Murgu: The Wages of Slavery

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 20 May 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 791654236]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Slavery & AbolitionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713719071

Murgu: the wages of slavery in the Sokoto CaliphatePaul E. Lovejoy a

a Professor of History, York University, Canada

To cite this Article Lovejoy, Paul E.(1993) 'Murgu: the wages of slavery in the Sokoto Caliphate', Slavery & Abolition, 14:1, 168 — 185To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01440399308575089URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01440399308575089

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713719071

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01440399308575089

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Murgu: The Wages of Slavery in the SokotoCaliphate

PAUL E. LOVEJOY

Slavery in the Sokoto Caliphate - the largest slave society in Africa in thenineteenth century and one of the largest slave societies in modernhistory - involved contradictions that are not unusual to the institution ofslavery. On the one hand, slaves were property, whose control was at theabsolute discretion of masters. As property, slaves had value, but theirlabour was extracted without payment to the slaves themselves. On theother hand, slaves had access to the market where they could acquirecash, despite their theoretical lack of autonomy as individuals who couldacquire property in their own right. Technically, anything slaves mightgain belonged to their owners, but in fact there were layers of propertyrights. The masters owned the slaves, but the slaves could obtain thewherewithall to live independently and even to buy themselves.

The central institution that embodied this contradiction in the SokotoCaliphate was murgu, which most simply can be explained as the paymentmade by slaves to their masters for the right to work on their own account.Through the payment of murgu, slaves could acquire a degree ofautonomy that enabled some to purchase their own freedom, marry,maintain separate households, and otherwise attempt a degree ofindependence that blurred the distinctions between slave and free. Intime, this institution might have resulted in new relationships that wouldhave had considerable similarities with serfdom. In the context of theSokoto Caliphate, which only came into existence between 1804-1808,there was not enough time for individual rights acquired through murguto have become institutionalized over generations. The tendency mayhave been there, but it would be stretching the data to conclude thatmurgu was a feature of some local variation of serfdom. Murgu was,however, a component of Caliphate slavery.

In general, slavery in the Sokoto Caliphate as in other slave societieswas a means of extracting surplus product from labour without cashpayment. Masters provided food, lodging, clothing and health care inorder to sustain the slave population, but these obligations were not

Downloaded By: [York University Libraries] At: 23:58 20 May 2010

MURGU IN THE WESTERN SUDAN 169

perceived as a return on labour. They were not a form of payment. Quitethe contrary, the costs of maintenance arose from the proprietary rightsin human beings and were more akin to maintaining livestock than payingfor services rendered. Subsistence costs were the overheads associatedwith the care of human chattel. The ownership of individuals as slavesmeant that labour power and the actual human worker were synony-mous; the work of the slave was not differentiated from the person.Because labour was not abstracted from the individual, slavery wascharacterized by direct exploitation, without compensation.

Because slaves were a form of property, they had a market value thatcould be realized in a variety of ways. First, slaves could be redeemed byrelatives who were willing and able to pay the ransom price, once kinlocated the whereabouts of individual slaves. When citizens of theCaliphate were seized along trade routes or during enemy raids intoCaliphate territory, relatives attempted to find their kin and arrange forthe payment of ransom. It was less common for non-Muslim subjectpopulations and enemies of the Caliphate to locate their relations withinthe Caliphate and thereby purchase their freedom. Sometimes peoplewithin the Caliphate were captured through actions whose legality wasopen to question. Because of the ransom that could be realized, thoseresponsible for enslavement might well leave a trail that could be pursuedby those with the interest and resources to reverse the personal tragedy ofenslavement. Money changed hands under these circumstances.

Second, slaves, even second-generation slaves, were sometimes sold.Whatever the sensibilities of individual owners and the public pressuresnot to sell slaves born into captivity or long held, debt, intractability, oropportunity was sufficient cause to sell slaves. The market for slaves waswell developed, and even women who were held as concubines could besold if they had not borne children. While the legal system regulated thetransfer of slaves and religious attitudes constrained the market, anyslave could still be sold. A male slave could even avail himself of themarket by forcing masters to sell him, if it was thought that a change inownership would reduce hardship. Female slaves do not seem to have hadthis option, but they could make life difficult for male owners and couldrun away. Female slaves could enter into alternate relationships ofdependency, often as wives of men willing to pay their redemption, thatwere possible because of the prevalence of slavery.

Most important in terms of this discussion of cash earnings by slaves,it was possible for slaves to purchase themselves. In order to do so, theyneeded access to the market to raise the heavy cost of redemption.Furthermore, freed slaves might well want to liberate their own kin,especially spouses and children. Theoretically, it was possible for a slave


170 THE WAGES OF SLAVERY

to pay off the redemption price of another slave, or even purchase a slave,without acquiring his own freedom first.2 In all these situations, slaves hadto be able to earn money, but they could only do so if their mastersallowed them the opportunity.

THE 'TAX' ON FREEDOM

The system whereby a slave was allowed to work on his or her ownaccount was known as murgu, the 'payment made by a slave in lieu ofservice'.3 As Alhaji Wada of Kano has explained, murgu was 'thepayment made by a slave to the owner instead of doing personal work forhim'.4 In Hausa the term was defined as a 'tax'. According to G.P.Bargery, murgu was a form of galla, 'any kind of tax, e.g. gallar k'asa,farm tax; payment made by a slave in lieu of work = murgu; any moneyreceived as rent or for hire'.5 Yusufu Yunusa, basing his analysis on oraldata, has concluded that the payment of this 'tax' was the most commonmethod by which slaves obtained their freedom.6 Murgu also had anotherconnotation that apparently derived from its principal meaning. It was 'asum paid by a master for the return of a runaway slave', probably becausean escaped slave would have been in arrears in his murgu payments. Ofcourse fugitive slaves might not necessarily be in murgu, but notionally amaster gave the murgu to the captor as the reward.

