Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-6grmk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T18:58:58.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sahara in Transition: Political and Economic Transformations in Ghadames and Fezzan from the 1700s to the 1850s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2026

Kerem Duymus Open the ORCID record for Kerem Duymus [Opens in a new window]
Kerem Duymus*
Affiliation:
Institut für Afrikastudien, Leipzig University , Germany
*
Email: keremduymus@proton.me
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper endeavors to scrutinize the political and economic transformation within Central Saharan regions, concentrating specifically on Ghadames and Murzuq from the 1700s through the 1850s. Despite being neighboring regions, their respective political and economic systems exhibited stark contrasts, which precipitated divergent responses when broader regional shifts occurred following the 1790s. After the Ottoman Empire’s establishment of direct rule in Tripolitania in 1835, the changes became more pronounced. Consequently, not only did these regions undergo significant internal transformations from the 1700s to the 1850s, but local actors also significantly influenced the Ottoman Empire’s engagement with the Sahara.

Résumé

Résumé

Cet article examine la transformation politique et économique des régions du Sahara central, en se concentrant plus particulièrement sur Ghadamès et Mourzouq entre le début du XVIIIe siècle et les années 1850. Ces régions bien que voisines contrastaient fortement par leurs systèmes politiques et économiques respectifs, un phénomène qui a suscité des réactions divergentes face aux mutations régionales plus vastes survenues après les années 1790. Ces changements se sont accentués après l’instauration d’une administration ottomane directe en Tripolitaine en 1835. Ainsi, non seulement ces régions ont connu d’importantes transformations internes au cours de cette période, mais les acteurs locaux ont également exercé une influence considérable sur la manière dont l’Empire ottoman a interagi avec le Sahara.

Keywords

GhadamesFezzanSaharaOttoman Empiretrans-Saharan trade

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
History in Africa , First View , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of African Studies Association

Introduction

Though trans-Saharan trade has garnered substantial scholarly attention within literature on Saharan history, the internal political and economic dimensions of this commerce, particularly in Central Sahara, remain underexplored in Anglophone and Francophone research literature.Footnote 1 On the other hand, Arabophone scholarship, notably by historians in Algeria and Libya, exhibits a marked interest in examining the political, economic, social, and intellectual facets of the region’s past.Footnote 2 However, regarding Ghadames and Fezzan, significant obstacles persist. Despite their status as pivotal nodes in trans-Saharan trade, historians confront substantial difficulties due to the fragmentation of available sources; here, “sources” refer not to European traveler accounts, which are often biased by imperialist and colonialist underpinnings, but rather to Arabic and Turkish historical materials.Footnote 3 In fact, a substantial volume of archival materials already exist in Libya and Turkey. However, the national archive in Libya is underfunded and holds only limited collections. Numerous crucial documents from the nineteenth century are scattered across repositories in Libya. Furthermore, the historical documentation pertaining to Ghadames and Fezzan predominantly resides within the private archives maintained by influential families that historically wielded significant influence over the region’s political and economic landscape. Additionally, extensive Turkish traveler accounts and administrative records concerning these areas exist, which are highly valued within the Turkish academic sphere but have remained virtually unknown in academic circles outside Turkey.Footnote 4

As a result of these challenges, the historical narratives focusing on Ghadames and Fezzan have been primarily constructed using external sources in the Anglophone and Francophone scholarship, which consequently obscure the internal dynamics and agency of local actors within these regions. Communities in these regions were depicted as largely passive entities reacting to external changes rather than contributing significantly to regional history. The paucity of studies on extensive intellectual and political connections with Hausaland, Borno, and the Ottoman Empire further complicates this understanding. For instance, the essential role of the local actors from Ghadames and Fezzan in the expansion of the Ottoman Empire towards the Sahara in the second half of the nineteenth century has only recently been explored.Footnote 5 This finding also prompts fresh inquiries into how these actors became such influential players in the region’s transformation during the early nineteenth century.

Despite their geographical proximity, historically, Ghadames and Fezzan inherited divergent sociopolitical systems during the eighteenth century. Ghadames’s dependence on the Kel Tamasheq tributary arrangement for external security enabled the development of a governance structure absent of dynastic authority. Consequently, this political configuration obviated the necessity for both taxation and standing military forces. Within this administrative framework, local Islamic scholars assumed predominant responsibility for legislative and political administration. By contrast, Murzuq’s absence of a comparable tributary security pact with the Teda communities necessitated the emergence of a local sultanate, which institutionalized fiscal extraction through taxation while concurrently providing organized armed protection for the populace and merchants. These fundamental disparities were profoundly shaped by their engagements with neighboring Kel Tamasheq and Teda groups, while also molding their distinct epistemological conceptualizations of sovereignty, taxation, and military organization. Following the Ottoman Empire’s assertion of direct control over Tripoli in 1835 and its subsequent southward expansion into the Sahara from the 1840s onward, these internal divergences significantly conditioned the respective responses of Ghadames and Fezzan to Ottoman presence. Whereas the inhabitants of Ghadames reacted with considerable opposition to the novel imposition of fiscal obligations and the stationing of Ottoman military garrisons within their urban center, the population of Murzuq swiftly accommodated the new Ottoman sovereignty, given that the initial phase of Ottoman administration was firmly aligned with their preexisting administrative architecture with minimal disruption. However, a significant consequence of the post-1840s Ottoman rule was a marked trend toward both administrative and epistemological alignment with imperial structures. Crucially, the inhabitants of Ghadames and Fezzan were not merely passive recipients of this transformation; rather, they actively negotiated and adapted to these shifts. This agency facilitated the expansion of their economic and scholarly pursuits onto a global stage, thereby creating a convergence between the global aspirations of Ghadames and Fezzan alongside the broader geopolitical ambitions of the Ottoman Empire.

By incorporating historical materials from various local private archives in Libya and conducting interviews alongside examining numerous Turkish sources, this study aims to assess the differences and transformations between Ghadames and Fezzan in the context of their respective political and economic systems and structures, thereby offering fresh insights on their internal dynamics and emerging global ambitions under Ottoman rule.

From a Maghreb-oriented oasis to an Ottoman trade center: Ghadames

The city of Ghadames historically served as a primary hub for merchants traveling from Tripoli into the Sahara, embarking on a lengthy desert journey. Despite its proximity to Tripoli, Ghadames was never under Ottoman rule until the nineteenth century, although it was required, and in some cases forced, to pay tribute between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.Footnote 6 Additionally, Ghadames had a rich tradition of scholarship, and a renowned library known as Tāskū Mattiḍan,Footnote 7 making it an important center for scholarly circles.Footnote 8 The city was also a popular visiting and education place for Essouq scholars from the southern Kel Tamasheq world, as they also enjoyed recognition and prestige.Footnote 9 Unlike the other important cities around the Central Sahara, such as Murzuq and Agadez, there was no ruling sultan in Ghadames, the administration was overseen by the city council supervised by the imam,Footnote 10 qāḍī,Footnote 11 and muftī Footnote 12 of the city between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries.Footnote 13 This also greatly shaped the demography of the city. In the sixteenth century, there were several Jewish and Ibadi communities in Ghadames.Footnote 14 In the seventeenth century, while some Jewish communities were converted to Islam and some Ibadi communities began to follow Sunni Islam, the rest migrated towards the north. Accordingly, several Ibadi communities went to Jabal Nafusa, and some Jewish communities arrived at Tripoli,Footnote 15 while in Tripoli there were already many Jewish communities for centuries.Footnote 16 The role of Ibadi communities in the trans-Saharan trade shifted from being active merchants to being service providers for caravans in the Nefusa mountains following the seventeenth century. Jewish communities remained a modest part of this trade.Footnote 17 Nonetheless, different from the sixteenth century, not as merchants but as creditors and brokers.Footnote 18 As a result of the dominance of the Maliki school of law, albeit there were some merchants families adhered to the Hanafi and Shafi school of law in the city,Footnote 19 the governance relied on Maliki jurisprudence, and this reliance distinguished Ghadames from neighboring cities such as Agadez and Murzuq, aligning it more closely with Shinqiti (in present-day Mauritania) and Tuwat (in present-day Algeria) in terms of governance.Footnote 20 However, a clear division of “scholar” and “warrior” groups, argued for Western Sahara by Lydon,Footnote 21 or an oligarchic structure in the administration, argued for Timbuktu by Saad,Footnote 22 does not appear to hold for Ghadames, as local sources do not give any insight into such phenomena.

Given that the entire political landscape was shaped by Maliki jurisprudence through the imam, qāḍī, and muftī of Ghadames, these scholars played a significant role in political and diplomatic matters. For instance, one of these qāḍīs was Abdallah bin Abi Bakr Al-Ghadamisi (d. 1719) who through his son left a chronicle that explains through juristic arguments why Ghadames – notwithstanding its proximity to Ottoman rule in Tripoli – remained obliged to Morocco.Footnote 23 This decentralized administration was also intersected with the economic characteristics of the city, as the significance of artisanal and agricultural production was negligible enough that being a merchant in the city was considered a self-evident fact, as one Ghadamesian individual expressed in a letter dating back to the 1850s: “In Ghadames there is nothing to produce, only to spend; there is nothing to harvest, only to consume,”Footnote 24 hence, “anyone who wants to make a fortune must go to Bilād al-Sūdān….”Footnote 25 In this context, lack of a sultan who might impose tax, offered certain advantages to the city’s merchants.Footnote 26 Furthermore, the dominance of jurisprudence in politics and governance provided a significant guarantee for the accumulation of personal wealth. There was no sultan, emir, or pasha who, abruptly, could seize the private properties. Court registers in Tripoli and Ghadames clearly show that the merchants were fully aware of their rights, and they trusted the efficiency of the judicial system.Footnote 27 While the administration was run by the city council with the judicial supervision of the imam, qāḍī, and muftī, the city lacked a clear executive structure, such as any armed forces. Nevertheless, the local narratives in Ghadames reveal that there was an executive power residing in the community itself: “If someone does not recognize the law, neither do we recognize such a man. Without his community’s acceptance, a man is nothing more than a wild animal in the desert.”Footnote 28 This was indeed not a unique case for Ghadames. As Warscheid clearly showed, entirely the same pattern not only existed in the Tuwat region, but this structure was even justified by the local jurists, using legal arguments.Footnote 29

While taking advantage of their distinctive governance system, Ghadamesian merchants were also eager to adapt themselves to other systems of governance in the surrounding regions. For instance, due to competitive trade relations, Ghadamesian merchants could not do business in some cities without intermediation of the local shopkeepers, as exemplified in SoufFootnote 30 in the northwestern Ghadames, whereas the city’s merchants had several residences in various cities including Kano and Timbuktu,Footnote 31 and regions such as Tuwat,Footnote 32 as well as Sokoto, Katsina, Alexandria, and Tunis.Footnote 33 In some cases, they also possessed land holdings, as in Azawad.Footnote 34 Some merchants were even wealthy enough to provide substantial credit to the pasha of Tunisia in the 1850s.Footnote 35

