M. Jalal Hashim: March 2009

In: Sudan Notes & Records. Vol. 6, 2007, PP. 209-229

Introduction
As part of Sudan Archaeological Research Society (SARS) Amri-Kurbukān archaeological team, a fieldwork of ethnography and language was undertaken by the present writer in the season of 12/2002-02/2003. This article is based on that fieldwork. According to the river course orientation, the SARS concession area lies on the western bank of the Nile. The northern part of the area to be submerged inhabited by the Shāyqiyya of Awlād Ḥāmid, hence called the Ḥāmdāb, which is not part of the SARS concession. South of it is the Amri area (Amri being a big, seasonal island), which is inhabited by a mixture of Shāyqiyya and Manāṣīr groups. South of Amri lies the Manāṣīr region. The latter are the most affected as they are going to lose the whole of their homeland. As the concession area is part of the region supposed to be submerged by the Mirwi dam, the work done, whether archaeology or ethnography, was of a salvage kind. This kind of work has its own limitations. The Amri-Kurbukān concession includes both the two ethnic groups: the Shāyqiyya in the northern part and the Manāṣīr in the southern part. Due to the limitations of time and convenience of methodology, the present writer dealt only with the Manāṣīr. The ethnography of the Manāṣīr is approached through their oral traditions according to which their inter-ethnic fabric is revealed and a tentative history is reconstructed. The linguistic inventory is based on the GPS registering, mapping and phonetic and orthographic rendering of the Geographical names of the area. Both the ethnographic and linguistic surveys have yielded considerable information of archaeology (cemeteries), graffiti, rock drawings and rock gongs. The report of the season is divided into three parts; part one, the present one, will only deal with oral history; part two will deal with ethnography, whereas part three will deal with linguistic, primarily, and archaeological information.

Aim and Method
The modern history of the Sudan- 1820 up to now- is said to have been written according to the official documents of the successive governments, giving us what can be called an official history (Ibrahim, 1985). Many Sudanese historians have noted that oral history was more or less overlooked in favour of official documents (Ḥasan, 1978), notwithstanding the pioneering works of Abū Salīm in directing attention early towards reconsidering oral traditions as a main source in writing the Mahdia history (Abū Salīm, 1970). Just before his death, the godfather of modern Sudanese historians- Mekki Shibeika- strongly adhered to the need to reconsider oral traditions as one of the main sources in writing Sudanese history (Shibeika, 1979: 1-5). As a result of these writings, a new trend to rewrite the history of the Sudan has emerged by the end of 1980s. In 1995 “the National Committee for Rewriting the History of the Sudan” was formed by a presidential resolution to be presided by Prof. Yūsuf Faḍl Ḥasan. In accordance with this trend, the present writer takes the oral history of the Manāṣīr as one of the principal sources, and, hence, treating it on an equal footing of credibility with other sources with regard to scrutiny and criticism. Thus it is neither taken for granted nor discredited for merely being oral tradition. The statements made by the Manāṣīr tradition-bearers are analyzed and/or quoted along with the viewpoints of other sources, and referenced by referring to the initials of the respective tradition-bearer.
The present article aims to raise a host of crucial questions: Who are the Manāṣīr? What is their position within the tribal fabric of northern Sudan? How do they conceive themselves? It is the intention of the present writer to raise more questions than providing answers. There are many reasons for this. The Manāṣīr are said to be the least studied among the Arabized tribes of northern Sudan (cf. Salih, 1999). While oral traditions are taken as the prime source of this study, no claim, however, can be made that they are exhaustive. The method to collect the oral tradition of the Manāṣīr was, simply, to go ask their learned tradition-bearers, a task that has yielded approximately 12 hours of tape-recorded interviews. My main guide was Shaykh/ Gamar wad (son) Salemān (Sulaymān) of Birti village (70 years old) who is a member of the family that used to assume the paramount chiefdom of the Manāṣīr. His accompanying me proved to be of vital importance. As the Manāṣīr were then having problems in achieving a lasting agreement with the government in matters pertaining to their resettlement and compensations, the atmosphere was highly volatile regarding strangers. With Shaykh Gamar sitting beside me, my bumping into the hill-secluded villages with my battered Land-rover was generously welcomed. Interviews were made in the first visits immediately after introduction. In my going up and down the area, later visits were paid to the same informants where the same recorded issues were again re-discussed to see if there was any divergence in the statements they had made. So far, no fundamental differences were noted.
The present article has many limitations, the major of which is the fact that it was restricted to only villages and islands on a small area of the western bank with their affiliated islands. The eastern bank was not dealt with as it was not part of SARS concession. This has limited the collection range of oral traditions.

Tradition Bearers
The average age of the informants was 70 years. Understandably, not all of them were renowned tradition bearers or story-tellers. Below is the list of the informants` names- in full and abbreviation- with their ages, clans and villages in alphabetical order. Those who were looked upon by the Manāṣīr people as tradition bearers are rendered below in italic. Although mostly above 95 years old, none of them was clearly suffering from senility. Generally speaking, they were all in good health and good shape. Karrār Khalīfa wad Nuwār (KN), who was reportedly 100 years old, cracked jokes amiably and even saw us to the door where he posed for a photo with the present writer. The hearing capabilities of only one of them [Raḥama Muḥammad Bābikir, 99, (RM)] was impaired; we had to shout so as to make him hear our questions. However, once he got what we asked him, he was fluent, consistent, and highly informative.

