Who Migrated in the Upper Nile First Between the Shilluk and the Jieng Padang?
By Abraham Madit Majak
The debate surrounding the historical settlement and ownership of the Upper Nile region continues to generate heated discussions on social media, particularly between members of the Jieng Padang and Chollo (Shilluk) communities. Unfortunately, many of these discussions are increasingly driven by emotions and tribal sentiments rather than balanced historical reflection and constructive dialogue.
According to historical narratives and oral traditions passed down through generations, the Jieng Padang people migrated and settled in parts of the Upper Nile region between the 12th and 15th centuries AD. Historical accounts also indicate that the Shilluk people later migrated and established their kingdom in the region between the mid-15th and early 16th centuries. Based on these timelines, many historians and oral traditions suggest that the Jieng Padang arrived in Upper Nile before the Shilluk kingdom became firmly established.
This historical perspective challenges claims made by some social media activists who portray the Chollo community as the sole indigenous inhabitants of the Upper Nile region. Such narratives often overlook the broader historical complexity of migration and settlement patterns in South Sudan. They also risk spreading misinformation and fueling unnecessary ethnic tensions among younger generations who may not fully understand the region’s interconnected history.
Upper Nile has historically been shaped by migration, coexistence, trade, cultural interaction, and political transformation among different communities over many centuries. No single community can claim exclusive ownership of the region’s history while dismissing the historical presence of others. Denying the migration history of the Jieng Padang people, or any other community, weakens the spirit of national unity and promotes tribal exclusivity rather than peaceful coexistence.
Historical discussions should be guided by facts, oral traditions, academic research, archaeology, linguistics, migration patterns, and mutual respect instead of inflammatory rhetoric on social media platforms. Every community in South Sudan has its own migration story, and acknowledging those histories should never be viewed as an attack on anyone’s identity or heritage.
According to my own independent research, many of the claims circulating on social media are based more on propaganda than on balanced historical examination. The problem with some Chollo anthropologists is that they often present selective history while overlooking other historical and archaeological evidence.
That is exactly why I wrote this short piece on the migration history of the Shilluk and Jieng Padang in Upper Nile. Historical debates should remain open to evidence and scholarly examination rather than emotional tribal narratives.
Several historical studies on the Upper Nile Basin acknowledge that migrations and settlements in the region occurred in different waves over centuries. Archaeological and anthropological research by scholars such as Douglas H. Johnson and Peter Robertshaw discuss the antiquity of Nilotic settlements and the movement of Luo-speaking groups into the Upper Nile over time.
Even Shilluk oral traditions themselves speak about migrations associated with Nyikang and the later formation of settlements along the White Nile. Historical discussions also mention interactions with populations already living in parts of Upper Nile before the rise of the Shilluk Kingdom.
This discussion should not be about hatred, tribalism, or superiority. It should be about historical honesty and intellectual openness. No community owns history through propaganda. Facts remain facts, and research remains open for examination by anyone willing to study deeply rather than rely solely on emotional narratives.
The future of Upper Nile — and South Sudan as a whole — depends on embracing shared histories and promoting peaceful coexistence instead of tribal superiority narratives. Nation-building cannot succeed when historical debates are turned into tools for ethnic division. South Sudanese communities must respect one another’s histories and work together toward peace, stability, reconciliation, and national unity.
Opinions expressed in articles published by RSSVP are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Rescue South Sudan Village People. RSSVP assumes no responsibility for the accuracy, validity, or reliability of claims made by contributors.