Murgu was different from redemption \fansa].1 As E.J. Arnettobserved in 1918, 'the payments of "murgu" do not affect redemption.They are small payments of cash in lieu of service and continue indefi-nitely.'8 If ransom was being paid, there had to be a separate agreementover price and terms of payment. The murgu was not a contributiontowards the cost of emancipation, even though many colonial officialsand later historians, including myself,9 have sometimes written thatmurgu was the same as redemption, or in some way was part of theprocess of emancipation. The confusion is understandable because aslave attempting to earn cash for redemption had to buy the right to do soby means of murgu; the self-redemption payments and the murgu pay-ments would presumably often have been combined and even a know-ledgeable observer could easily make the error of believing them to be thesame thing. None the less, the distinction between ransom and murgulasted well into the colonial period. It was clearly recognized in theIslamic Court at Sokoto in 1914, where 'Freedom by purchase \fansa] iscommon and the incomplete form of freedom for a small payment[murgu] is still more so.'10

While defined as a type of 'taxation', murgu should be distinguishedfrom taxes owed to the state. In Caliphate society, slaves were not subject



to direct state taxation, although sometimes masters indirectly paid taxesthat were assessed on the output of slave labour, particularly with respectto the religious tithe [zakka]. Even then, slave holding was not in itselftaxed, and most large slaveowners were wholly or partially exempt fromtaxation, other than the tithe.11 Smallholders usually paid agricultural andcraft taxes, in addition to the tithe, and consequently these masters weremore likely to pay indirect taxation based on the output of slave labour.As a result, small holders probably collected murgu as a means ofreducing overheads more often than large slaveowners. Cash incomeraised through murgu payments was not taxed, which meant that therewas no disincentive for masters to let slaves work on their own.

The commitment to murgu usually required a fixed cash payment,made at regular intervals. Alhaji Garba, Sarkin Gida at the GandunNassarawa estate of the emir of Kano, has described murgu as an ordergiven to slaves by their masters; it means 'leave what you are doing and goget me some money.'12 Alhaji Yunusa of Tudan Wada, Kano, has definedmurgu as the arrangement whereby a slave worked for cash and broughtmoney to his master.13 None the less some slaves paid murgu in kind,especially if the arrangement was centred on farming. Even then, how-ever, payments were regular and fixed by agreement in advance.

Murgu can be distinguished from wuri, which was a similar mechanismby which slaves could work on their own in return for a payment to theirmasters. While murgu was a fixed payment, usually in cash, wuri was aproportional payment on the basis of one-tenth of a day's earnings.14 Theetymology of this term is unclear; this meaning of wuri is not listed in anyHausa dictionary. None the less, it seems likely that it derives from wuri['cowries'], that is, 'money'. The wuri arrangement was common if slaveswere engaged in retail trade, but if they were working for wages,providing their services, or otherwise selling commodities that they hadmade or gathered, they were subject to the flat rate that characterizedmurgu. Like murgu, wuri was also considered a kind of tax. Very little isknown about wuri in practice. It is clear, however, that payment of fixedamounts in the form of murgu was more common than the proportionalwuri payments.

It has been argued that slavery itself was a form of taxation, not by thestate but by the masters themselves.15 Slavery involved the directappropriation of the product of labour. It was like some malevolent taxwhich allowed workers only bare subsistence. In this sense, both murguand wuri were clearly analogous to taxation; with murgu being more likea flat-rate tax and wuri being more like an income tax. As alreadyindicated, Hausa terminology recognized this analogy. From the perspec-tive of the slaves, these 'taxes' shifted the terms of slavery in their favour



to the extent that autonomy was preferable to close supervision. Ratherthan return all output to their masters, slaves paying murgu or wuri wereable to retain a portion of their earnings.

CONDITIONS OF MURGU

The terms and conditions of self-employment and wage labour undermurgu varied considerably in the Sokoto Caliphate, but in most casesslaves earned money and paid a regular fee to masters for the right towork. These cash payments brought slaves directly into the moneyeconomy, which was based on cowrie shells that were ultimatelyimported from the Maldive Islands and, after the middle of the nine-teenth century, from the East African coast as well.

The choice as to whether or not a slave was allowed to work undermurgu rested with the master. According to Imam Imoru, the learnedjurist who wrote a lengthy analysis of Caliphate society and economy ashe understood it at the end of the nineteenth century, 'A slaveowner canmake the slave work on a farm, or do some other type of work, or pay atax called murgu. If he makes him pay the tax, it can be paid daily,weekly, monthly, or annually.'16 In discussing slavery on the Emir ofKano's rinji at Fanisau, to the immediate north of the city, Hamidu, theGaladiman Shamaki, recently confirmed the fact that masters had the fullauthority to determine whether or not slaves would be allowed to work ontheir own. At this particular estate, slaves were not allowed to leave therinji, and that meant that they could not be in murgu."

