The Conquest That Never Was: Ghana and the Almorav

[Charlie Bass]

I don't have access to this paper but this paper suggests what I've long suspected, the kingdom of Ghana was never conquered by Almoravids.

www.jstor.org/pss/3171690

[sundiata]

I have the paper (as well as JSTOR access). If you or anyone else needs it, shoot me a PM. I remember discussing this on ES. It seems that this interpretation rained heavy for many years based merely on misguided accounts by Arab and North African writers who weren't even alive when such events were proposed to have taken place. There is no mention anywhere of any Almoravid conquest during the time the conquest would have taken place. Dierk Lange gives us an excellent interpretation of why Ghana saw its decline, which has a lot to do with Almoravid intervention, but nothing to do with any physical/military conquest. He notes the presence of emerging clans within Ghana its self, which mainly comprised two generic groups; native converts and local traditionalists. The elite segments mainly composed the former group who unsurprisingly were supported (ideologically and perhaps in terms of trade resource) by the Almoravids. Thus, political conflict lead to a weakening Ghana. Timothy Insoll supports this with archaeology citing that there was actually no drastic changes in Ghana which corresponds to any conquest, rather we only see evidence of new levels of local stratification, of which was attributable to a recently adopted Islam. The cultural and structural continuity of the capital, before its ultimate decline under Soumaoro Kanté, suggested that the population of Ghana was not converted against their will, but in fact accepted Islam on their own terms. This agrees with Lange' position that Islam was adopted by a local elite who clashed with the peasantry and eventually became successful in their conversion since towards the end, Ghana had indeed been fully converted, though again, it seems to have been mainly an internal process.

[Charlie Bass]

Apr 7, 2010 16:26:56 GMT -5 sundiata said:

I have the paper (as well as JSTOR access). If you or anyone else needs it, shoot me a PM. I remember discussing this on ES. It seems that this interpretation rained heavy for many years based merely on misguided accounts by Arab and North African writers who weren't even alive when such events were proposed to have taken place. There is no mention anywhere of any Almoravid conquest during the time the conquest would have taken place. Dierk Lange gives us an excellent interpretation of why Ghana saw its decline, which has a lot to do with Almoravid intervention, but nothing to do with any physical/military conquest. He notes the presence of emerging clans within Ghana its self, which mainly comprised two generic groups; native converts and local traditionalists. The elite segments mainly composed the former group who unsurprisingly were supported (ideologically and perhaps in terms of trade resource) by the Almoravids. Thus, political conflict lead to a weakening Ghana. Timothy Insoll supports this with archaeology citing that there was actually no drastic changes in Ghana which corresponds to any conquest, rather we only see evidence of new levels of local stratification, of which was attributable to a recently adopted Islam. The cultural and structural continuity of the capital, before its ultimate decline under Soumaoro Kanté, suggested that the population of Ghana was not converted against their will, but in fact accepted Islam on their own terms. This agrees with Lange' position that Islam was adopted by a local elite who clashed with the peasantry and eventually became successful in their conversion since towards the end, Ghana had indeed been fully converted, though again, it seems to have been mainly an internal process.

One thing not mentioned is the influence that the nearby rival Takrur Empire had on Ghana, it was people from this kingdom that formed the basis of the Almoravid soldiers that invaded Spain. Takrur flourished even more after Ghana faded.

[sundiata]

^Hmm.. It would actually be interesting to do more research on this topic. I hadn't considered that since the king of the Sosso, actually came from Takrur. I'll have to hold my opinion on this since that now seems like a huge coincidence. Maybe the interventions of Takrur form some of the basis behind claims of an "Almoravid" conquest, given their political merger/interaction. This is something the above authors hadn't considered. Very good point and astute observation, this is definitely something that I want to look into.

[Tukuler al~Takruri]

Which king of Sosso came from Tekrour?

I mean to say the kingdom of Tekrur was
a hal Pulaaren polity whereas the Susu
were Mande of the Kaniaga kingdom.

[sundiata]

^I stand corrected and obviously I need better sources. These two articles need to be re-written.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soumaoro_Kant%C3%A9

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosso

I did notice that to be a bit confusing, I'm just glad you called that one out. I have been a bit sloppy lately (should have double checked the sources).

[sundiata]

Question though, since this is my first time learning of the alliance between Takrur and Almoravids. Would this suggest that the majority of "African Moorish" occupation in Andalusia consisted of Fulbe and Lamtuna? If there was an integration between the two, and through that integration both groups moved on Spain simultaneously, then why are Almoravids given almost exclusive credit? Does anybody have any information of the number of troops from Takrur who were involved and whether or not they consisted of separate raiding units or were they simply a part of a mass "Moorish" confederation, to be lost in the mesh of African soldiers who comprised the army?

Also, since "Almoravid", like "moor" didn't describe any particular ethnic group, is it practical to refer to all of those responsible for the initial expansion through North Africa to Spain, as Almoravids (including those Fulani troops)? This is a genuine question of which I am ignorant since I'm not even sure what "Almoravid" translates to? I've seen some interpretations but I have no primary sources at the moment.

