This study contributes significantly to scholarship about the colonial state, using evidence derived from the historical experience of colonial Darfur (1916–56). The author wisely refrains from reifying any a priori concept of “the state,” which, he proposes, should rather be understood in the ever-contingent shifting context of historical process and political struggle. He places special emphasis on the role of “chiefs,” by which he means those, both black and white, who served along the interface between the colonial rulers and the ruled, where they implemented a “negotiated authoritarianism” (19). The author’s introductory discussion of geography and ethnicity is a small masterpiece of synthesis that should hold scriptural authority over the perhaps well-intentioned but often ill-informed discussion of contemporary Darfur.

Chapter 1 assesses the significance of precolonial legacies. The author argues that “the coherence of the state itself under the Sultans should . . . be questioned rather than assumed” (35). A fundamental dynamic of social history lay in the intrinsic tension between the chiefs and the king, as mediated by the subjects; in some cases the abuses of rapacious or excessively violent chiefs might be suppressed by the forces of the king, while in others the excesses of royal agents might be blunted or averted by chiefs who defended their communities. Successful survival in this political setting encouraged the construction of complicated and infinitely mutable networks of political relationship, often supported by intermarriage and ethnic transition, which embraced all levels of authority. Discernible also was a long-term trend toward the growth of more centralized modes of control. This was visible first in the creation of the late sultanic superior governors entitled maqdum, who were often slaves, but was then enhanced by the intrusion of conquering nineteenth-century aliens such as al-Zubayr Rahma Mansur, the Turco-Egyptians, and the forces of the Sudanese Mahdi. Finally, the restored sultanate of ’Ali Dinar (1898–1916) drew upon and consolidated the centralizing gains of his predecessors. Thus at the reconquest, the new European colonial power of the twentieth century could avail itself of a historical process that was advantageous to itself.

Chapter 2 examines the Anglo-Egyptian conquest and consolidation of power over the years 1916 to 1921. A central theme, overlooked by existing literature, was the creation and arming by British authorities of tribal militias of “friendlies,” who were then allowed to loot, rape, and pillage in a manner comparable to the janjawid of contemporary discourse. The state-sponsored violence that was thus unleashed provoked a major rebellion in the Nyala uprising of 1921.

Chapter 3 explores colonial political culture in the predominantly Fur-speaking, sedentary districts west of Jabal Marra from 1917 to 1945. Of central importance was the concept of “Indirect Rule,” known in the Sudan as “Native Administration,” by which white officials undertook to govern via indigenous leaders observing traditional usages. Conspicuous here was the unchecked rapacity of lower-level leaders, often entitled shartay. British administrators failed in their attempt to create a higher level of authority called an emirate capable of curbing the abuses of subordinates; rather, the emir’s agents themselves joined in the regime of “endemic extortion” (104).

Chapter 4 turns to the experience of pastoral communities from 1917 to 1937. The British greatly increased the powers of chiefs through the institution of native courts wielding significant powers. However, the ubiquity of factional rivalries over the chiefly office itself limited the systematic misuse of power by anyone—and made the tenure of a chief tenuous and often short. Chapter 5 explores the futility of the idea, popular among some administrators and some chiefs, that each “tribe” should have its own tribal territory where it lived exclusively. Chapter 6 reveals a widening and modest modernization of chiefly political perspectives in the later years of colonial rule (1937–56).

A final virtue of this study lies in the wise comparative discussion in its concluding section of the broader literature about the roles of chiefs in the colonial state.