However, in the late eighteenth century, this long-standing economic and legal tradition underwent a profound transformation. As the ancient gold trade with Timbuktu – which were the main commodities in the trans-Saharan trade for centuriesFootnote 36 – came to an end around 1830, merchants had to find new goods to transport.Footnote 37 Additionally, the deep economic ties of Ghadames with Mechroha (present-day Algeria),Footnote 38 Mzab (present-day Algeria),Footnote 39 and Souf was waning in the late eighteenth century, as the city inhabitants were orienting themselves towards Fezzan and Siwa (present-day Egypt).Footnote 40 Whereas in the Sahara the orientation of the city was shifting from the west to the east, on the Mediterranean coast there was an opposite pattern. During the rule of Yusuf Pasha in Tripoli from the 1790s to 1835, many Ghadamesian merchants directed their business to Tunis instead of Tripoli.Footnote 41 The civil war in Tripoli after 1830 further strengthened this trend. Hussein Pasha of Tunisia also personally supported these merchants for their business in Tunis.Footnote 42 This shift radically changed when the Ottomans established direct rule in Tripoli in 1835. The following years marked the first time in centuries that Ghadames had a resident ruler/governor from Istanbul, imposing tax on the city inhabitants.Footnote 43 After 1843, the city became an Ottoman trade center, and the merchants shifted their activities along the Mediterranean coast from Tunisia to Tripoli. Following 1835, the orientation of the city entirely changed eastward. This is not only because the city was integrated into the Ottoman market, but because the declining gold trade from the late eighteenth century came to an end in the 1830s, forcing Ghadamesian merchants to search for new lucrative goods, such as ivory, in western Bilād al-Sūdān, particularly in Baghirmi and Wadai.Footnote 44 It is also worth mentioning that Ghadamesian merchants were barely active in Adamawa, which was a hub of enslaved person trafficking in the Sokoto Caliphate during the nineteenth century, as the slave trade played almost no real role in the trans-Saharan trade in the nineteenth century.Footnote 45

Suddenly having a resident governor with armed forces caused great unrest among the local communities. Their system of governance relied on tribute payments to intermediary powers, mainly to the Kel Tamasheq communities in the Sahara for security.Footnote 46 In that regard, paying tribute was part of their main business model, while new tax imposition by the new Ottoman müdür Footnote 47 (third-ranked governor) was an out-of-business cost that reduced their profit margin. However, later they found a way to take advantage of this new situation. For instance, in 1845, notables of Ghadames sent a letter through the Ottoman müdür of Ghadames to the Ottoman vali Footnote 48 (first-ranked governor) of Tripoli complaining that their caravans were attacked by Shaanba.Footnote 49 They demanded a patrolling division between Souf and Ghadames against raiders. In the same year, the vali ordered the establishment of this division with sixty soldiers.Footnote 50 In this regard, Ghadamesian merchants, after an initial period of unease and adjustment – such as paying tax – of having a governor, also began to experience the advantages of this situation. The müdür, possessing political and military power, was able to offer personal guarantees to merchants. Although the müdür’s actions were not exceeding the limits of sharia, his bureaucratic power proved more effective in finding swift resolutions for them. For instance, in 1850, one merchant advised his friend, who faced a contractual issue with his business partner, to seek resolution through the Ottoman müdür, to solve his problem quickly.Footnote 51 In 1852, another Ghadamesian merchant informed his partner in Ghat that the Ottoman müdür had promised to retrieve his stolen caravan from bandits, and he successfully fulfilled his promise.Footnote 52 Additionally, around 1853, the Ottoman authorities discussed safeguarding the interests of Ghadamesian merchants in Kano upon hearing rumors of a potential invasion by Borno. The kaymakam Footnote 53 (second-ranked governor) of Fezzan expressed in the letter that he wrote to the vali of Tripol: “since Kano is the main hub of the Ghadamesian merchants, we should take some measures for such a possible invasion to avoid any possible loss.”Footnote 54 Yet, such an invasion never took place.

Consequently, the residents of Ghadames adjusted their legal and economic practices in response to the new circumstances, particularly after 1850 when they acquired a resident governor. The presence of a müdür was not intended to abandon Maliki jurisprudence, as the müdür’s role was mainly tax collection, and included rapid conflict resolution. The social and economic life was still under the rule of Maliki jurisprudence, since the Ottomans refrained from imposing Hanafi jurisprudence upon Ghadames, as attested by the documented absence of any Hanafi qāḍī within the city, as long as people did not go directly to the müdür for expedient resolutions to bypass the Islamic Law in general. Merchants reacted to this new situation by canalizing all their caravans to Tripoli in the 1850s – also to avoid further payment of tribute to go to Tunisia or to Algiers. This was furthermore connected to the establishment of a new merchant guild in Ghadames in 1843. Since the president and some members of this guild sat on the city council, they also influenced the domestic policies. After 1850, Ghadames became one of the most important caravan hubs of Tripoli and of the Ottoman rule.Footnote 55 That was a significant epistemological turn for the local people, as they considered tribute payment (mostly to Kel Azgher and Kel Air of Tamasheq) preferable to tax payment. When they were forced to pay tax, they changed their whole traditional conception of trade. Instead of organizing complex tribute networks with Kel Tamasheq to secure their business, they began to engage with the Ottoman administration to secure their interests in the trade. This included pushing the Ottoman authorities to expand towards the Sahara to secure their commercial interests. They even reached this goal, as the Ottoman Empire took Ghat, the capital of Kel Azgher at this time, under direct rule in the 1850s,Footnote 56 and signed a trade agreement with the sultan of Agadez, the capital of Kel Air at this time, in the following years.Footnote 57

From a Borno-style sultanate to an Ottoman administrative center: The case of Fezzan

Fezzan, with its capital in Murzuq, stood out as an entirely different case compared to Ghadames because it functioned as a sultanate. Although during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century the sultanate was under the rule of a dynasty originally from Morocco, Awlad Muhammad, the whole administrative structure as well as system of governance was structured similar to the sultanate of Borno as the Kanem Empire ruled over Fezzan for three hundred years between 1250 and 1550.Footnote 58 Accordingly, traditional administrative titles were adopted from Kanuri titles, and the system of governance was shaped by the political dynamics in Borno until the imposition of a direct rule of the Ottoman Empire in 1842.Footnote 59

The urban life in Murzuq possessed distinct characteristics that set it apart from similar cities such as Ghadames, Ghat, and Bilma. Private correspondence of the merchants reveal that despite the significant commercial activities in and around Murzuq, only a small number of city residents were directly involved in trans-Saharan trade. Many active traders in the city were actually from SoknaFootnote 60 and Hun,Footnote 61 they maintained residences in Murzuq to operate their caravans.Footnote 62 Main economic activities around the oasis outside Murzuq were the production of datesFootnote 63 and natron.Footnote 64 Most of the city inhabitants were occupied with the craft production of items such as knives, swords, and copper pottery. They were selling them to the merchants who visited the city.Footnote 65 For this reason, Murzuq came to serve not only as a transfer point but also as a place of rest, given that the city served as the primary service hub for these caravans.Footnote 66 Additionally, as caravans traditionally traveled to Tripoli, many merchants outside of Tripoli employed local representatives to buy trans-Saharan products before the merchandise was forwarded to Tripoli.Footnote 67 For instance, a private letter in 1849 reveals that a local representative in Murzuq was working for four different contractors who were from Benghazi, Baghdad, Cairo, and Awjila.Footnote 68 Due to the cosmopolitan nature of the city, even the British government expressed interest in conducting trade in Murzuq through the use of agents. Britain established a vice-consulate in the city around 1843.Footnote 69 Nonetheless, their agents quickly found themselves overwhelmed by the complexity of the transactions, prompting the vice-consul to shift his focus towards establishing diplomatic relations with Borno.Footnote 70

Another crucial detail regarding the economic activities in Murzuq was enslavement. Because the region had a sultan, unlike Ghadames, the inhabitants of the region had an army. In time of peace, however, these soldiers turned into plunderers who attacked Tibesti and Borku to enslave Teda people, since they did not consider them Muslims.Footnote 71 Hence, many of them had no other occupation due to economic gain that they received though sultan’s salary and slave trade. In that regard, serving as a soldier/plunderer was a special profession in the region called Fazazna. Footnote 72 Thus, they made Murzuq a hub for slave trade, even without needing substantial export volumes from the southern Central Sudan. Nonetheless, the volume of this trade was still fewer than one hundred enslaved persons annually.Footnote 73

All these structures and dynamics had to be redefined during the first half of the nineteenth century. Firstly, from 1811 to 1813 the sultanate of Fezzan officially ceased to exist through the involvement of al-Mukni under the order of Yusuf Pasha, and he ruled the region.Footnote 74 Secondly, with the outbreak of a civil war in Tripolitania around 1830, Fezzan came under the control of the Awlad Sulaiman dynasty. Although this dynasty never established its own sultanate before, they held considerable power in the central Sahara region prior to 1830. In the 1690s, they attempted to invade the city of Ghat but were unsuccessful.Footnote 75 Similarly, in the 1760s, they sought to extract tribute from the city of Ghadames.Footnote 76 In this regard, by the time this dynasty assumed power in Fezzan in 1830, they were already well known. Nevertheless, their reign was highly influenced by the wars they waged, first against Yusuf Pasha until 1835, subsequently against Ottoman valis in Tripoli. Consequently, the dynasty’s focus was on forging alliances in Morocco, Cairo, and Borno, rather than concentrating on governance in Fezzan.Footnote 77 Following the Ottoman victory in 1842, some members of the dynasty decided to leave the region and sought refuge in Kanem, while others embraced the new Ottoman rule, receiving administrative positions.Footnote 78

The new Ottoman rule in Fezzan after 1842, in fact, did not bring significant changes for Murzuq. Since Fezzan was a sultanate with a complex, hierarchical administrative structure, the Ottomans appointed a kaymakam (second rank of governor) to Murzuq instead of a müdür, whose role was essentially the same as previous sultans in terms of ruling. Nevertheless, the Borno-style administrative structure was transformed into the Ottoman-style administrative structure. For instance, El-Hasnewi identifies twenty-three types of taxes and fees during the reign of Awlad Sulaiman around 1810.Footnote 79 In the 1840s, the number of the taxes and fees was drastically reduced to six, in accordance with the new administrative reform in the Ottoman Empire, called Tanzimat. Footnote 80 With the declaration of Tanzimat in 1839, the Ottoman Empire began to radically reorganize its entire administrative structure. Accordingly, after 1842, numerous standardization measures were introduced, first in Tripoli and then in Murzuq. The first merchant guild was also established in Murzuq in 1842, granting the merchants considerable power in the city council, similar to Ghadames.

The responses of the Fezzani communities to Ottoman rule contrasted sharply with those of Ghadames. Prior to Ottoman rule, the Fezzanis had been governed by a sultan for centuries and were accustomed to paying taxes. Unlike the merchants of Ghadames, who traditionally paid tribute for trade security, such practices were alien to the Fezzani mercantile community, who prioritized direct control over trade routes rather than relying on intermediaries.Footnote 81 The route connecting Borno and Murzuq was primarily traversed by Teda nomads from Tibesti, yet they did not establish a tributary system akin to that of the Kel Azgher of Tamasheqs between Agadez and Ghadames.Footnote 82 Instead, the Fezzani merchants traveled with military escorts supplied by the sultan, providing them with security for their caravans.Footnote 83 According to oral accounts, this was the primary reason explaining the absence of a sultanate in Ghadames, while the Fezzanis had long been compelled to maintain one.Footnote 84 In this regard, the payment of taxes represented an integral aspect of business for the Fezzani merchants, as they benefited from the deployed forces’ security services. Conversely, any form of tribute was perceived as a detrimental expense.Footnote 85 This epistemological disparity between the Ghadamesians and Fezzanis profoundly influenced their approach to Ottoman rule. While the Ghadamesians had to adapt to new circumstances, the Fezzanis found themselves in a continuation of the established system they had been accustomed to.

