Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
History in Africa
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
THE CONQUEST THAT NEVER WAS: GHANA AND THE
ALMIORAVIDS, 1076. I. THE EXTERNAL ARABIC SOURCES
David Conrad
SOAS
University of London
Humphrey Fisher
SOAS
University of London
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
22 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 23
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
24 CONRAD/FISHER
attack the capital of Ghana. The army, finding that the citizens
of the capital already respected Islam, did not assault the town;
instead, the ruler gave gold to the Moors and received from them
an imam, who settled in the town, marrying and having children.
This episode combines two elements which recur again and again
in the sources: some kind of military activity by the Saharans,
but a conversion of Ghana which occurred peacefully, for un-
specified reasons but explicitly not through conquest.20
The precise implications of the word khuruj constitute the
third hermeneutical problem posed by this passage. The relevant
Arabic reads, wa-dhalika Cinda khuruj Yahya b. Abi Bakr amir
Massufa, literally, "and that was at the'time of the khur"j of
Yahya..." Cuoq translates this, "c'est-a-dire jusqu'a l'-poque
de'la conquete de Yahya..." This seems to be an illustration of
the retroactivepowef of the myth of the Almoravid conquest of
Ghana, for khuruj, so far as we can discover, cannot mean con-
quest. It may occasionally mean sortie or expedition, and such
a meaning might fit with the intended but unfulfilled attack
on the Ghana capital by the Moorish army. Quite a different
interpretation--and on the whole a much more likely one--is
that khuru, here signifies a coming forth, or emergence, in
this case from the Sahara and/or the Sudan. Two semantic
details strengthen our faith in this second interpretation.
First al-Zuhri uses, as we have seen in the quotation above,
the word tadkhulu to describe caravans going to Ghana. These
two verbs, dakhaZa (to go in) and khara~a (to come out) are
opposites, and this may well have been in al-Zuhri's mind when
he employed them. Second, a similar use of khurud, this time
with reference to the emergence of the Almoravid movement as
a whole, occurs in Iyad al-Sabti, a contemporary of al-Zuhri
discussed below. Norris translates this (with his own brackets)
as "when they first cafe forth [from the Sahara]."'2 Hopkins
and Levtzion opt for a still more neutral rendering: "when
Yahya... made his appearance."22
" Before continuing with al-Zuhri, there is a passage in
Ibn al-Khatib in the fourteenth century (see below) which may
perhaps reholve most of the problems we have just been con-
sidering--the date, the identity of Yahya, and the nature of
the _Auruj.
Ibrahim, the Ibn
amiral-Khatib
AbU YAhyadescribed the career
al-massufi", of "Abu Almoravid
an outstanding Bakr b.
leader, proverbial for his generosity. The names do not fit
exactly--Yahya b. Abi Bakr the Massufa (in_al-Zuhri) and Abu
Yahya Abu BAkr the Massufa (in Ibn al-Khatib)--thou&h the
difference is less if we read Abu Yahy f6r al-Zuhri also (as
does the Hulal; see below). The ideAtification must therefore
remain tentative especially as the promising parallel just set
out omits the awkward "ibn Ibrahim" of Ibn al-Khatib. Even so,
it is surely no more tentative than Cuoq's suggested confusion
of names and tribes. Ibn al-Khatib's Abu Yahya was well known,
and his khurul, vividly remembered, was exactly the kind of beau
geste by which one might date other, less important, events in
far-off lands. Ibn al-Khatib described Abu Yahya's "khurj
from the Sahara," a precipitate departure to Sijilmasa in the
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 25
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
26 CONRAD/FISHIER
It is not clear exactly who these Muslims who did not acknow-
ledge the pre-eminence of the Barbara were. They may have been
any Muslims within the area, or any Muslim amrs from the land
of the Janawah, or even Muslim rulers of Ghana itself. But if
they were Muslim rulers of Ghana, it does not seem likely that
they were a foreign, perhaps white, dynasty with a trace of
Sharifian descent, newly imposed by conquest, as Mauny has very
tentatively suggested, 27 for such a dynasty would have no need
of such an elaborate theological justification for renouncing
their respect for the black, pagan Barbara.
Probably more directly relevant for our purposes here is
the following:
version"
which may have
the Almoravids been and
certainly, from Kharijism
the Ghanaian to Maliki
Muslims pre- Sunni Islam
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 27
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
28 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 29
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
30 CONRAD/FISHER
"it is said that Ghana is the title of its kings, but the_name
of the country is Awkar.... A letter from its king to Yusuf b.