When a slave was working in murgu, he did not perform any of theother duties that slaves usually did.18 It was said that a slave in murgu'doesn't do any other kind of slavery that day'.19 His payment was his onlyresponsibility. According to Imam Imoru, 'The slave who is taxed is notput to work, but one who does not pay the tax is made to work day andnight.'20 Malam Bawa of Dambazau ward, Kano, has observed that slavesstill worked for their masters before entering murgu. There was nothingincompatible with slaves doing both. Murgu was considered to be part ofthe normal pattern of work for slaves; whether slaves worked directlyunder the supervision of their masters or on their own account wasimmaterial. Both work regimes were central to the institution of slavery.21

According to Abdukarimu of Hunkuyi, an important town near Zaria,the master set the amount of murgu and the frequency of payment.22 AtHunkuyi, the amount was paid yearly, but elsewhere slaves paid weekly,biweekly or monthly. Imam Imoru reported that when a master 'isplanning to impose this tax he calls together people to discuss the matter:if the slave's occupation brings him money, a high tax is imposed on him;



if it doesn't bring him much money, he does not pay much tax.'23 Slaves inmurgu had a week or two before payments began. According to AlhajiAbubakar of Kudan, an important cotton town in Zaria Emirate, undermurgu 'the master had no right to take anything belonging to the slave forseven days or even fourteen days'.24 But after this initial period of grace, amaster could seize any money he knew the slave might have, even beforea payment date, if the slave was in arrears. If a slave could not pay ontime, the master waited until the next day.25 At Kudan, masters acceptedpartial payments but kept collecting whenever it was suspected that aslave had money.26

Masters were not responsible for the upkeep of slaves who wereengaged in murgu. Under the normal conditions of slavery, mastersprovided food, clothing and lodging. The expense of these subsistencegoods varied, depending upon whether slaves lived in domestic arrange-ments or worked on plantations and farms. In the household, all subsis-tence had to be provided, but agricultural slaves were assigned smallfarms [gayauna] for their own use, from which they were expected to feedthemselves for one meal each day. Usually morning and mid-day mealswere provided, with slaves feeding themselves at night. By contrast,slaves in murgu had to support themselves fully. According to MalamaHauwa of Gwangwazo ward in Kano, 'They used the money they earnedto feed themselves and to pay murgu.'21 As Yunusa has observed, therewere risks involved for slaves and masters alike. 'It was not at all easy forthe slaves to provide for themselves and to raise such an amount. In suchcases, needless to say . . . slaves suffered very badly. In such situations,hunger and disease could easily devalue a slave.'28 Sometimes slaves inmurgu continued to live in the compounds of their masters, and then themurgu payments included an allowance for board and lodging. AsResident G.W. Webster reported in 1906, 'in Nassarawa . . . a slave wasfree from all service to his master, in consideration of a weekly payment(for board and lodging)'. The amount of murgu varied depending uponsuch factors.

Murgu was recognized in Islamic law, as practised in the Caliphate. AsYunusa learned, when slaves were allowed to work on their own accountunder murgu: 'a contract (Arabic: kitaba) was made between the ownerand his slave'.29 In a disputed case in Nassarawa in 1906, the Islamic Courtupheld the right of the master to collect murgu. The slave 'was ordered topay weekly instalments 4Vid. as Murgu for board and lodging, and befree to do as he pleased'.30 While this case dates to the first few years ofcolonial rule, there is no reason to doubt that a similar ruling would nothave been made before the British conquest. Although the concept doesnot appear to be recognized in the shari'a, murgu was clearly part of



customary law, and it has been given legitimacy with reference to theHadiths?1 The institution was common in all the central emirates, includ-ing Kano, Katsina, Zaria, Sokoto and Gwandu, as well as in Nassarawa,Bida, and Bauchi. Whether or not it was practised in the more distantemirates away from the more prosperous and commercially developedheart of the Caliphate is unclear.

Frederick Lugard, High Commissioner of the Protectorate of NorthernNigeria, 1900-6, was particularly impressed with the institution, which heand his staff clearly understood as a provision whereby slaves worked ontheir own account, whether or not they were also seeking emancipation.Lugard described murgu as

an arrangement between master and slave, by which the latter onpayment of a fee - which was not an instalment of the agreed price -was allowed to quit entirely his master's service for a year, in orderto earn his redemption money. Until the time had expired themaster had no power over the slave, and all he earned was his ownproperty, and he could go away and trade .. .n

On the basis of this assessment, Lugard used murgu as the cornerstone ofhis policies to reform slavery under colonialism. As Hogendorn and Ihave examined elsewhere, the practice of murgu after the British con-quest was different than it had been under the Caliphate.33 The mostimportant modification, which only needs to be identified here, was achange in who had the right to determine whether a slave could be inmurgu. Before colonialism, the master had full authority in the matter, asalready pointed out. In Lugard's scheme, slaves had the right to have aredemption price set and be allowed to work on their own account toacquire funds to pay off the ransom. They were allowed to do so only ifthey also paid murgu.

MURGU AND GENDER

As in other matters relating to slavery in the Sokoto Caliphate, issuesrelating to gender must be considered carefully. Most references in theoral data and in the archival documentation refer to an ambiguouscategory of 'slaves', which on closer examination almost always meansmale slaves. Whether or not female slaves entered into murgu, therefore,becomes an important question. Some traditions claim that female slaveswere not allowed to practise murgu in the nineteenth century.34 Othertraditions claim that both men and women were involved. While theincidence of female slaves in murgu is difficult to discern, it is clear thatmore males were involved in murgu than females.