Furthermore, in the context of Fezzan during this period, certain segments advocated for Ottoman rule in Murzuq. After the fall of the Awlad Muhammad dynasty, the political landscape underwent significant change in Fezzan between 1813 and 1830, with the reign of al-Mukni and his successors coinciding with economic and political turmoil in Tripoli,Footnote 86 prompting increased taxation and military expenditure in Fezzan as a remedial measure.Footnote 87 This situation worsened further when Abduljelil of the Awlad Sulaiman gained control over Fezzan, declaring war on Yusuf Pasha in Tripoli in 1831,Footnote 88 which resulted in the disruption of trans-Saharan trade between Tripoli and Borno, routed through Murzuq.Footnote 89 This interruption led to substantial financial losses for the merchant communities.

The establishment of direct Ottoman rule over Tripoli in 1835 offered a glimmer of hope for the revival of this trade route. However, Abduljelil’s rejection of the Ottomans’ proposal, to serve as an Ottoman governor in Murzuq and to pay an annual tax,Footnote 90 and his subsequent engagement with the British consul in Tripoli for recognition as sovereign sultan of Fezzan, were met with opposition from the merchant communities in Sokna.Footnote 91 They vehemently opposed the rule of Awlad Sulaiman and called upon the Ottoman vali in Tripoli to assert Ottoman control over Fezzan by force.Footnote 92 Consequently, in 1842, the Ottoman army entered Murzuq without substantial resistance, as the majority of the region had already renounced Abduljelil’s rule.

In the wake of the Ottoman Empire’s assumption of governance in Murzuq, the previously dormant trade route resumed operation, facilitated by the deployment of Ottoman troops to protect the caravans of Fezzani merchants – particularly those from Sokna. This reestablishment of trade and subsequent alliance between the Fezzani merchant community and the Ottoman Empire catalyzed a novel regional dynamic. While after initially resisting Ottoman rule, Ghadamesian merchants later actively demanded the Ottoman expansion to the Sahara, the Fezzani merchants proactively spearheaded this expansion, assuming roles as Ottoman agents and representatives from the 1850s onward. Numerous prominent Fezzani merchants functioned as official Ottoman agents and representatives in the second half of the nineteenth century, establishing diplomatic connections with key centers such as Kano, Zinder, Kuka, Massenya, and Abeche.Footnote 93 The Ottoman administration recognized their expertise and regional network, opting to entrust them with diplomatic missions instead of dispatching envoys from Istanbul.Footnote 94 Consequently, the rapid expansion of the Ottoman Empire toward the Sahara after the 1850s can largely be attributed to the initiative and efforts of the Fezzani merchants.Footnote 95

It is noteworthy that while Ghadamesian merchants also advocated for Ottoman expansion, they did not engage in direct service to the Empire.Footnote 96 This distinction significantly influenced the scope of Ottoman expansion. Unlike regions traversed by Fezzani merchants such as Damagaram, Kano, Borno, Baghirmi, Mandara, and Wadai, which established diplomatic ties with the Ottoman Empire, there was no direct diplomatic relationship forged with Timbuktu and Sokoto, key trade centers of the Ghadamesian merchants.Footnote 97 In other words, the rise of direct Ottoman authority prompted a reorientation among Saharan merchants; however, their agency extended beyond mere adjustment, as they substantially contributed to the Empire’s broader strategic repositioning within the Saharan region.

Conclusion

With the commencement of rule by Yusuf Pasha in Tripoli in 1795, there were notable shifts occurring in the Central Sahara’s historical landscape. The period from 1795 to 1835 marked a significant transformation in trade dynamics within trans-Saharan commerce, leading to a reorientation toward Tunisia and Egypt. However, the establishment of direct Ottoman rule in 1835 catalyzed further changes, not just influencing trade but also deeply reshaping the governance systems across the central Sahara. Still, all these transformations and reorientation followed different paths in Ghadames and Fezzan. Maliki jurisprudence-based governance of Ghadames, integrated into the tributary trade system firmly conflicted with the sultanate-based governance system of Fezzan, combined with the tax-based security system for trade in the late eighteenth century. With the presence of direct Ottoman rule after the 1840s, Ghadames had to change its tribute-based trade system to a tax-based security system to take advantage of new conditions, and encouraged the Ottomans to expand into the Sahara to ensure security for Ghadamesian merchants. Yet, they preferred to keep a distance from the new Ottoman rule, as having a ruler or governor was still a new experience for the community. Fezzan, on the other hand, was rapidly integrated to new Ottoman rule, taking an active role for the administration and expansion, since they were acquainted with the central administrative structures. In this regard, historical differences between Ghadames and Fezzan in terms of political and economic systems, deeply affected their relations with the Ottoman Empire. Still, ultimately, their distinctive Maghrebi and Borno-style character in the late eighteenth century converged into the Ottoman character in the middle of the nineteenth century.

Footnotes

1 For a recent debate on this, see Ismail Warscheid, “Introduction: Pour une histoire sociopolitique de l’espace sahélo-saharien avant 1850,” Afriques: Débats, méthodes et terrains d’histoire 15 (2024): 1–7.

2 For example, see Yunis, al-Hadi bin, “al-Ḥayāh al-ʿIlmiyyah fī Ṭarābulus fī al-Qarn al-Thānī ʿAshar H/ al-Thāmin ʿAshar M: al-Shaykh ʿUmar al-Sūdānī, Nashʾatuhu fī al-Fiqh wa-al-Qaḍāʾ,” in Aʿmāl al-Muʾtamar al-Awwal lil-Wathāʾiq wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt fī Lībiyā wa-Qīmahā wa-Āfāq al-Amal Ḥawlahā, ed. Omar Jahidar (Zliten 1988); Muhammad Omar Marwan, “al-Ḥayāh al-Iqtiṣādiyyah wa-al-Ijtimāʿiyyah wa-al-Thaqāfiyyah fī Ghadāmis Khilāl al-ʿAhd al-ʿUthmānī al-Thānī” (PhD dissertation, Jamiat Al-Jazair, 2005).

3 The construction of a decolonial historiography of Africa necessitates that European travelogues and colonial archives be treated with critical scrutiny, serving as valid evidence only when their claims are corroborated by local sources. This methodological rigor is essential to circumvent the perpetuation of entrenched Eurocentric and colonialist narratives. For further elaboration on the historiographical debates concerning the Central Sahara within this framework, see Kerem Duymus, “Dilemma of a “Decolonial Historiography of Africa”?: Challenges in the Provinciality of the Anglo-European Academy,” ChronAfrica 2, no. 2 (2025): 121–137. Furthermore, prevailing colonial historiographies have traditionally positioned Ottoman and Turkish sources as external or peripheral to African historical narratives, notwithstanding that Turkish-speaking communities on the African continent possess a historical presence comparable in antiquity to Arabic-speaking populations. For more details, see Ahmet Kavas, Osmanlı-Afrika İlişkileri (Tasam Yayınları, 2006). In this context, Turkish sources possess a dual character: they are both internal, derived from indigenous Turkish-speaking communities, and interregional, evidenced by travelogues and administrative documentation. This interregional dimension closely parallels Arabic travel narratives and state records originating from Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Egypt concerning Tripolitania; such convergence stems from a shared Islamic epistemological framework. It is imperative, however, that these sources be subjected to rigorous critical analysis. Nevertheless, in contrast to Anglo-European historiography, these Arabic and Turkish materials are largely devoid of colonialist or Eurocentric biases and remain deeply embedded in local sociopolitical realities. For more details, see Kerem Duymus, “Afroglobal History of Siyasa in the Central Sudan During the Nineteenth Century” (PhD dissertation, Universität Leipzig, 2025).

4 This fragmentary character has profoundly influenced a select corpus of scholarship on the history of the Central Sahara produced within Anglo-European academic circles. For these works, see Ulrich Haarmann, “The Dead Ostrich: Life and Trade in Ghadames (Libya) in the Nineteenth Century,” Der Welt des Islams 38, no. 1 (1998): 9–94; Bruce S. Hall and Yacine Daddi Addoun, “The Arabic Letters of the Ghadames Slaves in the Niger Bend, 1860–1900,” in African Slavery/African Voices, ed. Alice Bellagamba, Sandra Greene, Carolyn Brown, and Martin Klein (Cambridge University Press, 2013); H. T. Norris, Arabic Historical Literature from Ghadāmis and Mali: Documents from the 18th to 20th Century (Brill, 2020); Mostafa Minawi, The Ottoman Scramble for Africa (Stanford University Press, 2016). However, when juxtaposed with the extensive corpus of research literature available in Arabic and Turkish, these works remain largely introductory in scope.

5 See Kerem Duymus, “1850–1910 Arası Osmanlı’nın Sahra Politikaları,” Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 43, no. 77 (2024): 363–390. To elucidate the primary dynamics and character of Ottoman expansion into the Sahara, it is essential to engage with extant historiography concerning the Ottoman Empire in the early nineteenth century. Such engagement serves to preclude conceptual conflation often found in postcolonial discourses, which frequently equate hegemony indiscriminately with colonialism, thereby obscuring the distinct historical agency and experiences of African populations. Scholars have extensively delineated the structural divergences between the multiethnic nature of Ottoman imperialism and the ethnonationalist framework of European imperialism, while also underscoring the fundamental distinctions between Ottoman Islamo-imperialism and the specific modality of European colonialism. See Kavas, Osmanlı-Afrika İlişkileri; Muhammed Tandoğan, Afrikada Sömürgecilik ve Osmanlı Siyaseti (1800–1922) (Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2013); Jessica M. Marglin and Youssef Ben Ismail, “Toward a Maghribi Turn in Ottoman History,” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 11, no. 1 (2024): 9–38; Nicola Melis, “The Ottoman Africa and the Ottomans in Africa: An Introduction,” Eurasian Studies 21, no. 2 (2024): 143–150.

6 Bashir Qasim Yusha, Madīnat Ghadāmis ʿUbūr al-ʿUṣūr (al-Markaz al-Waṭanī lil-Maḥfūẓāt wa-al-Dirāsāt, 2011), 20. Given that Ghadames did not constitute an official territory within the Ottoman Empire, tribute obligations were rendered according to recent scholarly conjecture. For instance, during the period spanning 1806–1816, the city remitted tribute to the Tunisian Pasha rather than to the Pasha of Tripoli.

