, Abdullahi of the Balgada Tubu, married Aisi Kili of the Beni Habibi. He entered her clan. According to Palmer's translation, there were apparently 16 sub-groups of this clan (Beni Habibi or Habibi Aisawa?) (13). This further supports the notion of the Beni Habibi remaining in Dirku while the Beni Mukhtar splintered and migrated to Borno. If the Beni Habibi remained in Dirku, it is possible that their descendants became part of the Gezebida, the mixed Kanuri-Tubu of this part of Kawar.

Besides these mahrams referring to the Tubu ancestry of some Beni Habibi branches, the other mahrams focus on the Beni Mukhtar of Borno. One, said to date from the reign of Ali b. Umar (1688), although his reign was over before this year, confirms the status of Laluri as a Tura settlement. It does introduce a new element by referring to the "father" of the Beni Mukhtar, Hajj Muhammad ibn Dublu (8). Another mahram, from 1752, stresses the Beni Mukhtar's ties to Laluri and names the owner of the document as Dirkuma Muhammad Aisami. Further detail of the settlements associated with different leaders of the Beni Mukhtar reveal that, in addition to Laluri, Gawa Dali, and Magabura were held by members of the group (9). An additional mahram from 1752 alluded to conflict with mai Ali that was resolved when the Tura threatened to return to Dirku. Apparently, the Sayfawa sultan tried to enlist them for military service, which they rejected on the grounds of their descent. The Sayfawa conceded and, after cancelling the expedition, imposed a token tax on the Tura (10). This document implies that the Tura retained links to Kawar as late as c.1752 and their presence in Borno was important enough for the mai to concede rather than risk their relocation. If this transpired, one may surmise that their status descendants of the family of the Prophet and their possible economic activities within Borno were of great importance. Yet, by the time of Ahmad (r. 1792-1808), the Tura refused to travel north to trade for horses. They did accept the responsibility of supplying local horses to the Sayfawa (11). 

Finally, the most recent mahrams of 19th century origin present a number of questions. One, dated to 1806, implausibly references Shehu al-Kanemi. Chronological inconsistencies aside, the document tells us that the Tura of Marte had given a daughter to the mai. Al-Kanemi for his part insisted that only the Tura chiefs are free of taxes. In addition, the Dirkuma is entitled as chief of the Tura, implying his higher status among the Tura leadership (11). Of course, Dirku was sometimes implied as a general name for Kawar, too. Palmer proceeded to list the genealogy of the Tura on the next page of Sudanese Memoirs, but it is unclear where this information came from. It nonetheless provides a general estimate of the Tura spending 350 years in Borno and 220 years in Dirku. In Dirku (probably a general term for Kawar), the Tura chiefs were Zulama, Dirkuma, and Amarma, implying a Fazzan position to the north. This is followed by a list of various Tura groups: Arwalinwa, Wadali, Jilbana, Zuganda, Amzura, and the Beni Ishak (12). Of this last group, they were tied to Gazbi (likely al-Qasaba of medieval Kawar). This presumably legendary account at least connects the Beni Ishak to Gazbi and the past of Kawar. Lange, in A Sudanic Chronicle, tied Gasbi and al-Qasaba to Dirku (124). 

How does one make sense of these traditions and mahrams of Tura origins? Palmer, who naturally wanted to emphasize "white" or exotic origins, tried to connect them to Arabs, the Fazzan, Traghen, and other lands. The Hausa word for whites, turawa is also brought up. Yet the Kanuri appeared to use the word wasili for "whites" from North Africa. The Tura records affirm at least partial Tubu ancestry. Their possibly deep roots in Kawar are apparently recalled among the traditions of Kanuris in that region. Their ultimate origins are thus to be found in Kawar, where multiethnic trading communities with ties to Ibadi Berber Muslims appeared by the 800s. In the medieval sources, Kawar was apparently more famous for exporting alum or salt rather and its medieval inhabitants were not particularly noticed for engaging in the trade of horses from North Africa to Kanem. By the 16th century, however, the Beni Mukhtar Tura were involved in this trade. They appear to have left the salt trade in the hands of the Koyam and focused on horses. When or how their claims to be descendants of the Hassan began is unclear, but given the early penetration of this region by Muslim traders from the North, it may have begun by the time of the 12th century. Furthermore, given the Beni Mukhtar's ties to the horse trade and external sources alluding to a large-scale trade of horses at Fazzan to Borno, one wonders if the title of Zeilama among ancestors of the Tura may be an allusion to the period of Kanem's hegemony in Fazzan (1200s-1300s). Surely, Dunama Dibalemi's campaigns would have required horses for his armies and controlling the Fazzan would have ensured security on that route. But by the end of the 16th century, the Beni Mukhtar were less interested in traveling to the north for this trade. Their status or claim to descent from Hassan likely contributed to the concessions made to them by the Sayfawa. They nonetheless also continued to raise horses in Borno.