In Kano, women slaves were allowed to work on their own and savemoney until such time as they could pay off their redemption price, whichsuggests that they were in murgu.15 In Zaria, female slaves, includingconcubines, practised murgu.16 They cut and gathered firewood to sell,and the money was their own. In 1915 H.F. Backwell reported that murgupayments had once differed for males and females in Argungu, althoughit is uncertain if this situation had prevailed before colonial rule. Further-more, Argungu was not part of the Caliphate, but one of the pockets ofresistance to Sokoto authority. On other matters relating to slavery,however, practices at Argungu were similar to those in the Caliphate, andhence it is possible that a differential rate based on gender appliedelsewhere.37

THE ACTIVITIES OF SLAVES IN MURGU

The type of work that slaves did under murgu included a wide range oftasks, some of which involved the payment of wages, but others includedthe sale of goods or services in order to earn money. In almost all cases,murgu brought slaves into the cash economy and made available areservoir of skilled and unskilled labour for the non-agriculturaleconomy. In order to obtain the money needed for murgu, slavesengaged in petty trading, craft production, gathering firewood, fetchingwater, retailing processed foods, cutting grass for fodder or roof repair,repairing houses, porterage, droving, prostitution, and indeed anythingthat was remunerative. These economic activities resulted in the transferof money in the form of wages or payments for goods and services.Considering the scale of slavery and the economic importance of murgu,it can be concluded that many slaves were directly involved in the casheconomy of the Sokoto Caliphate, although usually on a part-time basis.

In 1824 Hugh Clapperton observed that 'the male slaves [of Kano] areemployed in the various trades of building, working in iron, weaving,making shoes or clothes, and in traffic; the female slaves in spinning,baking, and selling water in the streets'.38 While Clapperton did notmention murgu or otherwise describe the arrangements under whichslaves were employed in these activities, it seems likely that he wasreferring to this institution. Certainly, slaves in murgu were engaged inthese very tasks later in the century.

Similarly, J.F. Schön and Samuel Crowther, commenting on slavery inNupe in 1841, noted:

The slave is allowed to sell the produce of his farm, after his master



has disposed of his own; and if he is engaged in trading, andemployed in canoes visiting the various market-places, he may havehis own articles of commerce, and dispose of them to his ownadvantage. He is permitted to purchase as many wives as his meanswill allow; and his offspring are free.39

This description also appears to identify murgu as an important institu-tion. If the children of slaves who were working on their own accountbecame free, as Schön and Crowther state, then it is likely that the slaveparents had acquired their own freedom, which was certainly possible(see below).

Paul Staudinger, who visited Zaria, Kano and Sokoto in 1884-85, alsoidentified murgu, although he did not refer to it by name:

Trusted slaves are sometimes sent on missions, given farms tomanage, or permitted to work in business or trades and crafts.Often they are allowed to keep a part of their takings or they maymerely have to pay small dues to their owner; sometimes theymanage to become completely independent.40

The 'small dues' were, of course, the murgu payments.The slaves on Gandun Giwaran, Dawakin Kudu District near Kano,

cut grass for thatching roofs (a tie cost 5-7 cowries at the end of thenineteenth century); they wove cloth, made ornaments, sold hay, and putup rafters in houses.41 The father of Malam Isayaku, who was a slave onGandun Dorayi, outside Kano, wove bags [mángala], which he sold inKano. Other slaves on this estate made corn stalk beds. Elsewhere, slavesmade mats and cut grass for thatching.42 The slaves on Gandun Nas-sarawa, one of the Emir of Kano's estates at Kano, engaged in variouscrafts .tended other people's livestock and did house repair - all this to getmoney.43 According to Malama Hauwa, the types of work included sellingwater, collecting firewood, rope making, and barbering. Female slavesmight grind millet or sell water.44

Only when slaves were farming under murgu arrangements does itappear that payments were made in kind, rather than in money. Accord-ing to M.G. Smith, 'ganduna [estates] consisting of slaves had to rendertheir owners substantial portions of the harvest as murgu or time-rentgalla\'5 Idi Muhammadu of Dakace village has confirmed Smith's report:'Any slave who practised murgu farmed for himself, and agreed to givehis master twenty or thirty bundles of grain each year. He did this until hedied or until he had given enough to buy his freedom'.46 Lugard reportedthis practice for Zaria as well: 'In Zaria a slave might work a separate



farm, and pay an annual sum to his master.'47 The amount was paid ingrain.

THE COST OF MURGU

The earliest records on the cost oí murgu date to the 1850s, when JamesRichardson reported that slaves paid varying rates from 50 to 600 cowriesper month for the right to work on their own account.48 In 1895 CanonRobinson found that the monthly rate was 3,000 cowries.49 All otherinformation relating to the amount of murgu derives from oral data andearly colonial reports. Consequently it is impossible to assess changes inthe level of murgu payments and it is difficult to assess the relative cost ofmurgu with subsistence and other prices. None the less, it appears thatthe amount of murgu may have increased substantially in the 40 yearsbetween Richardson's and Robinson's time, even if allowance is made forthe inflation of the cowrie currency in the 1850s and 1860s. During these40 years the value of cowries in terms of silver dollars fell by half, andsome prices, including those for slaves, generally reflect this devaluationof the cowrie. As David Tambo has shown, the cost of slaves, asexpressed in cowries, more than doubled from the middle of the centuryto the end of the century.50 Hence the two reports on murgu ratespartially, at least, confirm the extent of the cowrie inflation.

The cost of murgu in the early colonial period was generally in line withRobinson's report of 1895. Variations in rates appear to reflect thefrequency of payment, whether weekly, monthly or annually. There is noapparent pattern in the available figures. The lowest report, based on oraldata, is 200 cowries per month, while the highest figures are 9,000 and11,000 cowries, but these prices are projected from daily rates and werereported in sterling, not cowries. It seems likely that monthly rates duringthe first decade of colonial rule were on the order of 2,000-4,000 cowries,or Is. to 4s.

