The Kanuri of Bornu

Cohen's ethnographic study of the Kanuri people was based on research from the 1950s and 1960s in a village called Magumeri. Focusing on the household unit as the basic building block of Kanuri society, the basis for economic, familial, political, and productive activity, Cohen's The Kanuri of Bornu suggests a certain degree of continuity in Kanuri social structure that may stretch backwards in time for several centuries. Certainly back to the time of the Sefuwa dynasty's relocation to Borno from their Kanem, some of the features of 20th century Kanuri society may have already been in place. Of course, one must be careful using the ethnographic present to inform our understanding of precolonial eras. But, the period of British colonial rule seems to have continued many aspects of local government already in place by the Shehus, who in turn retained multiple aspects of Borno's political administration already established by the Sefuwa mais. Thus, one can reasonably assert that the household with its patriarchal, virilocal structure and emphasis on discipline-respect (for relationships between superiors and subordinates/clients) has probably been a dominant trend in Kanuri culture for at least a few centuries. 

Of course, the long process in which the ancestors of the Kanuri migrated to Borno from Kanem, interacting and intermarrying with other populations and becoming more influenced by Islam since the Islamization of the Sefuwas and their Magumi clan in the late 11th century, makes it difficult to know with certainty how many of the foundational elements of Kanuri society were present in the early days of the Kanem kingdom. Perhaps the early ancestors of the Kanuri during their days in Kanem were more nomadic or semi-nomadic, with less focus on agriculture and probably, as Cohen asserts, very decentralized politically. Nonetheless, the description of the household as observed by Cohen, with its focus on "discipline-respect" and the attraction of clients to wealthy men (or wealth in dependents and redistribution) probably go back several centuries. The organization of craft production on a guild model likely also exceeds far back in time, as does the widespread cottage industry level of production during dry seasons. Perhaps even under the reign of the mais peasants were able to assert some degree of agency through migration and complaints to officials, the representatives of the fief-holders who stayed in the capital of Gazargamu.

Thus, for those curious about how Kanem-Borno may have functioned in pre-19th century eras, Cohen's study offers some fascinating theories and details. Much of how trade operated in the distant past or perhaps the so-called feudal aspects of land tenure and administration in rural areas was likely different. Yet Cohen's ethnography suggests a great degree of continuity still present in the 1960s, albeit penetrated by "modernization" at varying levels. One also gets a glimpse of how the peasantry and artisans may have interacted with the upper classes through social relations filtered through the lens of the household. One weakness of Cohen's study, however, is the omission of urbanization as a historical factor in Kanem-Borno's long history. How did urban centers operate in the precolonial era? To what extent was or is there continuity? What about pre-moden wage laborers and the importance of slavery and the slave trade? Or Borno's complex history of empire and relations with neighbors? What we need next is a detailed history of Borno that integrates anthropological research with what the historical sources tell us...