Alexandria,Patriarchate of

The patriarchate of Alexandria flourished as one of the premier centers of Eastern Christian intellectual, ecclesial, and political life until the middle of the 7th century.Initially, the patriarchate of Alexandria was ranked second to Rome in ecclesial priority.

In 381 the third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council declared that the patriarchate of Constantinople would henceforth rank higher than Alexandria and thus it assumed precedence in the whole East, a state of affairs initially resisted in Egypt. In 451 the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council reaffirmed the priority of the patriarchate of Constantinople over that of Alexandria. Despite being overshadowed by the sees of Rome and Constantinople, the patriarchate of Alexandria undoubtedly set the foundational framework and trajectory for Christian theology. For example, the Logos theologians of Alexandria, most notably Clement (ca. 150­-215) and Origen (ca. 185­ca. 251), significantly shaped future patristic reflections upon the person and nature of Jesus Christ. Also,

Alexandrian hierarchs such as St. Athanasius of Alexandria (ca. 293­373) and St.Cyril of Alexandria (ca. 378­444) advanced what would become the classical Orthodox expression of the mystery of the incarnate Lord.

 Within the Roman Empire, theological and political allegiances often aligned together in ways that could either strengthen or weaken any given patriarchate, whether Rome, Constantinople, or another major see. In this volatile context, the patriarchate of Alexandria managed to grow into a significant political force.

Further, in the 3rd century, Egyptian monasticism developed into a burgeoning movement that indelibly shaped Alexandrian Christianity (Chitty 1999). In brief, the convergence of the ecclesial, political, theological, and monastic streams into one dynamic confluence infused Alexandrian Christianity with long-lasting vitality. The following summary begins with a brief historical sketch of the city of Alexandria,followed by a list of the patriarchs of Alexandria from the 1st century up to the 8th. There then follows an overview of the most influential bishops, pivotal councils,and exceptional theological and spiritual movements that bear witness to the enduring significance of the patriarchate of Alexandria.

THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA

Alexandria, founded by Alexander the Great (356­-323 BCE), is strategically situated at the mouth of the Nile. The city boasted two harbors and was a hub of trade routes that provided access to the Mediterranean and Southeast Asia. As an international commercial port city, Alexandria attracted merchants from all over the known world,who in turn brought their religious and philosophical traditions into the Hellenistic city. Upon his conquest of Egypt, between 332 and 331 BCE, Alexander drew up plans for the layout of a new metropolis.Alexandria was divided into five neighborhoods, identified by the Greek letters A to E.

The indigenous Egyptians (known by the Greek abbreviation of Copts) lived in the section called Rakotis, which was located in the southwest section of Alexandria.

The native Egyptians usually belonged to one of the Hellenistic religions and likely participated in the rites of one of the nearby pagan temples. The great Temple of Serapis (founded by the early Ptolemies) was located in the heart of Rakotis. The Jews predominantly inhabited a separate sector in Alexandria. Since the Jewish quarter was afforded a significant amount of autonomy, the Jews were able to maintain, at a high level, a distinct cultural and religious identity (Haas 1977: 91­127).

Jewish intellectuals, most notably Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE-­50 CE), were influential forerunners that shaped later Christianity, especially through the persons of Clement and Origen of Alexandria.

Alexander the Great’s successor was his childhood friend and general, Ptolemy I Soter (ca. 367­ca. 283 BCE). Under Ptolemy’s governance, Alexandria grew into a great Hellenistic center. Hellenism continued to blossom under Ptolemy Philadelphus (309­-246 BCE), his son. Ptolemy Philadelphus founded the Great Library in Alexandria, which was first burned in 48 BCE when Caesar defeated Antony and Cleopatra. In 391 the second iteration of the Great Library was partially destroyed during the tenure of the anti-Origenist Patriarch Theophilus (384-­412). Rather than seeking the total annihilation of the library, Theophilus only ordered the destruction of the pagan library holdings associated with the Temple of Sarapis. Consequently, many of the larger cultural Hellenistic writings remained extant after the anti-Origenist movement of the 4th century. In 641 Islamic invaders captured Alexandria and possibly destroyed some of the holdings within the Alexandrian library, but undoubtedly (since the Byzantine emperor arranged a year-long truce to allow cultural and religious artifacts to be shipped to Rome and Constantinople for safe keeping) the vast majority of materials were safely transferred. In brief, the Alexandrian library was one of the finest collections in all Antiquity. The existence of the Great Library positioned Alexandria to be the leading Hellenistic intellectual center.