1. (AB) Aḥmad Bābikir wad Kāra, 71, Nūba clan, Birti village.
2. (AD) Aḥmad Ḍamra, 56, Ḥamadtuyāb clan, Ishashi Island.
3. (AH) Aḥmad al- Ḥūri, 95, Ḥamadtuyāb clan, Mīs Island.
4. (AS) ‘Aṭa al-Sīd al-Khayr, 65, Ja‛al clan, Araj Island.
5. (GN) Gamar Sulaymān wad Nu‛mān, 70, Mashāykha clan, Birti village.
6. (GS) Gism al-Sīd ‛Abdu al-Raḥmān, 80, Nūba clan, Ishashi Island.
7. (HA) Ḥasab Allah ‘Ali, 79, Kujjubāb clan, al-Dōma village.
8. (HJ) Ḥasab al-Jābu Muḥammad Ḥasan , 56, Ja‛al clan, Birti village.
9. (HM) Ḥasan Muḥammad Manṣūr, 75, Ja‛al clan, al-Hugna village.
10. (JI) Al-Ja‛al i ‘Īsa, 59, Ḥamāmīr clan, Sāni.
11. (KN) Karrār Khalīfa wad Nuwār, 100, Kujjubāb clan, Birti Island.
12. (MI) Muḥammad wad Ibrāhīm, 88, Ja‛al clan, Bōni Island.
13. (MK) ‘Umda Muḥammad Ḥasan Kineesh, 79, Shāygiyya tribe, Nōri.
14. (RM) Raḥama Muḥammad Bābikir, 99, Ja‛al clan, al-Ḥugna village.

Who are the Manāṣīr?
The main ethnic group in the north-middle riverain Sudan is the great Ja‛aliyyīn tribe (cf. Ḥasan, 1973: 149, 153), which includes the following sub-groups: the Ja‛aliyyīn proper (Shendi reach), the Mīrafāb whose ancestor was Mīraf, or Bishāra (Berber reach), the Rubāṭāb whose ancestor was Ribāṭ (Abū Ḥamad reach), the Manāṣīr whose ancestor was Mansūr (Shīri reach) and the Shāyqiyya whose ancestor was Shāyiq (Merowe reach). It is worth mentioning that MacMichael (1967: 214), though he includes the Manāṣīr in the Arabs of the Sudan, does not put them as one of the sub-groups of the Ja‛aliyyīn. The Ja‛aliyyīn people are generally taken to be ‘Arabized Nubians’ ([Ḥasan, 1973: 153-158). According to their own oral traditions, they claim Arab descent and in particular to have descended from al-‛Abbās, the paternal uncle of the Prophet Muḥammad of Islam [ibid]. Of these sub-groups, the least to be scholarly studied is the Manāṣīr tribe of which so little has been written (Salih, 1999: 1). Following the notion that classifies them as a Ja‛aliyyīn tribe, we presumably expect evidences which may lead to that effect in their oral traditions, but that is not the case. Hence the question that this essay tries to answer: Who are the Manāṣīr? Below, I am going to try to reconstruct a tentative history of the Manāṣīr tribe out of their own oral traditions where the statements will critically be analyzed and compared with each other, in the background of other sources.
According to the Manāṣīr oral traditions, the Shāygiyya, Rubāṭāb, Mīrafāb and Ja‛aliyyīn proper are quite different groups from the Manāṣīr (AS). The word ‘Manāṣīr’ is derived from ‘al-Jazīra al-Manṣūriyya’, i.e. ‘the Island of the victorious one’ in Egypt (all informants). No informant was able to exactly tell where the place of this island in Egypt is. However, in Shuqayr (1967: 63), we read the following: “It has been said about the Manāṣīr, who lives between the Fourth Cataract and Abū Ḥamad that their ancestors killed a man in al-Manṣūra in Egypt upon which they fled to this country in a time not very remote”. According to what Shuqayr says, waves of migrations from al-Jazīra al-Manṣūriyya had taken place. However, the oral traditions do not support this. In fact only one man whose name was Wahaba is commonly held by the informants to have come from there. Hence the clan that descended from him are called the Wahabāb (GN). Wahaba came by himself, and stayed remotely from the indigenous people, taking fishery for livelihood. Hence he was nicknamed ‘al-kalad’, a kind of fish (IM). Then he mixed with the local people who were Nūba (Nubians) and got married from them. His family flourished well and multiplied in number. They had had neither power nor prestige until a ‘Takrūrī’ (i.e. Fulani) man called Salamān was one day welcomed and hosted by one of their forefathers. This Takrūrī, who was a religious man, taught the leading men of the clan the teachings of Islam; furthermore, he gave them magical charms so as to assume the power they have been enjoying since then (MI).
This view was consistently related all over the Manāṣīr villages and clans. It does not agree with the notion of an ancestor named Mansūr, commonly held in academic writings that classify the Manāṣīr as part of the Ja‛aliyyīn great group. But this view deals with only one clan of the Manāṣīr, so what about the other clans? Shuqayr (1967: 63) says that the Manāṣīr “…are divided into five clans, namely the Wahabāb, Kabbāna, Sulaymāniyya, Kujjubāb and Khubarā”. Basing his information upon the manuscript provided to him by Muḥammad Aḥmad Omer, the ‛Umda of the second khut of Kāmlīn district, MacMichael (1967: 214) agrees with Shuqayr as he mentions the same clans: “… among them are the WAHABÁB and the KEBÁNA and SULAYMÁNIA and the KUGUBÁB and KHUBARÁ …”. This may make one think that they are related to each other simply because they belong to one tribe. However, this is not exactly what the traditional informants tell. Not considering the Nubians, who are reported to be the ‘original’ population of the region, the other clans are mostly different from the Wahabāb. For instance, the ancestor of the Kabbāna clan is said to have come to the area from outside, and then kidnapped a woman from the indigenous Nubians, married her and settled (KN). The Ḥamāmīr clan is said to be descendants of Yazīd son of Mu‛āwiya, the founder of the Umayyad dynasty. Their informant says: “We are not Manāṣīr proper, even though we bear the name of Manāṣīr” (JI). The Ḥamadtuyāb clan, according to their informant, claims to be descendants of Abū Bakr al-Siddīq, the first Caliph. They mixed with Fulani Arabs, settled first at al-Ghaddār near Old Dongola, then at Nōri in the Shāyqiyya land, from where they later settled at Mīs Island in the Manāṣīr land. Here they got mixed with the ‛Anaj people and eventually succeeded in taking over the land (AH). The Kujjubāb, though they claim to be the descendants of an ancestor called ‘Kujjūb’, admit that they originally migrated from Kajabī in the Shāygiyya land (HA).
This reality of different affiliations of origin makes it almost impossible to draw a principal genealogical pedigree of the Manāṣīr. The present writer agrees with Salih in saying that the Manāṣīr are in fact “a collection of different tribal minorities living in one place” (Salih; 1999:20). This is also attested in the oral traditions of the Manāṣīr; an informant says: “All the people called Manāṣīr are ‘talāgīṭ’, (literally pick-ups, i.e. collections) of different origins. All the sub-clans are related to each other maternally but not paternally” (AH). Salih divides the Manāṣīr into three major groups, or clans, and then he follows the branching out of them down to the present families. Although the latter part of his classification is soundly acceptable, his referring of the major clans to any of his major class groups has been challenged by the oral traditions collected by the present writer. The three major groups of Salih (proper, indigenous, and adopted Manāṣīr) will be correlated with the comments of only three informants (KN, MI, and AS):