7 Interview with Hajj Al-Hadi Al-Tawhami, Ghadames, Libya, April 27, 2023.

8 Musa ibn Muhalhil Al-Ghadamisi, Taḍkīr al-Nāsī wa-Talyīn al-Qalb al-Qāsī, ed. Abdaljabbar Assaghir (Ghadames, 2004), 28. Scholars from Ghadames typically initiated their education in Tunis and Agadez before undertaking scholarly journeys to Timbuktu, Fez, and Cairo to attain mastery in jurisprudence (al-fiqh). Furthermore, it was a prevalent practice for the judges of Ghadames to maintain correspondence with jurists affiliated with Al-Zaytuna University in Tunisia; see Jāmiʿat Ghadāmis lil-Turāth wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt, Ghadames, Libya (J.G.T.M.), uncategorized, a letter dated as 1890. The intellectual prominence of Ghadames persisted notwithstanding the Italian colonial conquest of 1911. See Bashir Qasim Yusha, “Ghadāmis min al-Ḥayāh al-ʿIlmiyyah al-Thaqāfiyyah fī Lībiyā,” in Aʿmāl al-Muʾtamar al-Awwal lil-Wathāʾiq wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt fī Lībiyā wa-Qīmahā wa-Āfāq al-Amal Ḥawlahā, ed. Omar Jahidar (Zliten, 1988).

9 Amahin, Al-Shawi al-Lallah Al-Bakkay, al-Ṭawāriq ʿAbr al-ʿUṣūr, ed. Islah Muhammad Al-Bukhari Hamuda (Benghazi, 2007), 234.

10 The office of imam in the city was not exclusively confined to a single lineage; rather, across various periods, members from different families occupied this religious position. Interview with Muhsin Abubakr, Tripoli, April 4, 2023.

11 Historically, the position of qāḍī in the city was typically held by a member of the Awlad Yunus lineage. Interview with Hajj Al-Hadi Al-Tawhami, Ghadames, April 17, 2023.

12 Historically, the office of muftī in the city was hereditarily associated with the Awlad Harun lineage. Interview with Abubakr Harun, Tripoli, Libya, April 7, 2023. However, in Tripoli, the office of muftī was typically bifurcated into two distinct positions: a Hanafi muftī, tasked with overseeing international affairs on behalf of the Ottoman Empire – including maritime policy – and a Maliki muftī, selected from among local scholars, who adjudicated issues concerning domestic and civil affairs. Nevertheless, the residents of Tripoli retained the autonomy to consult either authority according to their preference. Yunis, al-Hadi bin, “al-Ḥayāh al-ʿIlmiyyah fī Ṭarābulu,” 216–220.

13 The earliest extant court register documenting this administrative structure dates to the year 1522. See Private Archive of Abdulhafiy Hamud (Ghadames, Libya), uncategorized, court register dated as 1522.

14 The final documented reference to these Ibadi and Jewish communities dates to the year 1602. Private Archive of Abdullah Al-Wanshi (Ghadames, Libya), uncategorized, a letter dated as 1602.

15 Interview with Hajj Al-Hadi Al-Tawhami, Ghadames, Libya, April 27, 2023.

16 Hagid Mardechi, “Toldot Yahodi Tripuli,” unedited manuscripts from the 1890s, under the custody of the author.

17 Shaban Muhammad Gheriyani, “Dawr al-Yahūd fī al-Tijārah ʿAbr al-Ṣaḥrāʾ Khilāl al-ʿAṣr al-Islāmī Bayn al-Iddiʿāʾ wa-al-Ḥaqīqah al-Tārīkhiyyah,” Majallat al-Dirāsāt al-Insāniyyah wa-al-Ādābiyyāt 28, no. 3 (2023): 647–648.

18 Unsurprisingly, the preponderance of documents pertaining to trans-Saharan trade and Jewish communities primarily concerns credit contracts. For one of them, see J.G.T.M., uncategorized, a register dated as 1855. These credit arrangements were bifurcated into two distinct categories: monetary loans, which accrued interest, and commodity-based transactions, which were conducted without interest (see J.G.T.M., uncategorized, a register dated as 1792). Jewish communities were not the sole creditors in Tripoli; merchants from Ghadames also extended credit to one another. Distinct from the interest-bearing loans provided by European or Jewish financiers, these intracommunal transactions were interest-free and designated as Salaf al-Iḥsān (Ar. Benevolent Loan). See J.G.T.M., uncategorized, a letter dated as 1815.

19 Piyade Binbaşısı Ali Rıza Muayni, Trablusgarb Tarik Muvaslatı, vol. 2 (Hariciye Nezareti, Şark İdaresi, 1334 [1918]), 113.

20 Al-Ghadamisi, Taḍkīr al-Nāsī wa-Talyīn al-Qalb al-Qāsī, 18.

21 Ghislaine Lydon, On Trans-Saharan Trails Islamic Law, Trade Networks, and Cross-Cultural Exchange in Nineteenth-Century Western Africa (Cambridge University Press, 2009).

22 Elias N. Saad, Social History of Timbuktu: The Role of Muslim Scholars and Notables 1400–1900 (Cambridge University Press, 1983).

23 For more details and global role of this chronicle, see Kerem Duymus, “Politico-Theological Debates in Ghadames between the 1770s and the 1850s from a Global Perspective,” Afriques: Débats, méthodes et terrains d’histoire 15 (2024): 1–17.

24 Private Archive of Bashir Qasim Yusha (Ghadames, Libya), family collection, 76.

25 C. Motylinski, Le Dialecte Berbère de R’edemès (E. Leroux, 1904), 72.

26 For local populations, a marked distinction existed between remitting taxes to an incumbent ruling authority and paying tribute to groups such as the Kel Tamasheq, or sending regular tributes to neighboring sultans in Tunis, Tripoli, and Agadez. They regarded tribute or gift-giving as inherent to commercial exchange, whereas taxation constituted a noncommercial fiscal obligation. This conceptual divergence came to prominence when the Ottomans established direct administrative control over the city, as will be examined subsequently.

27 Dār al-Maḥfūẓāt al-Tārīkhiyyah al-Lībiyyah (D.M.T.L.), Tripoli, Libya, al-Sijillāt al-Sharʿiyyah 11/56.

28 Interview during the meeting with the members of Awlad Yunis, Tunis, Tunisia, March 22, 2023.

29 For more details, see Ismail Warscheid, “La Pratique du Ṣulḥ dans les Oasis du Grand Touat: Justice Consensuelle et Juridiction Islamique dans une Société Saharienne du Xviiie Siècle,” REMM 140 (2016): 143–162, 147; Ismail Warscheid, “The Islamic Literature of the Precolonial Sahara: Sources and Approaches,” History Compass (2018): 1–10, 7; Ismail Warscheid, “The Persisting Spectre of Cultural Decline: Historiographical Approaches to Muslim Scholarship in the Early Modern Maghreb,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 60, nos. 1/2 (2022): 142–173, 166; Ismail Warscheid, “The West African Jihād Movements and the Islamic Legal Literature of the Southwestern Sahara (1650–1850),” Journal of West African History 6, no. 2 (2020): 33–60, 42.

30 Regarding the commercial competition documented between the merchant communities of Souf and Ghadames, consult the following source: Marwan, “al-Ḥayāh al-Iqtiṣādiyyah wa-al-Ijtimāʿiyyah wa-al-Thaqāfiyyah fī Ghadāmis,” 240. The commercial orientation of Souf diverged significantly from that of Ghadames. Functioning as the region’s primary market hub, Souf hosted over 300 retail establishments within its urban core, where the local populace prioritized shopkeeping over long-distance commerce. Consequently, Ghadamesian merchants predominantly served as wholesale suppliers to these Souf-based retailers. In an effort to circumvent this monopsony, certain shop owners from Souf periodically sought to establish direct trade links with southern markets, thereby bypassing Ghadames intermediaries. This dynamic engendered protracted negotiations and sustained competition between the two merchant communities. See Al-Arabi Al-Zubayri, al-Tijārah al-Khārijiyyah lil-Sharq al-Jazāʾirī (al-Sharqiyyah al-Waṭaniyyah lil-Nashr wa-al-Tawzīʿ, 1972), 154–155.

31 Binbaşı Ömer Subhi, Trablusgarp ve Bingazi Ile Büyük Sahra ve Sudan, ed. Şefaattin Deniz (Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2020), 37.

32 See J.G.T.M., uncategorized, an undated letter from the nineteenth century.

33 Yusha, Madīnat Ghadāmis ʿUbūr al-ʿUṣūr, 63.

34 See J.G.T.M., uncategorized, a letter dated as 1841.

35 Bashir Qasim Yusha, “‘al-Ghādāmisiyyah fī Riḥlat al-Ḥashāʾishī’,” Majallat al-Buḥūth al-Tārīkhiyyah 5 (1983): 239–256, 254.

36 For more details, see Badraddin Misbahi, “Tijārat al-Ṣaḥrāʾ bayn al-Jazāʾir wa-Gharb Ifrīqiyā mundhu al-Qarn al-ʿĀshir ilā al-Thālith ʿAshar H / al-Sādis ʿAshar ilā al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar M” ( MA thesis, Université d’Adrar, 2015); Ben Moussa Jamila, “Tijārat al-Dhahab bayn al-Maghrib al-Islāmī wa-al-Sūdān al-Gharbī: min al-Qarn al-Thālith ilā al-Khāmis al-Hijrī” (PhD dissertation, Jāmiʿat al-Jazāʾir, 2001).

37 The year 1831 marked the terminal point of substantial gold transit from Timbuktu to Ghadames. Following this period, the gold trade effectively lost its economic visibility and ceased to function as a viable commodity for such commerce (J.G.T.M., uncategorized, a letter dated as 1831).

38 J.G.T.M., uncategorized, a letter dated as 1802.

39 Private Archive of Bashir Qasim Yusha, uncategorized, a letter dated as 1789.

40 Interview with Hussein Al-Mazdawi, Tripoli, Libya, April 11, 2023.

41 Between the 1790s and the 1830s, the Tunisian Pasha periodically sought to incorporate Ghadames into his sphere of influence, evidenced by attempts to impose tribute payments under the presumption of sovereignty. Nora Lafi, “Ghadames Cite-Oasis Entre Empire Ottoman et Colonisation,” in La Libia Tra Mediterraneo e Mondo Islamico, ed. Federico Cresti (Giuffré, 2006), 59.

42 The trajectory of this trend is exemplified by a decree promulgated by Hussein Pasha in 1833, enacted specifically to safeguard the interests of a Ghadamesian merchant (J.G.T.M., uncategorized, an order dated as 1833). From the early nineteenth century onward, Tunisia witnessed significant growth in industrial production, with manufacturing activities accelerating notably after 1830 (Archives de la Chambre de Commerce de Marseille [A.C.C.M.], Tunis [3], 1835–81).

43 Yusha, Madīnat Ghadāmis ʿUbūr al-ʿUṣūr, 21.

44 However, the burgeoning ivory commerce in Wadai, which proved particularly attractive to Ghadamesian trading interests, remained embedded within Ottoman imperial networks. Trade expansion was fundamentally driven by the inauguration of a direct route connecting Abeche, the seat of the Wadai sultanate, to Benghazi. These commercial ties subsequently facilitated broader geopolitical cooperation, culminating in the formation of a military coalition between the Ottoman state and Wadai during the second half of the 1800s. For more details, see Kerem Duymus, “Relations entre l’Empire ottoman et Sultanat Ouaddaï au 19ème siècle: une alliance oubliée,” Annales de l’Université de Moundou, série A-FLASH 12, no. 1 (2025): 45–59.