According to Alhaji Abubakar of Kudan, under murgu, a slave gavehis master 100 or 200 cowries weekly; sometimes every two weeks.51

Malama Hauwa remembered that in Kano murgu was the weekly pay-ment of 100 or 200 cowries 'if the slave was not working for his master.'52

Malam Bawa of Kano remembers that if a master allowed his slaves totrade, they had to give their master a portion of whatever profit theymade, for example 100 cowries, that is half a penny, each day.S3 Thisaccount probably refers to wuri, a proportional payment rather than afixed rate. As noted above, payments were sometimes made in kind.Malam Ali, Sarkin Farin Kasa, of Zaria Emirate, recounts that paymentsby slaves who were farming on their own account and who were also



considered to be in murgu to have been 20-30 bundles of 'whatever theygrew on their murgu\5i Early colonial reports confirm these prices. InNassarawa, murgu payments were 4V2d. to Is. per week,55 while in Bauchi'the "Murgu" was fixed at from 4d. to 2s. per week, or 5s. per year'.56

These reports suggest that there was a discount if murgu was calculatedon an annual basis.

When compared with other prices, the amount of murgu that slavespaid to their masters appears to have been more than the cost ofsubsistence. For example, in the 1850s, when murgu ranged from 50 to600 cowries per month, B arth estimated that a family could live with ease,including clothing, for 50,000-60,000 cowries (£4-5) per year.57 Calcu-lated on a monthly basis, an individual could live well on 850 cowries.Presumably slaves could have survived on much less. At the end of thenineteenth century, when the amount of murgu was 3,000 cowries permonth, Robinson estimated that 25-30 cowries could 'keep a poor manfrom starvation for five days' .ss This figure suggests a monthly subsistenceallowance of only 150-180 cowries, which seems low, but can be taken asthe bare minimum for survival. Figures from the early colonial periodsuggest higher subsistence costs. Since there appears to have beenvirtually no inflation in prices in the fifteen years after 1895, early colonialprices can be used with some caution.

Most authorities in the early colonial period were in general agreementthat sufficient food for subsistence could be purchased for Id. or less perday, that is approximately 100 cowries per day or 3,000 cowries permonth.59 In Kano in 1909, according to Temple, 'a working man and hiswife feed themselves well on 200K p.d'.60 Grier, writing from Zaria in1910, noted that 'In this country 100 cowries will buy enough food for aman for a day.'61 That is, an individual could live on 3,000 cowries permonth.

Since the cost of murgu was at least equal to the cost of subsistence,slaves had to earn twice the cost of subsistence or more in order tomaintain themselves. If they tried to make instalments towards their ownredemption, then they had to earn even more. At the end of thenineteenth century, when the price of redemption was often 100,000-300,000 cowries, a slave would have had to earn considerably more thantwice the cost of subsistence in order to make substantial paymentstowards his or her emancipation. If a slave worked on his or her own forsix months and made ransom payments of 3,000 per month, theequivalent to murgu, it would have taken from five to 17 years to pay offthe ransom, depending upon the price of redemption. This analysissuggests that few slaves would have been able to earn enough money toobtain their freedom unless they were skilled craftsmen or fortunate in



trade. There slaves were precisely the ones who would have had to paythe highest amounts for murgu and where ransom prices would have beenin the range of 300,000 cowries.

BENEFITS TO MASTERS

Murgu arrangements were clearly beneficial to masters, whether or notslaves were allowed to purchase their freedom. In 1851 Richardsonreported that wealthy Kano masters, who had as many as 3,000-4,000slaves, let many slaves

work on their own account, and they pay... their lord and master acertain number of cowries every month: some bring one hundred,some three hundred or six hundred, or as low as fifty cowries amonth. On the accumulation of these various monthly payments ofthe poor slaves the great man subsists, and is rich and powerful inthe country. This system prevails in all the Fellatah districts [i.e. theSokoto Caliphate].62

While it is clear that Richardson was describing the institution oī murgu,there are problems with his account. First, he obtained his information inZinder, which was not part of the Caliphate, although in close commer-cial contact. Richardson never reached the Caliphate, but died on his wayto the Borno capital of Kukawa. Second, the large slave holdings thatRichardson describes were those of the aristocracy, and it cannot beassumed that slaves in these holdings were always engaged in murgu.Later information, as discussed above, suggests that slaves on some rinjiwere not allowed off the estate. Finally, Richardson infers that it wasbecause of these payments by slaves that masters were rich and powerful.Murgu payments were an important source of income for slaveowners,but certainly not the only source and certainly almost never a principalsource.

As income, murgu was one means whereby masters realized a returnon their investment in slavery. If calculated as a percentage of the lowestcost of slaves at the end of the nineteenth century, murgu could haveamounted to much as 18 per cent, although in most cases, earnings onmurgu would have been less. In any case, murgu was a good investment.Malam Bawa of Kano even claims that a master was able to put aside partof the profits and during the course of a year save enough money to buyanother slave.63 In fact, however, a master would have had to use thepayments of at least six slaves, working six months each at 3,000 cowries



per month, in order to have been able to raise the purchase price of a newslave who cost 100,000 cowries.

Because slaves paid for their own subsistence, murgu was also a waythat masters reduced their financial commitments. As Robinsonobserved in 1895,

If, as not infrequently happens, a master has no work for his slavesto do, it is customary for him to turn them adrift to provide forthemselves; in this case they have to pay a sort of monthly tax totheir master of three thousand cowries. To raise this amount, inaddition to that required for their purchase of food, is often a workof very great difficulty.64

Instead of feeding idle slaves, masters were able to maintain their grainreserves, not only for their own consumption but also for commercialadvantage. For slaves who worked in murgu for six months, a mastersaved the equivalent in grain of what that slave would have consumed,and he made an additional amount of money equivalent to that cost.Furthermore, a master benefited from the rising price on grain, havingmore grain than he might otherwise have had and being able to sell it formore money. Prices of grain tended to rise late in the dry season andduring the early part of the farming season, until the first harvests were in.Instead of exhausting grain reserves, many slaveowners were probablyable to speculate in produce marketing. Slaves, on the other hand, wereforced onto the dry-season labour market, available as a cheap source ofpaid labour whenever and wherever needed.