The First Group
Proper Manāṣīr (Salih) Origin (KN) Origin (MI) Origin (AS)
Wahabāb Manṣūriyya Is. Manṣūriyya Is. Manṣūriyya Is.
Kabbāna ‛Abābda Indigenous Manṣūriyya Is.
Kujjubāb Nubians from Kajabī Shāygiyya from Kajabī From Kajabī
Khubarā Arabs from ‛Atmūr desert Wahabāb Manṣūriyya Is.
Digēsāb ‛Anaj Indigenous Manṣūriyya Is.
Silēmāniyya Indigenous Indigenous Manṣūriyya Is.
Ḥamāmīr Arabs from Red Sea region Indigenous Manṣūriyya Is.

Apart from the Wahabāb, upon whose origin all the narratives agree ,only one informant (AS) seems to agree with Salih’s classification of this group. The Wahabāb and Khubarā are considered to be one family (GN), with the latter branching from the former after settling in the area (JI). This gives us one clan, i.e. the Wahabāb, as responsible for engendering the name ‘Manāṣīr’ as derived from al- Jazīra al-Manṣūriyya in Egypt, the original homeland of the clan’s ancestor. Following the classification of Salih, the rest of this group can rightly be put with either the second or the third groups.

The Second major Group
Indigenous Manāṣīr (Salih) Origin (KN) Origin (MI) Origin (AS)
Ja‛al Nubian/ Kushshāf from al-Derr Indigenous Shāygiyya
Nūba (Nubians) ‛Anaj Indigenous, some coming from Nuba Mountains Indigenous
Kadangāb Shāygiyya Shāygiyya Shāygiyya
Bā‛ūdāb Shāygiyya Shāygiyya Shāygiyya
Ḥamadtuyāb Shāygiyya Shāygiyya Fulani

The Third Major Group
Adopted Manāṣīr (Salih) Origin (KN) Origin (MI) Origin (AS)
Fugarā Ḥamadtuyāb Ḥamadtuyāb Fulani
Batūlāb Nūba? Nūba Nūba?
Idērgāb Abyssinians Abyssinians Abyssinians
‛Atāmira Rubāṭāb? Rubāṭāb Rubāṭāb
Bēshāb Nūba? Nūba Nūba?
‛Abābda Kawāhla ‛Abābda ‛Abābda?
Other Minorities ----- ---- -----

The criteria adopted in classifying the last two groups are not provided by Salih, and it is clear from the statements of the informants that they can be put together in one group along with the ones disqualified from the first group. This makes the three classes of proper, indigenous, and adopted Manāṣīr redundant. Thus we conclude that the Manāṣīr is an alliance of different tribal clans who have come to identify themselves by the name ‘Manāṣīr’, which is mythically derived from an island somewhere in Egypt called ‘al-Jazīra al-Manṣūriyya’, that could possibly be al-Manṣūra in the Sinai peninsula. Below I am going to discuss the ideology behind the choice and formation of the identity of the Manāṣīr.