Tashfin read: To the amir of Aghmat, Ghana says.... This con-
firms what is said.54" Although the passage is quoted by our
author merely to illustrate that the title of the ruler is Ghana,
we may learn rather more than this from it. If it is written to
Yusuf b. Tashfin as amnr of Aghmat, it was presumably written
before the foundation of Marrakesh and the transfer thither of
the capital of the Almoravids. The most recent dating of this
is 1070.55 If we accept the date which the Kitab gave for the
transfer of power from Abu Bakr to Yusuf, 457/1064-65, then
this letter might be dated fairly precisely to the second half
of the 1060s. Unfortunately the same revision of the chronology
which delays the change of capital to 1070 places the transfer
of power after that event.56 Although the question of date is
thus doubtful, the letter appears to antedate any Almoravid
conquest of the state, since Ghana speaks in his own right. If
Abu Bakr were already embarked upon the military preliminaries
to the conquest of Ghana, and if the king of Ghana were still
an unbeliever, friendly correspondence with the amir of Aghmat
might seem a little out of place. But if the Islamization of
Ghana were proceeding peacefully, and if Ghana and the Almoravids
were collaborating, or planning to collaborate, for the extension
of Islam in the region then such a letter seems perfectly natural.
There are other references to Ghana in the Kitab al-istibsar,
including the interesting remark that Almohad doctrine (kalimat
al-tawhd wa'l-hidayah) was by Rajab 587/July-August 1191 in all
the country of the Sahara from Tripoli to the towns of Ghana and
Kawkaw.s? Most of the remaining references to Ghana, or the
sudan, in the Kitab were concerned with trade and travel con-
nections. 58
The Kitab al-istibsar was completed about 587/1191. It
was followed by al-Sarakhsi, writing about 600/1203. Al-Sarakhsi
mentioned a letter sent by the Almohad governor of Sijilmasa in
reply to a letter which he had received from the king of the
blacks in Ghana (maZik as-sudan bi-ghanah). Cuoq renders this
"un roi des Sudan de Ghana," which might suggest that it was
some subordinate ruler, or one ruler among several, who was
writing. But the Arabic is clear, and provides a further
indication of the continuing dominance of Ghana and its ruler.59
The governor of Sijilmasa complained about interference with
the movement of traders, and pleaded for good neighborly relations,
"even if we diverge in religion," (wa-in takhaZafna f!-l-adyan).
This specific mention of difference in beliefs is puzzling, since
it seems flatly to contradict the statement of the Kitab al-
istibsvr that Almohad doctrine extended to Ghana. The difference
might'perhaps refer to the distinction between Almohad Islam on
the one hand, and Ghanaian Islam on the other. Hopkins and
Levtzion suggest another possibility--that the king was the
pagan king of the Soso, a king who according to tradition
persecuted Muslim traders.60 The Soso conquest of Ghana is
usually dated to 1203.61 But what foundation in historical
evidence has this date? Does it perhaps rest solely on the
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 31
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
32 CONRAD/FISHER
dependent on the gold suppliers south of the Sahara.66 Certainly,
if we accept the hypothesis that the Almoravids conquered Ghana
in 1076, then there must have been a radical reversal of fortunes
between then and the episode which Yaqut describes, which is
necessarily before 1147, when the Almoravids were overthrown.
If, on the other hand, we reject the conquest hypothesis, and
build instead on the implication in al-Zuhri that the Almoravids
were inclined to work in collaboration with Ghana, the incident
in Marrakesh becomes much less surprising. Farias, relying on
this passage in Yaqut, speaks of "the singularly close contacts"
between the black dynasty of Zafunu and the Almoravids of
Marrakesh. He links this with the reference in al-Zuhri to
Ghana/Almoravid cooperation against Tadimakka, setting both
connections within a general argument pleading for a more
sensitive and subtle evaluation of the relationship between
nomadic Berbers and settled blacks, a relationship which has
hitherto been described too much in terms of contrast, with
insufficient attention to the way in which each way of life
and each race complemented the other.67
In speaking of the Kinawa, Yaqut remarked that they lived
in the country adjoining the land of Ghana, wa'l-'ard tunsabu
ilayhim. Cuoq renders this "les terres qui en dependent,"
which, if correct, might be another pointer to some kind of
king-of-kings pre-eminence enjoyed by Ghana. But Hopkins and
Levtzion give simply--and more plausibly--"the land is named
after them."68
Al-Sharishi, who died in 619/1223, wrote on Ghana. He
gave apparently reliable information under several of the
almost standard headings: the trans-Saharan trade, gold, slaves,
the prosperity of Ghana, and the good condition of Islam there.
