The Biu Plateau, Borno and Kwararafa

Although we still have not located a copy of an important study of Kwararafa by Webster, reading a thesis by a student of his, John E. Miller, has been informative. Miller's thesis, The Biu Plateau: Establishing a Chronology and the Linkages Between Bura-Babur and Kwararafa, attempts to interpret oral traditions and the few written sources available to contextualize Biu in the larger context of Kwararafa and Bornoan history. In so doing, the author draws from colonial-era reports and collections of traditions by authors like Meek as well as written sources included in works like Palmer's Bornu Sahara and Sudan. Pushing back against attempts to read the earlier phases of Kwararafa as a heavily Jukun-influenced entity, Miller follows Webster in situating Kwararafa's second phase capital at Tagara (after being driven out of Santolo). It is this earlier context which elucidate things like the royal crocodile totem observed by many groups in the Biu region and along the Gongola, not the supposed Jukun influence reaching this area earlier. 

While pushing back against the Jukun readings of Kwararafa, Miller also tries to tentatively date the arrival of Yamta in Biu. Drawing on somewhat contradictory traditions, which also make Yamta a Bornoan prince from Gazargamo who left after some sort of succession dispute, Miller suggets a date of c. 1519-1546 for reign of Yamta in Biu. Citing Palmer, who reported traditions of Ali b. Dunama defeating Kwararafa, Miller argues that Yamta arrived in the region after Kwararafa abandoned the capital at Tagara to move south to cross the Benue. This meant the region was possibly politically divided or in a state of transition, facilitating the establishment of new chiefdoms in the area. But, critically, the previous ruling lineages who were influenced by or part of Kwararafa may have retained some influence as priestly clans or lineages. The evidence for this is still fragmentary, but observing totems, clan and lineage moieties, as well as commonalities between cultures associated with the later Kwararafa phases and those in regions like Biu, Miller thinks his model is plausible. 

Naturally, Miller's chronology and model here relies heavily upon Webster, whose notion of different phases of Kwararafa we have yet to examine. Miller is also assuming that the Sayfawa mai named in the traditions about Yamta, Idris, is Ali b. Dunama's son, who reigned (in Lange's chronology, 1497-1519). A firmer date is provided by Ahmad b. Furtu, whose account of Idris Alooma's wars refers to Yamta's chiefdom aiding in the attack on Amsaka. Using average regnal lengths and the date of Idris b. Ali, Miller has one of the few confident dates in his chronology. He's also assuming that Kwararafa's later capital at Biepi only began after c. 1485 (and with a Kanuri or more likely, Babur, dynasty by the 1520s) and only after the mid-1700s did the Jukun come to dominate Kwararafa. All of this could be plausible, but we need additional data on the Bura, Kilba, Marghi, Chibbuk, and other peoples to adequate test the proposed chronology of Miller. Hopefully future scholars will consult the more recently published studies on this region and try to incorporate more of the written sources from Vatican archives or European reports of the 1600s and 1700s. These could aid in proving or weakening the chronology adopted here...