Origen, the first internationally respected philosopher among the Christians, based his exegetical mission on the literary tradition of the library (McGuckin 2001).

Hellenism was a significant intellectual and cultural force that, to one degree or another, influenced Christianity, Judaism,

and other religious movements of Late Antiquity. Ancient Alexandria has been described as a multicultural milieu, where Judaism, Christianity, Gnosticism, and the Egyptian indigenous religions coexisted with one another in an international milieu. According to some ancient observers, the lines between one religion and another were often blurred in Alexandria. In a letter attributed to Hadrian (Vita Saturnini 8), Christian worshippers are depicted as if they were giving reverence to Sarapis, the popular Egyptian God. Further,

Hadrian observed pagans who worshipped Sarapis in a style that resembled the Christians. The blurring of lines is further revealed by Alexandrian religious leaders,

whether Christians, Jews, or others,

who experimented in astrology (Vita Saturnini 8).

 The so-called multiculturalism of Alexandria was complex and dynamic;

consequently, it is difficult to fully depict the overall situation in a comprehensive manner. At times, the various religious groups coexisted in a symbiosis where in

Hellenism provided an overarching matrix that promoted assimilation among the religious subcultures. Yet, on numerous other occasions, religious enclaves asserted their group identities over and against one another and the dominant Hellenistic culture (Haas 1977: 45­90).

The Gnostic Christian Basilides was the first notable Alexandrian biblical exegete,

who blossomed into a prominent figure during the reigns of the Emperors Adrian and Antoninus Pius (ca. 120­40). Basilides probably studied with Glaukios, reputed to be a confidant and translator for the Apostle Peter. Following Basilides, the influential Alexandrian Gnostic Valentinus (ca. 100­ca. 160) was almost installed as a bishop of Rome. From what we know of inchoate Alexandrian Christianity, Pantaenus was the first orthodox pedagogue residing in Alexandria. According to the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (H.E. 10), sometime around 180 Pantaenus founded the first Alexandrian catechetical school. Clement of Alexandria succeeded Pantaenus as the leading Christian pedagogue in Alexandria. Clement was one of the first formidable early philosophertheologians to develop Christian doctrine through reading the Holy Scriptures,adhering to the rule of faith (regula fidei),and strategically appropriating Hellenistic thought and culture. Clement advanced Logos theology while at the same time highlighting a spiritual culture of knowledge (gno¯sis) that would have been resonant with his Gnostic contemporaries.

Origen of Alexandria further developed the Logos theology of his antecedents. Without a doubt, Origen stands as the most influential theologian of the early church.

Origen, even more so than Clement, was keenly aware of the usefulness and apparent dangers inherent within Greek philosophy.

In Origen’s Letter to Theodore (also known as his Letter to Gregory), he explains his approach to his disciple Gregory Thaumatourgos, the later apostle of Cappadocia. In this correspondence Origen admonishes Gregory carefully to employ Greek philosophy in the spirit of the Exodus Jews spoiling the Egyptians. Christian theologians should take from the Greeks whatever is useful for the worship of God and the interpretation of Scripture.

However, Christians need to be prayerful and diligent, or else they may easily become infected by the “poisons” of paganism (see Origen, Letter to Theodore). Origen’s strategic appropriation of Greek philosophy became paradigmatic for future generations of Christian theologians.

THE PATRIARCHATE OF ALEXANDRIA 

There is little information regarding the patriarchate of Alexandria from the first two centuries of the Common Era. The shared tradition of both the Greek East and Latin West affirms that St. Mark the Evangelist founded the Church of Alexandria. In a letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria, we are told that St. Mark’s witness and theology became influential in Alexandria by the 2nd century. The first attestation of Mark’s connection with Alexandria is not explicitly recorded until the 4th century (Eusebius, H.E. 2.16).

