Talk:Atlantic voyage of the predecessor of Mansa Musa

Allegedly?

When Taharqa corrected the hair-rising nonsense that I dared to write about the doubtful existence of Abubakari he/she certainly knew better than the bunch of professional historians who refute al-Umari's story about this prince as a fabrication, and lengthy books written by respectable scholars like Nehemia Levtzion can be thrown onto the rubbish dump because scholarly scrutiny can never substitute stout credulity. For a certain type of people Abubakari II must have existed because they obviously need to be confirmed of his existence as it is good for them. When I wrote "allegedly", I left the door open for a controversial view, as the sources are thin and contradictory evidence might be discovered (but it has not yet). If you, however, claim that Abubakari did exist at any rate, then you know more than anybody else (apart from Ivan Van Sertima and Gwaouru Diawara). I reckon you shook his hand. Peter Kremer 10:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor have you sighted any of these numerous scholars you seemingly rely on for your original research, questioning the validity of a historically verified African figure. The fact that I never shook his hand is just as irrelevant to the fact that you've never shaken the hand of Homer(Greek author), but I don't see you hawking over his page, nit-picking over details which are widely accepted among relevant (Africanist) historians, and yes, there are many sources such as Basil Davidson, Robin Walker, the entire BBC World service network, etc. who take his existence for granted.. The only controversy is in your own mind, unless it can displayed otherwise sometime in the near future. The source of contention has always been on the success or validity of his voyage. Eurocentric suspicion is predictable, however, it has no basis in this article, nor do your accusations towards me hold merit. You insist on labeling Abubakari as a "prince", when he was actually mansa(as is reported by all scholars who are actually in the least familiar with the record), which exposes your gross ignorance pertaining to the topic, and which may be in part, the source of your personal suspicions(along with whatever other reasons).. The quote from Mansa Musa to Al-umari testifies to the fact that Al-umari knew of a Ruler corresponding to this figure. Again, whether or not the Voyage was successful is open to question, but your original research in trying to apply the validity of the voyage to his actual existence all together, is pathetically tasteless and uninformed.. Also, maybe if I fetched up more "white" scholars instead of Ivan Van Sertima and Gwaouru Diawara, that would satisfy you, no? Since we all know that Black people lie about their history, unlike white people, so claims made by Black historians must be confirmed or unanimously agreed upon by white scholars, or it isn't reliable.. Basil Davidson, the BBC and mainstream view doesn't matter either since your suspicion of any hint of Black grander is top priority, I understand.Taharqa 00:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Dang I remember when this was barely a stub. it seems to have grown quickly. no suprise on the controversy. god forbid black people do anything on their own, lol. that would be afrocentric (j/k). there do seem to be some good references in this article. I'll focus more of my attention here at least in organization. This article looks like one big high school essay instead of a respectible article. Maybe ppl should spend less time arguing and more time making the article readable. Scott Free 13:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Original research and biased Eurocentrism

The issue dealing with Abubakari has been addressed, however, I'm also concerned about the blatant original research, personal assumptions, and racialist bias being inserted into the article. For example, the references section, renamed "Notes"(specifically number 7) ranted on about Sertima's arguments, in an effort to debunk him, using general knowledge, mixed in with unsubstantiated claims, lies and bunk assumptions. Moros is not a descriptive term for "tawny", that is laughable and can easily be seen as a Eurocentric distortion as "Mauros"(the greek adjective) literally described something that is dark or black, I have no idea where the word "tawny" comes from, but keep that to yourself as it is original research. Also in the notes, claiming that someone "could not have been black" because they are of North African origin is some of the most racist and ignorant babble I've seen written on here. Someone needs to update themselves on studies dealing with ancient North African crania and skeletal remains, and also familiarize themselves with the relevant histography, including the brilliant work of Prof. Frank Snowden. Nonsense, again, leave the arguments on the talk page. Wikipedia standards..Taharqa 00:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, at least in part- I do not think that the 'issue dealing with Abubakari' (ie, the extent to which this figure's existence is accepted among historians) has been adequately addressed. It is evident that there are a number of historians who have regarded the Abubakari account as fanciful, or at least unable to be corroborated outside of al-Umari's third- or fourth-hand mention (where he is not even named), and that there are historians and other reference works (Britannica, for eg) for whom the dynastic succession is much less clear. The article presently makes it sound as if the only doubt anyone's expressed is whether or not his ships reached the Americas, but if you look again at those sources which were deleted plus others that can be located, that is not the case. IMO the article needs to recognise that Abubakari's historicity has been questioned by some notable sources, and at the very least that there are differing reconstructions of this period in the Malian succession. As it is, I think it's misleading.--cjllwʘTALK 07:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

^Actually, I think that you're being mis-leading and I'd actually have to respectfully disagree. Nothing was directly deleted as much as it was reverted to the most recent stable version due to blatant bias and OR, the citations readily available cast no doubt on the existence of a figure corresponding with Abubakari II and I feel that you're literally being dishonest by seeking to discredit Al-umari's testimony by calling it a "third- or fourth-hand mention", how do you expect anyone to take that seriously when Mansa Musa is the one who relayed this report directly? This is a hideous exaggeration that can't be taken into consideration. The so-called fanciful account as is indicated by most skeptics are referring to the actual success or validity of the voyage.. Much of Mali's history is passed down from orature and a lot of it is surprisingly accurate and well accepted among scholars. For example, Sundiata Keita of whom virtually nothing is written about outside of Ibn Khaldun, is widely established as a historical figure, given the dubious nature of certain events that transpired during his epic, he's defined as "semi-historical" by Britannica.. It is also suspect that you try and use Britannica as a source for doubt when Britannica makes no such claims addressing it. I could only find references to two of the most famous mansas, Sundiata and Kankan Musa, by this logic I guess no other Malian emperors existed besides those two. Obviously a fallacy and due to original research you wish to single out Abubakari II. But in fact, Abubakari II is included among the list of emperors provided by historyfiles.co.uk, as can be seen here. It is also noteworthy that he is reinforced unquestionably as an actual figure who reigned from 1310-1312(these dates are universal) even in high school curriculum, as you can see here. The article doesn't need to recognize anything besides what is established in mainstream acceptability and based on the relevant literature/reading, one can see very clearly that doubt directly casted on his existence seems to actually be minimal.. Due to the fact that you have provided no quotes, citations, links and nothing but your opinion, I find that your premise is probably based on being ill-informed and/or your points of contention simply lack overall merit..Taharqa 15:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hail Taharqa, master of enlightenment and tolerance! The community thanks you for re-introducing the Holy Inquisition. And we all deeply deplore you were not able to burn this Eurocentrist vandal who dares to doubt the existence of “the greatest emperor of the world” (M. K. Asante). I mean the present Pope is an old man and will soon need a successor. What about applying for the job and call yourself Moronius I (Moronius derived from Spanish “morón” meaning “extra-fat Moor”)?

Let me now comment on your invective against me. You cry “Eurocentrism”! What was Eurocentric about my doubts about Abubakari’s existence? This view is shared by a host of historians whose qualifications are/were better than yours. I think you believe that WIKIPEDIA is a platform reserved for Afrocentrist ideas and interpretations. If you need anything like this, then follow the example of the Catholics or the Mormons or the Muslims and open up your own internet encyclopedia – Blackopedia, if you like. The openness to different views as long as they can be substantiated by literature is one of the basic principles of WIKIPEDIA. If you kill contributions the way did with mine you display a totalitarian mind. You cannot divide the world between the melanin-deprived pale-faces and those who have inherited the truth because they are gifted with an over-saturation of the “jazzy” stuff (to the extent that it has started squirting out of all openings of their blessed Black bodies).