The principal advantage of murgu for slaveowners arose from theseasonal nature of the agricultural economy. During the rainy season,slaves were needed in the fields, but in the dry season masters had littleuse for slave labour, other than to carry loads and repair houses. Therewere other employment opportunities, but these did not require thedirect supervision of slaveowners. It was in the interest of masters to havefull access to the labour of slaves during the farming season, giving themland for small gay auna farms, on which slaves could grow some of theirown food. During the dry season, masters were able to lower overheadsby making slaves feed and house themselves. Therefore, slaves werereleased from obligations in return for murgu payments. Masters therebyobtained supplemental income and reduced expenses. This extra cashhad the added advantage in that it was not taxed.

In the nineteenth century, the availability of new slaves recentlycaptured probably facilitated murgu arrangements and thereforeincreased the likelihood that slaves would be allowed to purchase theirown freedom. Masters could easily replace slaves, and they could earn a



considerable income from their slaves under these arrangements. Butmasters had to accept the risks of slaves leaving and thereby had to makeit worthwhile for slaves to stay and pay. The financial interests of mastersencouraged them to allow some slaves the opportunity to purchase theirown freedom at relatively high prices because new captives could beacquired at low prices or at virtually no price at all for those involved inenslaving new captives. Slaves must have thought it worthwhile to acceptthese terms, or they had no choice in doing so. The legal recourse underCaliphate law to apprehend fugitive slaves obviously was a factor inconvincing slaves to honour their commitments.

CONCLUSION

The institution of murgu enabled a slave to work on his or her ownaccount for cash, sometimes in the form of wages, a portion of which wasrequired by contract to be given to the master. As a result, the institutionof murgu was the interface between slavery and other sectors of theCaliphate economy. This observation confirms other information on thedevelopment of a cash economy before the rapid growth of exports in tin,groundnuts and cotton in the first two decades of the twentieth century.Earlier studies have emphasized how the export of commodities undercolonialism led to the rapid expansion of the money sector, but not in thecontext of murgu. There was already a cash economy, and many slaves, atleast, found nothing new in working for money.

As noted above, access to the cash economy tended to be seasonal,which leads to a second observation about this study of murgu. Scholarshave previously noted the importance of dry-season labour migration inthe colonial economy of Northern Nigeria. Known as ein rani ['eating' thedry season], this phenomenon was widespread by the 1930s. As KenSwindell has demonstrated, ein rani began even earlier; he traces itsorigins in the Sokoto area to the first decade of colonial rule.65 Further-more, many of the migrants were slaves, a phenomenon which has beenexamined in greater detail elsewhere.66 As is clear from the discussion ofmurgu under the Caliphate, dry-season employment for wages was wellestablished before colonial rule. The new development under colonialisminvolved migration in search of employment for money, not working forcash as such.

Some comparative matters may be mentioned. The origins of murgu asan institution have yet to be determined. The etymology of the term isunclear, and there is no comparable institution in neighbouring Borno,which was also an Islamic state where many aspects of slavery weresimilar.67 The institution may have been introduced under the Caliphate,



therefore, and it is possible that its origins are to be traced to Fulbeinstitutions. Slaveowners in some other Islamic states in West Africa thatwere dominated by Fulbe aristocracies are reported to have allowedslaves to work on their own account in return for a fee or portion ofearnings. The Maraka, for example, allowed slaves to undertake dry-season occupations, and part of the earnings had to be given to theirmasters.68 According to Martin Klein, the amount that slaves had to paywas usually equivalent to the cost of subsistence, although the fees tendedto be higher among the Soninke and in fertile areas like Masina.69 Theterms used for these apparently similar institutions have yet to beexamined. It is clear, however, that the practice had become part ofIslamic customary law in many places, but not in Borno. A comparisonwith non-Muslim states to the south of the Sokoto Caliphate has not beenattempted, though undoubtedly much remains to be discovered there,too.

NOTES

1. Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the University of Maiduguri andAhmadu Bello University in June 1992. This article is an outgrowth of years ofcollaboration with J.S. Hogendorn, with whom I have shared my ideas on slavery andbenefited from his criticisms. Without the oral data, which is referred to in thefootnotes, the discussion would be much reduced in value. The various individuals,both those interviewed and those doing the interviewing, I must therefore thank. Itshould be noted that many of the interviews are being prepared for publication in Hausawith English translation. Finally, I wish to thank the Social Science and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada and York University for their generous support.

2. According to Elphinstone, 'A slave in some cases was allowed to redeem himself bypurchasing another slave to take his place.' See Frederick Lugard, Instructions toPolitical and Other Officers, on Subjects Chiefly Political and Administrative (London,1906), p. 308.

3. G.P. Bargery, A Hausa-English Dictionary and English-Hausa Vocabulary (London,1934), p. 802. Also see Malam Isayaku of Gandun Dorayi, Kano Emirate, 17 Sept.1975, interviewed by Yusufu Yunusa (hereafter referred to as Yunusa Collection). Theoral data used in this article are being prepared for publication in English and Hausa.

4. Alhaji Wada, Kano, 18 July 1975, Yunusa Collection.5. Bargery, Dictionary, p. 359.6. Yusufu Yunusa, 'Slavery in the 19th Century Kano' (BA dissertation, unpublished,

Department of History, Ahmadu Bello University, 1976), pp. 33-4. See, for example,Idrisu Danmaisoro (b. 1898), Hausawa ward, Kano City, 7 Aug. 1975, YunusaCollection.