In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius provides a list of the early Alexandrian patriarchs. However, Eusebius’s list provides minimal information about the early patriarchs other than simply providing their names; further, the accuracy of his early account is controverted. Apart from Eusebius, Jerome’s Chronicle also provides information concerning the patriarchate of Alexandria. In chronological order,

with the approximate dates of each tenure set in parentheses, these early leaders of the Alexandrian Church are as follows: Mark the apostle (?); Annianus (62-­84/85);

Avilius (84/85­-98); Cerdon (98­-110),

who was a presbyter ordained by Saint Mark; Primus (110-­22), also called Ephraim; Justus (122-­30/32); Eumenes (132­-43); Mark II (143-­53); Celadion (153­67); Agrippinus (167­-79); Julian (179­89/90). After Julian, Eusebius provides a little more detail concerning the Alexandrian bishops; the successive list of bishops comprises Demetrius (189/190­233);

Heraclas (23-3­47); Dionysius (24-7­64);

Maximus (26-4­82). Following Maximus,

the Alexandrian bishops, with verifiable dates of tenure, are Theonas (282­-300);

Peter the Martyr (300-­11); Achillas (311­12); Alexander (312-­28); Athanasius (328­73); Peter II (373-­80); Timothy I (380-­4); Theophilus (384­-412); Cyril (412-­44); Dioscorus (444­-51); Proterius (451-­7); Timothy II Aelurus (457­-60),

a Miaphysite; Timothy II Salofaciolos (460­75), a Chalcedonian; Timothy II Aelurus (475­7), his second time as bishop;

Peter III Mongus (477), a Miaphysite;

Timothy IISalofaciolos(477­-82),hissecond time as bishop; John I Talaia (482),

a Chalcedonian; Peter III Mongus (482­9),

his second tenure; Athanasius II Keletes (489­-96), a Miaphysite; John I (496-­505),

a Miaphysite; John II (505­-16); Dioscorus II (516­-17); and Timothy III (517-­35),

a Miaphysite.

After the Council of Chalcedon in 451,

a schism erupted between the Miaphysite and the Chalcedonian theologians. As a result of the schism, from 535 up through the Arab conquests of Alexandria, there existed two lines of Alexandrian patriarchs.

The Melkite (Greek Byzantine) party supported Chalcedonian Christology; conversely, the Coptic party supported protoCyrilline or Miaphysite Christology. The Melkite patriarchal line runs as follows:

Paul of Tabenn (537-­40); Zoile (540­-1);

Apollinarius (541­70); John II (570­80);

Eulogius (580­608); Theodore the Scribe (608­9); John III the Almoner (609­19);

George (620­30); Cyrus (630/631­43/44);

Peter III (643/644­51); uncertain gap in the patriarchate; Theodore (655 Synod);

Peter IV (680 Council); Theophylact (695 Council); Onophes (711); Eusebius (?);

Cosmas I (742­68); and Politian (768­813).

The Coptic patriarchal line (with Julianists noted) runs as follows: Theodosius (535­66);

the Julianists: Gaianus (535); Elpidius (?­565); Dorotheus (565­ca. 580); Theodore (575­85), who was not received by the majority; Peter IV (575­-8); Damien (578­607); Anastasius (607­19); Andronicus (619-­26); Benjamin (626­-65); Julianists:

Menas (634); Agathon (665­-81); John III (681­9); Isaac (689-­92); Simon I (692-­700);

Julianist: Theodore (695); vacancy for three years; Alexander II (704-­29); Cosmas (729­30); Theodore II (730­42); one year vacancy; Michael I (743­-67); Menas (767­75); and John IV (776­-99).

Under the episcopate of Demetrius (189/

190­-233) the Alexandrian see increased in power and prestige. At this time, every other Egyptian bishop was subordinated to the see of Alexandria. Beyond extending control over his suffragan bishops, Demetrius seized internal control within the city of Alexandria. His well-known conflict with Origen eventually led to the dismissal of the controversial Alexandrian theologian, and his relocation to Caesarea of Palestine. Without a doubt, the Church of Alexandria increased in power on account of Demetrius’astuteness and energetic zeal.

Demetrius’ successor, Origen’s disciple Heraclas (233-­47), continued to advance the unity and prestige of the Egyptian Church through his disciplinary action.

Heraclas deposed Ammonius the bishop of Thmuis, and refused to reconcile Origen.

Dionysius (249­-65) succeeded Heraclas as the leader of the Alexandrian Church. From

Dionysius onward, the Alexandrian Church and its powerful bishop served in the dual role of both ecclesial and political leader in Eastern Christian affairs (Hardy 1952: 19).