The Cliché of the Fugitive Ancestor
The Arabicization of many of the indigenous Sudanese ethnic groups has been analyzed through the mechanism of the ‘cliché of the wise stranger’ and the matrilineal system of power inheritance (Holt, 1963: 39-55). For instance the Funj’s claim of the Umayyad descent is traditionally based on the following narrative: A man claiming Umayyad descent was hosted by the Funj, whereby he showed tangible wisdom in organizing some of their chaotic affairs. To keep him with them, the King made him marry either his daughter or sister. Consequently, his sons assumed the throne according to the matrilineal system of inheritance. Thus the whole community of the Funj has claimed to be of Umayyad descent. We find this cliché in other parts of the Sudan, especially where there is a strong political system, such as in Dar Fur who, in accordance with this cliché, claims to be descendants of the Aḥmad al-Ma‛qūr, who was the young brother of Abū Zaid al-Hilālī, a mythical leader of an Arab tribe that spread all over the Sub-Saharan region down to the Mediterranean Sea.
The sub-ethnic boundaries- according to the concept of Barth (1970)- of each clan of the Manāṣīr is well-defined within the main frame boundary of the tribe. However, the above-mentioned cliché has not been observed to be functioning there. Nevertheless, another kind of cliché has been observed. Apart from the indigenous Nūba, i.e. Nubians, of Jabal Mināy, all the other clans are said to have come from outside the Manāṣīr region. In fact it was the individual patriarchal ancestors who came to the region and then founded their respective clans. According to oral traditions, most of them came fleeing their respective homelands after committing crimes- mostly murder. The ancestor of the Wahabāb fled his home village at al-Jazīra al-Manṣūriyya after killing somebody there (GN, HM). According to the Ḥamāmīr traditions, their “ancestor, Ḥammūr, came from the east fleeing his homeland as a result of a crime he committed there. He settled here and married from the Wahabāb” (JI)]. Then the Hamāmīr took to Bedouin life following their kin, the Khubarā [JI]. There is a part of the Nūba who claims to have come from the middle of Sudan. According to their own traditional informants [GS] they came from a place near al-Musallamiyya (circa 150 KM south of Khartoum) called al-‘Igēda, but according to other informants (MI, KN, AD) they came from Nuba Mountains via middle Sudan. In this case also, only the patriarchal ancestor came by himself fleeing his homeland as a result of a crime of murder which he committed there (GS). In fact, with the exception of Nubians proper, the story of the fugitive ancestor is found in the traditions of almost all the clans. The notion of an Arabized ancestor came to a Nubian community and begot himself a wife brings to attention the theory that claims that pre-Arab Nubia had matrilineal system. In the Funj era, the regents of the Hamaj were given wives of the royal family (cf. Spaulding, 1985a). However, the case purported in the Manāṣīr tells of kidnapping a Nubian woman.
In oral historiography, however cliché is not taken to be factual, it does indicate symbolically to a sort of factuality (Henige, 1982). Certain observations pertaining to the cliché factuality can be drawn here in relation with the topographical nature of the region. The region with its scarcity of resources, rough mountainous relief, cataracts impeding the passage of the Nile, has historically been a place of refuge (Salih, 1999: 8). Groups, as well as individuals, whose lives were faced with threats, took refuge in the region. In such an atmosphere of fear, intruders would not usually be welcomed; refugees had to enforce their settlement. A balance of fear is created where each group kept to its own, having very little to do with the other groups. Although in the course of time they gradually mixed with each other, the boundaries- whether cultural or geographical- are still kept and cherished. The cliché now functions as an ideological reminder of the alliance those fugitive refugees have come to form.

The Nūba: Land Owners or Serfs
All the informants agree on the following: the land used to belong to the Nubians (Nūba), i.e. they were the original population of the region, and then the Mulūk (kings) came followed later by the Mashāykha. The Mulūk usurped the land from the Nubians who bravely fought in defence of it. From this point on the story takes other versions. After the defeat, the Nubians divided into three groups (AS); some of them fled toward the North to where the Dongolese and Maḥas live; some of them fled toward the South to the Nuba Mountains; and the rest remained in the region to be enslaved by the Mulūk (AS). They “were not ‘ragīg’, i.e. buy-and-sell slave; they remained on their lands, but toiled them for the Mulūk (AD). Does mean that they were serfs?
Could it be possible that those who had headed southward might have ended in Jabal al-Ḥarāza? This brings attention to the hypothesis presented by Spaulding (1973) that the Nubians of al-Ḥarāza were probably migrants from the north. The name of the ‛Anaj is also associated with this past time. The ‛Anaj is believed by some to be the same Nubians (AS; HA). This is supported by others who state that the land originally belonged to both the Nūba and the ‛Anaj (AB) without telling what the difference between the two people was. Another statement says that the Nūba and the ‛Anaj are the most ancient people of the region (KN); the ‛Anaj were the rulers and the Nūba were their subjects. What may support this is the agreement of all the informants on the point that it is the ‛Anaj who were the rulers of the region; the Nūba per se are not identified with any political role. The place called ‘al-Māndēra’ is thought to have been the capital of the ‛Anaj (MI). Presently, this is the place where the boundary sign between al-Ḥāmdāb and Shīri municipalities is fixed, and this agrees with the meaning of the word in Sudanese colloquial Arabic, which means ‘the sign’ (cf. Sharīf; 2002). It is also a feminine name in the middle riverain Sudan, found usually among old women. This place is thought to have been the most populous in the whole region in the ancient past (AH). The place is also called al-kanīsa, i.e. the church; just nearby there is a big cemetery of box graves commonly associated with the ‛Anaj. An informant said that very few of the cemeteries seen all over the region belong to Muslims; they belong to the ‛Anaj and the ancestors of the Nūba (HA).
The word “‛Anaj”, according to the oral traditions of the ‛Abdallāb people (who conquered the Christian kingdom of Alodia in Central Sudan) is the name given to both the Nubians of the Christian kingdom of Alodia and the Nubians of al-Ḥarāza Mountains in Northern Kordufan. The latter are reported to have migrated from Central Sudan to this place after the fall of Soba, which was the capital of Alodia kingdom (cf. Naṣr, 1975; MacMichael, 1967: 40-51). Traditions relating migrations of Nubians from the North to the Nuba Mountains are also reported (MacMichael, 1967: 347). Migrations of Nile Nubians to the Mountains of Midob in Northern Dar Fur are reported in the traditions of the people there (Werner; 1994). Could it be concluded that the successive falls of the Nubian Christian kingdoms triggered moves of migrations to and from the different Nubian homelands? It is clear that the ‛Anaj were the elite class that ruled the Nubians in middle Sudan where the Kingdom of Alodia reigned. But to have them ruling areas as far as down Abū Ḥamad reach, is a matter that raises questions pertaining to their political boundary.
It is reported that the Nūba of the Manāṣīr are not in fact one homogenous ethnic group. The Nubian community consists of two groups; indigenous and migrant. The former is associated with a certain place called Jabal Mināy (AH; GS). ‘Mināy’ is said to be a feminine name by one informant (MI), whereas it is said to be a masculine name by another (KN) who even gives the name ‘Gurūni’ as to be of Mināy’s wife. In fact the names of the islands of Shīri, Sharari, Ūus, Bōni, Birti and Dirbi are thought to be royal feminine names of ancient times (HA). The second Nubian group is believed to have come to the region from the south, particularly from the Nuba Mountains (MI)- or from al-Musallamiyya, a place, according to their own traditions (GS), about 150km south-west of Soba. Two variant traditions relate how they came to the region. The first says that they came on rafts drifted by the current of the Nile (MI); the second says that it was their ancestor who came by himself fleeing his homeland in the south after killing somebody there. The first, which is generally believed by the Manāṣīr, tells about a migration. The second tradition, which is built on the cliché of the fugitive ancestor, tells about a flight. As discussed above, the cliché is commonly related to the Manāṣīr sub-groups who claim to be of an Arab descent. Could this contradiction be due to the tactic adopted by the migrant Nubians to free themselves from the stigma associated with the indigenous Nubians who are reported to have been enslaved by the Mulūk? Or could it be due to the tactic to free themselves from the stigma associated with the blacks of Nuba Mountains who were historically targeted for slavery?