He did not, however, mention how it was that Islam first became
established, nor did he refer to the Almoravids.69
Next comes Ibn al-Athir, who is of major significance for
us. He lived from 555 to 630 (1160-1233), and his universal
history continued to 1230-31. He gave a very detailed account
of the origins and development of the Almoravid movement. He
laidstress on the fact that Abu Bakr was of the Lamtuna; indeed,
it was for this very reason, and thereby to win the allegiance
of the Lamtuna, that Ibn Yasin entrusted power to Abu Bakr in
the first place.70 Ibn al-Athir's evidence here is of special
importance when we recall that al-Zuhri spoke of Yahya b. Abi
Bakr as am r of the Massufa.
Ibn al-Athir dated the beginning of the Almoravid movement
('amr al-mulaththaf n) to the year 448/1056-57, in which he
says that the Juddala pilgrim made his pilgrimage.71 Ibn al-
Athir explained that there was drought in the desert two years
later, and that Ibn Yasin authorized the most miserable of the
people there to go to Sijilmasa and claim the zakat; some 900
men set out.72 Ibn al-Athir recounted the career of Abu Bakr
in North Africa in some detail, mentioning (among other things)
how he gave over the government of Sijilmasa to his nephew and
how he helped Yusuf b. Tashfin equip an expedition to conquer
the Sus. "This situation lasted until 462/1069-70, when Abu
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 33
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
34 CONRAD/FISHER
quest to Ghana, and that thus far no one has yet so much as
mentioned the event.
C-
Next came Ibn Sacid, who died in 685/1286-87. He referred
to Ghana on numerous occasions, for the most part in the context
of geographical discussion. 80 He also remarked on the gold of
Ghana, and on the Muslim faith of the people under their king,
who claimed descent from the Prophet, and to whom Ibn Sacid
gave apparently for the first time in the Sudan, the title of
sultan.81 The sultan, Ibn Sacid added, was commended for his
zeal in wagingjihad against the unbelievers.82
With Ibn Idhari al-Marrakushi we move into the fourteenth
century. Consulting his work is complicated by the fact that
the latter portion of it has been published in a variety of forms
without adequate cross-references. Cuoq's selection, though
helpful, is incomplete and often abridged; Hopkins and Levtzion
are considerably fuller.83 Ibn Idhari gave substantial detail
on Abu Bakr and Yusuf b. Tashfin and, while it is clear that he
drew heavily on al-Bakri, it is clear also that he had other
sources of information and is thus himself a significant
authority. The pattern which has by now become almost standard
emerges once more. First, there is knowledgeable detail about
Abu Bakr's career, including here the interesting fact that,
after the split with Yusuf which is supposed to have set the
stage for a final solution of the Ghana problem, Abu Bakr went
first of all simply to Aghmat, keeping well in the north.84
And it was_indeed to Aghmat, not to the gilded lands of Ghana,
that Ibrahim, son of AbU Bakr, came seeking his father's wealth
(mulk) after Abu Bakr's death. Only after Yusuf had sufficiently
rewarded him did he return to the desert.8s Second, when Abu
Bakr himself finally got back to the desert, his story ended
there not with a bang but a whimper: he "remained in his desert
for three years... until the Sudan, neighbours to the Lamtuna
in the desert, killed him because he had fought against them,
God had decreed his end: an arrow struck him, and killed him." 86
Third, Ghana has vanished from the record: the only reference
we could find in Ibn Idhari--and that an uncertain one--was in
the context of black troops in Spain.87 And fourth, we have
further illustration, though surely none is needed, of the use
of khuruj: in the early stages of the Almoravid saga, it is
said that Ibn Yasin ordered his followers "to emerge from the
Desert" (bi'l-khuruj min as-sahr). 88 In this case, however,
since operations were in hand against Sijilmasa, there is at
least a military resonance to the term. But the conspiracy of
silence as far as the Almoravid conquest 'of Ghana is concerned,
even among those sources with access to detailed Almoravid
information, is maintained.