Under the Edict of Decius, delivered in January 250, the Alexandrian Church endured harsh persecution. Many citizens,

or at the very least those citizens suspected of being Christian, were required to show their certificate (libelli) in order to prove they had sacrificed to the Egyptian gods.

The Decian persecution (250­-1) was shortlived; nonetheless it significantly impacted the Christian imagination,

Christian self-understanding, and the Egyptian ecclesiology specifically. The Decian persecution produced Alexandrian martyrs who served as models of piety for their fellow Christians. Following the cessation of hostilities, the Alexandrian Church needed to develop a strategy for readmitting those Christians who lapsed under the weight of the Decian persecution.

Ultimately, the Patriarch Dionysius adopted a moderate position, whereby he permitted the receiving back of the lapsed after they had served an appropriate penance.

Furthermore, the Christian confessors,

who had often endured imprisonment and punishment during the Decian persecution,

were significant actors in the reconciliation of the lapsed. In order to usher in the reconciliation of the lapsed, Christian confessors prayed on behalf of their weaker co-religionists. Archbishop Maximus (265-­82) succeeded Dionysius; and Theonas (292-­301) assumed the see of Alexandria after Maximus. By the end of the 3rd century, the Coptic language was used widely throughout Christian Egypt in preference to Greek (Hardy 1952: 34). The 4th century ushered in the momentous age of Constantine’s Christian Roman Empire.

The Arian crisis was probably the most significant theological controversy of the 4th century. It derived its name from Ariu

ca. 250/256­336), a priest of Baukalis, the dockland district of Alexandria, a charismatic presbyter who gained numerous followers throughout the city during the early decades of the 4th century. Arius’ Christology was an outgrowth of the earlier Alexandrian Logos theology which failed to declare the full equality of the Logos with the Father, the supreme God.Ariusandthosewhosharedsimilartheological leanings subordinated the Logos (and de facto Jesus) below the Father, who alone was confessed as the true God.

 The Patriarch Alexander (322-­8) declared Arius guilty of heresy and excommunicated the popular Alexandrian presbyter. In 325, at the Council of Nicea, Arius was officially condemned. However, the condemnation of Arius only signaled the beginning of the series of ongoing theological debates that dominated the 4th-century ecclesial landscape. In 328 Athanasius of Alexandria succeeded Alexander and soon emerged as the leading proponent of Nicene theology.

Athanasius’s adherence to the Nicene confession (though his own preference was not for homoousion but for the more explicit tautotes tes ousias ­ identity of essence between Father and Son) would eventually emerge as the international definitive statement of Orthodox Christology.

 However,before the victory of Nicenism at the Council of Constantinople in 381, there was intense debate throughout the era over the Orthodox expression of the mystery of Jesus Christ. In all the debates Alexandrian theologians set the tone. Following the Council of Nicea, Athanasius’s steadfast refusal to compromise adherence to the homoousion, in the face of imperial changes of policy, led to his expulsion from Alexandria on several occasions. In 335 Athanasius was condemned and deposed at the Council of Tyre. He returned from exile after Constantine’s death in 337. Athanasius soon fled again, this time to Rome, where he was welcomed as a defender of

Yusuf ibn Tashfin: Almoravid Empire: Maghrib: 1070-1147

After the death of their ideologue, Ibn Yasin, in 1059, the Almoravids ceased to be simply a reform movement bent on religious proselytism and gradually took the shape of a dynastic state. The loose ties that kept the movement together were replaced by new political alliances between the Almoravid leadership and subject groups, such as non-Sanhaja Berbers and Andalusian Muslims. The power structure of the nascent state was hierarchical; it contrasted greatly with the absence of a centralized authority and lack of tribal cohesion that characterized the formative period of the movement. Political power was monopolized by Lamtuna chiefs from whose ranks both rulers (known as emirs) and court dignitaries were selected. The title of murabit (Almoravid) was reserved for members of the three constituent communities of the movement: the Lamtuna, Guddala, and Massufa, who filled the Main administrative posts. The bottom echelons were occupied by tribes such as the Jazula and Lamta that, though grudgingly at first, had finally embraced the Almoravid reformist program. They formed the backbone of the army and were known as “the followers” (al-hasham).

The rise of Yusuf ibn Tashfin to political prominence was somehow fortuitous. While Abu Bakr bin ’Umar, nominal ruler, was busy trying to bring restive tribes in the south back to the fold, Yusuf had served as his deputy, actually in absolute charge of the territories north of the High Atlas. Aware that any attempt to oppose Yusuf’s political ambitions would result in the fragmentation of the state, Abu Bakr decided to abdicate in favor of his protege in 1072.

