Travels and discoveries in North and Central Africa

by Heinrich Barth

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 Wasas, 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 des 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, ʿAbdallah 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 Makrízí 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,” and the Bórnu nation “Bérbere.” This view of the subject is confirmed by the distinct statement of Makrízí, 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 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, 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 Ebn 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, 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, 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.