I spent a little time browsing through the regulations set up for the English WIKIPEDIA and found that I strictly kept to them. You demand the truth and nothing but the ultimate truth (which, of course, is only known to Afrocentrist historians and their wannabe disciples), but it is verifiability that is demanded. Whenever I can refer to reliable sources – and it is not you and your kith and kin that are entitled to decide what is reliable! – I do comply with this rule, and I did! You cry “original research” (even though my statements were satisfactorily documented – and if some were not documented to the desired extent, you would have had to demand verification, while instant deletion is a kind of berserkism), but you definitely knew that it was not original research. I get the impression this war-cry is the last resort you take to, when you realize that a statement contrary to your ideas might be valid, and you hope the supervisors at WIKIPEDIA can be convinced of your verdict and induced to applauding to your deletion.

But you cannot deter me from keeping on with contributions that may not always please the Afrocentric mind. If you claim you and your kind “know” the “truth”, then you are simply ideologists arguing on the same level as the 20th century dictators who, too, knew what was the truth and who was to be eliminated for holding the wrong views. If you violate the WIKI principle of free communication and free access to differing data and interpretations of sources and data (e. G. By deliberately deleting the link to the German article on Abubakari), then you suppress freedom. If you want to dictate what historical truth is despite the fact that there is a lot of academic controversy you enslave scholarship. Then you are no better than the Holy Inquisition that banned books Good Christians should better not read or than the authorities in Communist China that block internet sites which they do not want to be read by their subjects. WIKI is called a “free” encyclopedia, and “freedom” does not mean you have the right to take at random liberties against contributors who do not share your views and totalitarian attitude. I cannot find a rule implementing “censorship” (self-styled) in the rules set up for the WIKI community. If you are not willing or not able to discuss matters on an academic level, leave your undergraduate fingers off an encyclopedia. If you believe that a contribution is faulty or irrelevant or not neutral, you have to mark this on the talk-page and ask the community to have a look at the passages in question so that an agreement or revision can be reached. If there had been an openly racist remark in my contribution, then you might have had to delete this instantly after explicitly explaining what was racist. But in the context of a scholarly debate about historical matters and on the basis of solid (even though debatable) evidence it is not your job to prescribe what “truth” is and what other readers must be protected from and simply kill contributions out of the self-deceptive attitude that you may be more popish than the Pope. Zelotism is something for block-headed fundamentalists, who are determined to impose their views of the world on the rest of mankind. By the way: After I have worked in the African history business for more than 30 years no undergraduate on the rampage – neither Black nor White or Yellow or Infra-Read - will be allowed to call me a Eurocentrist, and the underlying insinuation that I might be a racist is a personal insult that I do not wish to return on the same level.

Before you choke with laughter again I allow myself to redirect your attention to what Frank Snowden actually wrote: Maurus was used “at times” (cited from Snowden) to designate Black people, while the usual expression was Aithiops. I have the impression you tend to read from literature only what fits into your wishful thinking– provided you actually opened Snowden’s book at all and were not just quoting second-hand stuff the Sertima way. Snowden’s statements taken as a whole do not yield the message you would like to read from the two pages. Prof. Snowden is too much of a scholar to be satisfied with cursory and superficial statements of the kind you prefer. After all, the correct Greek word, which was also used to describe “Aithiopes” was not “mauros”, but “melas”. Furthermore you do not realize that a discussion about blackness here is not about the real hue of one’s skin, but about the social implications. Ask a staunch White supremacist what he understands by “blackness” and you will learn that this word for him means any hue darker than the colour of his skin, and this will comprise a wide range of shades. And another point you kindly ignored: I was not writing about ancient Moors, but about the usage of the word in early modern Spanish. Read closely before you burst with laughter.

I made some statements about Petrus d’Anghiera, which you refuted without discussing anything. You just ridiculed everything like the proverbial little boy in the sand-box. Did you bother to check my statements in Petrus d’Anghiera’s work? I guess you felt you did not have to, because God Sertima has already told you all truths. But did you ever think about the way this professor does/did his research? Why does he not quote the exact location of the reports he refers to while claiming the Spanish met “Negroes” in the Caribbean? He mentions a modern edition of Anghiera, so it would have been easy to add the pages in his footnote. He did not – because he never opened the book. He just copied the stuff from Leo Wiener, almost word by word. Good old Wiener, however, did not read Anghiera either, but he relied on a book that is miraculously quoted on almost every Afrocentrist page about pre-Columbian Blacks in America: Armand de Quatrefages, “Les races humaines”. Strange, strange, for if I were a Black I would not touch this book even with iron grippers. Quatrefages, a 19th century French anthropologist was among the most prominent supporters of European racial supremacy and a stout advocate of French imperialism in Africa (“in order to raise these primitive tribes from barbarism to the threshold of civilisation”). Strange books you Black folks enjoy relying on – I mean if you know at all what is printed between its covers. So when I stated that Van Sertima often does not comply with academic standards of quoting his sources (and I guess these standards are observed at Rutgers, too), this was a simple truth that you cannot exorcise off – irrespective of what I generally think of Van Sertima and his position or qualities as a scholar. If he tells a lengthy story about captains travelling to Abubakari (not a single detail is found in the sources, so Sertima could not quote anyting), then this is not even an old-fashioned historical narrative, but a fanciful noveletta. This is perfectly okay as a piece of historical fiction, but it has no place in a book that claims to be the result of scholarly research. And if you quote from a superficial and undocumented specimen of plagiarism like Hyman’s 153-pages booklet for gullible kiddies, then you cannot be helped any more. Peter Kremer 07:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hail Kremer! Master of the endless 5,000 word rants and sarcastic rhetoric! Your insatiable appetite for destruction is an inspiration to all self-loathing conspiracy nuts and Eurocentric distortionists. Indeed, the Asantes and Diops of the world tremble before your very presence. We have granted you tenure over the whole of Africa, we give you our complete submission and seek your required approval before we're to make any haste actions. You're held in such high regard that extremely corny statements such as the "extra-fat moor" are converted into hilarious punchlines that can enlighten souls..

In reality, your berating diatribes diminish in potency with each post actually and begin to become predictably mundane. Repetition is the key to education, but not redundancy. Openness to different views will definitely not be cloaked in secrecy as long as they follow the general guidelines of wikipedia and adhere to encyclopedic standards. References in notes such as "They couldn't possibly have been black" seems more like it stems from a stormfront forum debate than said scholarly sources.

You have broken every formal rule known to man; personal attacks, original research, racist undertones, no one has been crying wolf, look in the mirror. I reiterate, Eurocentric suspicion on anything remotely resembling African achievement is expected, however, bias against, and for any particular position is unacceptable unless these exact suspicions are verified within that same context. They were not.. Redundancy in rewording the opinions of others to appease your pre-conceived belief system when the relevant reference in the form of criticism was noted eons ago, is not needed here. Your lively aggression is less than intimidating and I find myself completely unruffled by your immature antics. It isn't enough for you to address an issue, you seemingly feel a pathological need to obsessively engage in combat, fighting a war with out a cause that you'll only eventually lose in as you're only fighting yourself and those inner demons who have nearly destroyed you already. My revert was well justified since what you were doing was overtly obvious to the point of amusement.