Most of the Almoravid conquests took place during Yusuf’s reign (1061-1107). Marrakech, the new capital founded by Abu Bakr in 1070 because of its strategic location, constituted an ideal springboard for future campaigns in the north. Fez was taken in 1075 and the occupation of the Rif, the mountain range that runs parallel to the Mediterranean coast, was completed within less than a decade. Although Almoravid troops reached the mountains of Kabylia, the extent of their rule did not go beyond present-day Oran, in western Algeria. Ceuta, taken in 1083, served as the gateway to the annexation of the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus).

Yusuf ibn Tashfin is favorably portrayed in Muslim sources. The fact that he abstained from adopting the title of amir al-mu’minin (XXXX, theoretically reserved for the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad), thus avoiding a religious schism in Sunni Islam, enhanced his reputation among contemporary chroniclers as a pious and selfless ruler. The adoption of Malikism as the state legal doctrine was also one of Yusuf’s main policies. At his behest, Maliki scholars were allocated official stipends and granted numerous privileges, such as access to his privy council. The monopoly exerted by Maliki jurists (fuqaha’) over legal matters is often regarded as a mixed blessing by later authors. The existence of an officially sponsored school of law helped homogenize legal proceedings in a vast geographical area that included Muslim Spain and North Africa. It gave too much power, however, to a single category of legal experts, thus opening the way to nepotism, abuse of office, and other pernicious practices commonly associated with corporate-like institutions. Reliance on a single legal code is blamed, moreover, for the “intellectual impoverishment” and rigidity that, according to most modern scholars, marked the Almoravid period. The excessive use of manuals of legal casuistry (furu') and the subsequent neglect of the traditional sources of Islamic law (Qur’an and prophetic traditions), a propensity to follow existing legal precedents (taqlid) rather than exercise individual powers of jurisprudence (ijtihad), and, finally, the use of literal Qur’anic exegesis even when the latter might engender anthropomorphic views, are some of the most frequentlymentioned signs of this alleged ideological decline.

The influence of Maliki jurists became even more overpowering during the reign of Yusuf’s successor, ‘Ali ibn Yusuf ibn Tashfin (1107-1143). Although his asceticism and piety are not in dispute, chroniclers are unanimous in their portrayal of this ruler as a wellmeaning but cowardly monarch, unfortunate enough to be faced with the task of tackling three simultaneous dangers: the resurgence of the Christian kingdoms in Spain (a constant drain in terms of financial and military resources), the rebellion of Ibn Tumart from 1125 onward, and the increasing stranglehold of the Maliki establishment on the Almoravid state. The surge of military activity in Al-Andalus forced ‘Ali ibn Yusuf to increase the amount of troops dispatched there and to impose dubious taxes on his Maghribi subjects. This latter measure caused considerable discontent and it was viewed as a betrayal of the Almoravid programme of abolishing non-Qur’anic taxes. To compound matters, military shortages in Morocco were offset by recruiting Christian mercenaries. This unpopular decision benefited the Almohads, Ibn Tumart’s followers, as it confirmed their claims that the ruling elite no longer enjoyed religious legitimacy. Almohad pressure became ever more intense and the walls of Marrakesh had to be reinforced in 1129.

Among the criticisms against ‘Ali ibn Yusuf’s rule, none seems more damaging than his incapacity to rein in the excesses of the Maliki legal establishment. Jurists took advantage of their position to extract more privileges and financial perks from the Almoravid court. Although anti-Maliki propaganda must be treated with caution, it seems certain that some judiciary-instigated measures such as the ban on Al-Ghazali’s mystical works, the official clampdown on Sufi circles and, more generally, the endorsement of heavy fiscal policies caused widespread popular discontent.

‘Ali ibn Yusuf spent most of the second half of his reign (from 1125 to his death in 1143) combating both the Christians of the Iberian Peninsula and the fledgling Almohad movement. A series of military setbacks in Spain weakened the Almoravid army. This, coupled with growing restiveness among the populace due to heavy taxation, explains his inability to subdue the Almohad rebels before they were numerically superior. His two successors, Tashfin (1143-1145) and Ishaq (1145-1147), inherited a kingdom that would inevitably disappear.