The Mulūk: Nubians or Ja‛al?
The clan from which the last ruling family came is claimed to be Ja‛al, i.e. from the Ja‛aliyyīn tribe of middle Sudan. Their seat of rule is a small and high rocky island called Dūlǵa. They are also called ‘Mulūk’, i.e. kings in Arabic. It is agreed among the informants that they came to the region to live with the Nubians before the other migrant clans. The first observation to be made here is of linguistic relevance; they use the noun “Ja‛al” in referring to themselves rather than the adjective “Ja‛aliyyīn”. It is like saying “we are Sudan” instead of “we are Sudanese”. One might be tempted to argue that such usages are associated with African-Sudanese groups to whom Arabic is an alien language; for instance, it is usual for the Nubians to say: “We are Nuba” rather than “We are Nubians”. However, the expression ‘we are Arab’ [نحنُ عرب] is also attested to be a standard usage among Arabs. What is more significant is that they do not have any genealogical traditions that trace them back to the apical father ‘Ibrāhīm Ja‛al’ like what is usually found among the Ja‛aliyyīn. An informant said that “the Mulūk are called Ja‛al, but this is different from the Ja‛aliyyīn of Shandi; they called themselves so as a symbol of might and power” (HA). Another says that “the Mulūk are partially Ja‛aliyyīn of Mīrafāb, because king al-Sōkari married from al-Mīrafāb” (KN). Relating the Mulūk to the Ja‛aliyyīn stock would make them coming to the region in the first place from the south, i.e. from middle Sudan. Another version of the traditions in relation to their origin is that they are indigenous Nubians (JI)]. The notion of having the Mulūk belonging to the Nubians is held by other informants, however not as indigenous. This begins by relating them to the people northward, particularly to the Shāygiyya of Kajabī (AH). Then the version develops further until they are related to the Nubians of northern Sudan and southern Egypt. One of the informants (HM) says that “the Mulūk came from the area down Kajbār, from ‘Abrī; then they came to Argo, then to Kajabī and finally to this place”. Another (HA) says that the Mulūk are originally from the Nubians of al-Dir (rendered in scholarly writings as Derr) in southern Egypt”. But the most comprehensive version is the one that goes as follows (MI): “The Mulūk came from Egypt; that was before the time of Turkiyya. Those are the Kushshāf of al-Dir who are the same Nubians of the north. Their rule extended up beyond Marawī (i.e. Merowe). While the ‛aragi (i.e. date spirit) was strictly forbidden in Egypt, the Kushshāf were exempted from that prohibition because of their power. They used to have big boats navigating up and down the Nile. Their palaces in Kajabī- near Merowe- are still there; now they belong to the Kujjubāb clan”.
The presence of the Kushshāf in the area is supported by both oral traditions and linguistic evidences. The word “ḱāshif” is pronounced in Nile Nubian languages (i.e. Nobíin and Kenzi-Dongolses), according to the characteristic of sound interchangeability, as “kāsh́ub” with the high tone on the second syllable. This peculiar pronunciation has been attested in the Manāṣīr region. Another evidence of linguistic relevance is having the place-name “al-Dir” for a place in the Manāṣīr region; according to oral traditions, it is named by the Kushshāf after al-Dir of southern Egypt. Could the place-name “Dūlǵa” be a corruption of “Dolliǵo” (both having high tone on the last syllable) which is the original name of “D́elgo” in the Maḥas region? The claim that the Mulūk dynasty is an off-shoot of the Kushshāf in the Manāṣīr could be supported by claims of Kushshāf presence in the neighbouring regions. Among the Shāygiyya there is a certain family of Kinēsh who are publicly believed to be a descendents of the Kushshāf (AH; KN). This in fact is the ‘Umda family of Nōri in Merowe reach. The ‘Umda Muḥammad Aḥmad Kinēsh (MK) comments on this by saying: “We are a family that descended from the Kushshāf of al-Dir who ruled in southern Egypt and northern Sudan. We still keep documents of correspondences between our grandfathers and the Kushshāf of Sikkōd and Ḥalfa”. Furthermore, there is the document of Faraḥāt (Farkāwī; 1994: 133) who was a descendant of Kushshāf in ‘Abri challenged by an Egyptian prince in 1920s of his Turkish origin. Besides stating the Turkish origin of the Kushshāf, the document claims that the rule of the Kushshāf extended southward beyond the area of Merowe in the Shāygiyya land. What may give credit to this document is that it mentions Sultan Salīm (Selim) the Second as the one who conquered Nubia in the mid of the 16th century. Until the last two decade of the 20th century it was thought to be Sultan Salīm (Selim) the First who entered Nubia from Egypt in AB 1517-20 (cf. Burckhardt, 1818; Adams, 1977], to be decided later that it was Sultan Salīm the Second (cf. Menage, 1988; Alexander, 2001).
What may cast further doubts about the “Ja‛alī” origin of the Mulūk are the traditions that tell of wars between the first kings of Dūlǵa and the ‘Abdallāb and Funj (MI; AH). The medieval kingdom of the Maḥas was believed to have served as a puffer state between the Kushshāf in the north and the ‘‘Abdallāb and the Funj in the south [Osman, 1982]. But if the Kushshāf extended their rule beyond Merowe, then it is understandable that their first thrust had probably caused battles with the Funj. On the other hand the submission of both the Manāṣīr and Ja‛aliyyīn regencies to the ‛Abdallāb and the Funj kingdom is not disputed. A last evidence, drawn from oral traditions, that could have been counted in support of the Kushshāf origin is the folktale of king al-Sōkari having his horses painted in different colours every time they were brought down the river for drinking so as to give the impression to his besiegers that he had had too many knights (MI; AB). This same story is related in Sikkōd and Ḥalfa to the Nubian king, ‛ĀṢi Mūsa, who defied Sultan Salīm (Selim), refusing to surrender. He was reported to have performed this same trick when he was besieged in his capital at Sai Island. However, this same trick story was also related to the Shāyqi king ‛Uthmān wad Ḥāmid when besieged by the ‛Abdallāb King al-Shaykh al-Amīn wad ‛Ajīb (cf. Shibeika, 1991: 72).
Two points can be concluded from the above discussion. First, the Mulūk of Manāṣīrare related to the indigenous Nubians of the region. The second is that the first thrust of the Kushshāf rule did influence this area. Further investigations and studies with regard to the Manāṣīrmay probably shed more light on the post-medieval history of northern Sudan in general, and of the Nubians and Kushshāf in particular.