No one is concerned with deterring you from doing anything besides distorting established views to fit your own perceptions. I will not be deterred to call it out whenever I see it. By rule of Occam's razor, if it looks and walks like a duck, then it is! Same applies to Eurocentric/racialist behavior.. Your appeals to that which does not apply to this particular situation will be disregarded as a distraction as well. Your lack of experience on wikipedia is apparent, I had every right to revert you (I did not physically delete anything), you were reverted to the most recent stable version before you decided to cast your own impositions into the article, and even then, sources were restored.

Ok, you did make me laugh as you have exposed your gross ignorance as it pertains to linguistics and classics. A literal interpretation of Aethiops(during the said time period) can be translated literally as "burnt faced ones", not "Black", which is another distortion and not a claim made by Snowden. During the same period actually, the Greek word to denote black was "Melas"(hence the word Melanin).. Mauros is later derived and again, does not have anything whatsoever to do with "tawny", which seems like a deliberate affront to the Greek language. I am also not concerned with crack-pot socialist theories of blackness, which is indeed a subjective term, I'm only concerned with accuracy as it pertains to the relevant article that is being discussed.

Sir, you're going off on a major tangent again, LOL, the said citations cast no doubt on the issue being discussed, which is the chronology of Mali's Keita Dynasty in which Abubakari is comfortably placed between 1310-1312. I couldn't care less about "Negroes in pre-columbian America" in this instance. While intriguing, it was not the point of contention and you're appealing to straw man, which is an elementary error in formal logic.. Your obsession with "Black" people and highly active imagination which allows you to empathetically cogitate on the "black experience("If I were black this and that, blah blah") is so utterly immaterial to anything that has ever been relevant in the history of relevancy, it seems to indicate some sort of congenital deficiency or habitual compulsion. Try again..

P.S... Watch your spelling.. I have a hard enough time trying to translate various sources in different languages, let alone English...Taharqa 09:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can Mr. kremer or anyone else please list what sources they have which explicitly doubt Abubakari II's existence. I will post my sources backing up his existence, shoryly. The reason I'm so adamant the guy existed is because of the great work D.T. Niane has done on the subject. It's not enough to say Mansa Abubakari II isn't mentioned in a list of kings, cuz outside researchers of the time (arabs/berbers) got a whole bunch of details wrong based on their bias toward rulers they perceived as being pure muslims and legitimate (legitimate as in traditional middle east and european sovereigns moving from father to son). The Mali Empire was also supposed to move from father to son, but at various times in its history the successors were't sons but brothers or cousins or even folks from older generations. Once again, I'll get the sources down here by the end of tonight. Gotta head to work right now.

Scott Free 14:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Abubakri II LIVES

Hi everyone. Finally back with my sources. The first one I want to highlight is

• Niane, D.T.: "Recherches sur l’Empire du Mali au Moyen âge". Presence Africaine. Paris, 1975

This is by far the source I trust the most. It pulls upon information by medieval scholars (umari and khaldoun) as well as contemporaries (delafose, levitzon). Niane is probably the foremost expert on the Mali Empire. Many mainstream publishings for both educational and consumer audiences use his information. In the above text, Niane points out to three centers of oral tradition (via the Mandinka djeli/griot). They are from the following areas...

• Hamana
• Kita
• Dioma

The djelis of these areas are the real thing and very important to consult, because these realms are the central ones that the Mali Empire fractured into in the 17th century. The claim that there is no oral tradition mentioning Abubakari II is bogus. Abubakari II is mentioned according to the Dioma. Dioma is the area where Niani (the capital of Mali) was located. The Keita clan of the Sankaran inhabits this area.

Below is the king list of Ibn Khaldoun...

• Mari Jatah (Mari meaning Prince, Jatah meaning Lion, reigned 25 yrs)
• Ali (son of Mari Jatah, went on hajj)
• Wali (brother of Ali, reigned 1259-1276)
• Khalifah (brother of Ali, went insane and killed by the people)
• Abu Bekr (descended from Mari Jatah in the female line; the people of Mali chose to follow in the custom of Ajem who the sisters and sisters' sons succeed; no other info on lineage)
• Sakurah (freedman who usurped the throne, made the hajj, killed on return trip at Tajura; increased empire quite a bit; reigned 1310-1324)
• Musa (son of Abu Bekr, made famous hajj; reigned 25 years; reigned 1324-1331)
• Magha or Mohammed (died after 4 years in office; 1331-1335)
• Suleiman (son of Abu Bekr and brother of Musa; reigned 24 yrs; reigned 1335-1359)
• Ibn Suleiman (son of Suleiman; ruled only in 1359-1360)
• Mari Jatah (son of Magha; wicked prince; gave a Zerafah to Abu Selim as an embassy present; reigned 1360-1373)
• Musa (son of Mari Jatah; reigned 1373-1387)
• Sandaki (was a Wazir; usurped throne; ruled 1387-1390)
• Mahmud (a descendant of Mari Jatah I; 1390-?)

The above king list comes from..

• Colley, William Desborough: "The Negroland of the Arabs Examined and Explained; or An Inquiry into the early history and Geography of Central Africa" J Arrowsmith, London. 1841

It was hard as hell to find an actual account of ibn khaldoun's work. that was the only one I could find. Luckily it's a very good one with verbatum passages. The reason I went to the trouble of putting that info there is to display just how dotted old Khaldoun's work was. There are so many holes in the king list, we nor any other scholar can consider it the be-all/end-all for the chronology of the Mali Empire. Yeah, its helpful, but its also flawed.

For instance, Ibn Khaldoun claims Sundjata had multiple kids. Even a cursory examination of native traditions (you know, those ones certain folks say don't exists) flatly deny this. The Hamana and Dioma traditions claim Sundjata only had one kid (Uli). The others were adopted.

Back to Niane's research, we'll see that Abubakari II is mentioned as Bata Mande Bory (this can be read a Bata Manding Bory as well). The "Bata" part indicates relation through a female line. Khaldoun seems to have merged the Abubakaris into one. Our Abubakari II is a son of a sister of Sundjata (as he mentions in his list), but the Abubakari that preceeded him was simply Mande Bory (or Manding Bory). Abubakari I was the half-brother of Sundjata and not the child of one of his sisters.

None of the traditionalists that Niane interviewed (Dioma, Hamana, Kita and some in Kangaba) mentioned Khalifah, at least not by name. He doesn't discount Khalifah or his predecessor in the Khaldoun king list as non-existing characters, however. He relates, as has been related in other works (namely Sertima's THEY CAME BEFORE COLUMBUS) that the djelis only talk about the good kings (that's also why they were reluctant to talk about Abubakari II). For a little bit more info, the Dioma mention Mansa Musa as the son of Manding Bory (Abubakari I, again).

Enough of that. Lets look at some other sources.

• Sertima, Ivan Van: "THEY CAME BEFORE COLUMBUS", Random House, 1976.....This is not a reference book. It's just good reading. It tries to pass itself off as a research book (lots of annotations) but its a commercial book (written in narrative for most of the chapters). It's research is so-so in my opinion. I have a lot of respect for the author, but I caught at least one error he puts in there. He claims Abubakari II was the brother of Mansa Musa. This is an often repeated error. I guess he fell under the spell of MAINSTREAM MYTHOLOGIST (how ironic, lol). I admit, though, not that many people know this fact. Hell I didn't know it either until I dug up Niane's work. But if Mr. Sertima had bothered to research beyond Niane's "Sundiata: Epic of old Mali", he might have saved himself some embarrasment.

• Ibn Khaldoun himself mentions a king called Abu Bekr that was related to Sundjata through the female line. Sadly, Khaldoun's work is scarce on dates and he doesn't explicitly say which Abubakari (I or II) he's talking about. He may not even have known there were two. His placement of "Abu Bekr" suggest Abubakari I (Sundjata's brother..Manding Bory); however he adds the detail that this person was only related to Sundjata through the female line. Niane's work says Abubakari II was from the female line. The native name (Bata Manding Bory) also suggest female line. That being said, Khaldoun himself points us directly to Abubakari II.

YES, VIRGINIA, THERE IS A SANTA CLAUS, lol Scott Free 02:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Abubakari II is alive and well, excellent scholarship on your part, very impressive! This certainly exhibits resourcefulness and dedication in attaining the facts. To say Abubakari II was never mentioned by neither oral or written records can be put to rest when one observes these primary sources in conjunction with today's foremost authoritative sources, such as Niane.. The source of any doubt is immaterial as it is not based on the said sources used in conjunction or merely stem from ignorance of what has already been done in compiling such data. You've reinforced the fact that what was going on previous to this intervention was original research, and I thank you for that. No one has directly drew from these sources as a point of criticism in questioning Abubakari's existence nor has it been stated verbatim that this was the case; that we doubt abubakari II ever existed, nor has any reliable criticism been presented which seeks to discredit reports of Ibn Khaldoun or the Djelis(let alone Al-Umari). There was an entry in the article which stated: Ibn Khaldun, the well-informed Maghribi historian, does not mention a mansa ruling between the Muhammad ibn-Qū (incorrectly spelt: Gao) and Mansa Musa.. Simply by looking at the kings list provided by the said historian, any literate and sound minded person will immediately realize that this claim is hopelessly false! I'm also very glad that you interjected on behalf of the djelis in your observation(from Niane) that Abubakari II is accounted for by the people of Dioma.. You have provided needed ammunition bro, thanx again for your very valuable contribution!Taharqa 04:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. I think there are several problems and omissions in the foregoing, which while mentioning some of the inconsistencies in both written and oral traditions (mostly recorded in the 20thC) still seems to say there is some unified view. I will offer up some additional sources and materials that I think demonstrate the picture is more involved, and (held to be) less certain by a range of scholars in the field, than a reader would suspect if they came across this article (and associated others) without any other background.

Firstly, the above does not at all establish that the primary (written) sources mentioned thus far acknowledge a mansa called Abubakari/Abu Bakr as Musa's immediate predecessor. In fact, the statement Ibn Khaldun...does not mention a mansa ruling between the Muhammad ibn-Qu (incorrectly spelt: Gao) and Mansa Musa is apparently correct. The "kinglist" you've taken from Colley's translation of sections of the Kitab al-'Ibar does not have one. Calling Khaldun's Kitab al-'Ibar "dotted", user Scott Free goes on to say "There are so many holes in the king list, we nor any other scholar can consider it the be-all/end-all for the chronology". The latter part of this statement is quite reasonable and I don't think anybody's suggesting that scholars do consider ibn Khaldun's work as inviolable. But by the same token, the numerous and divergent oral traditions from djelis are also open to doubt, and whatever the flaws in ibn Khaldun's text it remains a prime if not the only source of information concerning many of these rulers.

For a more relevant and clearer explanation of what ibn Khaldun had to say about Malian dynastic lineage than Colley's mid-19thC translation (which he notes is incomplete as "A few passages here omitted" —p.61, n.104), see the 1996 paper by Austen and Jansen, "History, Oral Transmission and Structure in Ibn Khaldun's Chronology of Mali Rulers" from the journal History in Africa. This paper comes with a very helpful diagram after Levtzion's Ancient Ghana and Mali (1973), illustrating the lineage set out in ibn Khaldun (according I suppose to Levtzion's interpretation, inclusive of some of his modifications). In this paper you will find the following presented as an outline of ibn Khaldun's account:

'Mari-Jata (usually identified with the Sunjata of oral texts) is succeeded by three of his sons Uli, Wati, and Khalifa. These three brothers are succeeded by Abu Bakr, a son of Mari-Jata's daughter. Abu Bakr is succeeded by Sakura, a mawla ("cliënt," probably meanmg a freed slave or descendant of slaves). Sakura is not succeeded by his own kin, but by Qu, son of Uli and thus grandson of Mari-Jata. Qu is succeeded in turn by his son Muhammad. Then the rule moves to a different dynastic branch, since Muhammad's successor, Musa, is said to be a grandson of another Abu Bakr, Mari-Jata's younger brother, who never himself occupied the throne. This ninth ruler is the famous Mansa Musa, known for his luxurious pilgrimage to Mecca.' (p.19; emphasis added)

From this it seems clear that Khaldun/his informants do distinguish two Abu Bakrs, contrary to Scott's supposition. The first-mentioned 'Abu Bakr' (ruled in-between Khalifa and Sakura) equates to Mande Bory/Abu Bakr/Abubakari I, not II. Musa's immediate predecessor is Mohammed ibn Gao (or Qu). Musa's lineage to the position comes through the second-mentioned Abu Bakr, either Musa's father (Khaldun's orig text) or grandfather (interpolation by Levtzion based on oral tradition research by Niane, see n.8) and fraternally related to Mari Jata/Sundjata. This Abu Bakr was not a ruler, however.

This is not a unique interpretation. As well as what has been mentioned before about Levtzion, Charles Monteil, &c., see also for eg The Cambridge History of Africa, Vol.3, publ. 1985 (ISBN 0521209811, accessible thru Google Books). On page 380:

'After the deposition of Khalifa, the kingship was given to Abu Bakr [ie, Abubakari I, not II], who was a grandson of Sundiata by one of his daughters.'

and on the same page:

"[After Sakura is killed] The next king was Mansa Qu, son of Mansa Uli, and he was succeeded by his own son Mansa Muhammad. After him 'the kingship passed from the descendants of Mari-Jata to those of his brother Abu Bakr. Mansa Musa, son of Abu Bakr, became king' [direct quote attrib. to Ibn Khaldun]. Abu Bakr, or, in the local form of the name, Bakari, was according to oral traditions the brother of Sundiata and his closest associate both in exile and in the creation of the empire. Mansa Musa was in fact his grandson, not a son, of Abu Bakr."

Again, Mansa's immediate predecessor is Muhammad (ibn Gao/Qu), and the second Abu Bakr mentioned is Musa's (non-ruling) father/grandfather.

These accounts evidently differ from the outline of Niane's 1975 (actually orginally about 1959, I think) book, given above by Scott. If Niane's book draws from different sources (ie 20thC oral traditions) than ibn Khaldun, then discrepancy is not suprising, actually to be expected. But that discrepancy itself is rather the point, and it's much more complex than a simple assertion "Abubakari II lives" (or doesn't). There clearly are discrepancies between the primary sources, and differences of opinion in secondary academic commentaries as evidenced here; IMO these differences need to be dealt with in the article, not ignored.--cjllwʘTALK 10:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Cjillw! Really good info there. Glad someone else is doing as much digging as me. You raise some very good points. If I'm reading you right, though; none of levitzon's work actually claim Abubakari II didn't exist. In fact they mention him. THANKYOU VERY MUCH FOR THE LINK. The only thing worse than wrong information is incomplete information. I'll make sure to pick up the reference you sited as it sounds very interesting. Niane talks about Levitzon's work some in the source I used. And you are right that oral histories do diverge from written and each other in content. I guess i'm more inclined to go with the oral sources, because these are taken from the areas where the Mandinka lineage settled. Plus, the people telling these oral histories aren't just drunks sitting around a campfire or old men with nothing to do but spin old wive's tales. These djelli are professionals in every sense of the word when it comes to preserving this information. I don't believe that because Ibn Khaldoun wrote his informatin down that it is anymore (or less) valid than the oral histories of the djelli.