Next we come to Ibn Abi Zar , and his celebrated work
popularly known as the Rawd al-Qirt8s. He died between 710
and 720 (1310 and 1320)--that is to say, he was as far or
further removed, from the conquest of Ghana in 1076, than the
present authors are from the American Revolution. In the
interval between Ibn Abi Zar and al-Bakri, just before the
conquest, Cuoq cites twenty-four authors, fifteen of whom
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 35
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
36 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 37
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
38 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 39
to make conquerors.
Almoravid it clear that
Cuoq these rulers,
goes further, these
adding ash.b, were
a somewhat the
apologetic footnote:
C'est un r"sum" bien rapide de trois siecles
d'histoire! Dans ces quelques lignes sont
evoquees la conquete de Ghana par les
Almoravides (1077-78), l'islamisation du
royaume par ces derniers, puis la prise du
pouvoir a Ghana par les Susus au debut du
XIIIe siecle...
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
40 CONRAD/FISHER
from that author, Ibn Khaldun in another passage said that Abu
Bakr, on his penultimate return to the Sahara, conquered the
sudan for a distance of ninety days' march exactly Ibn Abi
ZarC's three months on the same occasion. 11 But all this
might well have been long prior to, and quite distinct from,
the decline of Ghana. Certainly there was fighting between
the Almoravids and the su iEn; but it is our contention that
these operations were small beer, and did not overwhelm the
central power of Ghana. Ibn Khaldun, his mind fixed on the
clash between intrusive nomads and weak-hearted sedentaries,
might well have exaggerated the scope and significance of this
fighting.120 Thirdly, this same stress on nomadic/sedentary
confrontation may have helped lead Ibn Khaldun to overlook
the evidence, which is fairly clear, for collaboration between
Ghana and the Almoravids. Thus, when Ghana asked for Almoravid
help against Silla and Tadimakka, Ibn Khaldun, if he knew of
these events at all, may have been inclined to view them as
purely Almoravid activity directed against sudan. Fourthly,
returning for a moment to the place of Ghana in Ibn Khaldun's
account, not only did he not mention a conquest, but he went
some way towards explicitly denying one when he extends the
lease of the rulers of Ghana until the Soso attack, early in
the thirteenth century. Cuoq introduces the word "nouveaux"
to make clear that Ibn Khaldun did not mean the original rulers;
but the manifest meaning, without the need for any supplementa-
tion, is that the original rulers of Ghana did soldier on,
unconquered and undisplaced, until the Soso finally despatched
them.
While the foregoing discussion does not, we hope, do
injustice to Ibn Khaldun's text, and indeed somewhat enhances
his credibility by relieving him of any responsibility for the
myth of an Almoravid conquest of Ghana, yet the discussion does
imply that Ibn Khaldun's information about Ghana was rather
unclear. This lack of clarity is confirmed by another passage.
Here Ibn Khaldun, discussing the nations of the sudan in the
western Sahara, mentioned the Soso, who conquered Ghana. He
added that the Soso adopted Islam at the time of the "conquest,"
(wa dakhalu f l'Z-islam ayyam al-fath)--presumably the conquest
of North Africa. Ibn Khaldun continued with a reference to
al-Idrisi, who, he said, mentioned the claim of the Soso to
descend from Salih of the Banu Hasan, a claim about which Ibn
Khaldun was evidently rather sceptical. Finally, Ibn Khaldun
noted that the people of Ghana refused to be ruled by anyone
except the Soso.12'
This is all rather strange. There is no other evidence
of such an early conversion of the Soso; on the contrary, there
is a good deal of evidence against it. And again, al-Idrisi
mentioned the special descent of the rulers of Ghana, not of
the Soso. Indeed Ibn Khaldun himself, reported al-Idrisi more
correctly in the Muqaddima. 122 All this material about the
Soso and about the possible noble origins of the rulers of
Ghana is of secondary importance for us. But the fact that
it does not emerge unambiguously from Ibn Khaldun's account
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 41
text superior
seems Cuoq refers but which
to the manuscript of he was
Cuoq, andunable
reads: to consult.127 It
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
42 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 43
Cuoq suggests that the passage was inspired by Ibn Khaldun and
he gives this translation:
Le roi de Ghana fut le plus grand des rois, mais
les Mulaththamun le vainquirent. Leur pouvoir se
disloqua (a son tour) et ils furent vaincus par
les gens de Susu. C'est alors que les gens de
Mali devinrent forts et dominerent ces derniers.13s
A slightly closer rendering might be this:
The king of Ghana was the greatest of the kings.
Then the mulaththamun [those who wear the litham,
or veil] conquered them. Their power vanished,
and the people of Susu conquered them. Then the
people of Mali became strong and ruled them.