7. Malama Hauwa, Gwangwazo ward, Kano, 11 July 1975, Yunusa Collection,8. E.J. Arnett, Sokoto, 23 May 1918, in 'Revision of Memo on Slavery', SNP 17 1598/

1918. Unless otherwise noted, all archival references are to the Nigerian NationalArchives, Kaduna.

9. Lovejoy, 'Problems of Slave Control in the Sokoto Caliphate', in Paul E. Lovejoy,Africans in Bondage: Studies in Slavery and the Slave Trade (Madison, 1986), pp. 250,251. Also see Lovejoy, 'Slavery in the Sokoto Caliphate', in Lovejoy (ed.), TheIdeology of Slavery in Africa (Beverly Hills, 1981), p. 233, where murgu is incorrectly



referred to as 'the practice of self-purchase'. Polly Hill makes a similar mistake; seePopulation, Prosperity and Poverty. Rural Kano 1900 and 1970 (Cambridge, 1977), p.204.

10. Ibrahim Jumare, 'Slavery in Sokoto City, c. 1804-1936' (MA thesis, unpublished,Ahmadu Bello University, 1988), p. 123, citing Classification of Native Court Cases,Dec. 1913, in Annual Report, Sokoto, Gandu, Argungu Divisions, 30th March 1914,Sokprof c. 27, 581/1914. When Arnett enquired into the continuation of murgu inSokoto in 1916, he learned from the Sultan and the chief Alkali that 'Murgu is anarrangement made by mutual agreement between slave and master by which the slavemakes a regular money payment in lieu of working for his master.' See E. Arnett, 12April 1916, SNP 10/3 850p/1915.

11. See Paul E. Lovejoy and J.S. Hogendorn, Slow Death for Slavery. The Course ofAbolition in Northern Nigeria, 1897-1936 (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 168-72.

12. Alhaji Garba, Sarkin Gida, Gandun Nassarawa, 14 Sept. 1975, Yunusa Collection.13. Alhaji Yunusa, Tudan Wada, Kano, 2 Aug. 1975, Yunusa Collection.14. Idrisu Dan Maisoro (b. 1898), Hausawa ward, kano City, 7 Aug. 1975, Yunusa

Collection.15. Lovejoy and Hogendorn, Slow Death for Slavery, p. 159.16. Douglas E. Ferguson, 'Nineteenth Century Hausaland, being a Description by Imam

Imoru of the Land, Economy and Society of his People' (Ph.D. thesis, unpublished,UCLA, 1973), p. 230.

17. Hamidu, Galadiman Shamaki, Fanisau, Kano Emirate, 3 April 1975, Yunusa Collec-tion.

18. Malama Hauwa, Gwangwazo ward, Kano, 11 July 1975, Yunusa Collection.19. Idrisu Dan Maisoro, 7 Aug. 1975.20. Ferguson, 'Imam Imoru', p. 230.21. Malam Bawa, Dambazau ward, Kano, 31 July 1975, Yunusa Collection.22. Abdukarimu, Hunkuyi, Zaria Emirate, 2 Nov. 1975, Ahmadu Maccido Collection.23. Ferguson, 'Imam Imoru', p. 230.24. Alhaji Abubukar, Kudan, Zaria Emirate, 26 Nov. 1975, Maccido Collection.25. Idrisu Dan Maisoro, Kano, 7 Aug. 1975, Yunusa Collection. Also see Yunusa, 'Slavery

in 19th Century Kano', pp. 33-4; and Abdulwahabu Dawaki (b. 1887), Rano, KanoEmirate, 12 Sept. 1975, Aliyu Musa Collection.

26. Abubakar Cindo (born during reign of Sarkin Zazzau Yero), Kaura, Zaria City, 10Sept. 1975, Maccido Collection.

27. Malama Hauwa, 11 July 1975.28. Yunusa, 'Slavery in 19th Century Kano', pp. 33-4.29. Ibid.30. Lugard, Instructions to Political Officers, pp. 306-7.31. Alhaji Garba Abubakar Sa'idu, 24 June 1992, Kano.32. Lugard, Instructions to Political Officers, pp. 306-7.33. Lovejoy and Hogendorn, Slow Death for Slavery, pp. 160-2, 203-6.34. Sarkin Farin Kasa Ali (b. 1907), Farin Kasa village, Zaria, 7 July 1975, Maccido

Collection. On the basis of these traditions, I have previously argued, incorrectly, thatonly male slaves could enter into murgu relations and buy their own freedom; seeLovejoy, 'Problems of Slave Control', pp. 250, 251.

35. Malam Bawa, 31 July 1975.36. Idi Muhammadu (b. 1890), Dakace village, Zaria Emirate, 25 June 1975, Maccido

Collection. Also see Abubakar Abdullahi (b. 1895), Sha-Gogi, Birnin Yero village,Zaria, 15 June 1975, Maccido Collection.

37. H.F. Backwell, 5 April 1916, SNP 10/3 850p/1915. During the 1920s, women paid halfas much as men in Yola; see the discussion in Lovejoy and Hogendorn, Slow Death forSlavery, pp. 204-5.

38. Dixon Denham, Hugh Clapperton and Walter Oudney, Narrative of Travels andDiscoveries in Northern and Central Africa, in the Years 1822, 1823, and 1824 (London,3rd edn., 1828), II, p. 54.