Francisco Rodriguez-Manas See also: ‘Abd Allah ibn Yasin: Almoravid: Sahara.

Further Reading

Abun-Nasr, J. M. A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period. Cambridge, 1987.

Laroui, A. The History of the Maghrib: An Interpretive Essay, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1977.

Norris, H. T. The Berbers in Arabic Literature. London, 1982.

Yusuf Pasha Karamanli: See Libya: Yusuf Pasha Karamanli and the Ottoman Reoccupation, 1795-1835.

https://www.worldhistory.biz/sundries/39296-yusuf-ibn-tashfin-almoravid-empire-maghrib-1070-1147.html

The Almoravid reform movement and the rise of 'Islamic' kingdoms

The splendid successes of the Almoravid movement in North Africa and the Iberian Peninsula have somehow covered up its Saharan origin and far reaching repercussions on the Islamisation of the Stidan. Within forty years (Awdaghusht was taken in 446 / i054f. and Ghana c. 468 /1076) the veiled Sanhaja camel riders, the dreaded mulaththamUn of the Arabic sources, brought the western Sahara under their control and then disappeared from the West African map as abruptly as they had appeared. This short lived political success and its lasting impact on the modes of Islamic self articulation in the Stidan cannot be explained without the characteristic fusion of nomadic mobility and religious austerity that the movement was based upon. Wondrous stories are told about how Ibanhaja pilgrims were transformed by North African Maliki scholars into rigid believers and ideological leaders. 'Abd Allah ibn Yas'in, son of a Jaztila mother of Ghana, was one of them. He managed to unite a confed eration of!5anhaja tribes, among them partly Islamised and neophyte Gudala, Lamtuna, Jazitla and Masttfa, under a reformist message that was vividly depicted in the following description of his newly founded headquarters at Aratnanna: all dwellings of the ribat (hence 'al Murabithn’) were to be of equal height; lying, drinking and music were forbidden; neglect of prayer and improper behaviour were punished with the whip and the bride price was made affordable for everybody. Religious and social reform went hand in hand. Its legal reference was the Miliki school of law; its operational field was West Africa. The Almoravid movement set off what ended ultimately in the com plete orientation of the Sridiin towards the Miliki rite. Later reported 'con versions' to Islam, in reference to the people of Gao around 47i/i078f., may simply refer to conversion from Ibaciism to Milikism.

'Abd Allah himself set the example for another central notion in West African Islam. He withdrew to the desert, refrained from consuming meals of legally doubtful origin, and wore the sUf, the woollen garment of the Sufis.

Thus the figure of 'al Murabit’ entered the scene. The maraboutism of both medieval and modern Islam in Africa tells the story of the thorough Africanisation with a French accent of this figure.

Even when the short political adventure of the Almoravids ended, their influence continued to work. Their Sahaja followers, Judala in the south, Mastifa in the east, entered regions that had hitherto come into contact with Islam only superficially, or not at all. South of the Senegal river, the king of Takrur together with his people, the sedentary Tukulor and the adjacent nomadic pastoralist Fulbe, converted to Islam. So did the king ofMalal, who was fascinated by the magical powers of a passing Muslim scholar (mallam), although his Mandingo speaking common subjects were not. Both kingdoms formed part of Ghana which did not recover from the Almoravid attack. All that can be gathered from the hearsay stories collected over the next two centuries and combined with the earlier reports in the Arabic sources points to a slow expansion of the Muslim faith among the Fulbe, Malinke, Bambara and Dyula populations in the regions between the rivers of Senegal, Volta and Upper Niger. Islam was thus imported into the areas from where the much coveted gold and cola nuts were exported. The rise of the empire of Mali in the late seventh/thirteenth century must be seen in the light of this steadily expanding system of economic and social relations between the savannah and forest regions in the south of Mali, and the growing trading centres of Walata, Timbuktu, Gao, Tadmakkat and Takadda along the southern fringe of the Sahara. To the west ofTimbuktu were the Sanhaja tribes of Madaasa and Masuafa, and to the east the Tuareg Berbers who controlled the salt mining and organised the profitable exchange of goods with their Suadaanic counterparts. Trade and religion intermingled. Profit depended on legd security, communication and the mutual acceptance of cultural norms. The prosperity of the empire of Mali rested on the integration of Islamic norms and the consequent opening up to the wider Islamic world.