45 Although numerous works derived from European consular reports and travelogues ascribed a pivotal role to the slave trade within the trans-Saharan commercial network, recent findings of Libyan and Ottoman archival materials have fundamentally revised this historiographical narrative. These emergent sources indicate that the slave trade constituted a marginal rather than central component of economic activity in the Central Sahara, thereby necessitating a radical revision of previous narratives regarding the region’s commercial dynamics. See Kerem Duymus, “Contribution au rôle de la traite des esclaves dans le Sahara tripolitainau XIXe siècle: nouvelles découvertes en Libye et en Turquie,” Revue d’Histoire Méditerranéenne 6, no. 2 (2024): 195–208.

46 Anglo-European scholarship has predominantly framed the relationship between merchants and the Kel Tamasheq as a binary conflict rooted in the dichotomy of sedentary and nomadic lifeways. However, as previously elucidated, Arabic sources from Libya substantiate a divergent narrative. The tensions characterizing these communities were significantly more complex than a mere manifestation of the sedentary-nomad opposition. See Duymus, “Politico-Theological Debates,” n. 56.

47 The term in question represents the phonological and orthographic adaptation of the Arabic root mudīr into the Turkish linguistic system.

48 The term in question represents the phonological and orthographic adaptation of the Arabic root walī into the Turkish linguistic system.

49 D.M.T.L., tijārah, dated as 1845.

50 D.M.T.L., idārah, dated as 1845.

51 Private Archive of Bashir Qasim Yusha, family collection, 15.

52 Private Archive of Bashir Qasim Yusha, family collection, 129.

53 The term in question represents the phonological and orthographic adaptation of the Arabic root qāʾim-maqām into the Turkish linguistic system.

54 D.M.T.L., uncategorized, dated as 1853.

55 The brutality exhibited by French colonial forces during their invasion of Algeria in the mid-nineteenth century further exacerbated this trend. Facing such aggression, merchant communities from Mzab, Wargala, and Souf were compelled to either seek refuge in Ghadames or reroute their commercial operations along the Ghadames-Ghat corridor. Buslim Salih and Uwzayid Bialhaji, “Tijārat al-Qawāfil bayn al-Jazāʾir wa-Ifrīqiyā Janūb al-Sharq fī al-ʿAhd al-ʿUthmānī wa-Dawruhā al-Ḥaḍarī,” Majallat Rawāfid lil-Buḥūth wa-al-Dirāsāt 12 (2017): 111–125, 120. One of these merchants was Mohammad Ayadi Ahmad bin Balla, who became famous among Ghadamesians. See J.G.T.M., uncategorized, a court register dated as 1860.

56 Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri (B.O.A.), Istanbul, Türkiye, İrade Dahiliye, 625.

57 For more details, see Duymus, “Afroglobal History,” chapter 6.

58 Hosan Ali Al-Dhikel, “al-Rawābiṭ al-Tārīkhiyyah bayn Iqlīm Fazzān wa-Dawlat Kānim Barnū 656–957 H / 1258–1550 M,” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 21, no. 2 (2022): 188–198.

59 Recep Nasir Al-Anf, Madīnat Marzūq wa-Tijārat al-Qawāfil al-Ṣaḥrāwiyyah Khilāl al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar, Dirāsah fī al-Tārīkh al-Siyāsī wa-al-Iqtiṣādī (Markaz al-Waṭanī lil-Maḥfūẓāt wa-al-Dirāsāt, 1998), 186.

60 Al-Mukhtar Ithman Al-Afif, Madīnat Sūkanah: Dirāsāt Tārīkhiyyah li-ʿAwdat al-Siyāsāt wa-al-Iqtiṣādiyyāt wa-al-Ibtikārāt al-ʿIlmiyyah (1835–1911) (Markaz Jihād al-Lībiyyīn lil-Dirāsāt al-Tārīkhiyyah, 2002), 105.

61 Cami Baykurt, Son Osmanlı Afrikası’nda Hayat: Çöl İnsanları, Sürgünler ve Jön Türkler, ed. Arı İnan (Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2009), 34.

62 Interview during the meeting with the members of Awlad Al-Ghazali, Sokna, Libya, May 5, 2023.

63 Dates held profound historical and cultural significance within the Fezzan region. Owing to their substantial contribution to local prosperity, numerous proverbs and songs were composed in their honor, reflecting their centrality to the socioeconomic fabric of the society. Huda Abdulrahman Al-Alam, “al-Naql wa-Tamwīluhā fī Mutaṣarrifiyyāt Fazzān bayn al-Ḍarāʾib al-ʿUthmāniyyah wa-al-Iqtiṣād al-Ḥirafī wa-al-Muʾaththir al-Ijtimāʿī min Khilāl ʿUyūnāt wa-Wathāʾiq Jadīdah (1842–1875 M),” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 22, no. 1 (2023): 113–115.

64 Binbaşı Ömer Subhi, Trablusgarp ve Bingazi Ile Büyük Sahra ve Sudan, 43.

65 Private Archive of Mustapha ibn Al-Akhdar Othman (Murzuq, Libya), uncategorized letters from the nineteenth century.

66 D.M.T.L., tijārah, dated as 1852.

67 Private Archive of Mustapha ibn Al-Akhdar Othman (Murzuq, Libya), uncategorized, dated as 1855.

68 Private Archive of Muhammad ibn Khalifa Ahwal (Sabha, Libya), uncategorized, dated as 1849.

69 British Public Record Office (B.P.R.O.), Kew, England, Foreign Office, 101/9.

70 Markaz Jihād al-Lībiyyīn lil-Dirāsāt al-Tārīkhiyyah wa-al-Tawthīq wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt (M.J.D.T.M.), Tripoli, Libya, No. 51.

71 Interview during the meeting with the members of Awlad Abubakr, Al-Qatrun, May 19, 2023.

72 Abubakr Salim Al-Mahdi Al-Shaybani, “Madīnat Marzūq wa-Dawruhā fī Tijārat al-ʿUbūr al-Ṣaḥrāwiyyah Khilāl al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar,” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 20, no. 3 (2021): 127–142, 133.

73 For more details, see Duymus, “Contribution au rôle de la traite des esclaves,” 195–208.

74 Al-Mukni, a Tripolitanelite figure driven by considerable ambitions, sought to triple the revenue generated in Fezzan. To achieve this objective, he pursued an aggressive policy toward the Teda people, promoting intensive slave-raiding campaigns. Following 1842, the newly established Ottoman administration was compelled to undertake significant efforts to terminate this century-long cycle of enslavement and intercommunal hostility between Fezzani Arabs and the Teda – hostilities that Al-Mukni had substantially intensified – in order to guarantee security throughout the Central Sahara. For more details, see Duymus, “Afroglobal History,” chapters 2 and 5.

75 Hajj Osman bin Omar and Adolf Krause, “Aufzeichnungen Über die Stadt Chat in der Sahara,” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 17 (1882): 266–338, 276.

76 Bibliothèque Nationale de France (B.N.F.), Paris, France, Manuscrit Arabe, No. 1891.

77 Al-Tuwir, Muhammad Ahmad. Thawrat ʿAbd al-Jalīl Sayf al-Naṣr Ḍidda al-Ḥukm al-ʿUthmānī fī Lībiyā, 1831–1842 (Fayid Publications, 2003), 148–149.

78 For more details regarding the Ottoman direct rule in Tripoli after 1835, see Cemal Atabaş, Trablusgarp Eyaleti’nde merkezi idarenin tesisi ve Şeyh Guma isyanı (1835–1858) (Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2021).

79 Habib El-Hesnawi, Fezzan Under the Rule of the Awlad Muhammad (Sebha, 1990), 179–185.

80 Abu Bakr Othman Al-Qadi, Fazzān wa-Marakizuhā al-Ḥaḍariyyah ʿAbr al-ʿUṣūr (Markaz Dirāsāt Waddāḥ al-Sharāʾiʿ, 1989), 65.

81 Friedrich Hornemann, Fr. Hornemanns Tagebuch Seiner Reise von Cairo nach Murzuck der Hauptstadt des Königreichs Fessan in Afrika in den Jahren 1797 und 1798; Aus der Teutchen Handschrift Desselben, ed. Carls König (Verlag Landes-Industrie-Comptoirs, 1802), 125.

82 Andreas Kronenberg, Die Teda von Tibesti (Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 1958), 8.

83 Friedrich Hornemann, Tagebuch, 127.

84 Interview with Abubakr Salih, Murzuq, Libya, May 8, 2023.

85 For instance, see Private Archive of Mustapha ibn Al-Akhdar Othman, a letter dated as 1829.

86 While historical scholarship has frequently attributed this instability to the European-led suppression of Mediterranean “piracy,” such an interpretation overlooks the fact that piracy was already forbidden under Ottoman foreign jurisdiction within Tripoli. The primary catalyst for the region’s subsequent political and economic deterioration was not a change in the maritime policy, but rather the specific system of governance instituted by Yusuf Pasha. For more details, see Kerem Duymus, “Tadbir as Marine Diplomacy: Ottoman Foreign Jurisdiction in Practice and the Debate of Piracy in Case of Tripoli between 1790s–1835,” Sebha University Journal of Human Sciences 23, no. 2 (2024): 84–90.

87 Muhammad Mustapha, Tārīkh Barqah fī al-ʿAhd al-Qaramanlī, al-Mujallad al-Awwal, 2 (Dār al-Ḥiwār, 1994), 220.

88 The rebellion led by the Awlad Sulaiman against Yusuf Pasha’s authority was not an isolated incident; rather, it represented the latest in a series of uprisings. Military confrontations between Awlad Sulaiman and Yusuf Pasha had previously occurred in 1817 and 1823, establishing a pattern of sustained resistance (Archives des Affaires Etrangères françaises (A.A.E.F.), D’Orsay, France, Turquie, Tripoli de Barbarie, 2).

89 Ali Said Masud, “al-ʿAlāqāt al-Siyāsiyyah lil-Usrah al-Qaramanlīyah maʿ Fazzān wa-Manāṭiq mā Warāʾ al-Ṣaḥrāʾ fī ʿAhd Yūsuf Bāshā, 1795–1832,” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 20, no. 3 (2021): 98–100.

90 Mehmed Nuri and Mahmud Naci, Trablusgarb (Tercüman-ı Hakikat Matbaası, 1911), 150.

91 Maktabat al-Ghazālī (M.G.), Sokna, Libya, Chronicles of Muhammad Al-Bashir Al-Sukni, Text No. 7. Upon learning of this opposition, Abduljelil laid siege to the city and demanded that its inhabitants pay a punitive levy. The residents fortified their position by closing the city gates and, relying on the defensive strength of the walls, resisted his command. In retaliation, Abduljelil implemented a punitive strategy targeting the kin of urban dwellers who resided in surrounding villages; this campaign involved executing these relatives and destroying the date palm groves in the vicinity of Sokna (M.G. Chronicles of Muhammad Al-Bashir Al-Sukni, Text No. 8).