Politics, Religion and Land Appropriation in the Manāṣīr Oral History
It is agreed by the informants that the dynasty of king al-Sōkari ruled the region until the coming of the Turkish rule when it became nominal to come to an end by the Mahdia. In the early 20th century it was resumed within the framework of tribal administration which was abolished in 1970. The genealogical succession of the rulers of this dynasty is inconsistent, however. They ruled from their capital at the island of Dūlǵa which was believed to be originally built by the ‛Anaj (MI). The informants are divided whether the dynasty began with al-Sōkari or ‛Usmān (‛Uthmān), pronounced ‛Itmān. The following genealogy which traces them back is concluded from their statements: ‛Ali- Ṭāha - Ṭombol- Ḥamad- Faḍl- ‛Usmān- and al-Sōkari (or vice-versa al-Sōkari- and ‛Usmān). It is agreed that, whoever might be the founder of the dynasty, it is the one who came from Kajabī. Those who believe that the founder was ‛Usmān, admit that it was al-Sōkari who really consolidated and secured the rule of the dynasty and that he was the strongest of them all. The personal names of ‘Ḥamad’ and ‘Ṭombol’ are also found in the ruling family of Argo (in Dongola region) which was also contemporary to the dynasty of al-Sōkari. Although these particular names were among the prestigious names of the Funj era (Spaulding, 1985b), what makes the comparison worthy of further investigation is the factor that- according to tentative collection of oral data in Argo by the present investigator- the Kajabī legacy is also associated with the ruling family there. A major discrepancy in the above genealogy concerns the revolt led by a certain Ṭombol against his own father, the ruler; an event vividly kept in the folk memory and related with the lyrics exchanged by Ṭombol and his father. The informants are also divided here whether Ṭombol’s father was al-Sōkari or Ṭāha who is insistently put in the genealogy as Ṭombol’s son. It is possible that there was more than one royal name of Ṭombol, Ṭāha and al-Sōkari respectively. In his revolt against his father, Ṭombol allied with the Nubians of jabal Mināy in Dirbi who were his maternal uncles and who were the original Nubians of the region. They chose the place called Umm Ghāba (أم غابة) for their garrison. Could this be taken as a clue of the continuous resistance of the Nubians to the rule of the Mulūk? Ṭombol, a big-eyed man, depended on his maternal uncle (Digēr) as a leader of the Nubians of Dirbi Island. The lyrics attributed to Ṭombol say:
I, with my maternal uncles of Dirbi,
Have resolved to build and heighten Umm Ghāba.
Oh, father! You the cat-eyed one!
أنا وخيلاني الدّرّابة *** نبني ونعلّي أم غابة
عين الكديس يا يابا
For this his father (the King) replies:
Oh, Ṭombol, the big-eyed one,
You, who is so weak like the thorn of umm al-bēni [al-bēnah];
And your uncle Digēr is but a poodle.
يا طمبل يا اب عويني *** أنا شوفتي ليك مو زيني
يا شوكة أمّ البيني *** وخالك دقير إضيني
The informants agree that before the Mulūk there was no central rule in the region; there were local kinglets which fought against each other until al-Sōkari came and defeated them all (AS). After defeating the Nubians al-Sōkari was challenged by an outside force which tried to drive him back to Kajabī (AB). This army fought against al-Sōkari, but was defeated as the latter allied with the Nubians of Kawēna in Birti Island (KN), i.e. the migrant Nubians. It is expected from the indigenous Nubians not to support al-Sōkari; so the indigenous population defied the rule of the foreigners, whereas it was supported by those who are not indigenous. The new comers in the region will eventually make the core of alliance. In fact the indigenous Nubians were engaged in battles against the Mulūk. There was a King called Bōni whose capital was at the island of Umm Ḥajar who fought against the Mulūk (MI). The Nubians also fought under the leadership of a local king called wad (from walad in Arabic, i.e. son) Dāda who mobilized them immediately after one of the harvest seasons (AD; AB). The story of this confrontation has two versions, cynical one (representing the victorious Mulūk) and solemn one (representing the defeated Nubians). According to the cynical version of the story (AD), which is usually related in the context of mockery, king al-Sōkari busted the Nubians while they were being mobilized by wad Dāda at the harvest ceremony. Then he dragged wad Dāda from his ears like a goat and slaughtered him in front of his people who prostrated in allegiance. Then he enslaved them and usurped their lands. In later years some of the Nubians retained some of their lands due to their faithfulness to al-Sōkari. The other solemn, version which is related by the Nubians themselves (AB) goes as follows: “After assuming power, the Mulūk began levying taxes which were too much for the people; those who could not pay off were tortured and having their lands usurped. Wad Dāda, who was a descendant of a former Nubian ruler, began mobilizing people to revolt, encouraging them not to pay taxes. During one of the harvest ceremonies, while inciting them to revolt, king al-Sōkari came and confronted him. Although wad Dāda bravely admitted that he intended to restore his forefathers’ rule, he offered al-Sōkari the compromise of either dividing the rule of the region between them or otherwise undergoing a feud the survivor of which would be the sole king. As al-Sōkari opted for the second choice, they began fighting. Wad Dāda had had many chances to fatally stab al-Sōkari, but he only stroke him with the side of the sword instead if its edge. When al-Sōkari asked him why he did that, wad Dāda’s answer was that because the leader of people, out of respect for his leadership and people, should not be killed. This noble act made al-Sōkari decide to reconcile with wad Dāda. Thus the fight came to a halt, upon which wad Dāda excused himself to go into the household to order for food and drinks to celebrate. When he turned his back, king al-Sōkari treacherously struck him from behind and cut off his head. This is how the Nubians came to surrender to the Mulūk”. Then al-Sōkari made the following lyrics:
The Nubians refused to be guided,
Like pigeons, they lovingly stick to each other.
And wad Dāda has just passed away in a battle
النوبة أبت تتهادى *** زي الحمام تترادى
وفي كتلة راح ود دادا
The first cynical version goes with the statements made by most of the informants that the Nubians are the weakest and most un-prestigious clan. The second version does admit the weakness incidentally, but tries to envelop it with what can be called ‘the nobleness of the weak’. This reflects an aspect of the ideological tension among the Manāṣīr.
The defeat of the indigenous Nubians had brought about drastic geopolitical changes. By relegating the Nubians into serfs who toil their own land on behalf of the new rulers and upper classes, the traditional land tenure was disrupted. The migrant Nubians, due to their alliance with al-Sōkari against the indigenous Nubians, were allowed to put their hands on some of the very fertile bank lots (GS). King al-Sōkari encouraged with land endowment other new comers to settle, especially religious families. The Wahabāb were the first to be privileged (KN), then came the ‘fugarā’ (i.e. saintly) family of the Ḥamadtuyāb (AB). These religious families were manipulated by al-Sōkari as problem-resolution mediators between him and his subject clans (KN). Showing allegiance to the new regime qualified some of the indigenous Nubians to reclaim some of their usurped lands (AB). Other strong families of the region took after the Mulūk in usurping the lands from the Nubians. For instance, the bank lands of al-Ṭirēf village were usurped by a family of Magṭūf who were originally from Amri, just in the southern part of the Shāygiyya land (KN; AH). Later the Nubians of al-Ṭirēf, who were the serfs, took over the land which was left to them by the last survivor, an old woman called al-Takama bit (from bint in Arabic, i.e. daughter) Magtūf (AD).