[franklin]

The empire of Takrur was very influential and it’s name was very well known throughout the Muslim world, this is so much the case that the name was often became a general word used for people who were not even Takrur

The “Sudan” was seen as a place of riches and a place to go to in order to earn money and in this way the “Sudanese” themselves were able to force people into reliance. Even in the very early 13th century a Pagan king was accused of persecuting Almohad merchants, but the governor did not offer any threat or retaliation as he did everything he could to keep the Trans-Saharan trade going. Ibn Khaldun said that the remnants of the Almoravid empire became dependant on and subject to kings of the “Sudan” and that that Kanim empire once spread it’s influence through a great part of the Sahara. Both in terms of economics and in terms of the "Sudanese" knowledge of royal authority seemed to have a major impact on their relations with people like the Almoravids and Almohads

Edit:

One thing I want to note, in the old Ghana empire the emperor took all the gold nuggets to avoid inflation in his own empire because he was actually lowering world gold prices long before Mansa Musa lived. Ibn Khaldun's description of the capital of Mali shows that it was very prosperous and since gold is a resource like any other it would be more than just gold that would give the "Sudanese" an economic advantage

[franklin]

"Ibn Hawqal, the cheque and Awdaghost" Nehemia Levtzion page 5

Note the author talks about many controversies about the subject but whatever the case might be, the greatest financial transactions in the Muslim world were connected to the Trans-Saharan trade

www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amcdouga/Hist446/readings/ibn_hawqal_the_cheque_levtzion.pdf

Muslims reliant upon “Pagan” authority, Even with the attack against Awdaghost the Almoravids were still allied to the Takrur but before then Muslims were often reliant on “Pagan” authority. This is probably mostly because of economic dependency but the thing about "royal authority" might be significant

"Islam and Trade in the Bilad Al-Sudan, Tenth-Eleventh Century A.D." by Michael Brett page 7 and 8

www.arts.ualberta.ca/~amcdouga/Hist446/readings/islam_and_trade_brett.pdf

Neither fatwa prescribes specifically for a situation in which there was no such royal power, as must have been the case among the many tribal or 'stateless' societies of the Sahara and the Sudan. The implication of the second fatwa, indeed, may be that if no pagan king existed, it was necessary to invent one

Edit:

Furthermore to the end of page 8, which would give a fuller picture to the 'royal authority' thing. Takrur, perhaps, may have aided the Almoravids in helping them keep stability when it came to governing

It is not clear how far the Guddala and the Lamtuna were already Muslim. They were both 'stateless' in the sense that they lacked permanent rulers, and lawless to the extent that they lived by tribal custom

[sundiata]

Apr 19, 2010 15:01:09 GMT -5 franklin said:

The empire of Takrur was very influential and it’s name was very well known throughout the Muslim world, this is so much the case that the name was often became a general word used for people who were not even Takrur

Is this the case? I had to double check the Epic of Sundiata after I was corrected by Al-takuri and indeed, no mention of the Sosso being a part of Takrur, invading it or otherwise ruling over it. So far, three wikipedia sources have claimed this and I've been trying to track the root of that claim and think that I've found it verbtim in this obscure book, here..

I'm really curious now as to the root of this claim (though obviously false). Is it just completely fabricated or based on some medieval chronicle which mixed up the two.. As far as I know, the only source for information on the Sosso is in the Epic of Sundiata and I don't recall much mention of Takrur..

[franklin]

Takrur became one of the first Muslim empires in "western Sudan" While Soso were "Pagans". Some of the confusion with the name Takrur could be because the name became so famous that it was used for a large area in "western Sudan"

[franklin]

I mentioned the "Pagan" king to whom the Almohads were reliant on, this was most likely a king of Sosso

Edit: I mean reliant on in terms of trade

[franklin]

Apr 11, 2010 17:31:10 GMT -5 sundiata said:

then why are Almoravids given almost exclusive credit? Does anybody have any information of the number of troops from Takrur who were involved and whether or not they consisted of separate raiding units or were they simply a part of a mass "Moorish" confederation, to be lost in the mesh of African soldiers who comprised the army?

Concerning another kingdom that had relations with the Almoravids and sounds like they would have in terms of military support:

The author here believes that the Zafun were Soninke too but the king of Zafun is also mentioned as being on the pilgrimage himself, the king himself was probably a Muslim during this time period (mid 12th century) while he was visiting with the Almoravid commander. However Zafun was again ruled by a “pagan” king at a later time. Another source said that the reason for the respect for the king of Zafun was because he was more knowledgeable about "royal authority" and the Almoravids relied on him for different matters of government.

"A history of African societies to 1870" by Elizabeth Allo Isichei

books.google.com/books?id=LgnhYDozENgC&lpg=PA187&dq=&pg=PA187#v=onepage&q&f=false

[A mysterious passage tells of the visit of a black king from the desert edge state of Zafun to the Almoravid capital of Marrakesh. He rode his horse into the palace. 'The Commander of the Muslims met him on foot, whereas the [king of] Zafun did not dismount for him... he was tall, of deep black complexion and veiled]