92 M.G. Official Letters, dated as 1842.

93 For more details, see Duymus, “1850–1910 Arası Osmanlı’nın Sahra Politikaları,” 370–374.

94 Duymus, “1850–1910 Arası Osmanlı’nın Sahra Politikaları,” 373.

95 Ottoman expansion attained its territorial apex during the 1890s, extending various ways of control over the regions of Ghat, Kawar, Tibesti, Borno, and Wadai. For more details, see Duymus, “1850–1910 Arası Osmanlı’nın Sahra Politikaları.”

96 Interview with Hajj Al-Hadi Al-Tawhami, Ghadames, Libya, April 27, 2023.

97 Duymus, “Afroglobal History,” 248–249. Yet, there were some indirect diplomatic relations between Sokoto and Istanbul. See Kerem Duymus, “Ottoman–Sokoto Relations During the Nineteenth Century: An Untold History,” Sokoto Journal of History 14, no. 1 (2026): 1–9.

References

References

Archives de la Chambre de Commerce de Marseille (A.C.C.M.), Marseille, FranceGoogle Scholar
Tunis (3), 1835–1881.Google Scholar
Archives des Affaires Etrangères françaises (A.A.E.F.), D’Orsay, France Google Scholar
Turquie, Tripoli de Barbarie, 2.Google Scholar
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri (B.O.A.), Istanbul, Türkiye Google Scholar
İrade Dahiliye, 625.Google Scholar
Bibliothèque Nationale de France (B.N.F.), Paris, France Google Scholar
Manuscrit Arabe, No. 1891.Google Scholar
British Public Record Office (B.P.R.O.), Kew, England Google Scholar
Foreign Office, 101/9.Google Scholar
Dār al-Maḥfūẓāt al-Tārīkhiyyah al-Lībiyyah (D.M.T.L.), Tripoli, Libya Google Scholar
al-Sijillāt al-Sharʿiyyah, 11/56.Google Scholar
idārah, dated as 1845.Google Scholar
tijārah, dated as 1845.Google Scholar
tijārah, dated as 1852.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, dated as 1853.Google Scholar
Jāmiʿat Ghadāmis lil-Turāth wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt (J.G.T.M.), Ghadames, Libya Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a court register dated as 1860.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1802.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1815.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1831.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1841.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1890.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a register dated as 1792.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a register dated as 1855.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, an order dated as 1833.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, an undated letter from the nineteenth-century.Google Scholar
Maktabat al-Ghazālī (M.G.), Sokna, Libya Google Scholar
Chronicles of Muhammad Al-Bashir Al-Sukni, Text No. 7Google Scholar
Chronicles of Muhammad Al-Bashir Al-Sukni, Text No. 8Google Scholar
Official Letters, dated as 1842.Google Scholar
Private Archives from Libya Google Scholar
Private Archive of Abdulhafiy Hamud [Ghadames]Google Scholar
Private Archive of Abdullah Al-Wanshi [Ghadames]Google Scholar
Private Archive of Bashir Qasim Yusha [Ghadames]Google Scholar
Private Archive of Muhammad ibn Khalifa Ahwal [Sabha]Google Scholar
Private Archive of Mustapha ibn Al-Akhdar Othman [Murzuq]Google Scholar
Interview during the meeting with the members of Awlad Abubakr, Al-Qatrun, May 19, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview during the meeting with the members of Awlad Al-Ghazali, Sokna, May 5, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview during the meeting with the members of Awlad Yunis, Tunis, March 22, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview with Abubakr Salih, Murzuq, May 8, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview with Hajj Al-Hadi Al-Tawhami, Ghadames, April 17–27, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview with Hussein Al-Mazdawi, Tripoli, April 11, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview with Muhsin Abubakr, Tripoli, April 4, 2023.Google Scholar
Al-Arabi Al-Zubayri. al-Tijārah al-Khārijiyyah lil-Sharq al-Jazāʾirī. al-Sharqiyyah al-Waṭaniyyah lil-Nashr wa-al-Tawzīʿ, 1972.Google Scholar
Al-Dhikel, Hosan Ali. “al-Rawābiṭ al-Tārīkhiyyah bayn Iqlīm Fazzān wa-Dawlat Kānim Barnū 656–957 H / 1258–1550 M.” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 21, no. 2 (2022): 188–198.Google Scholar
Al-Afif, Al-Mukhtar Ithman. Madīnat Sūkanah: Dirāsāt Tārīkhiyyah li-ʿAwdat al-Siyāsāt wa-al-Iqtiṣādiyyāt wa-al-Ibtikārāt al-ʿIlmiyyah (1835–1911). Markaz Jihād al-Lībiyyīn lil-Dirāsāt al-Tārīkhiyyah, 2002.Google Scholar
Al-Ghadamisi, Musa ibn Muhalhil. Taḍkīr al-Nāsī wa-Talyīn al-Qalb al-Qāsī. Edited by Assaghir, Abdaljabbar. Ghadames, 2004.Google Scholar
Al-Alam, Huda Abdulrahman. “al-Naql wa-Tamwīluhā fī Mutaṣarrifiyyāt Fazzān bayn al-Ḍarāʾib al-ʿUthmāniyyah wa-al-Iqtiṣād al-Ḥirafī wa-al-Muʾaththir al-Ijtimāʿī min Khilāl ʿUyūnāt wa-Wathāʾiq Jadīdah (1842–1875 M).” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 22, no. 1 (2023): 113–115.Google Scholar
Al-Anf, Recep Nasir. Madīnat Marzūq wa-Tijārat al-Qawāfil al-Ṣaḥrāwiyyah Khilāl al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar, Dirāsah fī al-Tārīkh al-Siyāsī wa-al-Iqtiṣādī. Markaz Jihād al-Lībiyyīn lil-Dirāsāt al-Tārīkhiyyah, 1998.Google Scholar
Al-Qadi, Abu Bakr Othman. Fazzān wa-Marakizuhā al-Ḥaḍariyyah ʿAbr al-ʿUṣūr. Markaz Dirāsāt Waddāḥ al-Sharāʾiʿ, 1989.Google Scholar
Al-Shaybani, Abubakr Salim Al-Mahdi. “Madīnat Marzūq wa-Dawruhā fī Tijārat al-ʿUbūr al-Ṣaḥrāwiyyah Khilāl al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar.” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 20, no. 3 (2021): 127–142.Google Scholar
Al-Tuwir, Muhammad Ahmad. Thawrat ʿAbd al-Jalīl Sayf al-Naṣr Ḍidda al-Ḥukm al-ʿUthmānī fī Lībiyā, 1831–1842. Fayid Publications: 2003.Google Scholar
Amahin, Al-Shawi al-Lallah Al-Bakkay. al-Ṭawāriq ʿAbr al-ʿUṣūr. Edited by Hamuda, Islah Muhammad Al-Bukhari. Benghazi, 2007.Google Scholar
Atabaş, Cemal. Trablusgarp Eyaleti’nde merkezi idarenin tesisi ve Şeyh Guma isyanı (1835–1858). Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2021.Google Scholar
Baykurt, Cami. Son Osmanlı Afrikası’nda Hayat: Çöl İnsanları, Sürgünler ve Jön Türkler. Edited by İnan, Arı. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2009.Google Scholar
Binbaşı Ömer, Subhi. Trablusgarp ve Bingazi Ile Büyük Sahra ve Sudan. Edited by Deniz, Şefaattin. Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2020.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Afroglobal History of Siyasa in the Central Sudan During the Nineteenth Century.” PhD thesis, Universität Leipzig, 2025.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “1850–1910 Arası Osmanlı’nın Sahra Politikaları.” Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 43, no. 77 (2024): 363–390.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Contribution au rôle de la traite des esclaves dans le Sahara tripolitain au XIXe siècle: nouvelles découvertes en Libye et en Turquie.” Revue d’Histoire Méditerranéenne 6, no. 2 (2024): 195–208.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Dilemma of a ‘Decolonial Historiography of Africa’?: Challenges in the Provinciality of the Anglo-European Academy.” ChronAfrica 2, no. 2 (2025): 121–137.10.62841/ChronAfrica.2025.259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Ottoman–Sokoto Relations During the Nineteenth Century: An Untold History.” Sokoto Journal of History 14, no. 1 (2026): 1–9.10.36349/sokotojh.2026.v14i01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Politico-Theological Debates in Ghadames Between the 1770s and the 1850s from a Global Perspective.” Afriques: Débats, méthodes et terrains d’histoire 15 (2024): 1–17.10.4000/12xtaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Relations entre l’Empire ottoman et Sultanat Ouaddaï au 19ème siècle: une alliance oubliée.” Annales de l’Université de Moundou, série A-FLASH 12, no. 1 (2025): 45–59.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Tadbir as Marine Diplomacy: Ottoman Foreign Jurisdiction in Practice and the Debate of Piracy in Case of Tripoli Between 1790s–1835.” Sebha University Journal of Human Sciences 23, no. 2 (2024): 84–90.Google Scholar
El-Hesnawi, Habib. Fezzan Under the Rule of the Awlad Muhammad. Sebha, 1990.Google Scholar
Gheriyani, Shaban Muhammad. “Dawr al-Yahūd fī al-Tijārah ʿAbr al-Ṣaḥrāʾ Khilāl al-ʿAṣr al-Islāmī Bayn al-Iddiʿāʾ wa-al-Ḥaqīqah al-Tārīkhiyyah.” Majallat al-Dirāsāt al-Insāniyyah wa-al-Ādābiyyāt 28, no. 3 (2023): 647–648.Google Scholar
Haarmann, Ulrich. “The Dead Ostrich: Life and Trade in Ghadames (Libya) in the Nineteenth Century.” Der Welt des Islams 38, no. 1 (1998): 9–94.10.1163/1570060982598118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Bruce S., and Addoun, Yacine Daddi. “The Arabic Letters of the Ghadames Slaves in the Niger Bend, 1860–1900.” In African Slavery/African Voices, edited by Bellagamba, Alice, Greene, Sandra, Brown, Carolyn, and Klein, Martin. Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Hornemann, Friedrich. Fr. Hornemanns Tagebuch Seiner Reise von Cairo nach Murzuck der Hauptstadt des Königreichs Fessan in Afrika in den Jahren 1797 und 1798. Edited by König, Carls. Verlag des Landes-Industrie-Comptoirs, 1802.Google Scholar
Jamila, Ben Moussa. “Tijārat al-Dhahab bayn al-Maghrib al-Islāmī wa-al-Sūdān al-Gharbī: min al-Qarn al-Thālith ilā al-Khāmis al-Hijrī.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Jāmiʿat al-Jazāʾir, 2001.Google Scholar
Kavas, Ahmet. Osmanlı-Afrika İlişkileri. Tasam Yayınları, 2006.Google Scholar