The pronouns make the passage difficult to grasp with absolute
exactitude. The veil-wearers--presumably, though not inescapably,
the Almoravids--conquered "them." The pronoun here may refer to
Ghana, and very probably does, but it might conceivably refer to
the kings--perhaps even without including Ghana--in which case
we would be back to the position of Almoravids fighting against
various lesser groups. The next sentence, "Their power vanished
...," is introduced by the particle fa, not wa, thus probably
indicating that there has been some change, for example in the
subject. Cuoq introduces the phrase "(a son tour)" to underline
that it is the power of the Almoravids, conquerors of Ghana,
which vanished; but the Arabic would equally well bear the
interpretation that it was the power of Ghana which vanished.
If we accept Cuoq's rendering, then we extend the rule of the
Almoravids over Ghana from the time of the alleged Almoravid
conquest until the time of the Soso conquest, a period of well
over a century. But there is no supporting evidence for such
a long period of Almoravid rule in Ghana and even the most
fervent advocates of the Almoravid conquest theory hasten to
add that Almoravid rule petered out almost at once.
Yet we are left with the problem of explaining how it
came to pass that here in al-Maqrizi an Almoravid conquest of
Ghana apparently emerged after four centuries of neglect. The
most recent study of al-Maqrizi places beyond doubt his
dependence for his sud2n material on Ibn Khaldun, thus con-
firming Cuoq's suggestion.136 It may be, therefore, that
al-Maqrizi was, very much as Cuoq and others have done, trying
to make a rather vague, and sometimes erroneous, original
statement in Ibn Khaldun more precise. To build confidently
on al-Maqrizi's exegesis about the Almoravids and Ghana would
be perilous in any case; it is doubly so since the study just
cited argues persuasively that his sucaE notes were salvaged
after his death and simply tacked on to some of his finished
work. Whether al-Maqrizi himself regarded these notes as having
been completed must remain uncertain.
The last author whom Cuoq cites, and who mentioned Ghana
in his work, was al-Himyari, who finished a geographical
dictionary in 866/1461. His references were merely borrowings
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
44 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 45
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
46 CONRAD/FISHER
NOTES
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 47
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
48 CONRAD/FISHER
28. Cuoq,
Hopkins Recueil, 120;
and Levtzion, para.
Corpus, 338read
98-99, in "NSLA"
Hadj-Sadok,
for "Kitcb."_
"Silla." Either the geography or the nomenclature in
al-Zuhri seems askew, since it is generally agreed that
Silla well west of Ghana, and Tadimakka far east of Ghana.
29. T. Lewicki, "Un stat soudanais medieval inconnu: le royaume
de Zafun(u)," Cahiers de'tudes africaines, 11(1971), 518,
citing this para. of al-Zuhri.
30. Cuoq, Recueil, 120n1.
31. Farias, "Great States," 480-81.
32. Cuoq, Recueil, 96, 107. Hunwick,"Gao and the Almoravids,"
427-28, discusses Tadimakka in detail; struggling, like
Lewicki and Cuoq, to insert al-Zuhri into the picture of
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 49
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
50 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 51
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
52 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 53
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
54 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 55
100. ibid,
Ibid, 245;
177. For for al-Bakri
the same passagesee ibid, 98,
in Mehren, see for the Istibs.ar,
Cosmogrcaphie, 240, 1. 7, and Manuel, 341.
101. Cuoq, Recueil, 244; Mehren, Cosmographie, 238, 1. 13-16;
Mehren, Manuel, 338.
102. Mehren, Cosmographie, 268, 1. 6-7; Cuoq, Recueil, 247
reads "parmi les peuplades musulmanes assujetties;"
Mehren, Manuel, 388, reads "parmi les tribus des Negres
assujetis et musulmans." John Hunwick, commenting on an
early draft of this paper, remarked that al-khadamTn,
lexically strange, might mean those from whom slaves,
khadam, are taken.
103. Mehren, Cosmographie, 268n. Curiously, the same two
manuscripts read Kan.m, almost certainly a more accurate
rendering, in place of Ghan.m.
104. Corpus, 213.
105. Recueil, 249-50.
106. Ibid, 251, citing 1:209-10.
107. G. Remiro, Historia de los musuZmanes de Espania y Afri
por en-Nuguairi (Granada, 1917). This is labelled vol.
1. The old Encyclopaedia of Islam, sub "al-Nuwayri,"
mentioned a second published in 1919 but we have not seen
this.
