The Historical Boundary Between Kordofan and Bahr Al-Ghazal: What the Archival Record Shows
By Wurok Ring Deng
To have an informed discussion about the historical boundary between Kordofan and Bahr Al-Ghazal, it is important to rely on official archival records, administrative documents, and government maps rather than on random maps circulating on the internet. Below is the last modified administrative map of the Southern Sudan region, dated 1936. The map was classified by 1948, following the 1947 Juba Conference, and was later declassified in 1981. It is the same map that was used as an administrative reference for the period leading up to January 1, 1956, and it clearly depicts the Kiir River, also known as the Bahr Al-Arab, as the boundary between Kordofan and the southern administrative region historically associated with Bahr Al-Ghazal.
An important administrative change took place on January 1, 1936. On that date, Bahr Al-Ghazal province and Mongalla province were amalgamated to form a new and much larger province called Equatoria province. This administrative arrangement remained in place until 1948, when the enlarged Equatoria province was divided again. Following that reorganization, the name Equatoria was retained for one of the resulting provinces, while Bahr Al-Ghazal once again existed as a separate province.
This administrative history is important when interpreting maps produced between 1936 and 1948. A map from that period may reflect the enlarged Equatoria administrative arrangement rather than show Bahr Al-Ghazal as a separate province. That does not mean that the historical Kordofan–Bahr Al-Ghazal boundary disappeared. Rather, Bahr Al-Ghazal had temporarily been incorporated into the larger Equatoria province for administrative purposes. When Bahr Al-Ghazal was restored as a separate province in 1948, the older provincial framework re-emerged. If you would like to learn more about the 1936 map, click on “Details.” There you can see information concerning when the map was classified, when it was declassified, and the government institution responsible for its classification and declassification.
This is why discussions about the January 1, 1956 boundary should be grounded in official archival materials. When a historical boundary is being debated, the strongest evidence is not a modern sketch, a politically produced map, or an image taken from social media, but contemporary administrative maps and records produced by the governments and institutions that documented the territory at the time.
To understand the significance of these maps, some historical background regarding the establishment of Kordofan and Bahr Al-Ghazal under Turco-Egyptian rule is necessary. Kordofan province, with essentially its historical territorial framework, was established in 1821 immediately after the Turco-Egyptian conquest of Sudan. From that period onward, the Bahr Al-Arab, or Kiir River, came to serve as the natural southern boundary of Kordofan.
Bahr Al-Ghazal Province, on the other hand, developed gradually between 1865 and 1873. In 1865, Wau was designated as the principal administrative headquarters and military garrison of Bahr Al-Ghazal Province. Likewise, Meshra el-Req (مشرع الرق), located in present-day Warrap State, was established as an important river port and one of the earliest government and commercial stations in the region.
In 1873, the formation of Bahr Al-Ghazal province was further consolidated when Dem Zubeir, originally established by the merchant Al-Zubayr Rahma, was incorporated into the Egyptian administrative system as part of Bahr Al-Ghazal province. Additional small military and administrative outposts were subsequently established along the Jur and Bahr el-Ghazal rivers. As Bahr Al-Ghazal became more formally organized as an administrative province, the Bahr Al-Arab, or Kiir River, served as the natural boundary separating it from the already existing Kordofan Province to the north.
This historical administrative arrangement is important because there is no known historical record showing that Abyei was administered as part of Bahr Al-Ghazal province. The confusion appears to arise from the administrative changes that took place in 1905. Twic, which had previously been administered as part of Bahr Al-Ghazal, was transferred to Kordofan in that year, while Abyei had already been administered within Kordofan. That distinction matters enormously.
If Abyei had already been within Kordofan before 1905, then the statement that the Ngok chiefdoms were “transferred to Kordofan in 1905” must be examined carefully against the wider administrative record. The critical questions are not simply who was transferred, but what territory was transferred, from which administrative unit, and where the Kordofan–Bahr Al-Ghazal boundary stood before and after the transfer.
The contemporary administrative records are particularly important in answering those questions. The 1904 Kordofan Annual Report described the Bahr Al-Arab, or Kiir River, as the northern boundary of Bahr Al-Ghazal province. Likewise, the 1905 Gleichen Handbook of the Sudan, an official British government reference, also identified the Bahr Al-Arab as the northern boundary of Bahr Al-Ghazal. These were not documents produced decades later for the purpose of the modern Abyei dispute. They were contemporary administrative records produced during the Anglo-Egyptian period. Both documents were later presented and cited during the Hague arbitration proceedings concerning Abyei.
The 1936 administrative map adds another important layer of evidence. Its interpretation, however, must take account of the administrative reorganization that came into effect on January 1, 1936, when Bahr Al-Ghazal and Mongalla were combined into the enlarged Equatoria province. Accordingly, the provincial labels on maps from this period may differ from earlier and later maps even though the underlying geographical relationship between Kordofan and the Bahr Al-Ghazal region remained relevant.
That arrangement lasted until 1948. When the enlarged Equatoria province was divided, Bahr Al-Ghazal was restored as a separate administrative province, while the name Equatoria continued to be used for the other resulting province. This restoration is particularly significant because it occurred only a few years before Sudanese independence and therefore helps explain the administrative framework visible in late-colonial records approaching January 1, 1956.
The cartographic record from the same period provides further evidence. A December 1948 CIA Map Branch map of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan places Kordofan north of the Bahr Al-Arab and Bahr Al-Ghazal south of it. The map therefore provides additional contemporaneous cartographic evidence that the Bahr Al-Arab corridor separated the two provincial regions following the restoration of Bahr Al-Ghazal as a separate province. Its significance lies not in standing alone, but in reinforcing the same geographical pattern already reflected in earlier administrative records and maps.
This continuity is important because it shows that the Kiir River was not merely mentioned once in an isolated document. It appears repeatedly across official administrative records and cartographic sources spanning several decades, from the early twentieth century through the late colonial period. The 1936–1948 administrative merger does not undermine that continuity. It simply means that, for twelve years, Bahr Al-Ghazal was administered as part of a larger province called Equatoria. Once Bahr Al-Ghazal was restored in 1948, the late-colonial maps again showed it as a separate province south of Kordofan. For that reason, anyone discussing the January 1, 1956 boundary should begin with these historical materials.
The relevant question should not be which modern community produces the most maps or which political narrative is repeated most often. The question should be: what did the official administrative records and maps produced before independence actually show?
If the 1904 Kordofan Annual Report identifies the Bahr Al-Arab as the northern boundary of Bahr Al-Ghazal, if the 1905 Gleichen reference identifies the same boundary, if the 1936 administrative record is read in light of the temporary amalgamation of Bahr Al-Ghazal and Mongalla into Equatoria, and if the December 1948 CIA Map Branch map once again places Kordofan north of the Bahr Al-Arab and the restored Bahr Al-Ghazal province south of it, then these records collectively deserve serious consideration in any discussion of where the January 1, 1956 boundary lay.
Yet some Abyei political elites, including Drs. Francis Deng and Luka Biong, continue to advance territorial claims extending south of the Kiir River while giving little attention to these historical administrative records. If such claims are to be taken seriously, then they should be supported by equally credible contemporary evidence showing that the disputed lands south of the Kiir River were historically administered as part of Abyei or Kordofan before January 1, 1956.
Historical territorial claims should be tested against historical evidence. That is why official archival maps, annual reports, administrative orders, and contemporary government records matter so much. They provide a far more reliable basis for determining historical boundaries than maps produced many decades later for political or communal purposes. If the debate concerns the boundary as it stood on January 1, 1956, then the evidence closest to that period should carry the greatest weight.
The question, therefore, should remain simple: What do the official historical maps and administrative records show? Taken together, the available records repeatedly place the Bahr Al-Arab, or Kiir River, at the dividing line between Kordofan to the north and the Bahr Al-Ghazal administrative region to the south, notwithstanding the temporary 1936–1948 amalgamation of Bahr el-Ghazal into the larger Equatoria Province.
About the Author