Kronenberg, Andreas. Die Teda von Tibesti. Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 1958.Google Scholar
Lafi, Nora. “Ghadames Cite-Oasis Entre Empire Ottoman et Colonisation.” In La Libia Tra Mediterraneo e Mondo Islamico, edited by Cresti, Federico. Giuffré, 2006.Google Scholar
Lydon, Ghislaine. On Trans-Saharan Trails: Islamic Law, Trade Networks, and Cross-Cultural Exchange in Nineteenth-Century Western Africa. Cambridge University Press, 2009.10.1017/CBO9780511575457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marglin, Jessica M., and Ismail, Youssef Ben. “Toward a Maghribi Turn in Ottoman History.” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 11, no. 1 (2024): 9–38.10.2979/tur.00020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwan, Muhammad Omar. “al-Ḥayāh al-Iqtiṣādiyyah wa-al-Ijtimāʿiyyah wa-al-Thaqāfiyyah fī Ghadāmis Khilāl al-ʿAhd al-ʿUthmānī al-Thānī.” PhD thesis, Jamiat Al-Jazair, 2005.Google Scholar
Masud, Ali Said. “al-ʿAlāqāt al-Siyāsiyyah lil-Usrah al-Qaramanlīyah maʿ Fazzān wa-Manāṭiq mā Warāʾ al-Ṣaḥrāʾ fī ʿAhd Yūsuf Bāshā, 1795–1832.” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 20, no. 3 (2021): 98–100.Google Scholar
Melis, Nicola. “The Ottoman Africa and the Ottomans in Africa: An Introduction.” Eurasian Studies 21, no. 2 (2024): 143–150.10.1163/24685623-20230150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minawi, Mostafa. The Ottoman Scramble for Africa. Stanford University Press, 2016.10.1515/9780804799294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misbahi, Badraddin. “Tijārat al-Ṣaḥrāʾ bayn al-Jazāʾir wa-Gharb Ifrīqiyā mundhu al-Qarn al-ʿĀshir ilā al-Thālith ʿAshar H / al-Sādis ʿAshar ilā al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar M.” Unpublished MA thesis, Université d’Adrar, 2015.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Mustapha. Tārīkh Barqah fī al-ʿAhd al-Qaramanlī, al-Mujallad al-Awwal. Dār al-Ḥiwār, 1994.Google Scholar
Motylinski, C. Le Dialecte Berbère de R’edemès. E. Leroux: 1904.Google Scholar
Norris, H. T. Arabic Historical Literature from Ghadāmis and Mali: Documents from the 18th to 20th Century. Brill, 2020.10.1163/9789004315853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuri, Mehmed, and Naci, Mahmud. Trablusgarb. Tercüman-ı Hakikat Matbaası, 1911.Google Scholar
Omar, Hajj Osman bin, and Adolf, Krause. “Aufzeichnungen Über die Stadt Chat in der Sahara.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 17 (1882): 266–338.Google Scholar
Piyade, Binbaşısı Ali Rıza Muayni. Trablusgarb Tarik Muvaslatı. Vol. 2. Hariciye Nezareti, Şark İdaresi, 1918 [1334 H].Google Scholar
Saad, Elias N. Social History of Timbuktu: The Role of Muslim Scholars and Notables 1400–1900. Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Salih, Buslim, and Bialhaji, Uwzayid. “Tijārat al-Qawāfil bayn al-Jazāʾir wa-Ifrīqiyā Janūb al-Sharq fī al-ʿAhd al-ʿUthmānī wa-Dawruhā al-Ḥaḍarī.” Majallat Rawāfid lil-Buḥūth wa-al-Dirāsāt 12 (2017): 111–125.Google Scholar
Tandoğan, Muhammed. Afrikada Sömürgecilik ve Osmanlı Siyaseti (1800–1922). Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2013.Google Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “Introduction: Pour une histoire sociopolitique de l’espace sahélo-saharien avant 1850.” Afriques: Débats, méthodes et terrains d’histoire 15 (2024): 1–7.10.4000/12xtbCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “La Pratique du Ṣulḥ dans les Oasis du Grand Touat: Justice Consensuelle et Juridiction Islamique dans une Société Saharienne du Xviiie Siècle.” REMM 140 (2016): 143–162.10.4000/remmm.9664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “The Islamic Literature of the Precolonial Sahara: Sources and Approaches.” History Compass (2018): 1–10.10.1111/hic3.12449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “The Persisting Spectre of Cultural Decline: Historiographical Approaches to Muslim Scholarship in the Early Modern Maghreb.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 60, no. 1/2 (2022): 142–173.10.1163/15685209-12341422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “The West African Jihād Movements and the Islamic Legal Literature of the Southwestern Sahara (1650–1850).” Journal of West African History 6, no. 2 (2020): 33–60.10.14321/jwestafrihist.6.2.0033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yunis, al-Hadi bin. “al-Ḥayāh al-ʿIlmiyyah fī Ṭarābulus fī al-Qarn al-Thānī ʿAshar H/ al-Thāmin ʿAshar M: al-Shaykh ʿUmar al-Sūdānī, Nashʾatuhu fī al-Fiqh wa-al-Qaḍāʾ.” In Aʿmāl al-Muʾtamar al-Awwal lil-Wathāʾiq wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt fī Lībiyā wa-Qīmahā wa-Āfāq al-Amal Ḥawlahā, edited by Omar, Jahidar. Zliten: 1988.Google Scholar
Yusha, Bashir Qasim. “‘al-Ghādāmisiyyah fī Riḥlat al-Ḥashāʾishī’.” Majallat al-Buḥūth al-Tārīkhiyyah 5 (1983): 239–256.Google Scholar
Yusha, Bashir Qasim. “Ghadāmis min al-Ḥayāh al-ʿIlmiyyah al-Thaqāfiyyah fī Lībiyā.” In Aʿmāl al-Muʾtamar al-Awwal lil-Wathāʾiq wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt fī Lībiyā wa-Qīmahā wa-Āfāq al-Amal Ḥawlahā, edited by Jahidar, Omar (Zliten, 1988).Google Scholar
Yusha, Bashir Qasim. Madīnat Ghadāmis ʿUbūr al-ʿUṣūr. al-Markaz al-Waṭanī lil-Maḥfūẓāt wa-al-Dirāsāt, 2011.Google Scholar
Archives de la Chambre de Commerce de Marseille (A.C.C.M.), Marseille, FranceGoogle Scholar
Tunis (3), 1835–1881.Google Scholar
Archives des Affaires Etrangères françaises (A.A.E.F.), D’Orsay, France Google Scholar
Turquie, Tripoli de Barbarie, 2.Google Scholar
Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivleri (B.O.A.), Istanbul, Türkiye Google Scholar
İrade Dahiliye, 625.Google Scholar
Bibliothèque Nationale de France (B.N.F.), Paris, France Google Scholar
Manuscrit Arabe, No. 1891.Google Scholar
British Public Record Office (B.P.R.O.), Kew, England Google Scholar
Foreign Office, 101/9.Google Scholar
Dār al-Maḥfūẓāt al-Tārīkhiyyah al-Lībiyyah (D.M.T.L.), Tripoli, Libya Google Scholar
al-Sijillāt al-Sharʿiyyah, 11/56.Google Scholar
idārah, dated as 1845.Google Scholar
tijārah, dated as 1845.Google Scholar
tijārah, dated as 1852.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, dated as 1853.Google Scholar
Jāmiʿat Ghadāmis lil-Turāth wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt (J.G.T.M.), Ghadames, Libya Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a court register dated as 1860.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1802.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1815.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1831.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1841.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a letter dated as 1890.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a register dated as 1792.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, a register dated as 1855.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, an order dated as 1833.Google Scholar
Uncategorized, an undated letter from the nineteenth-century.Google Scholar
Maktabat al-Ghazālī (M.G.), Sokna, Libya Google Scholar
Chronicles of Muhammad Al-Bashir Al-Sukni, Text No. 7Google Scholar
Chronicles of Muhammad Al-Bashir Al-Sukni, Text No. 8Google Scholar
Official Letters, dated as 1842.Google Scholar
Private Archives from Libya Google Scholar
Private Archive of Abdulhafiy Hamud [Ghadames]Google Scholar
Private Archive of Abdullah Al-Wanshi [Ghadames]Google Scholar
Private Archive of Bashir Qasim Yusha [Ghadames]Google Scholar
Private Archive of Muhammad ibn Khalifa Ahwal [Sabha]Google Scholar
Private Archive of Mustapha ibn Al-Akhdar Othman [Murzuq]Google Scholar
Interview during the meeting with the members of Awlad Abubakr, Al-Qatrun, May 19, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview during the meeting with the members of Awlad Al-Ghazali, Sokna, May 5, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview during the meeting with the members of Awlad Yunis, Tunis, March 22, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview with Abubakr Salih, Murzuq, May 8, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview with Hajj Al-Hadi Al-Tawhami, Ghadames, April 17–27, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview with Hussein Al-Mazdawi, Tripoli, April 11, 2023.Google Scholar
Interview with Muhsin Abubakr, Tripoli, April 4, 2023.Google Scholar
Al-Arabi Al-Zubayri. al-Tijārah al-Khārijiyyah lil-Sharq al-Jazāʾirī. al-Sharqiyyah al-Waṭaniyyah lil-Nashr wa-al-Tawzīʿ, 1972.Google Scholar
Al-Dhikel, Hosan Ali. “al-Rawābiṭ al-Tārīkhiyyah bayn Iqlīm Fazzān wa-Dawlat Kānim Barnū 656–957 H / 1258–1550 M.” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 21, no. 2 (2022): 188–198.Google Scholar
Al-Afif, Al-Mukhtar Ithman. Madīnat Sūkanah: Dirāsāt Tārīkhiyyah li-ʿAwdat al-Siyāsāt wa-al-Iqtiṣādiyyāt wa-al-Ibtikārāt al-ʿIlmiyyah (1835–1911). Markaz Jihād al-Lībiyyīn lil-Dirāsāt al-Tārīkhiyyah, 2002.Google Scholar
Al-Ghadamisi, Musa ibn Muhalhil. Taḍkīr al-Nāsī wa-Talyīn al-Qalb al-Qāsī. Edited by Assaghir, Abdaljabbar. Ghadames, 2004.Google Scholar
Al-Alam, Huda Abdulrahman. “al-Naql wa-Tamwīluhā fī Mutaṣarrifiyyāt Fazzān bayn al-Ḍarāʾib al-ʿUthmāniyyah wa-al-Iqtiṣād al-Ḥirafī wa-al-Muʾaththir al-Ijtimāʿī min Khilāl ʿUyūnāt wa-Wathāʾiq Jadīdah (1842–1875 M).” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 22, no. 1 (2023): 113–115.Google Scholar
Al-Anf, Recep Nasir. Madīnat Marzūq wa-Tijārat al-Qawāfil al-Ṣaḥrāwiyyah Khilāl al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar, Dirāsah fī al-Tārīkh al-Siyāsī wa-al-Iqtiṣādī. Markaz Jihād al-Lībiyyīn lil-Dirāsāt al-Tārīkhiyyah, 1998.Google Scholar