In any regards, you've opened my eyes up to his new ideas. But until serious scholarly doubt has been placed on Abubakari II's existence (whomever he was or whenever he served) I believe the speculation about such facts should be left out. Such seemingly unfounded speculation really seems to reek of eurocentrism coming from a writer (yeah Mr. Kremer i'm talking about you) who is clearly wrong on virtually every assertion he has made.Scott Free 15:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote: You raise some very good points. If I'm reading you right, though; none of levitzon's work actually claim Abubakari II didn't exist. In fact they mention him. THANKYOU VERY MUCH FOR THE LINK.

LOL, didn't he just further validate the point? Good work in digging up the link though CJLL Wright. When I stated that it was false to state that a mansa isn't mentioned in between ibn-Qu and Mansa Musa, I was referring to the above translation which lists them in this order of succession:

Abu Bekr, Sakura, Musa, Magha or Mohammed

^There is no mansa reported here between Sakura and Mansa Musa actually. But this, imo is irrelevant. I'd have to concur with Scott Free, what you've provided definitely doesn't add any doubt to the existence of Abubakari II and rather, further confirms it, so I also thank you.Taharqa 16:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to make a final evaluation as well that I believe we may have missed or overlooked (Well, Scott Free pointed this out in part, but I'd like to elaborate). I've realized that it makes the case that Abubakari II was of course accounted for in both the written and oral documents, and more importantly that he was King, stronger than ever.

If it's all the same I'd like to start off by quoting Scott Free's closing evaluation.

Ibn Khaldoun himself mentions a king called Abu Bekr that was related to Sundjata through the female line. Sadly, Khaldoun's work is scarce on dates and he doesn't explicitly say which Abubakari (I or II) he's talking about. He may not even have known there were two. His placement of "Abu Bekr" suggest Abubakari I (Sundjata's brother..Manding Bory); however he adds the detail that this person was only related to Sundjata through the female line. Niane's work says Abubakari II was from the female line. The native name (Bata Manding Bory) also suggest female line. That being said, Khaldoun himself points us directly to Abubakari II

^Which is extremely plausible first given the primary source's report.

After him came Abu Bekr, who was descended from Mari Jatah in the female line - Source(Pg.63)

^But we also need to take into account, for contextual purposes, notes provided by Austen and Jansen, so I will re-quote them as it is necessary:

Abu Bakr is succeeded by Sakura, a mawla ("cliënt," probably meanmg a freed slave or descendant of slaves). Sakura is not succeeded by his own kin, but by Qu, son of Uli and thus grandson of Mari-Jata. Qu is succeeded in turn by his son Muhammad. Then the rule moves to a different dynastic branch, since Muhammad's successor, Musa, is said to be a grandson of another Abu Bakr, Mari-Jata's younger brother, who never himself occupied the throne. This ninth ruler is the famous Mansa Musa, known for his luxurious pilgrimage to Mecca.

Important points to make..

1. According to most accounts provided above, Abubakari I/Manding Bory was Mari Jatah's brother.

2. In the first quote you provide, it is mentioned that: Musa, is said to be a grandson of another Abu Bakr, Mari-Jata's younger brother, who never himself occupied the throne. It is claimed that Mari Jatah's brother(Abubakari I) never ruled the throne.

3. Yet according to the same source, it was the other Abubakari who indeed occupied the throne, by process of elimination that would have to be Abubakari II, who was a descendant of Sundiata and not fraternally related...

Another reference you provided:

After the deposition of Khalifa, the kingship was given to Abu Bakr [left cjllw's notes out of the direct quote], who was a grandson of Sundiata by one of his daughters

^All sources above have attributed the descendant of Sundiata to Abubakari II or the "other Abu Bekr" if you will, and not to the brother or first Abu Bekr/Manding Bory. The only discrepancies is Ibn Khaldun referring to the first Abu Bekr as Musa's father when he was actually grandfather(according to these sources), which is immaterial since this isn't referring to the 2nd Abubakari nor was this grandfather of Musa's reported as king (according to these sources). The other one being when exactly did this Abubakari reign? Al-Umari, by way of Mansa Musa suggests directly preceding Musa's reign, Khaldun reports differently. Scott Free with his knowledge of Niane's work can make more sense out of that than me. Whatever the case may be can be sorted out eventually but as it pertains to any doubt being casted on Abubakari II's existence and possession of the throne, this is moot. I'll reiterate in summary..

Nothing at all is here to suggest that Abubakari II was not a recorded figure (Orally or written) and there is nothing here to suggest that he wasn't king. In fact, a careful review of the literature reinforces these views so any attempt to use them for any contrary purpose seems extremely suspect and misguided. I hope that discussion on at least that chapter can rest its head.Taharqa 08:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

One last note

I think we are forgetting that Mansa Musa himself said that a KING reigning before him undertook an expedition to the sea (Atlantic). This coupled with the Dioma tradition of a king named Bata Mande Bory/Abubakari II (from the area where the capital of the mali empire stood, no less) point directly to this figure existing and existing as an emperor. Does anyone here (and no this is not a rhetorical question) think both these accounts should be dismissed out of hand?Scott Free 15:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Abstract:

Two unresolved problems in the Arabic matrial on Mali during the reign of Mansa Musa are considered here: the data of Mansa Musa's reign and the principle of succession in force during the period of which his reign is representative. The author uses, as sources of information, living archives (the Keita of Kangaba and their griots of the neighbouring village of Keyla, who are generally considered to be the prime authorities on Keita traditions), because the information Ibn Khaldun (an Arabic historian) gives about this period is not altogether consistent.

Source - The Age of Mansa Musa of Mali: Problems in Succession and Chronology

^It would also be great if someone were able to get their hands on the full PDF file as it is relevant..Taharqa 17:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow

What an unpleasant talk page. Anyway -- on the talk page for Pre-Columbian Islamic contact theoriesI have added this, which is extremely relevant here and may lead to edits of the main article here unless someone can show me where I'm wrong: There seems to be a major problem with all the articles about Abubakari and Sultan Mansa Musa -- I have tried hard to find a reliable source for the story, and the closest I have come is this Echos of What Lies Behind the 'Ocean of Fogs' in Muslim Historical Narratives which is indeed the source of at least some of the quotes. (The article is a bit odd, last I heard the Amazon wasn't in the midst of the ocean, but fringe writers do tend to cherry pick). The quote from Ibn Fadlullah al-Umari which seems so crucial: "its French translation by Gaudefroy-Demombynes says: "In the North of Mali there live white Berbers under their ruler. Their tribes are Antasar, Yantar'aras, Meddusa and Lemtuna ... I asked their ruler Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib (who was in Egypt returning from the pilgrimage): "How had you become ruler?" He replied: "We belong to a family where the son succeeds the father in power. The ruler who preceded me did not believe that it was impossible to reach the extremity of the ocean that encircles the earth (meaning Atlantic), and wanted to reach to that (end) and obstinately persisted in the design. So he equipped two hundred boats full of men, as many others full of gold, water and victuals sufficient enough for several years. He ordered the chief (admiral) not to return until they had reached the extremity of the ocean, or if they had exhausted the provisions and the water. They set out. Their absence extended over a long period, and, at last, only one boat returned. On our questioning, the captain said: 'Prince, we have navigated for a long time, until we saw in the midst of the ocean as if a big river was flowing violently. My boat was the last one; others were ahead of me. As soon as any of them reached this place, it drowned in the whirlpool and never came out. I sailed backwards to escape this current.' But the Sultan would not believe him. He ordered two thousand boats to be equipped for him and for his men, and one thousand more for water and victuals. Then he conferred on me the regency during his absence, and departed with his men on the ocean trip, never to return nor to give a sign of life [5]." No Abubakari mentioned. The article on Abubakari II says "Virtually all that is known of Abubakari II was recorded by the scholar Al-Umari during Kankan Musa I's historic hajj to Mecca. While in Egypt, Musa explained the way that he had inherited the throne after Abubakari II's abdication. He explained that in 1310, the emperor financed the building of 200 vessels of men and another 200 of supplies to explore the limits of the sea that served as empire's western frontier. The vessles were pirogues built from large, hollowed out trees equipped with oars and perhaps sails. The mission was inconclusive, and the only information available on its fate came from a single sailor who refused to follow the other ships once they reached a "river in the sea". According to Musa I, his predecessor was undeterred and launched another fleet with himself at the helm. In 1311, Abubakari II temporarily ceded power to Musa, then serving as his kankoro-sigui or vizier, and departed with a thousand vessels of men and a like number of supplies. After the emperor failed to return, Musa became emperor." Ignoring the difference in the number of boats, can anyone else get that from the first quote? Is Kankan Musa I definitely Sultan Musa Ibn Amir Hajib? "In the North of Mali there live white Berbers under their ruler." doesn't sound like the Emperor of Mali.--Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Abubakari is not mentioned. You'd have to know that Abubakari II was the emperor preceeding Musa. He was. The article is mis-stating how we know what we know about Abubakari II. Much of what we know has been dug up by research through Mandinka oral tradition. This research was mainly conducted by Niane, Delafose and to a lesser extent Ki-Zerbo. The info on Musa serving as kankoro-sigui comes from me. I got that directly from Niane. Kankoro-Sigui is the Mandinka equivalent of Vizier. I've never heard Musa referred to as Misa Ibn Amir Hajib. The writer may have been making additions there. The statement about white Berbers being under their rule is definately accurate. The Mali Empire held dominion over just about everyone south of Morocco and west of Kanem. Check out the map on the Mali Empire page and you will see what I mean. i'll see about adding some sources from my library. They are the same ones posted on the Mali Empire page.Scott Free (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My quote is so far as I can see the original source of the quote, it is the article used as a reference when a reference is given. So if the original source says Misa Ibn Amir Hajib, then I have to question the assumption it is the Emperor Musa. And do we know that there couldn't have been a ruler of the Berber tribes who was subservient to the Mali Emperor? Emperors with subservient rulers are not that unusual. This wouldn't be the first quote from an old source that has been misinterpreted. Unless you can either prove that the original document doesn't say Misa Ibn Amier Hajib, or that that was another name for the original Musa, I think that you can't claim that this concerns Abubakari or any Mali emperor. The only thing that would support that is the resources used. To recap: Different names. No clear reason to assume they are the same. The presumably original source says specifically "In the North of Mali there live white Berbers under their ruler. Their tribes are Antasar, Yantar'aras, Meddusa and Lemtuna" -- I can't read that as referring to someone who was Emperor of all of Mali, can you or anyone do you think? If he was, why not say so, why say he was ruler of a smaller section of Mali? This article paraphrases the quote and shouldn't.

I think there is a real problem here (besides the question of whether the whole thing is true, something for which we have no evidence, right?).--Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have misunderstood me or maybe I didn't communicate myself clearly. I DO believe (really I'm pretty darn certain) there was a ruler of the Berber tribes that was subserviant to the emperor of Mali. The Mali Empire DID run that way. Local rulers were allowed great autonomy provided that they pay taxes, fill troop quotas and recognize the mansa as their sovereign. I'm still checking on that name, but enough reputable historians have repeated the story that I feel we can safely say it refers to Mansa Musa. Looking at your quote, all it states is that there are white (Berber) tribes north of Mali. that is a definate truth. It says these tribes are under THEIR rule. That means a greater ruler (emperor). Now if they guy wasn't talking about the ruler of the Mali Empire why did he not say "tribes in the south of Morocco". Or any other polity with nearby Berbers other than a kingdom they were trying NOT to reference.Scott Free (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick update. Just took a look at the article you referenced. It has a minor mistake in it that probably threw you off as to this sultan's identity. Your page has the quote as "I asked Sultan Musa ibn Amir Hajib" when virtually every other source has it as "I asked Sultan Musa" or "I asked Sultan Mansa Musa ibn Amir Hajib". That is how we know this is Mansa Musa. No other monarch in Africa at that time used that title (mansa). Sometimes mansa is substituted with sultan (as in your article) or added (as in other sources). Amir Hajib was not the name of the sultan but the name of the father of the interviewer (Ibn Amir Hajib, ibn means "son of" in Arabic). Now that we know this is Mansa Musa, we must go with the idea that the predecessor he was talking about was in fact Abubakari II, since we do know he was the monarch that preceeded him. Hope that cleared everything up, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. I'll make sure to add this name (Musa ibn Amir Hajib) to the Mansa Musa page.Scott Free (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some good BOOKS (I hate website sourcing) that shed more light on this subject

• • • • (http://books.google.com/books?id=4L2vCuS1LbYC&pg=PA234&dq=Musa+ibn+Amir+Hajib&sig=Kx23UEH4Sj8L1NO6Io0IAhILXb8#PPA235,M1) page 235
      • (http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfORLWv1HkC&pg=RA1-PA276&dq=Musa+ibn+Amir+Hajib&sig=dzK94-34XXGQO_XiHLKgjHgE_KM) page 276
      • (http://books.google.com/books?lr=&q=%22Musa+ibn+Amir+Hajib%22) this is the only source I found that put Mansa Musa's name as you found it in that article. It's from 1949 and unviewable from googlebooks. Even if it was, it's 50 years old and no researcher worth his or her salt would use such a source. Sources should be no older than 2 decades if we can help it.Scott Free (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will check, but it is my impression that most of the other quotes use the page I quoted as their source, whereas my guy used a translation of the original. And 50 years old would be better it was based on original sources and newer stuff wasn't, right?--Dougweller (talk) 07:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Still confused Kankan Musa isn't Musa ibn Amir Hajib so far as I can see, at least the websites I've looked at don't say he is. Ah,Studies in Islamic History and Civilization By Moshe Sharon, David Ayalon, p.187, names 'the amir Abu 'l-Hasan Ali ibn Amir Hajib as a governor of al-Qarafa where Mansa Musa camped (in or near Cairo) as an informant of al-Umari who had communicated with Mansa Musa. Does that help or merely confuse things? I don't see how that could be correct AND Mansa Musa's name also be ibn Amir Hajib. Someone at sometime has gotten it wrong and been the source for a lot of mistakes, is my guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Also, the article says "Ibn Fadlullah al-Umari (1300-1348), in his encyclopaedia Masalik Al-Absar, quoted his brother, Sultan Mansa Musa Ibn Amir Hajib,". But http://www.bu.edu/africa/outreach/materials/handouts/k_o_mali.html says " The following description of the visit to Cairo in 1324 by the King of Mali, Mansa Musa, was written by Al-Umari, who visited Cairo several years after the Mansa Musa’s visit." And it continues with a supposed quote from Al-Umari that makes it clear he never even met Mansa Musa. The Wiki article on Al-Umari also only says he visited Cairo shortly after Mansa Musa's visit. http://www.islamonline.net/english/ArtCulture/2005/12/article12.shtml also calls ibn Amir Hajib a member of the Mamluk court.

So -- looking at other sources as well, Mansa Musa told the Sultan of Cairo, ibn Amir Hajib, a story which was later related by ibn Amir Hajib to Al-Umari, and none of these people are related. If you agree, we need to edit the main article.--Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Correctomundo. Mansa Musa told the governor/sultan of Cairo ibn Amir Hajib a story that was later related by ibn Amir Hajib to Al-Umari..and no, none of these folk are kin. I do agree. Let the editing begin! :) Scott Free (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing some other things today but will get onto this tomorrow. I'm checking a few more sources to make sure I get it right! --Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is more difficult than I thought. I'm sure I've clarified the quote and its source, but in my checks yesterday I obtained an article from the Journal of African History by the Levtzion mentioned above. It says (copy and paste from the pdf has made a bit of a mess of the names, sorry). and after MansZ Muhammad the son of Mans2 Qii, 'the kingship passed from the descendants of MZri-DjZta to the descendants of his brother Abu- Bakr, and Mansa Musa the son of Abu-Bakr ascended the throne'. (thumma intaqala mulkuhum min wuldi al-sultdn Mdri-Djafa ild wuldi akhihi Abi-Bakr fawaliyd 'alayhim Mansd Mzisd b. Abi-Bakr.) De Slane translated this passage as follows : 'L'autoritC passa des enfants de MZri-DjZta A un fils de sa saeur nommC Abou-Bekr. Menga Mouga fils et successeur d'Abou-Bekr Ctait. . . .'32

This translation of De Slane's has deceived all the scholars who deal with this subject.33 Following it, they maintain that Abu-Bakr was a son of Mari-Djata's sister, and hence once again they infer that this was an example of matrilineal succession in the ruling dynasty of Mali. But it is clear from the Arabic text that Abu-Bakr was the brother of Maria-Djata~~ This is supported by the oral traditions, which relate that Sundjata had a brother named Bakari or Bogari, the Sudanese variants of the Arab name of Abu-Bakr. This brother was Sundjata's right hand both in exile and in the foundation of the new empire.35

Another fallacy that follows from De Slane's mistranslation is that Abu-Bakr himself reigned in Mali. Thus all the commentators put in their genealogical tables 'Abu-Bakr 11'. But the Arabic text makes it clear that Mansa Musa was the first ruler of the new branch of the ruling Ibn-Amir Hiidjib, his informant, asked Mansa Musa how he had reached the throne. Mansa Musa told him that he was from a dynasty where the authority is transmitted by inheritance, and recounted the adventures of 'the king who ruled before me'. He did not say 'my father'.36 This evidence strengthens the claim that Mansa Musa did not succeed his father. There is still one difficulty in the assumption that Mansa Musa was a son of Abu-Bakr, the brother of Mari-Djata. Mansa Musa and his brother, Mansii Sulaymln, could not be of the second generation after Mlri-Djlta, as they ruled one hundred years and more after him. This difficulty is to be solved by suggesting that Mansa Musa was a grandson of Abu-Bakr and not his son.37 This suggestion is supported again by evidence from an oral tradition which says that Abu-Bakr had a son-Faga Laye-who was the father of Mansl MfisZ.S8 The son of Abu-Bakr had no significance in the history of Mali, and Mansa Musa is affiliated to his grandfather who took part in the foundation of the empire, and serves as a link with the main lineage of the ruling dynasty.

The reign of Mansa Musa is the golden age of Mali. He is the favourite of all Muslim writers, both Oriental and Sudanese, in contrast to Sundjata, who is the god-hero of the pagan traditions. We shall have to return to MansZ Miisl when we discuss various aspects of the Mali empire. Mansa Musa was succeeded by his son Mansa Magha, and 'Magha means in their language Muhammad ' .Al Umari relates that Mansa Musa appointed his son Muhammad as his deputy during his pilgrimage. He returned home intending to abdicate in his son's favour and to go back to Mecca, to live the rest of his life near the shrine, but he died before he could carry out this intention. Mansa Musa himself, according to his own story, had been appointed as deputy of the former king, and later became the king.41 Noinination by a king of his successor, who might serve in the meantime as his deputy, was probably legitimate in the ruling dynasty.

I also have this article: The Age of Mansa Musa of Mali: Problems in Succession and Chronology Nawal Morcos Bell The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2. (1972), pp. 221-234.

As Levtzion has correctly pointed out, the Arabic text in fact says that the kingship passed from the sons of Mari Jata (Sundiata) to the sons of his brother Abu Bakr, "and Mansa Musa, son of [probably in the sense of 'descendant of'] Abu Bakr assumed power."Although he cited only the Arabic text, Trimingham like all his predecessors based his statement on de Slane's erroneous translation of the passage. Thus Abu Bakr I1 never ruled. Rather he clearly can be identified with Sundiata's brother of the oral traditions, Bugari, the father or paternal grandfather of Mansa Musa."

Scott, I know you disagree, and I had absolutely no intention of getting interested in the existence of Aubakari II - I was only interested in the tale of the ships. But now--what?--Dougweller (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC) I've been reading through this stuff again. Question -- what's the source that he was also called Muhammad?

It is very obvious that the reality of an Abubakari II is heavily disputed. I can't see that the issue is ever going to be resolved, barring finding some old lost documents. As for Griot oral tradition, 19th century recording of it and modern have quite different evidentiary value -- anything recorded today can't be seen as free of any contemporary influence. (I also get really bugged to see all over claims that Al-Umari recorded Mansa Musa talking about Abubakari's fleet in the Atlantic when Al-Umari doesn't mention Abubakari, that is just not right.

The discussion reflects the disagreement, the article doesn't and is clearly POV -- which is not acceptable by Wikipedia standards -- right?

So -- the article has to be edited to make it NPOV. Either kicking and screaming or calmly -- and with references. I prefer calmly and cooperatively. I've made a mild start by elminating suggestions Al-Umari mentions him by name.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I know these posts are a bit dated, but hey...

Quote: "It is very obvious that the reality of an Abubakari II is heavily disputed"

By you, maybe. Such a comment is baseless, really. It ignores the testimony as laid out above. I mean, Ibn Khaldun mentions him by name, Al Umari via Mansa Musa mentions an entity which oral tradition attributes to him, and this said tradition has never changed as it corraborates earlier archival evidence indicating his existence. Your critique of oral tradition is non-authoratative. It conversely undermines exactly what serious scholars rely on, as indicated in the abstract posted above in another section:

Quote "Two unresolved problems in the Arabic matrial on Mali during the reign of Mansa Musa are considered here: the data of Mansa Musa's reign and the principle of succession in force during the period of which his reign is representative. The author uses, as sources of information, living archives (the Keita of Kangaba and their griots of the neighbouring village of Keyla, who are generally considered to be the prime authorities on Keita traditions), because the information Ibn Khaldun (an Arabic historian) gives about this period is not altogether consistent." - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0361-7882(1972)5%3A2%3C221%3ATAOMMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

Scholars generally rely on both written AND oral tradition concerning African history since it works to mutually verify a working account. You should read Jan Vansina's "Oral Tradition as HIstory", which is widely praised as a land mark work and literally establishes the usefulness of oral tradition as history, which the title suggests. Oral traditions change as much as interpetations of written accounts do. Both can be influenced by political circumstances, though I see no evidence of such contamination in this case that would render the current accounts of old Malain descendants at Kangaba, Dioma and Keyla, as well as actual old Malians such as Mansa Musa [as reported by Al Umari] and contemporary observers such as Ibn Khaldun, as dubious. Actually, this is the reason why his existence is NOT in dispute. It baffles me why anyone needs to question it, especially when few [if any] serious scholars do.Taharqa (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of the name

The article currently uses at least three different transliterations of the name: "Abu Bakr", "Abu Bekr" and "Abubakari". While it's clear that there's no one correct way, I think the article should stick to the one that is most commonly used in English text. --Antti Salonen (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

More on uncertainties

It seems impossible to prove the existence of this person. See [1] which does mention him but has Muhammad as a separate mansa, [2]whhich leaves him out, [3]which has earlier Mansas of that name but not one matching the one in this article, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abu Bakr II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726073616/http://www.garifunaheritagefoundation.org/285.html to http://www.garifunaheritagefoundation.org/285.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Abu Bakr II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227032956/http://www.doaks.org/OlmecArt.pdf to http://www.doaks.org/OlmecArt.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

French translation

In this diff, a "direct quote" was added by Geoffrey.landis|. It's not clear where the text came, from given that the citation itself is to a 1927 French translation. Is it a translation by a reliable source? If so, why are we not citing that source? Or is it a translation by a Wikipedian? If so, we should probably be including the original text, as per WP:NOENG. --tronvillain (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, there's a whole section on this above. --tronvillain (talk) 12:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

So, the citation should probably be to this, not the original book. We seem to literally be copying the citation that Mohammed Hamidullah gave, which isn't right. Actually, if you go back to Musa I of Mali, that's how the quote is sourced. --tronvillain (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Abu Bakr II vs Mohammed ibn Qu

I was reading The Golden Rhinoceros, which asserts that the name of Abu Bakr II was a misinterpretation deriving from the fact that Musa's father, not his predecessor, was named Abu Bakr. Now, I see that there was...extensive...debate on this subject on this talk page a decade ago, and I'm no historian so I'm hardly qualified to contribute to the debate myself, but it seems to me that this article does not adequately express the uncertainty of the identity of Musa's predecessor. It seems to me that the issue at hand is that the claim that Musa's predecessor traveled out into the Atlantic is inarguable, but that there is a debate over what the name(s) of the mansas between Sakura and Musa were. The primary focus of this article would seem to be on the immediate predecessor of Musa who traveled out into the Atlantic, regardless of whether their name was Qu, Mohammed, or Abu Bakr, and the formatting of the article should reflect that. The intro section could begin something like "The Mansa of Mali immediately preceding Mansa Musa has been variously reported to be named Qu, Mohammed, or Abu Bakr/Abubakari, due to conflicting sources on the succession of the mansas preceding Musa. He is known for leading an expedition into the Atlantic..." or whatever, and then there would be separate sections about his identity and his expedition. Abu Bakr II/Abubakari II seems to be the name most commonly reported for the mansa responsible for the expedition, and so seems valid as the article title unless scholarly consensus clearly supports Qu or Mohammed as being Musa's immediate predecessor. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. Proposal is well reasoned and not opposed by anyone. (non-admin closure) Melmann 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Abu Bakr II → Atlantic voyage of the predecessor of Mansa Musa – There is a clear consensus among the majority of historians of West Africa that no Mansa Abu Bakr II reigned, and that the voyage popularly attributed to him is better attributed to Musa's actual predecessor Muhammad ibn Qu (or, for some reason I have been unable to determine, occasionally Muhammad's predecessor Qu). See the section I added in the main article for relevant sources. The voyage itself is clearly a noteworthy topic that merits inclusion on Wikipedia, but the name of the mansa who led it is somewhat immaterial to the importance of the voyage itself. As the majority of historians of West Africa believe the mansa who led it was not named Abu Bakr II, having the page on the voyage be called Abu Bakr II is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, giving undue weight to an interpretation that has been largely rejected. The fact that the misconception persists among sources not specialized in West African history does not justify continuing to name the article thus. I believe that renaming this article to "Atlantic voyage of the predecessor of Mansa Musa" is a better solution than deleting this article and creating a new article that covers the topic as I suggest. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The article seems to be mostly about the voyage, not the person, and it's not clear his name was Abu Bakr II. JIP | Talk 00:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but I want to clarify that I recently rewrote much of the article to put the focus on the voyage itself. The alternative, in my opinion, was to simply create a new page at the title I proposed and redirect Abu Bakr II to it, but I took this approach instead because I figured it'd make relevant page history easier to find. Check a previous revision to see what it looked like before my changes. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not a forum

Logistics Not sure if this is allowed or whether it is original research/general discussion, but the story is incredible because of the claimed division, both times, of the fleet into personnel carriers vs provision carriers. For obvious reasons this multiplies the danger of the whole undertaking (ship to ship transfers at sea are always dangerous) for no gain whatever. This is a story made up by someone with no experience of going to sea, reading across from land expeditions. Northutsire (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC) @Northutsire Actually it isn't allowed as it's about the subject of the article rather than discussing policy or guideline related material, sources, etc. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC) OK. It seems highly relevant to discussions on this talk page though, and I propose to leave it in place unless a Higher Power decides to remove it. To be clear: the expeditions described are very nearly as ludicrously implausible as claiming that a land expedition used vehicles with rectangular wheels, or an aerial one, balloons filled with CO2. And a perpetual motion engine. If the rules preclude pointing this out, the rules are an ass. Northutsire (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC) And here's a couple of links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship-to-ship_cargo_transfer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-stream_operation which are not original research and do confirm the insanity of the proposed arrangement. Northutsire (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC) We could argue about this all day, but I feel it's significant to point out that the alleged voyages failed. If your point is valid—which I am not convinced of, given that you are using articles primarily about modern-day container ships to prove a point about a fleet that may well have been made up of canoes and rafts—then the most you could prove is that, if the voyages occurred, Musa's predecessor must have been either incompetent or insane. Neither would be unprecedented for this dynasty. I will certainly grant that there is much that could be done to improve this article's coverage of the plausibility of the voyages, but it would need to come from reliable sources, not the personal hunch of some random Wikipedia editor. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Do you dispute that a claim about a land expedition using rectangular wheeled vehicles would deserve challenging? Can you point to a "reliable source" for the proposition that rectangular wheels are ineffective? 90.242.15.178 (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC) I see you have chosen to address none of my points. As far as your point goes, the Wikipedia article Square wheel actually contains a few sources talking about the logistics of such vehicles. Ornithopsis (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC) You are too rude to continue talking to. you haven't understood my point if you think "modern cargo ships" is a vald distinction. Conversely, you notably ignore answer a point about rectangular wheels, by referring to an article about square wheels. Some differences matter, some dont. 90.242.15.178 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC) |}