Serfdom: Old or New?
There are clues that Serfdom could be traced back to the Christian kingdoms of Nubia. In the early decades of the 9th century, the Nubian king complained to the Abbasid Caliph that some Arabs had begun buying lands from the Nubians with the intention of settling, and thus violating not only the Paqt treaty but also the royal right in owning both the land and its people (cf. Mus‛ad, 1972). The land sale documents found at Qasr Ibrim (cf. Browne, 1991) show such transactions held by the laity, but under the auspices of the king. Further investigations are needed in order to decide whether they were free transactions held by the Nubians themselves, or whether they were in all cases conditioned with the consent of the king. But in the case of the Manāṣīrthe land tenure appropriation resembles in many ways what used to be in post-medieval Sudan; the Funj Sultanate in central Sudan (cf. Abū Salīm, 1967) and the Keira Sultanae in Darfur (cf. Abū Salīm, 1973) in general and Nubia under the rule of Kushshāf in particular. The very oppressive rule of the Kushshāf (cf. Burckhardt, 1987; Farkāwī, 1994) was characterized by land usurp. The kings of the Funj Sultanate began first by land usurp, and later when their rule was consolidated, they adopted the tactic of land tenure endowment. It is related in Ṭabagāt wad Ḍēfallah (the Funj Chronicles) that the Funj king wanted to make a land endowment to the Nubian paramount saint shaykh Idrīs wad al-Arbāb. Upon this, the Nubian saint commented that the land originally belonged to the Nubians from whom the Funj kings usurped it [cf. Ḥasan, 1973]. Could it be that the Manāṣīr kinglet adopted from the Funj Sultanate the tactics of land endowment to attract religious saints and scholars, when they became one of the Funj regencies?