Al-Qadi, Abu Bakr Othman. Fazzān wa-Marakizuhā al-Ḥaḍariyyah ʿAbr al-ʿUṣūr. Markaz Dirāsāt Waddāḥ al-Sharāʾiʿ, 1989.Google Scholar
Al-Shaybani, Abubakr Salim Al-Mahdi. “Madīnat Marzūq wa-Dawruhā fī Tijārat al-ʿUbūr al-Ṣaḥrāwiyyah Khilāl al-Qarn al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar.” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 20, no. 3 (2021): 127–142.Google Scholar
Al-Tuwir, Muhammad Ahmad. Thawrat ʿAbd al-Jalīl Sayf al-Naṣr Ḍidda al-Ḥukm al-ʿUthmānī fī Lībiyā, 1831–1842. Fayid Publications: 2003.Google Scholar
Amahin, Al-Shawi al-Lallah Al-Bakkay. al-Ṭawāriq ʿAbr al-ʿUṣūr. Edited by Hamuda, Islah Muhammad Al-Bukhari. Benghazi, 2007.Google Scholar
Atabaş, Cemal. Trablusgarp Eyaleti’nde merkezi idarenin tesisi ve Şeyh Guma isyanı (1835–1858). Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2021.Google Scholar
Baykurt, Cami. Son Osmanlı Afrikası’nda Hayat: Çöl İnsanları, Sürgünler ve Jön Türkler. Edited by İnan, Arı. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2009.Google Scholar
Binbaşı Ömer, Subhi. Trablusgarp ve Bingazi Ile Büyük Sahra ve Sudan. Edited by Deniz, Şefaattin. Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2020.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Afroglobal History of Siyasa in the Central Sudan During the Nineteenth Century.” PhD thesis, Universität Leipzig, 2025.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “1850–1910 Arası Osmanlı’nın Sahra Politikaları.” Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi 43, no. 77 (2024): 363–390.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Contribution au rôle de la traite des esclaves dans le Sahara tripolitain au XIXe siècle: nouvelles découvertes en Libye et en Turquie.” Revue d’Histoire Méditerranéenne 6, no. 2 (2024): 195–208.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Dilemma of a ‘Decolonial Historiography of Africa’?: Challenges in the Provinciality of the Anglo-European Academy.” ChronAfrica 2, no. 2 (2025): 121–137.10.62841/ChronAfrica.2025.259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Ottoman–Sokoto Relations During the Nineteenth Century: An Untold History.” Sokoto Journal of History 14, no. 1 (2026): 1–9.10.36349/sokotojh.2026.v14i01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Politico-Theological Debates in Ghadames Between the 1770s and the 1850s from a Global Perspective.” Afriques: Débats, méthodes et terrains d’histoire 15 (2024): 1–17.10.4000/12xtaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Relations entre l’Empire ottoman et Sultanat Ouaddaï au 19ème siècle: une alliance oubliée.” Annales de l’Université de Moundou, série A-FLASH 12, no. 1 (2025): 45–59.Google Scholar
Duymus, Kerem. “Tadbir as Marine Diplomacy: Ottoman Foreign Jurisdiction in Practice and the Debate of Piracy in Case of Tripoli Between 1790s–1835.” Sebha University Journal of Human Sciences 23, no. 2 (2024): 84–90.Google Scholar
El-Hesnawi, Habib. Fezzan Under the Rule of the Awlad Muhammad. Sebha, 1990.Google Scholar
Gheriyani, Shaban Muhammad. “Dawr al-Yahūd fī al-Tijārah ʿAbr al-Ṣaḥrāʾ Khilāl al-ʿAṣr al-Islāmī Bayn al-Iddiʿāʾ wa-al-Ḥaqīqah al-Tārīkhiyyah.” Majallat al-Dirāsāt al-Insāniyyah wa-al-Ādābiyyāt 28, no. 3 (2023): 647–648.Google Scholar
Haarmann, Ulrich. “The Dead Ostrich: Life and Trade in Ghadames (Libya) in the Nineteenth Century.” Der Welt des Islams 38, no. 1 (1998): 9–94.10.1163/1570060982598118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Bruce S., and Addoun, Yacine Daddi. “The Arabic Letters of the Ghadames Slaves in the Niger Bend, 1860–1900.” In African Slavery/African Voices, edited by Bellagamba, Alice, Greene, Sandra, Brown, Carolyn, and Klein, Martin. Cambridge University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Hornemann, Friedrich. Fr. Hornemanns Tagebuch Seiner Reise von Cairo nach Murzuck der Hauptstadt des Königreichs Fessan in Afrika in den Jahren 1797 und 1798. Edited by König, Carls. Verlag des Landes-Industrie-Comptoirs, 1802.Google Scholar
Jamila, Ben Moussa. “Tijārat al-Dhahab bayn al-Maghrib al-Islāmī wa-al-Sūdān al-Gharbī: min al-Qarn al-Thālith ilā al-Khāmis al-Hijrī.” Unpublished PhD thesis, Jāmiʿat al-Jazāʾir, 2001.Google Scholar
Kavas, Ahmet. Osmanlı-Afrika İlişkileri. Tasam Yayınları, 2006.Google Scholar
Kronenberg, Andreas. Die Teda von Tibesti. Verlag Ferdinand Berger, 1958.Google Scholar
Lafi, Nora. “Ghadames Cite-Oasis Entre Empire Ottoman et Colonisation.” In La Libia Tra Mediterraneo e Mondo Islamico, edited by Cresti, Federico. Giuffré, 2006.Google Scholar
Lydon, Ghislaine. On Trans-Saharan Trails: Islamic Law, Trade Networks, and Cross-Cultural Exchange in Nineteenth-Century Western Africa. Cambridge University Press, 2009.10.1017/CBO9780511575457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marglin, Jessica M., and Ismail, Youssef Ben. “Toward a Maghribi Turn in Ottoman History.” Journal of the Ottoman and Turkish Studies Association 11, no. 1 (2024): 9–38.10.2979/tur.00020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marwan, Muhammad Omar. “al-Ḥayāh al-Iqtiṣādiyyah wa-al-Ijtimāʿiyyah wa-al-Thaqāfiyyah fī Ghadāmis Khilāl al-ʿAhd al-ʿUthmānī al-Thānī.” PhD thesis, Jamiat Al-Jazair, 2005.Google Scholar
Masud, Ali Said. “al-ʿAlāqāt al-Siyāsiyyah lil-Usrah al-Qaramanlīyah maʿ Fazzān wa-Manāṭiq mā Warāʾ al-Ṣaḥrāʾ fī ʿAhd Yūsuf Bāshā, 1795–1832.” Majallat Jāmiʿat Sabhā lil-ʿUlūm al-Insāniyyah 20, no. 3 (2021): 98–100.Google Scholar
Melis, Nicola. “The Ottoman Africa and the Ottomans in Africa: An Introduction.” Eurasian Studies 21, no. 2 (2024): 143–150.10.1163/24685623-20230150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minawi, Mostafa. The Ottoman Scramble for Africa. Stanford University Press, 2016.10.1515/9780804799294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Misbahi, Badraddin. “Tijārat al-Ṣaḥrāʾ bayn al-Jazāʾir wa-Gharb Ifrīqiyā mundhu al-Qarn al-ʿĀshir ilā al-Thālith ʿAshar H / al-Sādis ʿAshar ilā al-Tāsiʿ ʿAshar M.” Unpublished MA thesis, Université d’Adrar, 2015.Google Scholar
Mohammad, Mustapha. Tārīkh Barqah fī al-ʿAhd al-Qaramanlī, al-Mujallad al-Awwal. Dār al-Ḥiwār, 1994.Google Scholar
Motylinski, C. Le Dialecte Berbère de R’edemès. E. Leroux: 1904.Google Scholar
Norris, H. T. Arabic Historical Literature from Ghadāmis and Mali: Documents from the 18th to 20th Century. Brill, 2020.10.1163/9789004315853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuri, Mehmed, and Naci, Mahmud. Trablusgarb. Tercüman-ı Hakikat Matbaası, 1911.Google Scholar
Omar, Hajj Osman bin, and Adolf, Krause. “Aufzeichnungen Über die Stadt Chat in der Sahara.” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 17 (1882): 266–338.Google Scholar
Piyade, Binbaşısı Ali Rıza Muayni. Trablusgarb Tarik Muvaslatı. Vol. 2. Hariciye Nezareti, Şark İdaresi, 1918 [1334 H].Google Scholar
Saad, Elias N. Social History of Timbuktu: The Role of Muslim Scholars and Notables 1400–1900. Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Salih, Buslim, and Bialhaji, Uwzayid. “Tijārat al-Qawāfil bayn al-Jazāʾir wa-Ifrīqiyā Janūb al-Sharq fī al-ʿAhd al-ʿUthmānī wa-Dawruhā al-Ḥaḍarī.” Majallat Rawāfid lil-Buḥūth wa-al-Dirāsāt 12 (2017): 111–125.Google Scholar
Tandoğan, Muhammed. Afrikada Sömürgecilik ve Osmanlı Siyaseti (1800–1922). Türk Tarih Kurumu, 2013.Google Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “Introduction: Pour une histoire sociopolitique de l’espace sahélo-saharien avant 1850.” Afriques: Débats, méthodes et terrains d’histoire 15 (2024): 1–7.10.4000/12xtbCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “La Pratique du Ṣulḥ dans les Oasis du Grand Touat: Justice Consensuelle et Juridiction Islamique dans une Société Saharienne du Xviiie Siècle.” REMM 140 (2016): 143–162.10.4000/remmm.9664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “The Islamic Literature of the Precolonial Sahara: Sources and Approaches.” History Compass (2018): 1–10.10.1111/hic3.12449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “The Persisting Spectre of Cultural Decline: Historiographical Approaches to Muslim Scholarship in the Early Modern Maghreb.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 60, no. 1/2 (2022): 142–173.10.1163/15685209-12341422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warscheid, Ismail. “The West African Jihād Movements and the Islamic Legal Literature of the Southwestern Sahara (1650–1850).” Journal of West African History 6, no. 2 (2020): 33–60.10.14321/jwestafrihist.6.2.0033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yunis, al-Hadi bin. “al-Ḥayāh al-ʿIlmiyyah fī Ṭarābulus fī al-Qarn al-Thānī ʿAshar H/ al-Thāmin ʿAshar M: al-Shaykh ʿUmar al-Sūdānī, Nashʾatuhu fī al-Fiqh wa-al-Qaḍāʾ.” In Aʿmāl al-Muʾtamar al-Awwal lil-Wathāʾiq wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt fī Lībiyā wa-Qīmahā wa-Āfāq al-Amal Ḥawlahā, edited by Omar, Jahidar. Zliten: 1988.Google Scholar
Yusha, Bashir Qasim. “‘al-Ghādāmisiyyah fī Riḥlat al-Ḥashāʾishī’.” Majallat al-Buḥūth al-Tārīkhiyyah 5 (1983): 239–256.Google Scholar
Yusha, Bashir Qasim. “Ghadāmis min al-Ḥayāh al-ʿIlmiyyah al-Thaqāfiyyah fī Lībiyā.” In Aʿmāl al-Muʾtamar al-Awwal lil-Wathāʾiq wa-al-Makhṭūṭāt fī Lībiyā wa-Qīmahā wa-Āfāq al-Amal Ḥawlahā, edited by Jahidar, Omar (Zliten, 1988).Google Scholar
Yusha, Bashir Qasim. Madīnat Ghadāmis ʿUbūr al-ʿUṣūr. al-Markaz al-Waṭanī lil-Maḥfūẓāt wa-al-Dirāsāt, 2011.Google Scholar