Shilluk Trade and Politics from the mid–seventeenth century to 1861

Abstract

From the mid-seventeenth century until 1861, the Shilluk, notoriously successful raiders, dominated the White Nile. Their population was largely concentrated in the riverain strip which is Shilluk-land today, yet they had undisputed control of the river down to Eleis, and raided as far north as the confluence with the Blue Nile. This ascendancy was based upon the canoe: the characteristic Shilluk tactic was the surprise mass canoe-raid upon herds or villages within striking distance of the river bank. Before the advent of Turco-Egyptian sailing ships, Shilluk canoes were the only really navigable craft on the White Nile. Another important Shilluk asset was the manpower provided by their comparatively high numbers. Most raids were carried out independently of the Shilluk king. The raiding pattern was probably established before the development of the Shilluk ‘divine’ kingship. From 1820 the Shilluk became more closely involved with the Muslim Sudan. It seems that the beginning of the ivory boom led Kordofan djellabas to open regular trade with the Shilluk. And in ever-increasing numbers, Muslim refugees from Turkish officialdom migrated into Shilluk territory. Trade between Shilluk and Muslim was largely confined to the settlement of Kaka. Its most profitable sector, the ivory trade, was governed by a strict royal monopoly, the maintenance of which gives some proof of the Shilluk king's authority. Wealth thus gained may have led to a short-lived increase in royal power. The mass of the Shilluk were unable to develop any economic alternative to the traditional raids, which continued unabated. In a new raiding pattern, Shilluk of the Kaka region joined Muslim immigrants in raids on the Dinka. Once Kaka had become a slave-market, slave raiding was probably the essential aim of these joint expeditions. Tensions between Shilluk and immigrant traders precipitated a crisis in 1860–1.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 37 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.