Conclusion
This study has shown that, contrary to what has been taken for granted the Manāṣīr is not part of the great group of Ja‛aliyyīn. Furthermore, the study has shown that the Manāṣīr are in fact an alliance of clans that are not related to each other. The ethnic ideology of the Manāṣīr does not evolve around a principal pedigree or genealogy as the case among the Ja‛aliyyīn sub-groups. However, the oral history of the Manāṣīr does conform to the main theory or cliché of Arabicization, in two points. The first is coming of an Arab-claimed adult male into a Nubian society, where he gets himself a wife to eventually establish an Arabaized clan (cf. Ḥasan, 1973). The second is the slowly infiltration of the Arabs into the Nubian society (ibid).
The history of the Manāṣīr as drawn from their oral traditions is an infant venture; extensive and exhaustive collection of oral traditions is deemed necessary before reaching sound conclusions. In this regard, urgency should be adhered. Usually the reliable tradition-bearers, as can be seen in the ages of those interviewed by the present investigator, are above 70. In the resettlement experience of the Nubians of Ḥalfa people in the mid 1960s, the majority of those who were above 70 died in the first two years after resettlement. The Ḥalfa Nubians believe that the psychological traumatic ordeal of being uprooted was the reason behind that quick departure. This can also happen to the elderly Manāṣīr tradition-bearers. So, time is very pressing.

Bibliography

1. Abdullahi Ali Ibrahim. “Sudanese Historiography and Oral Tradition”, in: History in Africa, 1985, No. 12, PP. 117-130.

2. Abū Salīm, M.I., Al-Funj wal arḍ [The Funj and Land], Khartoum, 1967.

3. Abū Salīm, M.I., Al-maṣādir al-’awwaliyya li’fatrat al-mahdiyya [The Primary Sources of the Mahdia Period], Khartoum, 1970.

4. Abū Salīm, M.I., Al-Fur wal arḍ [The Fur and Land], Khartoum, 1973.

5. Adams, William Y. Nubia: Corridor to Africa, Lane, Princeton, London, 1978.

6. Alexander, John, “The First Turkiyya in the Sudan”, in: Sudan Studies, 2001, No. 26, PP 5-13.

7. Barth, Fredrick (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Universitets Forlaget, Bergen, & George Allen & Unwin, London, 1970.

8. Browne, G.M., Old Nubian Texts from Qasr Ibrim III. London, 1991.

9. Burchardt, J.l., Travels in Nubia, Darf Publishing Limited, London, 1987 (First edition, 1819).

10. Farkāwī, Muḥammad ‛Uthmān, Al-waliyāb wa ’ansābuhum [The Waliyāb and their Genealogy], Khartoum, 1994.

11. Ḥasan, Yusuf Faḍl, The Arabs and the Sudan: from the Seventh to the Early Sixteenth Century, Khartoum University Press, Khartoum, 1973.

12. Ḥasan, Yusuf Faḍl, Some Aspects of the Writing of History in Modern Sudan. Khartoum, 1978.

13. Ḥasan, Yusuf Faḍl (ed), Ṭabaqāt Muḥammad al-Nūr wad Ḍeifalla: kitāb al-ṭabaqāt fī khuṣūṣ al-awliyyā’ wal-ṣāihīn wal-‛ulamā’ wal-shu‛arā’ fīl-sūdān [The Chronicles of Muḥammad al-Nūr wad Ḍeifalla: The Book of the Classes of Saints, Holy Men, Learned Men and Poets in the Sudan], 3rd Edition, Khartoum University Press, Khartoum, 1985.

14. Henige, D., Oral Historiography, Longman, London, 1982.

15. Holt, P.M., “Funj Origin: A Critique and New Evidence”, In: Journal of African History, Vol. IV, 1963, PP 39-55.

16. MacMichael, H.A., A History of the Arabs in the Sudan, Vols. I, II, Frank Cass & Co. Ltd, London, 1967.

17. Ménage, V.L., “The Ottoman and Nubia in the Sixteenth Century”, in: Annales Islamologiques, Vol. 24, 1988, PP. 137-153.

18. Mus‛ad, M.M., Al-maktaba al-Sūdāniyya al-‛Arabiyya: majmū‛at al-nuṣūṣ wal-wathā’iq al-khāṣṣa bi-tārīkh al-Sūdān fil ‛ṣūr al-wusṭa [The Sudanese Arabic Library: The Collection of Texts and Documents relating to the Medieval History of the Sudan], Cairo, 1972.

19. Nasr, Aḥmad A. Rahīm, Tārīkh al-‛Abdallāb min khilāl riwāyātihim al-samā‛iyya [The History of the ‛Abdallāb from their Oral Traditions], Sudan Research Unit, Khartoum, 1975.

20. Osman, Ali, “The Post-Medieval Kingdom of Kokka: A Means for a better understanding of the Administration of the Medieval Kingdom of Dongola”, in: Jack Martin Plumley (ed.), Nubian Studies: proceedings of the symposium for Nubian Studies, Selwyn College, Cambridge, 1978, Aris and Philips, Warminster, Wiltshire, 1982.

21. Qāsim, ‛Awn al-Sharīf, Qāmūs al-lahja al-‛āmiyya fī al-sūdān [The Lexicon of Sudanese Colloquial Arabic], 3rd ed., Al-dār al-sūdāniyya lil-kutub, Khartoum, 2002.

22. Salih, Abdelrahim Mohammed, The Manasir of Northern Sudan: Land and People, Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, Köln, 1999.

23. Shibeika, M., Al-Sūdān wal thawra al-mahdiyya. Part I, Khartoum University Press, Khartoum, 1979.

24. Shibeika, M., Al-Sūdān ‛abr al-qurūn [Sudan through Centuries], Dār al-Jīl, Beirut, 1991.

25. Shuqair, N., Jughrāfyat wa tārīkh al-Sūdān [The Geography and History of the Sudan]. Beirut. 1967.

26. Spaulding, J., “Three Court Titles from an Extinct Language of the Northern Sudan”, in: Meroitic Newsletter, 12, 1973.

27. Spaulding, J., The Heroic Age of Sennār, Michigan State University, African Studies Centre, Michigan, 1985a.

28. Spaulding, J., From King and Kashif to Bookshelf and Bibliography, in: Historisk Tidsskrift III, 294-299, 1985b.

29. Werner, Roland, Tidn-aal: A Study of Midob (Darfur Nubian), Reimer, Berlin, 1994.