39. J.F. Schön and S. Crowther, Journals of the Rev. James Frederick Schön and Mr.Samuel Crowther, Who Accompanied the Expedition up the Niger in 1841 (London,1842), p. 187.

40. Paul Staudinger, In the Heart of the Hausa States (Athens, Ohio, 1990) II, p. 72.41. Sarkin Bagirmi, Gandun Giwaran, Dawakin Kudu District, Kano, 23 Aug. 1975,

Yunusa Collection.42. Isayaku, Gandun Dorayi, Kano Emirate, 17 Sept. 1975, Yunusa Collection.43. Alhaji Garba, Sarkin Gida, Gandun Nassarawa, 14 Sept. 1975, Yunusa Collection.

Also see Idrisu Dan Maisoro, 7 Aug. 1975.44. Malama Hauwa, Gwangwazo ward, Kano, 11 July 1975, Yunusa Collection.45. M.G. Smith, 'Hausa Inheritance and Succession', in J.D.M. Derrett (ed.), Studies in

the Laws of Succession in Nigeria (London, 1965), p. 245.46. Idi Muhammadu, 25 June 1975.47. Lugard, Instructions to Political Officers, pp. 306-7.48. James Richardson, Narrative of a Mission to Central Africa in the Years 1850-51

(London, 1853), II, p. 274. Schön and Crowther, Journals, p. 188, discuss similarpractices in Nupe a decade earlier but do not give amounts. Also see Lovejoy, 'Slaveryin the Sokoto Caliphate', pp. 233-4.

49. Charles Henry Robinson, Hausaland or Fifteen Hundred Miles Through the CentralSudan (London, 1896), p. 132.

50. David Carl Tambo, 'The Sokoto Caliphate Slave Trade in the Nineteenth Century',International Journal of African Historical Studies, 9, 2 (1976), pp. 187-217.

51. Alhaji Abubukar, 26 Nov. 1975. Also see the account of Abubakar Cindo, 10 Sept.1975. Another account from Zaria has murgu payments at £2 per year until the slavepaid off his price, but this report seems to combine the murgu payment with instalmentson the redemption price. See Nuhu Salmanu (b. 1898), Zaria City, 10 June 1975,Maccido Collection.

52. Malama Hauwa, 11 July 1975.53. Malam Bawa, 31 July 1975.54. Malam Ali, Sarkin Farin Kasa, Zaria Emirate, 7 July 1975, Maccido Collection. Also

see Abubakar Abdullahi (b. 1895), Sha-Gogi, Birnin Yero village, Zaria, interviewedby Maccido, 15 June 1975.

55. Lugard, Instructions to Political Officers, pp. 306-7.56. Ibid.57. Heinrich Barth, Travels and Discoveries in North and Central Africa, 1849-55 (London,

1857-59), I, p. 512. Also see Tijani Garba, 'Taxation in Some Hausa Emirates, c. 1860-1939' (Ph.D. thesis, unpublished, University of Birmingham, 1986), p. 190.

58. Robinson, Hausaland, p. 88. Also see Garba, 'Taxation in Some Hausa Emirates', p.191.

59. According to Swindell, based on oral sources, the cost of food in Kano was less than inSokoto; a tenth of a penny rather than half a penny per day. See Ken Swindell,'Farmers, Traders, and Labourers: Dry Season Migration from North-West Nigeria,1900-33', Africa, 54, 1 (1984), p. 9.

60. Or about 3,000 cowries per month. £13s. per adult per year; see C.L. Temple, 'AnnualReport, Kano Province, 1909', SNP 7/10 6415/1909. Also see H.R. Palmer, 'Report for1909, Katsina Division of Kano Province', Katprof 1/1836; cited in Garba, 'Taxation inSome Hausa Emirates', p. 372. In 1913 it was estimated that the subsistence costs of afamily of three in Raba district in Sokoto Province were £2 14s. 1d. This estimateprobably referred to food purchases alone. Michael Watts, Silent Violence: Food,Famine and Peasantry in Northern Nigeria (Berkeley, 1983), p. 280, citing a RabaDistrict report.

61. Grier to mother, 3 March 1910, Mss. Afr. s. 1379, Rhodes House, Oxford. 20,000cowries = 10/-. Also see S. Grier, 10 July 1906, Mss. Afr. s. 1379.

62. Richardson, Narrative of a Mission to Central Africa, II, p. 274. Also see Schön andCrowther, Journals, p. 188.

63. Malam Bawa, 31 July 1975.



64. Robinson, Hausaland, p. 132.65. Swindell, 'Farmers, Traders and Labourers', pp. 3-19. For earlier studies of cin rani

that demonstrate the increasing importance of labour migration by the third decade ofthe colonial era, see R.M. Prothero, Migrant Labour from Sokoto Province, NorthernNigeria (Kaduna, 1958); Prothero, 'Migratory Labour from North-Western Nigeria',Africa, 27,3 (1957), pp. 251-62; and Michael Watts, Silent Violence (Berkeley, 1983),pp. 358-62.

66. Lovejoy and Hogendorn, Slow Death for Slavery, pp. 200-1, 215-31.67. This observation is based on the response of Borno specialists when I presented this

paper at a seminar at the University of Maiduguri on 13 June 1992. Discussions withNur Alkali, Kyari Tijjani, and Mohammed Adam confirmed this impression. Abdul-lahi Mahadi, a specialist on Kano but from Borno, also had not heard of an institutionlike murgu in Borno.

68. Richard Roberts, 'Ideology, Slavery and Social Formation: The Evolution of MarakaSlavery in the Middle Niger Valley', in Lovejoy, Ideology of Slavery, p. 187.

69. Personal communication.


Documents

Murgu: The Wages of Slavery