108. "Histoire de la province d'Afrique et du Maghrib, traduite
de l'arabe d'En-Noweiri, par le baron Mac Guckin de
Slane," Journal asiatique, 3d ser., 11 (1841), 97-135,
557-83; 12 (1841), 441-83; 13 (1842), 49-64.
109. Cuoq, Recueil, 252, mentions CAbd al-mu'min, but does not
quote from him. We have consulted the printed Arabic of
T.W.J. Juynboll, ed., Lexicon geographicum (6 vols.:
Leiden, 1850-64), Fasc.b, page 300.
110. Cuoq, Recueil, 254ff, Hopkins and Levtzion, Corpus, 252ff.
111. Cuoq, Recueil, 257.
112. Ibid, 263. Another possible mention of Zafun occurs in
the passage from Ibn Zunbultranslated by Fagnan, Extraits,
178-79 where, among places to the south which are reached
via Sijilmasa, there is Rajun, or, according to a variant
reading, Zafur. The difference between 'r' and 'n' in
Arabic, coming at the end of a word in manuscript, may be
slight.
113. Cuoq, Recueil, 265, or see M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes1
Masalik el absar fi mamalik el amsar: Ibn FadZ AZZah
alZ-c0mar: I: L'Afrique, moins l'Egypte (Paris, 1927),
59, or Hopkins and Levtzion, Corpus, 262.
114. Cuoq, Recueil, 286. The booklet has been published as
AZ-tacrif bil-mustalah al-shar f, p. 27; 1894 it is also
partially reproduced in al-Qalqashandi's Subh al-acsha,
for which see below, but this particular reference to
Ghana is omitted there (viii.9). Or see Hopkins and
Levtzion, Corpus, 276.
115. Cuoq, Recueil, 269; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, MasaZlik, 64.
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
56 CONRAD/FISHER
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 57
123. Hopkins
tic to and
IbnLevtzion,
Khaldun, Corpus,
have 421n1, while
obvious very sympathe-
difficulty inL fashioning
a snug fit for this passage. It should, they say, "be
compared with the more detailed (and accurate) account
of Ibn Khaldun. There he locates the Susu east of Ghana,
whereas here he places them nearest the Atlantic, i.e.,
the most western people of the Sudan. (The Soso, in
fact, lived south of the Soninke of Ghana.) The conquest
referred to here is the Almoravid conquest, which accord-
ing to Ibn Khaldun brought about the conversion of many
of the Sudan. (Those who were converted, however, were
the northern Soninke and not the Soso....)" The frequent
qualifications and corrections merely confirm the funda-
mental uncertainty of the account; and there is, in our
view, no reason to assume that fath means an Almoravid
conquest, that term being nowhere else in the sources
applied to that alleged event, whereas it is the standard
designation for the Muslim conquest of North Africa in
the seventh and eighth centuries. Cuoq, Recueil, 355,
despite his profession of the Almoravid conquest hypo-
thesis, renders fath here as "la conquete (du_Maghrib
par les Arabes)." D. Lange, "Un texte de Maqrizi sur
'Les races des sudan' " Annales Islanologiques, 15(1979),
207n2, gives further examples of errors which Ibn Khaldun
allowed to creep into material he derived from other
sources.
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
58 CONRAD/FISHER
I.A. Tarkhan,
1970), 95. Imbarat.ur-yah Chinat al-isam1yah (Cairo,
128. Or, according to one manuscript, Amir Abu Yahya b. Abu
Zakariyya b. CUmar. See A. Huici Miranda, 'Al-Hulal
al mawsiyya': cronica arabe de las dinastias Almoravide,
Almohade y Benimerin: traduccion espaiola (Tetuan, 1951),
24nl.
129. Ibid, 23-24.
130. Cuoq, Recueil, 368. See Allouche, Al-Hulal, 17, for the
Arabic text, and Huici Miranda, Al-Hulal, 41, for a Spanish
translation, both these adding that Abu Bakr's death
occurred in one of the wars which arose between him and
the Sudan. Hopkins and Levtzion, Corpus, 316, 420n23,
point out that the whole section about Ibn Tashfin is
taken from Ibn cIdhari.
131. Subh al-acsha (Cairo, 1913-20), 5:284; the Arabic reads:
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
GHANA AND ALMORAVIDS 59
This content downloaded from 69.167.4.1 on Mon, 03 Apr 2017 06:56:24 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms