North Africa

North Africa

by Jamil M. Abun-Nasr, Michael Brett, Brian H. Warmington

North Africa, region of Africa comprising the modern countries of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya.

The geographic entity North Africa has no single accepted definition. It has been regarded by some as stretching from the Atlantic shores of Morocco in the west to the Suez Canal and the Red Sea in the east, though this designation is more commonly referred to as northern Africa. Others have limited it to the countries of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, a region known by the French during colonial times as Afrique du Nord and by the Arabs as the Maghrib (“West”). The most commonly accepted definition, and the one used here, includes the three above-mentioned countries as well as Libya but excludes Egypt. The regions encompassed by both the second and third definitions, however, have also been called Northwest Africa.

The ancient Greeks used the word Libya (derived from the name of a tribe on the Gulf of Sidra) to describe the land north of the AnchorSahara, the territory whose native peoples were subjects of Carthage, and also as a name for the whole continent. The Romans applied the name Africa (of Phoenician origin) to their first province in the northern part of Tunisia, as well as to the entire area north of the Sahara and also to the entire continent. The Arabs used the derived term Ifrīqiyyah in a similar fashion, though it originally referred to a region encompassing modern Tunisia and eastern Algeria.

In all likelihood, the Arabs also borrowed the word Barbar (Berber) from the Latin barbari to describe the non-Latin-speaking peoples of the region at the time of the Arab conquest, and it has been used in modern times to describe the non-Arabic-speaking population called Berbères by the French and known generally as the Berbers (although their term for themselves, Amazigh, has grown in usage). As a result, Europeans have often called North Africa the Barbary States or simply Barbary. (A frequent usage refers to the non-Phoenician and non-Roman inhabitants of classical times, and their language, as Berber. It should be stressed, however, that the theory of a continuity of language between ancient inhabitants and the modern Berbers has not been proved; consequently, the word Libyan is used here to describe these people in ancient times.)

The countries of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia have also been known as the Atlas Lands, for the Atlas Mountains that dominate their northern landscapes, although each country, especially Algeria, incorporates sizable sections of the Sahara. Farther east in Libya, only the northwestern and northeastern parts of the country, called Tripolitania and Cyrenaica respectively, are outside the desert.

Since antiquity the desert has been the dominant factor in the North African environment, though the region has not always been as dry as it is today. At various times during the past million years there have been periods of abundant precipitation, the last occurring about the 6th millennium bc at the beginning of the Neolithic Period (New Stone Age). A major trade route connecting the Mediterranean with the African world existed along the Ahaggar-Tibesti ridge in the central Sahara, and it is probable that communications existed across the western Sahara also. Nevertheless, the Sahara always constituted a formidable barrier to the movement of technology and peoples. In ancient historical times much of North Africa was evergreen forest or scrub, and the fauna included such animals as elephants, zebras, and ostriches.

The mountains have been of the utmost importance in the historical development of the area. They run generally from east to west, parallel to the Mediterranean coast, with their highest elevations in the AnchorAtlas ranges. They are not continuous but constitute separate blocks, especially in the coastal areas. Although it was in the mountains that precipitation was highest, the forest there was intractable, and early settlements tended to choose the plains and valleys between or south of the mountains. The Mediterranean coast—separated from Europe by only 8 miles (13 km) at the Strait of Gibraltar—is extremely inhospitable for much of its length, offering few natural harbours and still fewer natural lines of communication into the interior. Even the major rivers, such as the AnchorMajardah (Medjerda) and the Chelif, are unnavigable. Only in northeastern Tunisia is the coastline more favourable, and the main movement of culture and conquest has naturally been from there westward.

The coastal strip in the area of Tripoli (Ṭarābulus) in western Libya is an extension of Tunisia’s coastal plain. To the east some 800 miles (1,300 km) of the Surt Desert separates it from AnchorCyrenaica at the eastern end of modern Libya, which thus has had a substantially different history from that of the Maghrib. Settlement there was effectively confined to the Akhḍar Mountains and did not extend more than about 70 miles (110 km) south of the coast. Cyrenaica’s contact with Egypt was limited by an intervening 600 miles (950 km) of semidesert.

The Maghrib provides the paradox of being an area in which various cultures have imposed some measure of uniformity, while political unity has been rare; for this geography is largely responsible. The area of settlement is of vast length but little breadth and has no natural centre from which political uniformity could be imposed; its natural communications have never been easy, and the mountain blocks have been large enough to maintain populations to a greater or lesser degree independent of and hostile to those that controlled the plains.

This article discusses the history of North Africa from prehistoric times until the European colonial period. An overview of the region’s physical and human geography can be found in the article Africa. For discussions of the physical and human geography of individual countries in the region and of their history beginning in the 19th century, see Algeria, Libya, Morocco, and Tunisia. Area 1,838,490 square miles (4,761,667 square km). Pop. (2001 est.) 74,084,000.

Ancient North Africa

Early humans and Stone Age society

Although there is uncertainty about some factors, AnchorAïn el-Hanech (in Algeria) is the site of one of the earliest traces of hominin occupation in the Maghrib. Somewhat later but better-attested are sites at AnchorTernifine (near Tighenif, Algeria) and at AnchorSidi Abd el-Rahmane, Morocco. Hand axes associated with the hominin Homo erectus have been found at Ternifine, and Sidi Abd el-Rahmane has produced evidence of the same hominin dating to at least 200,000 years ago.

Succeeding these early hand ax remains are the AnchorLevalloisian and Mousterian industries similar to those found in the Levant. It is claimed that nowhere did the Middle AnchorPaleolithic (Old Stone Age) evolution of Anchorflake tool techniques reach a higher state of development than in North Africa. Its high point in variety, specialization, and standard of workmanship is named AnchorAterian for the type site Biʾr al-ʿAtir in Tunisia; assemblages of Aterian material occur throughout the Maghrib and the Sahara. Radiocarbon testing from Morocco indicates a date of about 30,000 years ago for early Aterian industry. Its diffusion over the region appears to have taken place during one of the periods of desiccation, and the carriers of the tradition were clearly adept desert hunters. The few associated human remains are Neanderthal, with substantial differences between those found in the west and those in Cyrenaica. In the latter area a date of about 45,000 years ago for the Levalloisian and Mousterian industries has been obtained (at Haua Fteah, Libya). The tools and a fragmentary human fossil of Neanderthal type are almost identical to those of Palestine.

The earliest blade industry of the Maghrib, associated as in Europe with the final supersession of Neanderthals by modern Homo sapiens, is named AnchorIbero-Maurusian or Oranian (type site La Mouilla, near Oran in western Algeria). Of obscure origin, this industry seems to have spread along all the coastal areas of the Maghrib and Cyrenaica between about 15,000 and 10,000 bc. Following the Ibero-Maurusian was the AnchorCapsian, the origin of which is also obscure. Its most characteristic sites are in the area of the great salt lakes of southern Tunisia, the type site being Jabal al-Maqtaʿ (El-Mekta), near Gafsa (Capsa, or Qafṣah). The climate during both Ibero-Maurusian and Capsian times appears to have been relatively dry and the fauna one of open country, ideal for hunting. Between about 9000 and 5000 bc upper Capsian industry spread northward to influence the Ibero-Maurusian and also eastward to the Gulf of Sidra. Since there is much evidence that the AnchorNeolithic culture of the Maghrib was introduced not by invasion but through the acceptance of new ideas and technologies by the Capsian peoples, it is probable that they were the ancestors of the Libyans known in historic times.

The spread of early Neolithic culture in Libya and the Maghrib occurred during the 6th and 5th millennia bc and is characterized by the domestication of animals and the shift from hunting and gathering to self-supporting food production (often still including hunting). The pastoral economy, with cattle the chief animal, remained dominant in North Africa until the classical period. Although the new type of economy may have originated in Egypt or the Sudan, the character of the flint-working tradition of the Maghribian Neolithic argues in favour of the survival of much of the earlier culture, which has been called AnchorNeolithic-of-Capsian tradition. Accordingly, the technology of the transition, if not of independent local origin, is best explained by the gradual diffusion of new techniques rather than by the immigration of new peoples.

The Neolithic-of-Capsian tradition in the Maghrib persisted at least into the 1st millennium bc with relatively little change and development; there was no great flourishing of late Neolithic culture and little that can be described as a Bronze Age. North Africa was wholly lacking in metallic ores other than iron, hence most tools and weapons continued to be made of stone until the introduction of ironworking techniques.

Prehistoric Anchorrock carvings have been found in the southern foothills of the Atlas Mountains south of Oran and in the Ahaggar and Tibesti ranges. While some are relatively recent, the great majority appear to be of the Neolithic-of-Capsian tradition. Some show animals now locally or even totally extinct, such as the giant buffalo, elephant, rhinoceros, and hippopotamus, in areas now covered by desert. While Egyptian-like patterns may be discerned, the character of the rock art is so different from that of Egypt that it can hardly be said to derive from it. On the other hand, it is very much later than the rock paintings of Paleolithic times in southwestern Europe, and an independent development is probable. The art is primarily that of a culture that continued to depend largely—though not exclusively—on hunting and that survived on the Saharan fringes until historical times.

There are many thousands of large, stone-built surface tombs in North Africa that appear to have no connection with earlier megalithic structures found in northern Europe, and it is unlikely that any of them is earlier than the 1st millennium bc. Large structures in Algeria such as the tumulus at AnchorMzora (177 feet [54 metres] in diameter) and the mausoleum known as the Medracen (131 feet [40 metres] in diameter) are probably from the 4th and 3rd centuries bc and show Phoenician influence, though there is much that appears to be purely Libyan.

The Carthaginian period

The Phoenician settlements

North Africa (with the exception of Cyrenaica) entered the mainstream of Mediterranean history with the arrival in the 1st millennium bc of AnchorPhoenician traders, mainly from Tyre and Sidon in modern Lebanon. The Phoenicians were looking not for land to settle but for anchorages and staging points on the trade route from Phoenicia to AnchorSpain, a source of silver and tin. Points on an alternative route by way of Sicily, Sardinia, and the Balearic Islands also were occupied. The Phoenicians lacked the manpower and the need to found large colonies as the Greeks did, and few of their settlements grew to any size. The sites chosen were generally offshore islands or easily defensible promontories with sheltered beaches on which ships could be drawn up. AnchorCarthage (its name derived from the Phoenician Kart-Hadasht, “New City”), destined to be the largest Phoenician colony and in the end an imperial power, conformed to the pattern.

Tradition dates the foundation of Gades (modern AnchorCádiz; the earliest known Phoenician trading post in Spain) to 1110 bc, AnchorUtica (Utique) to 1101 bc, and Carthage to 814 bc. The dates appear legendary, and no Phoenician object earlier than the 8th century bc has yet been found in the west. At Carthage some AnchorGreek objects have been found, datable to about 750 or slightly later, which comes within two generations of the traditional date. Little can be learned from the romantic legends about the arrival of the Phoenicians at Carthage transmitted by Greco-Roman sources. Though individual voyages doubtless took place earlier, the establishment of permanent posts is unlikely to have taken place before 800 bc, antedating the parallel movement of Greeks to Sicily and southern Italy.

Material evidence of Phoenician occupation in the 8th century bc comes from Utica and in the 7th or 6th century bc from AnchorHadrumetum (Sousse, Sūsah in Tunisia), Tipasa (east of Cherchell, Algeria), Siga (Rachgoun, Algeria), Lixus, and Mogador (AnchorEssaouira, Morocco), the last being the most distant Phoenician settlement so far known. Finds of similar age have been made at Motya (Mozia) in Sicily, Nora (Nurri), Sulcis, and Tharros (San Giovanni di Sinis) in Sardinia, and Cádiz and Almuñécar in Spain. Unlike the Greek settlements, however, those of the Phoenicians long depended politically on their homeland, and only a few were situated where the hinterland had the potential for development. The emergence of Carthage as an independent power, leading to the creation of an empire based on the secure possession of the North African coast, resulted less from the weakening of Tyre (the chief city of Phoenicia) by the Babylonians than from growing pressure from the Greeks in the western Mediterranean; in 580 bc some Greek cities in Sicily attempted to drive the Phoenicians from Motya and Panormus (Palermo) in the west of the island. The Carthaginians feared that, if the Greeks won the whole of Sicily, they would move on to Sardinia and beyond, isolating the Phoenicians in North Africa. Their successful defense of Sicily was followed by attempts to strengthen limited footholds in Sardinia; a fortress at Monte Sirai is the oldest Phoenician military building in the west. The threat from the Greeks receded when Carthage, in alliance with Etruscan cities, checked the Phocaeans off Corsica about 540 bc and succeeded in excluding the Greeks from contact with southern Spain.

Carthaginian supremacy

By the 5th century bc active military participation in the west by Tyre had doubtlessly ceased; from the latter half of the 6th century Tyre had been under Persian rule. Carthage thus became the leader of the western Phoenicians and in the 5th century formed an empire of its own, centred on North Africa, which included existing Phoenician settlements, new ones founded by Carthage itself, and a large part of modern Tunisia. Nothing is known of resistance from the indigenous North African populations, but it was probably limited because of the scattered nature of local societies and the lack of state formation. The actual stages of the growth of Carthaginian power are not known, but the process was largely completed by the beginning of the 4th century. The whole of the Sharīk (AnchorCap Bon) Peninsula was occupied early, ensuring Carthage a fertile and secure hinterland. Subsequently it extended its control southwestward as far as a line running roughly from Sicca Veneria (El-Kef) to the coast at Thaenae (Thyna, or Thīnah; now in ruins). Penetration occurred south of this line later, Theveste (Tbessa, Tébessa) being occupied in the 3rd century bc. In the Sharīk Peninsula, where the Carthaginians developed a prosperous agriculture, the native population may have been enslaved, while elsewhere they were obliged to pay tribute and furnish troops.

Carthage maintained an iron grip on the entire coast, from the Gulf of Sidra to the Atlantic coast of Morocco, establishing many new settlements to protect its monopoly of trade. These were mostly small, probably having only a few hundred inhabitants. The Greeks called them emporia, markets where native tribes brought articles to trade, which could also serve as anchorages and watering places. Permanent settlements in modern Libya were few and date to after the attempt by the Greek Dorieus to plant a colony there. Though in time fishing and agriculture played a part in their wealth, AnchorLeptis Magna with its neighbours Sabratha and Oea (AnchorTripoli) became wealthy through trans-Saharan trade; Leptis Magna was the terminus of the shortest route across the Sahara linking the Mediterranean with the Niger River. A Carthaginian named AnchorMago is said to have crossed the desert several times, but doubtless much of the trade (in precious stones and other exotics) came through intermediate tribes. Other stations on the Gulf of Gabes included Zouchis, known for its salted fish and purple dye, Gigthis (Boughrara, or Bū Ghirārah), and Tacape (Gabès, or Qābis). North of Thaenae were Acholla, traditionally an offshoot of the Phoenician settlement on Malta, Thapsus (near Ṭabulbah, Tunisia), Leptis Minor, and Hadrumetum, the largest city on the east coast of Tunisia. From Neapolis (Nābul, or Nabeul) a road ran direct to Carthage across the base of the Sharīk Peninsula.

West of Carthage there have been changes in the course of the Majardah River; as a result, Utica, a port in Carthaginian and Roman times, is now some 7 miles (11 km) from the sea. Utica was second only to Carthage in importance among the Phoenician settlements and always maintained at least a nominal independence. Beyond Cape Sidi Ali el-Mekki (Farina) as far as the Strait of Gibraltar, the coast offered a number of anchorages, but few of the stations reached anything like the prosperity of those on the Gulf of Gabes and the east coast of Tunisia. One of the more important was Hippo Diarrhytus (AnchorBizerte, Banzart), whose natural advantages as a port were utilized at an early date; another Hippo, later called Hippo Regius (Bône; modern AnchorAnnaba, Algeria), was also probably of Carthaginian origin. Along the same stretch of coast were Rusicade (Skikda, or Philippeville) and Collo. Still farther west a number of place-names known from the Roman period show an earlier Phoenician interest, through the incorporation of a Phoenician linguistic element, rus, meaning “cape”—e.g., Rusuccuru (Dellys) and Rusguniae (Borj el-Bahri). Tingis (Tingi, or AnchorTangier, Morocco) was already settled in the 5th century bc.


Ancient sources agree that Carthage had become perhaps the richest city in the world through its trade, yet few traces of its wealth have been discovered by archaeologists. This is because most of it was in perishables—textiles, unworked metal, foodstuffs, and slaves; its trade in manufactured goods was only a part of the whole. There can be no doubt that the most profitable trade was that inherited from the Phoenicians in the western Mediterranean, in which tin, silver, gold, and iron were obtained in exchange for manufactures and consumer goods of small value. Carthage ruthlessly maintained its monopoly of this trade from the late 6th to the end of the 3rd century bc by sinking the vessels of intruders and exacting recognition of its position from other states. Its wealth is attested by the vast mercenary armies it was able to maintain with a mintage of gold coins in the 4th century far in excess of that known for other advanced states.

It was apparently in connection with this Anchortrade that during the 5th century there occurred two voyages of exploration and trade, evidently of particular importance since reports of them were known to later generations of Greeks and Romans. One was along the Atlantic coast of Morocco, the other northward along the Atlantic coast of Spain. They were led by AnchorHanno and AnchorHimilco, respectively, both members of a leading family in Carthage.

Hanno’s voyage is generally associated with Herodotus’s account, written about 430 bc, of Carthaginian trade on the Atlantic coast of Morocco. Herodotus describes a system of dumb barter with the coastal peoples, by which the Carthaginians exchanged manufactured goods for gold. It is not known where the exchanges took place; the Río de Oro is a possibility, and it is probable that Hanno’s expedition went beyond Cape Verde. Nevertheless, the “gold route” did not survive the fall of Carthage and was not exploited by the Romans. This has led some scholars to argue that the Carthaginians’ interest in the Atlantic coast of Morocco was stimulated by the more prosaic attraction of abundant fish stocks there.

Himilco’s voyage also was known to the Greeks and Romans. He sailed north along the Atlantic coast of Spain, Portugal, and France and reached the territory of the Oestrymnides, a tribe living in Brittany. The purpose of this voyage was apparently to consolidate control of the trade in Anchortin along the Atlantic coast of Europe. It followed the route used by the AnchorTartessians, a people of southern Spain (in the area where Cádiz had been founded) who knew of Ireland and Britain. This trade was no doubt the latest phase of contact between the various areas of the Atlantic seaboard that went back to late Neolithic times. There is no evidence that Himilco reached Britain, nor indeed has any Phoenician object ever been found on the island, but probably Cornish tin was obtained through the tribes of Brittany. Tin was also obtained from northwestern Spain. It is notable that the Carthaginian tombs at AnchorCádiz, found at intervals since 1900, have produced nothing earlier than the 5th century bc, which would indicate that it was not until that date that Cádiz became a large and permanent base for the exploitation of trading opportunities in the west.

Trading contacts with the Greek world had been substantial from the earliest period of Phoenician colonization, in spite of the intermittent wars with the Greeks of Sicily. Pottery from Corinth, Athens, Ionia, Rhodes, and other Greek centres has been found at Carthage, Utica, and many other sites, as well as imports from Phoenicia itself and from Egypt. It is known that Selinus, a Greek city in Sicily, grew wealthy from trade with Carthage, probably in foodstuffs, before Carthage enlarged its Sicilian territory. During the 5th century bc imports from the Greek world seem to have declined. One factor that may have inhibited trade was the lack of a Carthaginian coinage before the early 4th century, though most important Greek states had had their own coinages for at least a century before that. Carthaginian merchants, however, did not cease to frequent Greek ports, and a number of them were established at Syracuse in 398. From that date economic contacts with advanced states seem to have revived, especially after the conquests of Alexander the Great in the eastern Mediterranean created a new market for the cheap Carthaginian manufactured goods. The Carthaginian merchant became a familiar figure in such economic centres of the Greek world as Athens and Delos, so much so that there were Greek comedies in which the central figure was the Carthaginian trader.

Wars outside Africa

Except in politically backward or thinly populated areas, Carthage’s foreign policy was nonexpansive. One major departure from this policy was a disaster: in 480 bc Carthage intervened in intercity struggles among the Greeks of Sicily and suffered a heavy defeat at Himera. After a long period of peace, it went in 410 to the aid of Segesta, an ally in Sicily, and turned the war into one of revenge for the earlier defeat. After initial successes, including the destruction of AnchorHimera, a treaty confirmed Carthage’s control of the west of the island. During the 4th century most of the region’s wars were caused by the attempts of various rulers of AnchorSyracuse to drive the Carthaginians out of Sicily; three of these (398–392, 382–375, and 368) were with Dionysius I of Syracuse. Most of the time the eastern limit of Carthaginian power in the island was recognized as the Halycus (Platani) River. The only occasion in which Carthage suffered directly (since its armies were largely mercenary) was in 310, when the ruler of Syracuse, AnchorAgathocles, under heavy pressure in Sicily, launched a daring invasion of Africa, the first experienced by Carthage. Over a period of three years he caused great devastation in Carthaginian territory in eastern Tunisia, but in the end he was defeated.

Treatment of subject peoples

Carthage was accused by its enemies in antiquity of oppressing and exacting excessive tribute from its subjects. There were, however, different categories of subject communities, the most-favoured being the original Phoenician settlements and the colonies of Carthage itself. There is little evidence of opposition among them to Carthaginian control. Similar institutions and laws may be attributed to a common cultural background rather than to an attempt to impose uniformity. Carthage exacted dues on imports and exports and levied troops and probably sailors. Carthaginian subjects of various nationalities in Sicily also received favourable treatment, at least in economic matters. Relatively free trade was allowed until the end of the 5th century bc, and a number of cities had their own coinage. In the 4th century some Sicilian Greek states became subject to Carthage, paying a tribute amounting apparently to one-tenth of their produce. It was the AnchorLibyans of the interior who suffered most, though few were reduced to slavery. During the AnchorFirst Punic War (264–241 bc) Libyans are said to have had to pay half their crops as tribute, and it is supposed that the normal exaction was one-fourth—still a burdensome imposition. They were also required to provide troops, and from the early 4th century they formed the largest single element in the Carthaginian army; it is unlikely that they received pay except in booty before the Punic Wars. The Carthaginians are said to have “admired not those governors who treated their subjects with moderation but those who exacted the greatest amount of supplies and treated the inhabitants most ruthlessly.” This hostile judgment (by the Greek historian Polybius) was made in connection with the Libyans and a destructive revolt—one of a number known—that followed the First Punic War. In that revolt (241–237 bc) mercenaries, unpaid after the Carthaginian defeat in the First Punic War, revolted and for a while controlled much of Carthage’s North African territory. Great atrocities were committed on both sides during the fighting, and the Libyans were among the most fervent of the rebels. They even issued coins on which the name Libyan appears (in Greek), which probably indicates a growing ethnic consciousness. Notwithstanding this relationship, Carthaginian civilization had profound effects on the material culture of the Libyans.

Political and military institutions

Hereditary kingship prevailed in Phoenicia until Hellenistic times, and Greek and Roman sources refer to kingship at Carthage. It appears to have been not hereditary but elective, though in practice one family, the AnchorMagonid, dominated in the 6th century bc. The power of the kingship was diminished during the 5th century, a development that has its parallels in the political evolution of Greek city-states and of Rome. Roman sources directly transcribe only one Carthaginian political term—Anchorsufet, etymologically the same as the Hebrew shofeṭ, generally translated as “judge” in the Old Testament but implying much more than merely judicial functions. At some stage, probably in the 4th century, the sufets became the political leaders of Carthage and other western Phoenician settlements. Two sufets were elected annually by the citizen body, but all were from the wealthy classes. Real power rested with an oligarchy of the wealthiest citizens, who were life members of a council of state and decided all important matters unless there was serious disagreement with the sufets. A panel of judges chosen from among its members had obscure but formidable powers of control over all organs of government.

During the 6th and 5th centuries bc most military commands were held by kings, but later the generalship was apparently dissociated from civil office. Even in the time of the kings, military authority appears to have been conferred upon the kings only for specific campaigns or in emergencies. The generals are said to have been regarded as potential overthrowers of the legal government, but in fact there is no record that any army commander attempted a coup d’état.

Until the 6th century bc the armies of Carthage were apparently citizen levies similar to those of all city-states of the early classical period. But Carthage was too small to provide for the defense of widely scattered settlements, and it turned increasingly to Anchormercenaries, who were under the command of Carthaginians, with citizen contingents appearing only occasionally. Libyans were considered particularly suitable for light infantry and the inhabitants of the later Numidia and Mauretania for light cavalry; Iberians and Celtiberians from Spain were used in both capacities. In the 4th century the Carthaginians also hired Gauls, Campanians, and even Greeks. The disadvantages of mercenary armies were more than outweighed by the fact that Carthage could never have stood the losses incurred in a whole series of wars in Sicily and elsewhere. Little is known about how the Carthaginian fleet was operated; technically, it was not overwhelmingly superior to those of the Greeks, but it was larger and had the benefit of experienced sailors from AnchorCarthage’s maritime settlements.

The city

The AnchorRomans completely destroyed Carthage in 146 bc and a century later built a new city on the site, so that little is known of the physical appearance of the Phoenician city. The ancient artificial harbour—the AnchorCothon—is represented today by two lagoons north of the bay of Al-Karm (El-Kram). In the 3rd century bc it had two parts, the outer rectangular part being for merchant shipping, with the interior, circular division reserved for warships; sheds and quays were available for 220 warships. The harbour’s small size probably means that it was used chiefly in winter when navigation almost ceased. The city walls were of great strength and were 22 miles (35 km) in length; the most vulnerable section, across the isthmus, was more than 40 feet (12 metres) high and 30 feet (9 metres) thick. The citadel on the hill called Byrsa was also fortified. Between Byrsa and the port was the heart of the city: its marketplace, council house, and temples. In appearance it may have been not dissimilar to towns in the eastern Mediterranean or Persian Gulf before the impact of modern civilization, with narrow winding streets and houses up to six stories high. The exterior walls were blank except for a solitary street door, but they enclosed courtyards. A figure of 700,000 for the city population is given by the geographer Strabo, but this probably included the population of the Sharīk Peninsula. A more reasonable figure could be about 400,000, including slaves, a size similar to that of Athens.

Religion and culture

The Carthaginians were notorious in antiquity for the intensity of their religious beliefs, which they retained to the end of their independence and which in turn influenced the religion of the Libyans. The chief deity was AnchorBaal Hammon, the community’s divine lord and protector, who was identified by the Greeks with Cronus and by the Romans with Saturn. During the 5th century bc a goddess named AnchorTanit came to be widely worshiped and represented in art. It is possible that her name is Libyan and that her popularity was connected with land acquisition in the interior, as she is associated with symbols of fertility. These two overshadow other deities such as Melqart, principal deity of Tyre, identified with Heracles, and Eshmoun, identified with Asclepius. AnchorHuman sacrifice was the element in Carthaginian religion most criticized; it persisted in Africa much longer than in Phoenicia, probably into the 3rd century bc. The child victims were sacrificed to Baal (not to Moloch, an interpretation based on a misunderstanding of the texts) and the burned bones buried in urns under stone markers, or stelae. At Carthage thousands of such urns have been found in the Sanctuary of Tanit, and similar burials have been discovered at Hadrumetum, Cirta (Constantine, Algeria), Motya, Caralis (modern Cagliari, Italy), Nora, and Sulcis.  Carthaginian religion appears to have taught that human beings are weak in the face of the overwhelming and capricious power of the gods. The great majority of Carthaginian Anchorpersonal names, unlike those of Greece and Rome, were of religious significance—e.g., Hannibal, “Favoured by Baal,” or Hamilcar, “Favoured by Melqart.”

In comparison with the extent of its power and influence, the artistic and intellectual achievements of Carthage are small. What limited remains of buildings survive—mostly in North Africa and Sardinia—are utilitarian and uninspired. In the decorative arts—pottery, jewelry, metalwork, terra-cotta, and the thousands of carvings on stelae—a similar lack of inspiration may be felt. The influence of Phoenician, Egyptian, and Greek artistic traditions can be observed, but they failed to stimulate as they did, for example, in Etruria. There is no evidence that Greek philosophy and literature made much impact, though certainly many Carthaginians in the city’s later history knew Greek and there were libraries in the city. One written work is known, a treatise on agriculture by a certain Mago, but this may have been based on Hellenistic models. On the whole, the Carthaginians adhered to traditional modes of thought, which no doubt gave them a sense of solidarity amid more numerous and hostile peoples. Their fanatical patriotism enabled them to offer a more prolonged resistance to Rome than any other power. Their influence on North African history was, in the first place, to bring it into the mainstream of the advancing civilization of the Mediterranean world; more particularly, it introduced into North Africa advanced techniques leading to agricultural progress, which implied, in turn, a change by many Libyans from a seminomadic to a stable way of life and the possibilities of urbanization, which were fully realized in the Roman period.

Carthage and Rome

In the 3rd and 2nd centuries bc Carthage was weakened and finally destroyed by Rome in the three Punic Wars. Treaties between Carthage and Rome had been made in 508, 348, and 279, and for a long period the two powers had no conflicting interests. But by the 3rd century Rome dominated all of southern Italy and thus approached the Carthaginian sphere in Sicily. In 264 Rome accepted the submission of Messana (Messina), though this state had previously had a Carthaginian garrison, partly because it had exaggerated fears of a possible Carthaginian threat to Italy and partly because it hoped to gain a foothold in Sicily. For Carthage a Roman presence in Sicily would upset the traditional balance of power on the island. The ensuing AnchorFirst Punic War, which lasted until 241, was highly costly in human life, with losses of tens of thousands being recorded in some naval engagements. Contrary to expectation, the Carthaginian fleet was worsted on several occasions by the newly built Roman navy; on land the Romans failed to drive the Carthaginians out of Sicily, and a Roman invasion of Tunisia ended in catastrophe. Carthage made peace after a final naval defeat off the Aegates (Egadi) Islands, surrendering its hold on Sicily. Sardinia and Corsica fell to Rome in 238.

In response to the defeat, Carthage, under the leadership of AnchorHamilcar Barca and his successors (usually described as the Barcid family), set about establishing a new empire in Spain. The object appears to have been to exploit the mineral wealth directly rather than through intermediaries and to mobilize the manpower of much of Spain into an army that could match that of Rome. Hamilcar and his son-in-law Hasdrubal built up an army of more than 50,000 Spanish infantry and occupied half of the Iberian Peninsula. Finally, in 219, AnchorHannibal, Hamilcar’s son, ignored Roman threats designed to prevent the consolidation or extension of the new empire. His invasion of Italy and the crushing defeats he inflicted on the Romans at Lake Trasimene (217) and the Battle of Cannae (216) were the gravest danger Rome had ever faced. The majority of Rome’s allies and subjects in Italy remained loyal, however, and Hannibal found it increasingly difficult to get supplies and reinforcements. After clearing Spain of the Carthaginians (209–206), AnchorScipio Africanus the Elder landed near Utica in 204 with a Roman army. In 203 Hannibal was recalled from Italy, but he was defeated by Scipio at the AnchorBattle of Zama (in the vicinity of present-day Sakiet Siddi Youssef, Tunisia) in 202. Carthage made peace soon afterward, surrendering its fleet, its overseas possessions, and some of its African territory, thus bringing an end to the Second Punic War (218–201). During the next 50 years it retained some measure of prosperity, although frequently under pressure from the Numidians under King Masinissa. From 155 irrational fears of a Carthaginian revival were stimulated at Rome by AnchorCato the Elder, and in 149, on flimsy pretexts, the Carthaginians were forced to choose between evacuating their city and settling inland or a doomed resistance. They chose the latter, and, after a three-year siege, termed the Third Punic War (149–146), the city was destroyed and its site ceremonially cursed by Scipio Africanus the Younger.

The Greeks in Cyrenaica

The natural contacts of Cyrenaica were northward with AnchorCrete and the Aegean world. In the late 12th century bc Sea Peoples landing in Cyrenaica armed the Libyans and with them attempted unsuccessfully an invasion of Egypt. Cyrenaica’s coast was visited by Cretan fishermen in the 7th century, and the Greeks became aware that it was the only area in North Africa still available for colonization. Severe overpopulation on the small Cyclades island of Thera (Thíra Santorini) led to AnchorCyrene being founded (c. 630) on a site within easy reach of the sea, well watered, and in the fertile foothills of the Akhḍar Mountains. The founder’s name was, or was changed to, AnchorBattus, a Libyan word meaning king. For some time friendly relations existed with the local peoples, and there was more intermarriage between Greek men and non-Greek women than was usual in Greek colonies. Later, when more colonists were attracted by Cyrene’s increasing prosperity, hostilities broke out in which the settlers were successful. Cyrene also repulsed an invasion by the Egyptians (570) but in 525 submitted to Persia. Meanwhile, Cyrene had established other Greek cities in the area of modern Libya—Barce (Al-Marj), Taucheira (Al-ʿAqūriyyah), and Euhesperides (Banghāzī), all of which were independent of their founding city. During the 6th century Cyrene rivaled the majority of other Greek cities in its wealth, manifested in part by substantial temple building. Prosperity was based on grain, fruit, horses, and, above all, a medicinal plant called silphium (apparently an extinct species of the genus Ferula).

The dynasty of AnchorBattus ended about 440 bc with the establishment of a democratic constitution like that of Athens, and the general prosperity of Cyrenaica continued through the 4th century in spite of some political troubles. Cyrenaica submitted to Alexander the Great in the late 4th century and subsequently became subject to the Ptolemies of Egypt. The cities, nevertheless, enjoyed a good deal of freedom in running their own affairs. The constitution of Cyrene elaborated a fairly liberal oligarchy, with a citizen body of 10,000 and two councils. During the 3rd century a federal constitution for all the Cyrenaican cities was introduced. AnchorApollonia, the port of Cyrene, became a city in its own right; Euhesperides was refounded as AnchorBerenice, and a new city, AnchorPtolemais (Ṭulmaythah), was founded, while Barce declined; the term AnchorPentapolis came to be used for the five cities Apollonia, Cyrene, Ptolemais, Taucheira, and Berenice. In 96 bc Ptolemy Apion bequeathed Cyrenaica to Rome, which annexed the royal estates but left the cities free. Disorders led Rome to create a regular province out of Cyrenaica in 74 bc, to which Crete was added seven years later. After the Roman general Mark Antony temporarily granted the province to his daughter (by the Egyptian queen Cleopatra) AnchorCleopatra Selene, the emperor Augustus reestablished it, together with Crete, as a senatorial province.

The rise and decline of native kingdoms

Between the destruction of Carthage and the establishment of effective Roman control over the Maghrib, there was a brief period in which native kingdoms flourished. Amid the shifting tribal nomenclature used in the sources of various periods, two main groups of relatively sedentary tribes may be distinguished: the AnchorMauri, living between the Atlantic Ocean and the Moulouya or perhaps the Chelif River, who gave their name to Mauretania; and the Numidae, for whom AnchorNumidia was named, in the area to the west of that formerly controlled by Carthage. A third group, the AnchorGaetuli, was a largely nomadic people of the desert and its fringe. The various tribes first emerge into history in the late 3rd century bc, after a period of social evolution resulting from contact with Carthaginian civilization. This is difficult to trace, as Carthaginian products were scarce in the interior of the Maghrib before the 2nd century bc, but the large Anchortumuli at Mzora, Sīdī Sulaymān, Souk el-Gour, and the Medracen, apparently royal tombs of the 4th and 3rd centuries bc, testify to a developing economy and society. No doubt service in the Carthaginian mercenary armies was a major stimulus to change.

This was most noticeable in Numidia and reached a high point under AnchorMasinissa. The son of a chief of the Massyli, a tribe dominating the area between Carthaginian territory and the Ampsaga River (Wadi al-Kabīr), he had been brought up at Carthage and was 20 years old at the outbreak of the Second Punic War. At first his tribe was at variance with Carthage, but in 213 bc it became reconciled when its powerful western neighbours, the Masaesyli, under Syphax, deserted Carthage. From 213 to 207 bc Masinissa commanded Numidian cavalry in Spain for the Carthaginians against Rome. On Rome’s victory at the Battle of Ilipa in 206, he returned to Africa where Syphax, now reconciled with Carthage, had occupied some of his tribal territory, including Cirta, and his own claims to succession to the chieftainship were disputed. When the Romans landed in Africa in 204, Masinissa rendered them invaluable assistance. Recognized by the Romans as king, he annexed the eastern part of Syphax’s kingdom and reigned with success until 148 bc. The Greek geographer Strabo said that he “turned the nomads into a nation of farmers.” This is exaggerated, since cereal culture had long been established in parts of Numidia, yet there is no doubt that the area of grain production was much enlarged. This was achieved by deliberately encouraging Carthaginian civilization. Along with new techniques, Carthaginian language, religion, and art penetrated rapidly inland, and Masinissa’s capital, Cirta, took on the aspects of a Carthaginian city; incipient urbanization of a number of Libyan villages is also possible. Masinissa issued copper, bronze, and lead coinage for local use, as did some of the Carthaginian coastal towns under his rule.

On Masinissa’s death in 148, his kingdom was divided among his three sons, possibly on the insistence of the Romans, who did not, however, prevent it from reunifying under AnchorMicipsa (148–118 bc). The progress begun under Masinissa continued as refugees from the destruction of Carthage fled to Numidia. Meanwhile, the Romans had formed a province in the area of Tunisia northeast of a line from Thabraca (Tabarka) to Thaenae but showed little interest in exploiting its wealth. The attempt by the Roman reformer Gaius Gracchus in 122 bc to found a colony on the site of Carthage failed, though individual colonists who had taken up allotments remained. When Micipsa died, another division of Numidia among three rulers took place, in which AnchorJugurtha (118–105) emerged supreme. He might have been recognized by Rome, but he provoked war when he killed some Italian merchants who were helping a rival defend Cirta. After some successes caused by the incompetence of Roman generals, Jugurtha was surrendered by AnchorBocchus I, king of Mauretania. The kingdom was again reconstituted under other descendants of Masinissa. The boundaries of the Roman province were slightly enlarged in the area of the upper Majardah valley, where veterans of the army of Gaius Marius received lands. During the next 50 years individual Roman settlers and merchants continued to immigrate to the region, but there was no deliberate attempt to establish a state. The last relatively formidable king of Numidia was AnchorJuba I (c. 60–46 bc), who supported the Pompeian side in the Roman civil war between Pompey the Great and AnchorJulius Caesar. The kingdom fell in 46 bc at the AnchorBattle of Thapsus. A new province, AnchorAfrica Nova, was formed from the most developed part of the old Numidian kingdom east of the Ampsaga; it was subsequently (before 27 bc) amalgamated with the original province of Africa by AnchorAugustus. In 33 bc Bocchus II of Mauretania died, bequeathing his kingdom to Rome, but Augustus was unwilling to accept responsibility for so large and relatively backward an area. In 25 bc he installed AnchorJuba II, son of Juba I, as king; he ruled until his death about ad 24. He was married to AnchorCleopatra Selene, and under them AnchorIol, renamed Caesarea (Cherchell), and also AnchorVolubilis, near Fez (Fès, Morocco), a secondary capital of the rulers of Mauretania, became centres of late Hellenistic culture. Juba himself was a prolific writer in Greek on a number of subjects, including history and geography. His son Ptolemy succeeded as king but, for reasons unknown today, was executed by the Roman emperor Caligula in ad 40. A brief revolt followed but was easily suppressed, and the kingdom was divided into two provinces, AnchorMauretania Caesariensis, with its capital at Caesarea, and AnchorMauretania Tingitana, with its capital at Tingis (Tangier, Morocco).

Roman North AnchorAfrica

Administration and defense

Roman Africa in the 3rd century ad. [Credit: Adapted from J.D. Fage, An Atlas of African History (1966); Edward Arnold Publishers]For more than a century from its acquisition in 146 bc, the small Roman province of Africa (roughly corresponding to modern Tunisia) was governed from Utica by a minor Roman official, but changes were made by the emperor Augustus, reflecting the growing importance of the area. The governor was thenceforward a proconsul residing at Carthage, after it was refounded by Augustus as a Roman colony, and he was responsible for the whole territory from the Ampsaga River in the west to the border of Cyrenaica. The proconsul also commanded the army of Africa and was one of the few provincial governors in command of an army and yet formally responsible to the Senate rather than to the emperor. This anomaly was removed in ad 39 when Caligula entrusted the army to a Anchorlegatus Augusti of praetorian rank. Although the province was not formally divided until 196, the army commander was de facto in charge of the area later known as the province of Numidia and also of the military area in southern Tunisia and along the Libyan Desert. The proconsulship was normally held for only one year; like the proconsulship of Asia, it was reserved for former consuls and ranked high in the administrative hierarchy. In the 1st century ad it was held by several men who subsequently became emperor—e.g., Galba and Vespasian. The commanders of the army normally held the post for two or three years, and in the 1st and 2nd centuries it was an important stage in the career of a number of successful generals. The two Mauretanian provinces were governed by men of equestrian rank who also commanded the substantial numbers of auxiliary troops in their areas. In times of emergency the two provinces were often united under a single authority.

Tribes on the fringe of the desert and beyond constituted more of a nuisance than a threat as the area of urban and semiurban settlement gradually approached the limit of cultivable land. A number of minor conflicts with Anchornomadic tribes are recorded in the 1st century, the most serious of which was the revolt of Tacfarinas in southern Tunisia, suppressed in ad 23. As the area of settlement extended westward as well as to the south, so the headquarters of the legion moved also: from Ammaedara (Haïdra, Tunisia) to Theveste under Vespasian, thence to Lambaesis (Tazoult-Lambese, Algeria) under AnchorTrajan. Tribal lands were reduced and delimited, which compelled the adoption of sedentary life, and the tribes were placed under the supervision of Roman “prefects.” A southern frontier was finally achieved under Trajan with the encirclement of the Aurès and Nemencha mountains and the creation of a line of forts from Vescera (Biskra, Algeria) to Ad Majores (Besseriani, Tunisia). The mountains were penetrated during the next generation but were never developed or Romanized. During the 2nd century stretches of continuous wall and ditch—the fossatum Africae—in some areas provided further control over movement and also marked the division between the settled and nomadic ways of life. To the southwest of the Aurès a fortified zone completed the frontier defensive system, or limes, which extended for a while as far as Castellum Dimmidi (Messad), the most southerly fort in Roman Algeria yet identified. South of Leptis Magna in Libya, forts on the trans-Saharan route ultimately reached as far as Cydamus (Ghadāmis).

In the Mauretanias the problem was more difficult because of the rugged nature of the country and the distances involved. The encirclement of mountainous areas, a policy followed in the Aurès, was again pursued in the Kabylia ranges and the Ouarsenis (in what is now northern Algeria). The area round Sitifis (AnchorSétif) was successfully settled and developed in the 2nd century, but farther west the impact of Rome was for long limited to coastal towns and the main military Anchorroads. The most important of these roads ran from Zarai (Zraïa) to Auzia (Sour el-Ghozlane) and then to the valley of the Chelif River. Subsequently the frontier ran south of the Ouarsenis as far as Pomaria (AnchorTlemcen). West of this area it is doubtful whether a permanent road connected the two Mauretanias, sea communication being the rule. In Tingitana, Roman control extended as far as a line roughly from Meknès to Rabat, Morocco, including Volubilis. Evidence attests to periodic discussions between Roman governors and local chieftains outside Roman control, suggesting peaceful relations. However, the tribes of the AnchorRif Mountains must have lived in virtual independence, and they were probably responsible for a number of wars recorded in Mauretania under Domitian, Trajan, Antonius Pius (which lasted six years), and others in the 3rd century. They did little or no damage to the urbanized areas and never necessitated a permanent increase in the African garrison. The defense of the North African provinces was far less a problem than that of those on the northern periphery of the empire. For Numidia and the military district in the south of Tunisia and Libya, about 13,000 men sufficed; the Mauretanias had auxiliary units only, totaling some 15,000. This may be contrasted with the position in Britain, where three legions and auxiliaries (all told, some 50,000 men) were required. From the mid-2nd century ad the African garrison was largely recruited locally.

The growth of urban life

The most notable feature of the Roman period in North Africa was the development of a flourishing urban civilization in Tunisia, northern Algeria, and some parts of Morocco. This was possible because nomadic and pastoral movements were controlled, which opened large areas of thinly settled but potentially rich land to consistent exploitation. Also there was the incipient urbanization of some parts, owing to the Carthaginians and the ambitions of Libyan rulers such as Masinissa. In addition, Italian immigrants were settling in Africa; though relatively few in comparison with the population as a whole, they provided the impetus to expand. AnchorJulius Caesar settled many veterans in colonies, mostly coastal towns, and, equally important, established a military adventurer named AnchorPublius Sittius along with many Italians at Cirta, beginning the Romanization of Numidia. Caesar also planned to refound Carthage, and this was effected by Augustus. The number of his original settlers was 3,000, but the colony grew remarkably quickly because of its geographic position favourable for contact with Rome and Italy. A number of other colonies were founded in the interior of Tunisia and at widely separated places on the Mauretanian coasts. In addition, private individuals from Italy immigrated at that time. Veterans founded colonies in Mauretania under the emperor Claudius, including Tingis, Caesarea, and Tipasa. Cuicul (Djemila, Algeria) and Sitifis were founded by Nerva, and Thamugadi and a number of places nearby, in the area north of the Aurès, were founded by Trajan. The army was a potent vehicle in the spread of Roman civilization and played a major part in urbanizing the frontier regions. On limited evidence it has been suggested that a total of some 80,000 immigrants came to the Maghrib from Rome and Italy in this period.

Though at first inferior to the Roman towns, native communities enjoyed the local autonomy that was the hallmark of Roman administration. Between 400 and 500 such communities were recognized, the majority of them villages or small tribal factions. Many, however, advanced in wealth and standing to rival the Roman colonies, acquiring the grant of Roman citizenship, which put the seal of imperial approval on the prosperity, stability, and cultural evolution of developing communities. Naturally, the earliest to show signs of increasing prosperity were the surviving Carthaginian settlements on the coast and places—particularly in the Majardah valley—where the Libyan population had been much influenced by Carthaginian culture and which now also had Italian immigrants. Leptis Magna and AnchorHadrumetum received Roman citizenship and the status of a colony from Trajan, and Thubursicu Numidarum (Khemissa) and Calama (Guelma) in modern Algeria probably the rank of municipality. But it was under AnchorHadrian, the first emperor to visit Africa, that the flood tide of such grants occurred; Utica, Bulla Regia (near Jendouba, Tunisia), Lares (Lorbeus, Tunisia), Thaenae, and Zama achieved colonial rank, and the process continued throughout the 2nd century. Finally, AnchorSeptimius Severus, who originated from a wealthy family of Leptis Magna and was of largely mixed descent, became emperor in ad 193 and greatly favoured his native land.

In the Maghrib, Roman rule was not superimposed on established civic aristocracies, as in the Hellenized provinces of Asia Minor, nor on strongly based tribal aristocracies, as in Celtic Gaul. Roman administration and the development of urban society in general depended, apart from immigrants, on the local leadership of small clan and tribal units and on the activity of individuals. In the 1st century ad there were a few large estates owned by absentee Roman senators, most of which were subsequently absorbed into the extensive imperial estate in Africa. The later pattern was of landowning on a more moderate—though still substantial—scale by residents, both immigrant and indigenous. Many landowners made their homes in the towns and formed a local municipal leadership. Small independent landowners also existed, but the great majority of the inhabitants were tenant farmers (coloni). A significant portion of these farmers worked on a sharecropping basis and had labour obligations to their landlords. The number of slave workers was probably smaller than in Italy.

Many of the wealthier Africans entered the imperial administration. The first African consul held office in the reign of Vespasian; at the beginning of the 3rd century, men of African origin held one-sixth of all the posts in the equestrian grade of the administration and also constituted the largest group of provincials in the Senate. It is uncertain what proportion were of native Libyan or mixed origin, but in the 2nd century they were certainly the majority.

During the 2nd and early 3rd centuries the wealthy classes in the towns spent vast sums on their communities in gifts of public buildings such as theatres, baths, and temples, as well as statues, public feasts, and distributions of money. This was a general phenomenon throughout the Roman Empire, as members of local elites competed for fame and prestige among their fellow citizens, but it is particularly well attested in Africa.


The density of the towns in no way implies that trade or industry were predominant; all but a few were residences of both landowners and peasants, and their prosperity depended on agriculture. By the 1st century ad African exports of Anchorgrain provided two-thirds of the needs of the city of Rome. Some of this, for distribution by the emperors to the urban proletariat, came from the imperial estates and from taxes, but much went to the open market. Annual grain production in Roman Africa has been estimated at more than a million tons, of which one-fourth was exported. Areas of grain production were the Sharīk Peninsula, the Miliana and Majardah valleys, and tracts of relatively level land north of a line from Sitifis to Madauros (M’Daourouch, Algeria). Cereal crops were the most important in these areas, but fruits, such as figs and grapes, and beans also were produced.

The production of olive oil became almost as important as cereals by the 2nd century ad, particularly in southern Tunisia and along the northern slopes of the Aurès and Bou Taleb mountains in Algeria. By the 4th century Africa exported oil to all parts of the empire. Successful cultivation of olives demanded careful management of available water, and the archaeological evidence indicates that much attention was paid to irrigation in the Roman period.

AnchorLivestock was an important part of the economy of Roman Africa, though direct evidence is slight. African horses were used in racing and no doubt also in the Roman cavalry. Cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, and mules were also raised. Africa was the major source of the wild animals for shows in Rome and other major cities of the empire—in particular leopards, lions, elephants, and monkeys. Fishing, which had been developed along the coast as far as the Atlantic in the Carthaginian period, continued to flourish. Timber, from the forests along part of the north coast, and marble, the most important North African source of which was Simitthu (Shimṭū, Tunisia), were also exported.

There were no large-scale industries, even by ancient standards, in North Africa, except pottery. By the 4th century production of amphorae, necessitated by the oil trade, was substantial, and these and other locally produced wares were traded throughout the Mediterranean. Mosaic pavements were extremely popular among the wealthy throughout North Africa, and more than 2,000 have been discovered, with enormous variations in quality. The majority were made by local craftsmen, though some of the designs originated elsewhere. It is also clear that the building trades were major employers of both skilled and unskilled labour.

Prosperity undoubtedly led to a rise in the population of the Maghrib in the first two centuries ad; in the absence of reliable statistics, population estimates have varied from four to eight million (the latter being also the population about the beginning of the 20th century). One study proposed about 6.5 million, of whom about 2.5 million were in present Tunisia. Some two-fifths of the latter (perhaps more) lived in the towns. Of these Carthage was in a class of its own, having at least 250,000 people. The next largest was Leptis Magna (80,000), followed by Hadrumetum, Thysdrus (El-Djem, Tunisia), Hippo Regius, and Cirta, with 20,000 to 30,000 each. Many towns in close proximity to each other, especially in the Majardah valley, averaged between 5,000 and 10,000.

The Anchorroad system in Roman Africa was the most complete of any western province; a total of some 12,500 miles (20,000 km) has been supposed. Most roads were military in origin but were open to commerce, and a number of minor roads linking towns off the main routes were built by the local communities. The main arteries were from Carthage to Theveste, Carthage to Cirta through Sicca Veneria, Theveste to Tacapae through Capsa, Theveste to Lambaesis, Cirta to Sitifis, Cirta to Rusicade, and Cirta to Hippo Regius. Carthage handled by far the greatest volume of overseas official traffic and trade, being the natural port for the wealthiest area of North Africa. Nevertheless, most of the ports originally founded by Phoenicians and Carthaginians expanded during the Roman period; in view of the high costs of land transport, it was natural that agricultural products would go to the nearest port for shipment.

Later Roman Empire

The whole Roman Empire underwent a military and political crisis between the death of Severus Alexander (ad 235) and the accession of Diocletian (284), resulting from serious attacks from outside on the empire’s northern and eastern frontiers and from a series of coups d’état and civil wars. Africa suffered less than most parts of the empire, though there was an unsuccessful revolt by landowners in 238 against the fiscal policies of the emperor Maximinus, which ended in widespread pillage. There were tribal revolts in the Mauretanian mountains in 253–254, 260, and 288, and the situation finally brought a visit from the emperor Maximian in 297–298. The revolts had little effect on the urbanized areas, but the towns were injured by economic difficulties and inflation, and building activity almost ceased. Confidence returned at the end of the 3rd century under AnchorDiocletian, AnchorConstantine, and later emperors. Administrative changes introduced at this time included the division of the province of Africa into three separate provinces: AnchorTripolitania (capital AnchorLeptis Magna), covering the western part of Libya; AnchorByzacena, covering southern Tunisia and governed from Hadrumetum; and the northern part of Tunisia, which retained the name Africa and its capital, Carthage. In addition, the eastern part of Mauretania Caesariensis became a separate province (capital Sitifis). In the far west the Romans gave up much of Mauretania Tingitana, including the important town of Volubilis, apparently because of pressure from the tribe of the Baquates. In the general reorganization of the Roman army by Diocletian and Constantine, the field army (Anchorcomitatenses) in Africa, numbering on paper some 21,000 men, was put under a new commander, the Anchorcomes Africae, independent of the provincial governors. Only the governors of Tripolitania and of Mauretania Caesariensis also had troops at their disposal, but these were second-line soldiers, or Anchorlimitanei. The whole frontier region along the desert and mountain fringes was divided into sectors and garrisoned by limitanei. These were locally recruited and closely identified with the farming population of their areas. The Tripolitanian plateau, which was increasingly exposed to attacks by the nomadic Austuriani, is notable for having a large number of fortified farms.

Africa, like the rest of the empire, experienced the economic difficulties and governmental pressures that were a feature of the later Roman Empire. The power of the landowners increased at the expense of their tenants and of smaller farmers, both of whom the imperial government sought to bind to the soil in a state of quasi-serfdom. In the cities the tasks of local government that had earlier been eagerly undertaken by the wealthy became burdensome, and again the imperial government sought to make them compulsory and hereditary, while the councillors themselves sought by any means to enter the imperial administration or professions that provided immunity. The process is well attested in Africa. Nevertheless, the view that urban life generally declined throughout the empire during the 4th century must be modified, especially in the case of Africa, where the cities and towns withstood the pressures better than elsewhere and where some towns—Thamugadi, for example—seem to have increased in population. Thamugadi grew doubtlessly because it was relatively immune from damage in civil and external wars and had a solid base of agricultural prosperity.

Christianity and the Donatist controversy

Christianity grew much more rapidly in Africa than in any other western province. It was firmly established in Carthage and other Tunisian towns by the 3rd century and had produced its own local martyrs and an outstanding apologist in AnchorTertullian (c. 160–240). During the next 50 years it expanded remarkably; more than 80 bishops attended a council at Carthage in 256, some from the distant frontier regions of Numidia. AnchorCyprian, the bishop of Carthage from 248 until his martyrdom in 258, was another figure whose writing, like that of Tertullian, was of lasting influence on Latin Christianity. During the next half-century it spread extensively in Numidia (there were at least 70 bishops in 312). The reasons for its exceptionally rapid growth are disputed. In northern Tunisia urban communities provided a social and economic environment similar to that in which Christianity had first spread in Anatolia and Syria, and much the same can be said about smaller communities in which early Christianity can be identified. It has been held that the intermingling of religious currents of Libyan, Carthaginian, and Roman origin tended toward monotheism, but—even if this were true, which is debatable—pagan monotheism was not a necessary stage toward the adoption of Christianity for more than a few. It does, however, appear that African Christianity always included a vigorous and fanatical element that must have had its effect in spreading the new religion, even though there is little evidence of positive missionary efforts.

AnchorChristians were still a minority at the end of the 3rd century in all levels of society, but they were in a good position to benefit from AnchorConstantine’s adoption of the religion and his grants of various privileges to the clergy. At that time (313) a division occurred among the African Christians that lasted more than a century. Some Numidian bishops objected to the choice of AnchorCaecilian as the new bishop of Carthage, alleging that his ordination had been performed by a bishop who had weakened during Diocletian’s persecution of the church and hence was invalid. They consecrated a rival bishop and, when he died, consecrated another named AnchorDonatus, who gave his name to the ensuing Anchorschism. The churches in numerous communities, especially in Numidia, followed Donatus from the start and claimed that they alone constituted the true church of the martyrs, who were objects of particularly enthusiastic veneration among African Christians. Among Christians outside Africa, however, Caecilian was universally recognized as the bishop of Carthage, and the emperor Constantine, when the Donatists appealed to him, followed the decisions of non-African church councils, recognizing Caecilian and his followers as the true church and hence as recipients of imperial favour. Some Donatists were killed when their churches were confiscated, the victims being honoured as martyrs, but in 321 Constantine rejected further pressure, and the Donatists continued to increase rapidly in numbers. For the rest of the century, they probably made up half the Christians in North Africa. They were strongest in Numidia and Mauretania Sitifensis, and the antischismatics predominated in the proconsular province of Africa; the position in the Mauretanias was more even, but Christianity did not spread rapidly there until the 5th century. In 347 the emperor Constans exiled a number of Donatist bishops and took repressive measures against the Anchorcircumcelliones, seasonal farm workers who were particularly enthusiastic Donatists. But in 362 AnchorJulian the Apostate allowed the exiles to return. These were welcomed with enthusiasm, and the movement proved as strong as ever. Some Donatists appear to have been associated with the revolt of a Mauretanian chieftain, AnchorFirmus, and in 377 the first of a series of general laws proscribing Donatism was issued. Nevertheless, these laws were enforced only sporadically, partly because provincial governors and many local magistrates were still pagan and, at a time of growing weakness in the imperial government, were inclined to ignore instructions they found unwelcome. Donatism was further supported by Gildo, brother of Firmus and comes Africae (387–397). Then AnchorAugustine of Hippo Regius applied his enormous powers of leadership and persuasion to stimulate resolute action, evolving at the same time a theory of the right of orthodox Christian rulers to use force against schismatics and heretics. In 411 an imperial commission summoned a conference at Carthage to establish religious unity. The Donatists had to obey, though the decision against them was a foregone conclusion. The laws that followed their condemnation were more generally enforced and, though there was some resistance (some communities still existed in the 6th century), broke the schism as a powerful movement.

Much controversy surrounds the interpretation of Donatism’s significance. An important view considers it in some sense a national or social movement. It is said to have been particularly associated with the rural population of less Romanized areas and with the poorer classes in the towns, whereas orthodox Christianity was the religion of the Romanized upper classes. The imperial government being identified with these Christians would have intensified the strength of the movement, and the circumcelliones’ violence, moreover, could be considered a form of incipient peasant revolt. Thus the movement is claimed as analogous to AnchorMonophysitism in Egypt and Syria, which produced a vernacular literature and a passive rejection of Greco-Roman culture. The hostility of the Donatists to the existing society was typified by Donatus’s remark: “What has the emperor to do with the church?” Against this view it may be said that Donatism in the non-Romanized tribal areas was certainly weak, and the relationship of the sect with Firmus and Gildo was of little importance. In Numidia it was at least as strong in the towns as in the rural areas, and in any case the distinction between the two can be exaggerated. The entire controversy was conducted in Latin, and no vernacular literature was produced; in fact, until the time of Augustine, most of the educated class, of the same social background as Augustine himself and fully imbued with Roman tradition, were Donatists if they were not pagan. It was the reluctance of the landowners to have their peasants disturbed, and the negligence of many provincial governors (both attacked by Augustine), that long protected the Donatists. Lastly, in spite of the remark attributed to Donatus, there is no evidence that the movement attacked the imperial system as a whole, as opposed to individual emperors and officials, and it made full use of its many opportunities to defend itself at law both against the other Christians and against divisions in its own ranks.

Nevertheless, although it is difficult to sustain the view that Donatism, especially in Numidia, represented in some way a resurgence of local pre-Roman culture or the speculative, though intriguing, notion that something similar led to the emergence of heretical movements of Islam in the same areas, Donatism certainly appealed to deep-seated traditions of African Christianity. Its fanatical devotion to the memory of martyrs, its doctrinal conservatism, and its total refusal to compromise on its claim to be the true church while its opponents were contaminated by the stain of weakness in the persecutions were fully in line with the heroic days of Tertullian and Cyprian.

Extent of Romanization

The question of whether Roman civilization in the Maghrib was a superficial phenomenon affecting only a small minority of the population who were economically successful, or whether it had profound effects on the majority, is similarly disputed. A priori the former view may be supported by the fact that, whereas Gaul and Spain emerged from the Dark Ages with a language and religion derived from their Roman past, in the Maghrib both disappeared, arguably because they were superficial. It is not disputed that in the mountainous areas, such as the Aurès, Kabylia, and Atlas, native Libyan language and culture continued little affected by Roman civilization, though the majority appear to have been Christian by the 7th century; nor that Libyan and Carthaginian traditions survived in other areas and affected the modes of acceptance of Roman civilization. As regards language, the late form of Phoenician known as AnchorNeo-Punic was still spoken fairly widely in the 4th century—for example, in the hills near Hippo Regius. Inscriptions in the Anchorlanguage and script occurred often at the beginning of the Roman period but were very rare after the end of the 1st century ad. An exception may be in Tripolitania, where a form of Neo-Punic was inscribed in Latin script perhaps as late as the 4th century. There was also a Libyan script known solely from funerary stelae and akin to the script of the present Tuareg; it was known in some form over much of the Maghrib but may not have been used later than the 3rd century. On the other hand, there is no evidence that these languages were ever literary languages, and the inscriptions are negligible in number compared with those in Latin. It may also be observed that the areas in which Libyan inscriptions occur do not correspond with the later areas of Berber (Amazigh) dialects. The AnchorLatin language unquestionably became general through the whole Maghrib, though to a limited extent in the mountains; it is impossible to define any precise social level at which it was unknown. There is a good deal to be said for the view that Christianity, whether Orthodox or Donatist, furthered the use of Latin among elements which up to that time had perhaps still not used it.

The Vandal conquest

The effect of the Donatist controversy on the economy and administration of the African provinces cannot be measured but was certainly profound. At the very moment of the effective victory of the African church, the rest of the Roman Empire was crumbling to ruin. In 406 the Rhine was crossed by AnchorVandals, Alani, Suebi, and others who overran most of Gaul and Spain within the next few years. In 408 Alaric and the Visigoths invaded Italy and in 410 sacked Rome. Although the empire in the west survived for some time longer, the emperors were increasingly at the mercy of their barbarian generals. Meanwhile large tracts of imperial territory were lost as invading tribes settled them. Africa escaped for a while, though only death prevented Alaric from leading the Goths across the Mediterranean. Retaining Africa became ever more vital to the survival of what was left of imperial authority. In this situation the Anchorcomites Africae were increasingly tempted to intrigue for their own advantage. One of them, AnchorBonifacius, is said to have invited the Vandals, who at the time were occupying Andalusia, to his aid, but it is more likely that the Vandals were attracted to Africa by its wealth and needed no such formal excuse. Led by their king AnchorGaiseric, the whole people, 80,000 in all, crossed into Africa in 429 and in the next year advanced with little opposition to Hippo Regius, which they took after a siege during which Augustine died. After defeating the imperial forces near Calama, they overran most of the country, though not all the fortified cities. An agreement made in 435 allotted Numidia and Mauretania Sitifensis to the Vandals, but in 439 Gaiseric took and pillaged Carthage and the rest of the province of Africa. A further treaty with the imperial government (442) established the Vandals in Africa Proconsularis, Byzacena, Tripolitania, and Numidia as far west as Cirta.

Although the Vandals were probably no more deliberately destructive than other Germanic invaders (the notion of “vandalism” stems from the 18th century), their establishment had strong adverse effects. The imperial authorities had to reduce the taxes of the Mauretanias by seven-eighths after they were devastated. Over much of northern Tunisia, landowners were expelled and their properties handed over to Vandals. Although the agricultural system remained based on the peasants, the expulsions had a serious effect on the towns with which the landowners had been connected. The Vandals, like other invading tribes except the Franks, were divided from their subjects by their AnchorArianism. Although their persecution of Latin Christians was exaggerated by the latter, Vandal kings certainly exercised more pressure than others. This was no doubt in response to the vigour of African Christianity, which kept the loyalty even of those who had little to lose by the substitution of a Vandal for a Roman landlord.

Gaiseric was perhaps the most perceptive barbarian king of the 5th century in realizing the total weakness of the empire. He rejected the policy of formal alliance with it and from 455 used his large merchant fleet to dominate the western Mediterranean. Rome was sacked, the Balearic Islands, Corsica, Sardinia, and part of Sicily were occupied, and the coasts of Dalmatia and Greece were plundered. Although trade continued, Gaiseric’s actions accelerated the breakup of the economic unity of the western Mediterranean, which already was being threatened by the creation of the other barbarian kingdoms. Gaiseric’s successors were less formidable: AnchorHuneric (477–484) launched a general persecution of the Latin church, apparently from genuine religious fanaticism rather than for political reasons, but his successor adopted a milder policy. Later, under AnchorThrasamund (496–523), there is evidence that many Vandals adopted Roman culture, but the tribe retained its identity until the Byzantine reconquest.

A significant development of the Vandal period was that independent kingdoms, largely of Libyan character, emerged in the mountainous and desert areas. They appeared first in the Mauretanias, where the Roman frontier, already drawn back under Diocletian, receded further under the Vandal kings. By the end of Vandal rule, independent kingdoms existed in the region of Altava (Oulad Mimoun), in the Ouarsenis Mountains, and in the Hodna region (in present-day Algeria). After 480, towns to the north of the Aurès Mountains, such as Thamugadi, Bagai, and Theveste, were sacked by the inhabitants of another kingdom in the Aurès. All the names of the known chieftains are Libyan in character, though the survival of Romanized elements within some of the kingdoms is attested by the fact that epitaphs in Latin continued, Roman names were still used, and a dating system based on the founding date of the Roman province of Mauretania was even maintained. Finally, as a harbinger of a serious threat to settled life, whether Roman or Libyan, tribes that had retained a nomadic way of life on the borders of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania and caused much damage in the 4th century began to push westward and were already a serious threat to the southern parts of Byzacena by the end of Vandal rule.

The Byzantine period

North Africa held an important place in the emperor AnchorJustinian’s scheme for reuniting the Roman Empire and destroying the Germanic kingdoms. His invasion of Africa was undertaken against the advice of his experts (an earlier attempt in 468 had failed disastrously), but his general AnchorBelisarius succeeded, partly through Vandal incompetence. He landed in 533 with only 16,000 men, and within a year the Vandal kingdom was destroyed. A new administrative structure was introduced, headed by a praetorian prefect with six subordinate governors for civil matters and a master of soldiers with four subordinate generals.

It required a dozen years, however, to pacify Africa, partly because of tribal resistance in Mauretania to an ordered government being reestablished and partly because support to the army in men and money was poor, leading to frequent mutinies. A remarkable program of fortifications—many of which survive—was rapidly built under Belisarius’s successor AnchorSolomon. Some were garrison forts in the frontier region, which again seems to have extended, at least for a while, south of the Aurès and then northward from Tubunae to Saldae. But many surviving towns in the interior were also equipped with substantial walls—e.g., Thugga and Vaga (Béja, Tunisia). There were further difficulties with the Mauretanian tribes (the AnchorMauri) after Justinian died (565), but the most serious damage was done by the nomadic Louata from the Libyan Desert, who on several occasions penetrated far into Tunisia.

Africa shows a number of examples of the massive help given by Justinian in building—and particularly decorating—churches and in reestablishing Christian orthodoxy, though surviving Donatists were inevitably persecuted. Seriously weakened though it had been under the Vandals, the African church retained some traces of its vigour when it led the opposition of the Western churches to the theological policies of emperors at Constantinople—e.g., those of Justinian himself and also of Heraclius and Constans II immediately before the Arab invasions.

Little is known of the Byzantine period in the Maghrib after the death of Justinian. The power of the military element in the provinces grew, and in the late 6th century a new official, the Anchorexarch, was introduced whose powers were almost viceregal. Economic conditions declined because of the increasing insecurity and also the notorious corruption and extortion of the administration, though whether this was worse in Africa than in other parts of the Byzantine Empire is impossible to say. It is certain that the population of the towns was only a small proportion of what it had been in the 4th century. The court of Constantinople tended to neglect Africa because of the more immediate dangers on the eastern and Balkan frontiers. Only once in its latest phase was it the scene of an important historical event; in 610 AnchorHeraclius, son of the African exarch at the time, sailed from Carthage to Constantinople in a revolt against the unpopular emperor Phocas and succeeded him the same year. That Africa was still of some importance to the empire was shown in 619; the Persians had overrun much of the east, including Egypt, and only Africa appeared able to provide money and recruits. Heraclius even thought of leaving Constantinople for Carthage but was prevented by popular feeling in the capital.

In view of the lack of evidence for the Byzantine period, and the still greater obscurity surrounding the period of AnchorArab raids and conquest (643–698) and its immediate aftermath, conclusions on the state of the Maghrib at the end of Byzantine rule are speculative. Much of it was in the hands of tribal groups, among which the level of Roman culture was in many cases no doubt negligible. Even before the Arab attacks began, the picture seems to be one of a continual ebb of Latin civilization and the Latin language from all of the Maghrib except along the coastal fringes of Tunisia, and the development and expansion of larger tribal groupings, some, though not all, of which were Christian. Also, the Byzantine administration was, in a sense, foreign to the Latin population. The military forces sent from Constantinople to stem the invasion were ultimately inadequate, though Arab conquest of the region could not be secure until Carthage was captured and destroyed and reinforcements by sea interdicted. The most determined resistance to the Arabs came from nomadic Libyan tribes living in the area around the Aurès Mountains. Destruction in the settled areas in the earlier attacks, which were little more than large-scale raiding expeditions, was certainly immense. It has been held that town life and even an ordered agricultural system almost disappeared at that time, though some scholars believe that a modicum of these survived until the invasions of larger nomadic groups, in particular the AnchorBanū Hilāl, in the 11th century. Latin was still in use for Christian epitaphs at El-Ngila in Tripolitania and even at Kairouan (Al-Qayrawān) in the 10th and 11th centuries. However, throughout the Maghrib the conversion of various population groups to Islam rapidly Arabized most of the region in language and culture, though the modalities of these profound changes remain obscure.

Belgian scholar AnchorHenri Pirenne formulated a theory, widely discussed, that the essential break between the ancient and medieval European worlds came when the unity of the Mediterranean was destroyed not by the Germanic but by the Arab invasions. The history of the Maghrib is an important element in this debate, for there one can see the complete replacement of a centuries-old political, social, religious, and cultural system by another within a short span of time.

Roman Cyrenaica

Much of the Roman period in Cyrenaica was peaceful. Some Roman immigrants resided there at an early date, and some of the Greeks received Roman citizenship. A famous inscription of 4 bc contains a number of edicts of the emperor AnchorAugustus regulating with great fairness the relationship between Roman and non-Roman. The character of its civilization, however, remained entirely Greek. AnchorJews formed a considerable minority group in the province and had their own organizations at Berenice and Cyrene. They took no part in the great revolt of Judaea in ad 66 but in 115 began a formidable rebellion in AnchorCyrene that spread to Egypt. No reason for it is known. It caused great destruction and loss of life, and Hadrian took special measures to reconstruct Cyrene and also sent out some colonists. Peaceful conditions returned, but in 268–269 the Marmaridae, inhabiting the coast between Cyrenaica and Egypt, caused trouble. When AnchorDiocletian reorganized the Anchorempire, Cyrenaica was separated from Crete and divided into two provinces: Libya Superior, or AnchorPentapolis (capital Ptolemais), and AnchorLibya Inferior, or Sicca (capital Paraetonium [AnchorMarsā Maṭrūḥ, Egypt]). A regular force was stationed there for the first time under a dux Libyarum. At the end of the 4th century, the Austuriani, a nomad tribe that had earlier raided Tripolitania, caused much damage, and Cyrenaica began to suffer from the general decline of security throughout the empire, in this case from desert nomads. A notable phenomenon of the 5th and 6th centuries, as in Tripolitania, was the number of fortified farms, most frequent in the Akhḍar Mountains and south of Boreum (Bū Quraydah) and also apparently in the region of Banghāzī.

Christianity no doubt spread to Cyrenaica from Egypt. In the 3rd century the bishop of Ptolemais was metropolitan, but by the 4th century the powerful bishops of Alexandria consecrated the local bishops. The best-known Cyrenaican is AnchorSynesius, a citizen of Cyrene with philosophic tastes who was made bishop of Ptolemais in 410 partly because of his ability to obtain help for his province from the imperial authorities. Under Justinian a number of defensive works were constructed as elsewhere in Africa—e.g., Taucheira, Berenice, Antipyrgos (Tobruk), and Boreum. Recent excavations of a series of churches reveal the expenditure he devoted to their beautification, in what was a province of minor importance. On the eve of the Arab conquest (643), the general condition of Cyrenaica would appear to have been on a par with most of the other eastern provinces of the empire.

From the Arab conquest to 1830

After the Arabs completed the conquest of Egypt in 642, they started to raid the AnchorBerber (Amazigh) territory to its west, which they called Bilād al-Maghrib (“Lands of the West”) or simply the Maghrib. In 705 this region became a province of the Muslim empire then ruled from Damascus by the Umayyad caliphs (661–750). The Arab Muslim conquerors had a much more durable impact on the culture of the Maghrib than did the region’s conquerors before and after them. By the 11th century the Berbers had become AnchorIslamized and in part also Arabized. The region’s indigenous Christian communities, which before the Arab conquest had constituted an important part of the Christian world, ceased to exist. The Islamization of the Berbers was a consequence of the Arab conquest, although they were neither forcibly converted to Islam nor systematically missionized by their conquerors. Largely because its teachings became an ideology through which the Berbers justified both their rebellion against the caliphs and their support of rulers who rejected caliphal authority, Islam gained wide appeal and spread rapidly among these fiercely independent peoples.

Arab raids to the west of Egypt concentrated at first on the area of Cyrenaica in present-day Libya. Tunisia was raided several times after 647, but no attempt was made to establish Arab rule there before 670. Conflicts among the Muslim leaders, especially after the assassination of the third caliph, ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, in 656, hindered Muslim territorial expansion. Only after the AnchorUmayyads had consolidated their authority as a Anchorcaliphal dynasty in the 660s and had come to view the conquest of the Maghrib in the context of their confrontation with the Byzantine Empire did they systematically undertake this conquest. AnchorʿUqbah ibn Nāfiʿ (Sīdī ʿUqbah) commanded the Arab army that occupied Tunisia in 670. Before his recall in 674, ʿUqbah founded the town of AnchorKairouan, which became the first centre of Arab administration in the Maghrib.

When the conquest of the Maghrib west of Tunisia was initiated by ʿUqbah’s successor, AnchorAbū al-Muhājir Dīnār al-Anṣārī, the Arabs had to fight semisettled Berber communities that had developed some tradition of centralized political authority. In the course of his campaign, Abū al-Muhājir Dīnār prevailed on the Berber “king” AnchorKusaylah to become Muslim. From his base in Tlemcen, Kusaylah dominated a confederation of the Awrāba tribes living between the western Aurès Mountains and the area of present-day Fès. Since Kusaylah’s profession of Islam implied his recognition of caliphal authority, it served as a basis for coexistence between him and the Arabs. However, when ʿUqbah was reinstated as commander of the Arab army in the Maghrib in 681, he insisted on imposing direct Arab rule over the whole region. In 682 he led his troops across Algeria and northern Morocco, reaching the Atlantic Ocean and penetrating south to the areas of the Sūs (Sous) and Drâa rivers in southern Morocco. On his way back to Kairouan, ʿUqbah was attacked near Biskra (in present-day Algeria), on orders from Kusaylah, by Berbers supported by Byzantine contingents. Through his death in this battle and his extended campaign, ʿUqbah became the legendary hero of the Muslim conquest of the Maghrib.

By the 680s the Arabs had gone too far in the conquest of the Maghrib to be willing to accept defeat at the hands of a Berber leader, albeit one professing Islam. Two large armies had to be sent from Egypt, however, before organized Berber resistance could be suppressed. The first, commanded by AnchorZuhayr ibn Qays al-Balawī, reoccupied Kairouan, then pursued Kusaylah westward to Mams, where he was defeated and killed. The dates of these operations are uncertain, but they must have occurred before 688 when Zuhayr ibn Qays himself was killed in an attack on Byzantine positions in Cyrenaica. The second Arab army, commanded by AnchorḤassān ibn al-Nuʿmān, was dispatched from Egypt in 693. It faced stiff resistance in the eastern Aurès Mountains from the Jawāra Berbers, who were commanded by a woman whom the Arabs referred to as AnchorKāhinah (al-Kāhinah, “the Priestess”). After Kāhinah was defeated in 698, Ibn al-Nuʿmān occupied Carthage, the centre of Byzantine administration in Tunisia, and began constructing the town of Tunis nearby. These successes and Arab naval supremacy in the Mediterranean forced the Byzantines to evacuate their remaining positions on the Maghribi coast. Under Ibn al-Nuʿmān’s successor, AnchorMūsā ibn Nuṣayr, the Maghrib—at least its eastern portion—was made into a province of the Umayyad Caliphate in 705—the wilāyah of AnchorIfrīqiyyah, thus separated from the wilāyah of Egypt, to which it had been administratively attached until that time.

Khārijite Berber resistance to Arab rule

Political life of the Maghrib in the 8th century was dominated by the contradiction in the position of the Arab rulers who, while posing as the champions of a religion recognizing the equality of all believers, emphasized their ethnic distinctiveness and exercised authority with little regard for Islamic religious norms. This contradiction surfaced in their relations with the Berbers after the latter became Muslim in large numbers—especially through serving in the Arab army, which is known to have included Berber contingents when it was commanded by Ḥassān ibn al-Nuʿmān and his successor Mūsā ibn Nuṣayr. Many Berber warriors participated in the conquest of Spain in 711. Though professing Islam, they were treated as Anchormawālī (“clients”) of the Arab tribes and consequently had a status inferior to, and received less pay than, the Arab warriors. Furthermore, the Arab ruling class alone reaped the fruits of conquest, as was clearly the case in Spain. The grievances of the warriors highlighted the resentment of Berbers in general, caused by such practices as levying human tribute on the Berber tribes, through which the Arab ruling class was provided with slaves, especially female slaves. AnchorʿUmar II (717–720) was the only Umayyad caliph who is known to have condemned the levying of human tribute and ordered that it be discontinued. He also sent 10 Anchortābiʿūn (“followers”; disciples of the Prophet Muhammad’s companions) to teach Islam to the Berbers. The enlightened policy of this pious caliph did not survive his short reign, however. Rather, it contributed toward confirming the conviction of Muslims in the Maghrib that Islam could not be equated with Umayyad caliphal rule.

The Muslim Khārijite sect exploited this revolutionary potential in their struggle against Umayyad rule. AnchorKhārijite doctrine apparently appealed to the Berbers because it rejected the Arab monopoly on political leadership of the Muslim community, stressed piety and learning as the main qualifications of the head of the community, and sanctioned rebellion against the head when he acted unjustly. In 740 a major Berber rebellion broke out against Arab rule in the region of Tangier. Its first leader was a Berber called AnchorMaysara who had come to Kairouan under the influence of the AnchorṢufriyyah, the extremist branch of the Khārijite sect. The Berber rebels achieved an astounding military success against the Arab army. By 742 they had taken control of the whole of Algeria and were threatening Kairouan. In the meantime the AnchorIbāḍiyyah, who constituted the moderate branch of the Khārijite sect, had taken control of Tripolitania by converting the Berber tribes living there, especially the Hawwāra and Nafusa, to their doctrine. Ibāḍī domination in Tripolitania resulted from the activities of dāʿīs (“propagandists”) sent from the main centre of the group, in Iraq, after the Khārijite rebellion there had been suppressed by the Umayyad army in 697.

Umayyad caliphal rule in the Maghrib came to an end in 747 when the AnchorFihrids, the descendants of ʿUqbah ibn Nāfiʿ—taking advantage of the Umayyads’ preoccupation with the ʿAbbāsid rebellion that led to their downfall—seized power in Ifrīqiyyah. The Fihrid dynasty controlled all of Tunisia except for the south, which was dominated at the time by the AnchorWarfajūma Berber tribe associated with the Ṣufrī Khārijites. Fihrid rule came to an end in 756 when the Warfajūma conquered the north and captured Kairouan. Immediately thereafter, however, the Ibāḍiyyah in Tripolitania proclaimed one of their religious leaders as imam (the Khārijite equivalent to the Sunni caliph) and in 758 conquered Tunisia from the Ṣufriyyah. An Ibāḍī state comprising Tunisia and Tripolitania thus came into being, which lasted until the AnchorʿAbbāsids, having consolidated their authority as caliphs in the Middle East, sent an army to the region in 761 to restore caliphal rule in the Maghrib.

The ʿAbbāsids could impose their authority only on Tunisia, eastern Algeria, and Tripolitania. The authority of their governors of the reconstituted wilāyah of AnchorIfrīqiyyah was hampered because they depended on an army that was recruited predominantly from among the unruly Arabs of the province. After Arab troops mutinied against the ʿAbbāsid governor in 800, Ifrīqiyyah was transformed into an Arab kingdom ruled by the AnchorAghlabid dynasty in the name of the ʿAbbāsid caliphs. The founder of the dynasty, AnchorIbrāhīm ibn al-Aghlab, had commanded until then the Arab army in eastern Algeria. After using his troops to restore order in Tunisia, he established himself as ruler of the province. The acquiescence of the caliph, AnchorHārūn al-Rashīd, to Ibn al-Aghlab’s usurpation of authority was linked to the latter’s continued recognition of ʿAbbāsid suzerainty and payment of tributes to Baghdad.

The Maghrib under Muslim dynasties in the 8th–11th centuries

Through their rebellion against caliphal rule in the name of Islam, the Berbers forged religious bonds with other Muslim opponents of the caliphs, and Islamic political concepts and religious norms gained favour in Berber society. Their rebellion also led to the rule of caliphs being replaced by four separate Muslim states dominated by dynasties that either nominally recognized caliphal authority, as was the case with the Aghlabids, or totally rejected it, as was the case with the three other states. Only the smallest and most politically insignificant state, the principality of the Banū Midrār in Sijilmāssah (southern Morocco), was ruled by a Berber dynasty. The survival of the four states depended on the balance of political forces within the region itself.

The AnchorRustamid state of Tāhart

The ʿAbbāsid conquest of Ifrīqiyyah in 761, which precipitated the collapse of the Ibāḍī state in Tunisia and Tripolitania, also caused important Ibāḍī tribes from Tripolitania and southern Tunisia to migrate to western Algeria. There they were led in attacks on ʿAbbāsid positions by AnchorʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Rustam, an Ibāḍī of Persian origin, born and brought up in Tunisia. Ibn Rustam had acquired prominence among the Ibāḍiyyah as governor of Tunisia between 758 and 761. In 776 or 777 he was proclaimed imam by the Ibāḍī tribes of Algeria, and immediately afterward he started constructing his own capital, AnchorTāhart (modern Tiaret, Algeria), in the area where the most important Ibāḍī tribes of Algeria were settled. Until the 760s the Berber tribes affiliated with the Ṣufrī branch of Khārijīsm were the major forces opposing caliphal rule in Algeria. After the foundation of the Rustamid state, these tribes became subordinate allies of the Ibāḍiyyah.

The imamate of Tāhart was inherited within the family of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Rustam. This breach of Khārijite doctrine led to a split within the Ibāḍī leadership, which, however, had little effect on the position of the Rustamid imams as leaders of Berber opposition to ʿAbbāsid authority. The tribes that recognized the religio-political leadership of and paid tribute to the imams of Tāhart lived in western Algeria, southern Tunisia, and Tripolitania. The imams maintained contacts with them by encouraging tribal chiefs to visit Tāhart and by sending emissaries that toured their areas. The Rustamid imams maintained especially close contacts with the Nafusa of Tripolitania—who had been associated with the Ibāḍī movement in the Maghrib since the beginning of the 8th century—and entrusted important state offices to them. Tāhart became prosperous and developed a cosmopolitan character both by serving as a meeting place for numerous trade caravans connecting the various parts of the Maghrib and by playing an important role itself in Maghribi and trans-Saharan trade. The Rustamids’ readiness to live in peace with their neighbours, including the Aghlabids, caused discontent among the Ibāḍī tribes of Tripolitania and southern Tunisia but enabled the Rustamids to retain power until Tāhart was conquered by the Fāṭimids in 909.

The Banū Midrār of Sijilmāssah

The principality of the Banū Midrār came into existence after the 740s, when AnchorMiknāsah Berbers (a group affiliated with the Ṣufriyyah) migrated from northern Morocco to the oasis of Tafilalt in the south. The principality was named after AnchorAbū al-Qāsim ibn Wāsūl, nicknamed Midrār, the Miknāsah chief who founded the town of AnchorSijilmāssah there in 757. AnchorTafilalt had played a role in trans-Saharan trade before the influx and settlement of the Miknāsah. After the establishment of Sijilmāssah, however, it became the foremost centre of trans-Saharan trade in the western Maghrib. At the zenith of its power during the reign of AnchorYasaʾ ibn Midrār (790–823), the principality controlled the entire region of Drâa in southern Morocco. Nevertheless, the state remained primarily a trading principality, playing almost no role in the political life of the rest of the Maghrib until it, too, was conquered by the Fāṭimids in 909.

The AnchorIdrīsids of Fez

The Idrīsid state of Fez (modern AnchorFès, Morocco) originated in the desire of AnchorIsḥāq ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥamīd, chief of the powerful tribal confederation of the Awrāba, to consolidate his authority in northern Morocco by giving his rule an Islamic religious character. For that purpose he invited AnchorIdrīs ibn ʿAbd Allāh, a Anchorsharif (descendant of the Prophet Muhammad) living in Tangier, to settle at his seat of government in Walīla (Oulili). Idrīs moved to Walīla in 788 and was recognized Imam Idrīs I of the Awrāba the following year, but he was assassinated by agents of the ʿAbbāsids in 791. His son, born a few months later and also called Idrīs, was proclaimed imam of the Awrāba in 803, when he was still a young boy. AnchorIdrīs II founded the state—called, for himself, Idrīsid—with the help of Arab refugees coming from both Spain and Aghlabid territory. By moving the seat of his authority in 809 to Fez, the capital city he had started to build a year earlier, he made it clear he was establishing a state that was distinct from the Awrāba confederation. The arrival of more Arabs from Spain and Aghlabid territory in the following two decades gave the Idrīsid state a distinctly Arab character.

Although Idrīs I had Shīʿite sympathies, the state founded by his son was Sunni in matters of religious doctrine. Its rulers, however, identified themselves with Berber rejection of caliphal rule and stressed their own descent from the Prophet as a means of legitimizing their authority. During Idrīs II’s reign (809–828) the state included the greater part of present-day Morocco. From the 860s, however, the authority of the Idrīsids started to decline, and the tribes of northern Morocco that had previously followed them allied themselves with the Umayyad rulers of Spain. Nevertheless, the Idrīsids continued to rule in Fez until they were deposed by the Fāṭimids in 921. Under the Idrīsids, Islamic urban culture began to appear in Morocco. The foremost urban centre was Fez, which continued to exercise a dominant influence on the religious and cultural as well as the political life of Morocco until the French protectorate was imposed in 1912.

The Aghlabids

After they usurped power in 800, the Aghlabids adapted their government to the requirements of political survival in a land still dominated by an Arab class of large landowners, who also provided the government with its regular troops. The urban, ethnically mixed communities resented the domination of the state by the old Arab families and the heavy taxes that they and the peasant communities had to pay. Emphasizing Islamic religious norms was the means by which these groups articulated their grievances against the state and the Arab ruling class. By the beginning of the 9th century such grievances could be expressed formally when two of the four Sunni schools of Islamic religious law, the Ḥanafiyyah and the Mālikiyyah, had become established in the Maghrib. The AnchorḤanafī school developed in Iraq; as it was recognized by the ʿAbbāsid caliphs, it also was adopted by the Aghlabids. Most of the religious scholars in Tunisia, however, adhered to the simpler and stricter teachings of the AnchorMālikī school. By teaching the religious law and admonishing the rulers to adhere to its provisions when administering justice and in such matters as taxation and the prohibition of alcohol, Mālikī scholars have emerged since the 820s as defenders of the rights of the common people against the state.

Political life in the Aghlabid state reflected the rulers’ constant fear that their Arab troops would rebel and preoccupation with the need to allay the grievances of the religious scholars. They tried to placate the Mālikī scholars by appointing many of them to the office of qāḍī (“judge”) and by instituting a program of sacred building construction. The AnchorGrand Mosque of Tunis (the Zaytūnah), among others, was built in the Aghlabid period. In order to reduce the threat of Arab troop rebellions, the Aghlabids channeled their energies into conquering Sicily. Initiated in 827, the conquest of Sicily was given a religious character by entrusting the command of the army to the qāḍī AnchorAsad ibn al-Furāt.

The Fāṭimids and Zīrids

The grievances that the inhabitants of Ifrīqiyyah harboured against Aghlabid rule were transformed into a revolutionary movement by the AnchorIsmāʿīliyyah, an extremist branch of the AnchorShīʿite sect. From the mid-9th century Ismāʿīlī leadership, operating from Salamyah in northern Syria, sent out dāʿīs to organize opposition to the ʿAbbāsid caliphs. One of these, AnchorḤusayn ibn Zakariyyāʾ, better known as Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Shīʿī, operated among the AnchorKutāma of the Little Kabylia region in eastern Algeria from 901. The sedentary Kutāma were pious and unsophisticated Muslim Berbers living in small village communities. Aghlabid rule in the region was represented by fortified garrison posts manned by Arab troops, by whom the Kutāma were constantly harassed. Through patient preaching, Abū ʿAbd Allāh molded the Kutāma into a highly motivated and disciplined militant movement. After defeating the Arab troops in the Little Kabylia, he conquered the rest of the Aghlabid territory in Algeria between 904 and 907 and then conquered Tunisia itself. Raqqādah, the fortified residence of the Aghlabids near Kairouan, was conquered in March 909. The head of the Ismāʿīliyyah in Salamyah, AnchorʿUbayd Allāh Saʿid, entered Raqqādah in January 910.

The state that ʿUbayd Allāh then founded was intended to be completely Shīʿite in character. He styled himself as the imam who, according to Shīʿite doctrine, was the only legitimate head of the Muslim community and the final authority on religious law. The state he founded, known as AnchorFāṭimid (Al-Dawlah al-Fāṭimiyyah) for the Prophet Muhammad’s daughter Fāṭimah, was viewed as a stepping-stone to the overthrow of the ʿAbbāsids. Nevertheless, ʿUbayd Allāh was intent on consolidating Shīʿite rule first in the Maghrib itself. He built a fortified capital, AnchorAl-Mahdiyyah, on the Tunisian coast and initiated the conquest of the western Maghrib in 917. The Fāṭimids soon ended Idrīsid rule in Fez, but after 40 years of campaigning in western Algeria and Morocco they were unable to impose their authority on the powerful Berber tribes living there. The Umayyads of Spain, moreover, occupied the enclaves of AnchorMelilla and Ceuta on the northern coast of Morocco in 927 and 931, respectively, and from there organized tribal resistance to the Fāṭimids. In eastern Algeria, however, the Fāṭimids were loyally supported by AnchorZīrī ibn Manād, chief of the Takalata branch of the Ṣanhājah confederation, to which the Kutāma Berbers belonged. The parts of the Maghrib that the Fāṭimids controlled therefore consisted only of the former province of Ifrīqiyyah, ruled before them by the Aghlabids.

In Ifrīqiyyah itself the Arab aristocratic families, previously affiliated with the Ḥanafī school of law, all converted to Shīʿism and, consequently, preserved under Fāṭimid rule some of their former privileges. The Mālikī scholars, however, opposed the Fāṭimids, who, accordingly, resorted to repression and had several of them tortured. Differences in ritual and religious law, and the exorbitant system of taxation made necessary by the large army that the Fāṭimids had to maintain, were the main causes of Mālikī opposition. Out of desperation, the Mālikī leaders of Kairouan in 944 even supported rebellion by one of their Khārijite rivals, Abū Yazīd, against the Fāṭimids.

Direct Fāṭimid rule in the Maghrib effectively came to an end in 973, when the Fāṭimid imam, Anchoral-Muʿizz, whose armies had conquered Egypt four years earlier, took up residence in Cairo. Al-Muʿizz appointed the Berber chief AnchorBuluggīn, son of the Fāṭimids’ chief ally in Algeria, Zīrī ibn Manād, as his viceroy in the Maghrib. In the 70 years during which the Zīrid dynasty (AnchorBanū Zīrī) ruled Ifrīqiyyah in the name of the Fāṭimids, they fell progressively under the influence of the Arab Islamic culture of the region. In this period the Mālikī school of Islamic law reasserted itself in Ifrīqiyyah and produced one of its most prominent scholars, AnchorIbn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī (died 996), whose Risālah is one of the most widely used and discussed expositions of Mālikī law. Mālikī riots broke out between October 1016 and March 1017, in which a large number of Shīʿites—estimated at some 20,000—were killed and their property looted. These developments resulted in the renunciation of Fāṭimid authority by the Zīrids in 1044.

The Fāṭimids reacted to this by unleashing two large Anchornomadic Arab tribes on the Maghrib, the AnchorBanū Hilāl and the AnchorBanū Sulaym (Sulaim), both of which had until then lived in Upper Egypt. This Arab invasion introduced unruly tribal groups who would remain a source of political instability in the eastern Maghrib until well into the 15th century. The Zīrids were overwhelmed by the sheer number of the invaders, who are said to have included 50,000 warriors when they crossed into Cyrenaica in 1050. After the Zīrids suffered defeat at the hands of these nomads in 1052 in southern Tunisia, they vacated Kairouan and retreated to the well-fortified former Fāṭimid capital of Al-Mahdiyyah on the coast. The Banū Hilāl ravaged the Tunisian countryside and then infiltrated eastern Algeria. There they ended the rule of the Banū Hammād, a dynasty related to the Zīrids that had made itself independent of them in 1015.
The Maghrib under the Almoravids and the Almohads

The fragmentation of political life in the Maghrib, following both the Arab invasion and a general decline in the authority of the Fāṭimids, was arrested by the Almoravids. They were the founders of the first of two empires that unified the Maghrib under Berber Islamic rule.

The Almoravid empire came into being through the success of a militant Islamic movement that was initiated among the AnchorṢanhājah confederation of tribes in Mauretania by one of its chiefs about 1035. Religious reform was a means of cementing the unity of the Ṣanhājah tribes at a time when the control that they previously had on trans-Saharan trade had become threatened, from the south by the Soninke state of Ghana and from the north by the infiltration of Zanātah Berbers into southern Morocco. The movement’s leader, AnchorʿAbd Allāh ibn Yāsīn, was a Ṣanhājah religious scholar from southern Morocco. Before joining the Ṣanhājah tribes, Ibn Yāsīn was attached to a centre of religious learning, AnchorDār al-Murābiṭīn, in Sūs (southern Morocco), then headed by a scholar who had studied previously in Kairouan. Two theories have been proposed to explain the name al-Murābiṭūn (i.e., Almoravids), meaning inmates of a ribāṭ (fortified monastery), a term by which Ibn Yāsīn’s followers were known. The first is that he founded a ribāṭ somewhere in Mauretania to train his followers. The other relates the name to Dār al-Murābiṭīn in Sūs, suggesting that the Almoravid movement was under the direct influence of this centre of learning. Whatever the case, the Almoravids were strict adherents of the Mālikī school of law as it had developed in Ifrīqiyyah since its introduction to the Maghrib in the 9th century.

The Almoravids began the invasion of Morocco after consolidating their control over Sijilmāssah in 1056. When Ibn Yāsīn was killed in 1059 in an attack on the Barghawāṭah tribal confederation on the Moroccan coast, the military and religious leadership of the Almoravids passed to the chief of the AnchorLamtūnah tribe, AnchorAbū Bakr ibn ʿUmar. He returned to Mauretania in 1060 to fight against rebels challenging his authority. Command of the Almoravids in southern Morocco was then assumed by Abū Bakr’s cousin, AnchorYūsuf ibn Tāshufīn (Tāshfīn), under whose leadership the Almoravids conquered most of the Maghrib and Muslim Spain. By 1082 Almoravid rule extended as far east as Algiers. After the collapse of the Andalusian Umayyads in 1031, Muslim Spain became divided into a number of small Muslim principalities whose rulers were unable to hold out against Christian military advances. At the request of the Spanish Muslims, the Almoravids sent their army into AnchorSpain in 1086. By 1110, four years after Ibn Tāshufīn’s death, the Almoravids had become masters of the whole of Muslim Spain. The capital of their expanded empire was AnchorMarrakech, which Ibn Tāshufīn had started to build in 1070.

In the Almoravid empire the AnchorṢanhājah tribes of Mauretania constituted a ruling class, distinguished from the rest of the population by the litham (face muffler) that their men wore. The Lamtūnah tribe formed the aristocracy of this ruling class and occupied the empire’s important administrative and military posts. Strict adherence to the Mālikī version of Islamic law provided the religious legitimization for the authority of this tribal caste. The Anchorfuqahāʾ (experts on Islamic law) supervised both the administration of justice by the qāḍīs and the work of the provincial governors, and they acted as advisers to the rulers. The empire’s simple system of government, in which military commanders acted as administrators, was rendered especially stifling by the narrow legalism of the fuqahāʾ. Mystical tendencies and new religious ideas reaching the Maghrib from Muslim Spain and the Arab east that the fuqahāʾ feared might undermine their authority were fought with the backing of the state.

Out of religious opposition to the Islam of the Almoravid jurists developed the revolutionary movement of the AnchorAlmohads (al-Muwaḥḥidūn)—i.e., the adherents of Anchortawḥīd, the belief in the oneness and uniqueness of God—which caused the downfall of the Almoravids. The founder of the movement was AnchorMuḥammad ibn Tūmart, a Berber belonging to the AnchorMaṣmūdah tribe of the High Atlas region of Morocco. After returning from a pilgrimage to Mecca in 1117, he preached in public against equating Islam with the provisions of one of the four schools of Islamic law, calling for a return to its original sources—namely, the Qurʾān and the Traditions (Ḥadīth) of the Prophet. He also condemned the literal interpretation of the Qurʾān endorsed by the Almoravid fuqahāʾ, on grounds that it undermined tawḥīd by misleading the faithful to believe that God had human attributes (tashbīh). Ibn Tūmart fled from Marrakech in 1122 when he realized that he would be put to death if he did not cease criticizing the state’s official religious dogma. After settling with some people of his tribe in the village of Tīnmallal in 1124, he started to organize a religious community of Maṣmūdah tribesmen, who became united not only because of their sense of tribal solidarity but also because of their belief in Ibn Tūmart as the Mahdi (divinely guided redeemer). After Ibn Tūmart’s death in 1130, the movement and the conquest of the Almoravid empire continued under his trusted lieutenant, AnchorʿAbd al-Muʾmin, a Berber from the Qūmiya tribe living in the region of Tlemcen.

ʿAbd al-Muʾmin succeeded in establishing his authority in all the High and Middle Atlas mountains, beginning in 1133. From about 1139 he invaded northern Morocco and then western Algeria. After becoming master of this region in 1145, he advanced into the main centres of Almoravid authority in Morocco, conquering Fez in 1146 and Marrakech in 1147. Muslim Spain passed under Almohad rule between 1148 and 1172. Prior to completing the conquest of Spain, however, the Almohads had advanced into the eastern Maghrib, where the Normans of Sicily, profiting from Zīrid weakness, had occupied several positions on the Tunisian coast. Between 1152 and 1160 the Almohads were able to conquer the whole of the eastern Maghrib, including Tripolitania. For the first and last time in its history, the entire Maghrib was unified under one central indigenous authority.

The Almohad empire, like that of the Almoravids, was a Berber tribal state in which the Maṣmūdah tribes, previously united in the community of Tīnmallal, constituted the ruling class. Unlike the Almoravids, however, the Almohads did not have a clear religious orientation. They rejected the idea of equating Islamic law with any of its established schools, but, for practical reasons, the Almohad judges based their judgments on the provisions of the already established Mālikī school. Moreover, the belief of the common people in Ibn Tūmart as the Mahdi was slowly being superseded by the spread of AnchorSufism (Islamic mysticism) and the veneration of Sufi holy men. Sufism had a prominent representative during the Almohad period in the person of AnchorShuʿayb Abū Madyan al-Ghawth (died 1197). At the Almohad court, however, the sciences and philosophy were cultivated. The philosopher Ibn Rushd (AnchorAverroës) wrote his famous commentaries on Aristotle when at the court of the Almohad caliph AnchorAbū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf (1163–84). These diverse developments meant that Almohad doctrine could not unite even the ruling class, whose coherence was undermined further when AnchorʿAbd al-Muʾmin appointed his son as heir apparent in 1154, thus making his family, which did not belong to the AnchorMaṣmūdah tribe, the ruling dynasty. Through this act ʿAbd al-Muʾmin bypassed AnchorAbū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar, the Maṣmūdah chief who gave protection to Ibn Tūmart in the High Atlas during his period of exile and whom the other Maṣmūdah chiefs expected to succeed ʿAbd al-Muʾmin. Maṣmūdah opposition was dealt with by putting a number of their chiefs to death and by giving the AnchorḤafṣids (i.e., the family of Abū Ḥafṣ ʿUmar) a position in the state hierarchy second only to the ruling dynasty. Nevertheless, the ruling family constantly had to contend with the opposition of the Maṣmūdah chiefs.

Tensions within the ruling class finally led to an open split when the Almohads attempted to reestablish their authority over the eastern Maghrib, after the Banū Ghāniyah—the family that last ruled Muslim Spain in the name of the Almoravids and that after 1148 retained control of the Balearic Islands—had taken control there. The AnchorBanū Ghāniyah invaded eastern Algeria in 1184 and, with local Arab tribal support, brought Almohad authority in the region to an end. In 1203 they took control of Tunisia as well. The AnchorAlmohad caliph al-Nāṣir (Muḥammad ibn Abī Yūsuf Yaʿqūb) restored the empire’s authority in the region with several large military campaigns from 1205 to 1207. Before returning to Marrakech, he appointed a Ḥafṣid to govern the reconquered eastern Maghrib. The Ḥafṣids were able to squelch the ongoing rebellion of the Banū Ghāniyah in 1227 and to establish control over Ifrīqiyyah, thus emerging as virtual rulers of the region. When the Almohad caliph al-Maʾmun formally renounced the Almohad doctrine in 1229, the Ḥafṣids declared themselves independent of him.

At the time of the Ḥafṣid secession, the control of the Almohads over western Algeria also had weakened, and they were no longer able to restrain the nomadic AnchorZanātah tribes living in the south from moving with their herds to the rich pasturelands of the north. A group of these Zanātah, the AnchorBanū Marīn, advanced through northern Algeria into Morocco during the 1240s. Having captured Fez in 1248, they emerged as rulers of northern Morocco. It was only a matter of time before they brought AnchorAlmohad rule to an end by conquering Marrakech in 1269. In the 1230s another group of Zanātah Berbers, the Banū AnchorʿAbd al-Wād (ʿAbd al-Wādid dynasty), had taken control of the region of Tlemcen in western Algeria. The state they founded there was overrun several times in the 13th and 14th centuries by the Marīnids. Nevertheless, its ruling line, the Banū Zayyān (Zayyānids), was able to maintain its authority in Tlemcen until the beginning of the 16th century.
Political fragmentation and the triumph of Islamic culture (c. 1250–c. 1500)

Berber (Amazigh) dynasties of North Africa, 13th–14th century. [Credit: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.]After the collapse of Almohad rule, the Maghrib became divided into three Muslim states, each ruled by a Berber (Amazigh) dynasty: the Ḥafṣids, whose territory included Tunisia, eastern Algeria, and Tripolitania; the Marīnids, ruling over Morocco; and the Zayyānids, whose capital was in Tlemcen, ruling over most of western Algeria when this region was not occupied by the Marīnids. Both the rigorist legalistic doctrine of the AnchorAlmoravids and the more enlightened religious orientation of the Almohads had proved to be unsuitable as foundations for durable political authority. Furthermore, the rulers themselves were unsuitable to act as custodians of the faith. Islamic culture came of age in the Maghrib only after the rulers gave up attempting to identify their authority with a single religious doctrine and allowed religious life to develop freely through the interplay of religious ideas and social forces in relative independence from the state. The Maghribi rulers subsequently legitimized their authority by cultivating relations of trust and cooperation with the leading religious scholars of the time. Their capital cities became, consequently, the foremost centres of learning in their realms and were adorned not only with exquisite mosques but also with sumptuous madrasahs, residential colleges built and financed by the rulers. The Mālikī school of law was again recognized. Its scholars were held in great esteem and granted various privileges by the rulers, but they were not allowed to determine the conduct of government.

From the 12th century AnchorSufism had spread widely in the Maghrib. Sufi holy men were venerated in both the towns and the countryside. Although in the towns their influence tended to be overshadowed by that of the legal scholars and the organs of the state, in the countryside they constituted the main custodians of Islamic norms. Often allied with tribal chiefs and sometimes having their own communities, these religious leaders helped establish order and stability by using their moral authority to uphold religious norms and arbitrate conflicts. They could perform these functions and gain influence over the tribal societies because the rulers’ administrative authority extended little beyond their capital cities and garrison towns, and the rulers, as well as the urban scholars, considered tribal society to be of marginal importance. Indeed, the tribes exercised direct influence on political life only when they became involved in conflicts for power within the ruling family or when their warriors took part in wars against a foreign enemy.

Relations between the three Maghribi states were greatly influenced by the pressures that the Christian states of the Iberian Peninsula exerted on them from the mid-13th century. The Ḥafṣids claimed to be the heirs of Almohad religious authority, but after the first independent Ḥafṣid ruler, Abū Zakariyyāʾ (1228–49), they gave up attempting to substantiate this claim, either by pressing forward the conquest of the western Maghrib or by helping the Muslims of Spain militarily. The Marīnids inherited both the heartland of the former Almohad state in Morocco and its confrontation with the Christians in Spain, but, because of political instability, they were never able to take the initiative in the war against the Christians. Through their military outposts in southern Spain, they merely tried to check attacks on Morocco itself and to help the Muslim principality of Granada (Gharnāṭah) survive as a buffer between them and the Christian powers. In March 1344 the Marīnids suffered a serious military defeat when the army of the Christian kingdom of AnchorCastile, reinforced by warriors from England, France, and Italy, conquered Algeciras, their last military outpost in Spain. Meanwhile, since the mid-13th century, the Ḥafṣids and Zayyānids had been carrying on commercial relations with Christian Aragon. In return for allowing subjects of the king of Aragon to trade freely in their dominions, they received military help in the form of Catalan mercenaries. Defeat at the hands of the Christians, at a time when the Ḥafṣids and Zayyānids had friendly relations with Aragon, prompted the Marīnid sultan AnchorAbū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī (1331–51) to invade their territories. Between 1346 and 1347 his army overran the eastern Maghrib as far east as Tripolitania, but, when the Arab tribes of Tunisia joined in the battle against them, the Marīnids were overwhelmed, and Abū al-Ḥasan himself had to flee by sea from Tunis. His son and successor, AnchorAbū ʿInān, also invaded the eastern Maghrib, in 1356–57, but he, too, had to withdraw from Tunisia when faced with Arab tribal resistance.

Political life in the Maghrib from the mid-14th to the end of the 15th century was dominated by the preoccupation of the ruling dynasties with internecine conflicts, which in the case of the Ḥafṣids was complicated by the domination of many parts of their territories by Arab tribes. These conflicts caused the Ḥafṣid state to be divided into two parts between 1348 and 1370, one being ruled from Tunis and the other from AnchorBejaïa, with the ruler of each part supported by a different Arab tribal group. After it was reunified in 1370 by Sultan AnchorAbū al-ʿAbbās, the AnchorḤafṣid state enjoyed periods of relative stability interspersed with strife. Political instability did not, however, prevent learning from developing in the towns. The greatest intellectual figure of the Maghrib before the modern period, the historian and sociologist AnchorIbn Khaldūn, was born and educated at that time in Tunis. Conflicts for power within the Zayyānid state enabled the Marīnids to establish indirect control over Tlemcen in the second half of the 14th century, but, being preoccupied with strife within their own dominions, they were not able to realize their long-held ambition of bringing the whole of the Maghrib under their rule.

The Maghrib from about 1500 to 1830

Between 1471 and 1510 the line of confrontation between the Muslims of the Maghrib and the Christians of the Iberian Peninsula shifted from Spain to the Maghrib itself. The AnchorPortuguese occupied a number of positions on the Moroccan coast between 1471 and 1505, which included Tangier in the north and Agadir in the south. The AnchorSpaniards conquered Granada, the last Muslim stronghold on the peninsula, in 1492, and between 1505 and 1510 they began establishing garrison posts along the Maghribi coast. The most important of these were at AnchorOran (Wahrān) and Bejaïa in Algeria and Tripoli in Libya. The strong religious reaction in the Maghrib to Christian colonial intrusion enabled the AnchorSaʿdī dynasty of sharifs to capture power in Morocco in 1549 and paved the way for Ottoman rule to be established later in the rest of the Maghrib.

Morocco under Anchorsharifian dynasties

As a reaction to the Portuguese presence in Agadir, the tribes in southern Morocco were organized by the sharifian Saʿdī family—with the active support of Sufi leaders—into a militant religious movement directed against both the Portuguese presence and Morocco’s own rulers, the AnchorWaṭṭāsids. The latter was a branch of the AnchorMarīnid dynasty that had usurped power in Fez in 1472 and pursued a policy of coexistence with the Portuguese. After occupying AnchorMarrakech in 1525 and consolidating their authority in southern Morocco, the Saʿdīs conquered Agadir in 1541. By 1550 they had forced the Portuguese to evacuate the rest of their positions on the Moroccan coast and conquered the Waṭṭāsid capital of Fez. The Saʿdīs consolidated their rule in Morocco thereafter and, by later defending the territory against Ottoman expansion from Algeria, gave it a national identity distinct from the rest of the Maghrib. Their authority was legitimized by their descent from the Prophet, but the dynasty’s mainstay was the support it received from the settled agricultural and commercial communities, as well as the possession and use of firearms by its troops. The dynasty reached the zenith of its power during the reign of AnchorAḥmad al-Manṣūr (1578–1603), who, with the help of Spanish and Turkish mercenaries, built Morocco’s first professional army. With this force at his command, al-Manṣūr imposed his will on the whole country, besides defending it against the Ottoman Empire and, in 1591, conquering the West African state of Songhai (present-day Mali). However, conflict for power after his death divided the country into several principalities that lasted until they were reunited through another sharifian family, that of the ʿAlawites.

The AnchorʿAlawites, who rule Morocco to this day, came to power with the help of AnchorArab tribes that had moved into Morocco in large numbers during the Almohad period. The founder of the dynasty, AnchorMawlāy al-Rashīd, mobilized these tribes against the powerful AnchorBerber principality of the Dilāʾiyyah that had dominated the Middle Atlas and parts of northern Morocco since the 1640s. Mawlāy al-Rashīd’s half brother, AnchorMawlāy Ismāʿīl, succeeded in reunifying Morocco with the help of a professional army of slaves (ʿabīd) known as AnchorʿAbīd al-Bukhārī, who were drawn from the descendants of the many sub-Saharan Africans who were brought back to Morocco after the conquest of Songhai. After Mawlāy Ismāʿīl’s death, however, conflict over succession between his sons, who are said to have numbered about 500, complicated by the intrigues of the ʿAbid officers, ushered in a period of chaos and economic decline that lasted nearly 50 years. Following the dynasty’s recovery during the reign of Sultan AnchorMuḥammad ibn ʿAbd Allāh (1757–90) and continuing under Sultan Mawlāy Sulaymān (1792–1822), Morocco enjoyed a period of relative stability that was disturbed on a large scale only by conflicts between the ruling dynasty and tribes recognizing the authority of Sufi leaders. The economy of Morocco also started to recover in that period, and the state’s external trade expanded. However, the French occupation of Algeria after 1830, together with European political and economic infiltration of Morocco thereafter, created new challenges with which the state’s traditional political system could not adequately cope.

Ottoman rule in the Maghrib

The Ottoman Turks occupied Egypt in 1517. Shortly afterward they became involved in the confrontation between Muslims and Christians in the Maghrib through the exploits of two Muslim privateers, AnchorʿArūj and his brother AnchorKhayr al-Dīn Barbarossa, who occupied Algiers in 1516 and made it a base for operations against the Spaniards. After ʿArūj was killed in 1518 in an attack on Tlemcen, Khayr al-Dīn offered submission to the Ottoman sultan in return for military help, which subsequently enabled him to gain control over most of the Maghrib.

Algeria was the first country of the Maghrib to be ruled by the Ottoman Empire. Administered at first by governors sent from Istanbul, the Ottoman regency of Algiers was transformed into a sort of military republic when the troops stationed there rebelled against the Ottoman governor in 1689 and installed one of their officers as ruler, giving him the title of Anchordey (maternal uncle). The Ottoman troops thus emerged as a ruling caste that periodically renewed itself with fresh recruits from various parts of the Mediterranean region. The deys, chosen from within this caste, governed Algeria independently from the Ottoman government. They retained religious ties to the Ottoman sultan, however, by recognizing him as caliph and by making the Ḥanafī school of law—the official school of the Ottoman Empire—the official school of law in Algeria as well. AnchorPiracy provided the ruling caste with its main source of revenue. Generated largely from the money received for ransoming Christian captives and from the price of peace levied on obliging Christian countries, such income remained forthcoming until the mid-18th century. Local inhabitants accepted the rule of the deys because the taxes they had to pay them were light and because their own leaders were allowed a large degree of autonomy in managing the affairs of their communities. Furthermore, the deys were careful to cultivate the good will of the influential Sufi personalities in the countryside. From the mid-18th century the balance of power in the Mediterranean started to turn in favour of the European powers. Thereafter the revenue that the deys derived from piracy declined. The heavy taxes that they subsequently had to impose on the Algerians led to conflicts with the tribal communities led by Sufi leaders, which ultimately weakened the regime of the deys on the eve of the French invasion of Algeria in 1830.

The Ottomans occupied Tunis in 1534 but were forced by Spanish troops to evacuate it the following year. Thereafter the Ḥafṣids ruled Tunisia under Spanish protection until the Ottomans reconquered the country in 1574. In 1591 the Ottoman troops stationed in Tunis rebelled against the governor sent from Istanbul and established a regime headed by deys chosen by the troops, which was similar to the dey-ruled regime that appeared in Algeria a little later. In Tunisia the regime of the deys was transformed from within through the importance that the Anchorbey, the officer responsible for maintaining order in the countryside and for collecting taxes, came to have in it. In 1705 the bey, AnchorḤusayn ibn ʿAlī, effectively usurped the power of the dey when, with the help of Tunisian tribal warriors, he repulsed the invasion of Tunisia by the army of Algiers. Thus was established the AnchorḤusaynid dynasty of beys, which ruled the country until the monarchy was abolished in 1957. While recognizing the religious authority of the Ottoman sultan as caliph, the Ḥusaynids ruled Tunisia independently from the Ottoman government. They officially adopted the Ḥanafī school of law but governed the country through local Mālikī notables and allowed AnchorMālikī religious scholars to manage the religious and legal affairs of their communities, while also bestowing favours on them. In common with other Maghribi states at the time, piracy was an important source of revenue. It was supplemented, however, by trade in the country’s products, which the beys controlled through monopolies and sold mostly to Jews at high prices.

The Ottomans conquered Tripoli in 1551, defeating the Knights of Malta. The Ottoman province that they established was governed from Tripoli and included the whole of present-day Libya. In 1711 the province underwent a change similar to the one that Tunisia had experienced in 1705, when the chief of the cavalry, AnchorAḥmad Karamanli, usurped power and established his own dynasty. The Karamanlis ruled Libya until 1835 when, in the wake of a tribal rebellion supported by the British, direct Ottoman rule was reimposed there. From the mid-16th century Libya became active in the lucrative trans-Saharan trade that crossed its territory. In the Karamanli period it also became an important centre of piracy. After Napoleon I occupied Malta in 1798, Libya was opened to European trade, and it consequently became involved in the rivalry between the British and the French for supremacy both in the Mediterranean region and in West Africa.

At the time when Europe began its colonial expansion in the Maghrib—starting with the French occupation of AnchorAlgiers in 1830—the region was divided into four political entities. Morocco, ruled by the ʿAlawite dynasty, was a sovereign country. Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya were autonomous states that recognized the religious authority of the Ottoman sultan. The French occupation of Algeria had direct and serious consequences for the authority of the rulers of Tunisia and Morocco and, indirectly, for the authority of the rulers of Libya as well.

North Africa after 1830

Advent of European colonialism

The AnchorFrench capture of Algiers in 1830, followed by the Ottoman reoccupation of Tripoli in 1835, rudely interrupted the attempts of North Africa’s rulers to follow the example of Muḥammad ʿAlī, the pasha of Egypt, and increase their power along European lines. Of the four powers in North Africa at the beginning of the 19th century, only AnchorTunis and Morocco survived as independent states into the second half of the century to encounter the heavy pressures that Europe then brought to bear on the region for free trade and legal reform, measures originally leveled against the Ottoman Empire and Egypt. Between the death of Tunisia’s ambitious reformer, Aḥmad Bey, in 1855, and the dismissal of its talented, reform-minded prime minister, AnchorKhayr al-Dīn, in 1877, Tunis responded to these pressures with the Ahd al-Amān, or AnchorFundamental Pact, in 1856 and the short-lived constitution of 1860, the first in the Arab world. The Fundamental Pact guaranteed the equality before the law of all subjects—Muslim, Christian, and Jew—while the constitution provided for a consultative assembly and the administration of justice. The constitution was suspended in 1864, but its chief proponent, Khayr al-Dīn, came to power in 1869 as the president of the International Financial Commission, a group appointed to handle the country’s foreign debt, and as prime minister in 1873. At Khayr al-Dīn’s departure in 1877, Tunisia was internally strong but internationally weak.

The sultan of AnchorMorocco, by contrast, was trapped between the European demands for free trade, conceded in 1856, and an unruly tribal population that resisted the imposition of a central government. Although defeated by France at the Battle of Isly in 1844 and by Spain at Tetuan (Tétouan) in 1860, Morocco was nevertheless able to rely on the support of Great Britain in its dealings with Europe. As a result—although Morocco’s immigrant Europeans in this period conducted themselves with impunity under the protection of their consuls—the sultans Muḥammad and Hassan, who ruled Morocco from 1859 to 1894, maintained the country’s independence and gradually extended a network of caids (qāʿids), or district governors, into the far south of the country. At the beginning of the 20th century—after the fall of Tunisia to French control in 1881—Morocco was the sole exception to colonial rule in North Africa.

In 1835 Libya reverted to the status of a provincial backwater of the Ottoman Empire. The French meanwhile took almost 20 years to complete their conquest of the former Turkish territory of AnchorAlgiers—from the bey of Constantine in the east and from the Arab hero Abdelkader (ʿAbd al-Qādir) in the west—and another 20 years to replace the army with a civilian administration, following the fall of the French Second Empire in 1870. Algeria’s incorporation into metropolitan France was a triumph for the territory’s European settlers, achieved at the expense of the native Muslim population, who were denied political rights and were administratively repressed and economically deprived. Immigration from France, Italy, and Spain brought the Europeans in Algeria to about one-sixth of the total population in 1900, a proportion that subsequently fell to about one-tenth at the outbreak of the Algerian revolution in 1954. Most Europeans remained in the cities, of which the two largest, Algiers and Oran, had European majorities. The economy of Algeria came to rest on the large-scale production of wine and wheat for export to France, while the majority of the country’s Muslims grew ever more impoverished. The injustices of the system were widely condemned in France, and attempts were made by the French to avoid the same mistakes when they colonized Tunisia and Morocco.

A French protectorate was eventually imposed on Tunisia in 1881–83, after the British withdrew their objections to French expansion in North Africa at the AnchorCongress of Berlin in 1878. The French preserved the administration of the bey of Tunis, although under French supervision, an indirect form of rule they later applied to Morocco as well. The Moroccan protectorate itself was established only in 1912, after the Entente Cordiale—a treaty concluded between France and Britain in 1904, which settled a number of hostilities between the two countries—and the Cameroons had been ceded to Germany in 1911. Both acts together left France free to divide the country with AnchorSpain, which took over the Rif Mountains in the north and the border region with the Spanish Sahara in the south. Pacifying the Moroccan interior was achieved with a minimum of force by French Field Marshal AnchorLouis-Hubert-Gonzalve Lyautey until his efforts were interrupted by the Rif War, waged by the Moroccan nationalist AnchorAbd el-Krim (Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Khaṭṭabī) and his forces between 1921 and 1926, an event that delayed total pacification of the country until 1934. AnchorLibya was similarly invaded by Italy in 1911, but the prolonged resistance of the Sanūsiyyah in Cyrenaica denied the Italian Fascists control of the country until 1931, when they captured and executed the brilliant Sanūsī guerrilla leader AnchorʿUmar al-Mukhtār. By 1939, however, the colonization of Morocco, Tunisia, and Libya by French and Italian settlers was well advanced.

Nationalist movements

AnchorWorld War II brought major changes to North Africa, promoting the cause of national independence. A reaction to years of colonialism had set in and was erupting into strong nationalist tendencies in each of the four countries of the region. The Sanūsī leader Sīdī Muḥammad Idrīs al-Mahdī al-Sanūsī, exiled in Cairo during the war, was restored to power in Cyrenaica by the British and became King AnchorIdris I of a united Libya in 1951. Tunisian nationalism formally emerged with the influential Young Tunisians in 1907. It developed further when the Destour (Constitution) Party was founded in 1920 and the Neo-Destour Party under AnchorHabib Bourguiba in 1934. In Morocco the strong nationalist movement of the 1930s culminated in the foundation of the Independence (Istiqlāl) Party in 1943. In AnchorAlgeria the French refusal of demands by the reform-minded Young Algerians for French citizenship cleared the way for the radical separatist movement of Ahmed Messali Hadj and the Arab Islamic nationalist movement of AnchorSheik ʿAbd al-Hamid Ben Badis. After the war the French were on the defensive, conceding independence to Tunisia and Morocco in 1956 in order to concentrate their efforts on Algeria, where a full-scale rebellion led by the AnchorNational Liberation Front (FLN) broke out in 1954. This prolonged and costly “savage war of peace” led to Algerian independence in 1962 and, afterward, to the mass exodus of Algeria’s European population.

The discovery of oil in Libya in the 1950s presaged further transformations there. The Libyan monarchy was overthrown by a military coup in 1969 and replaced by the popular republicanism of Colonel AnchorMuammar al-Qaddafi. Oil also came to dominate the economy of Algeria, where agriculture was neglected in favour of a program of industrialization based on the country’s huge petroleum and gas reserves. This policy, however, was disappointing, and popular disillusionment led to the end of the one-party presidential regime of the FLN in the 1990s. In Tunisia the pro-Western Bourguiba survived as president until 1987, when he was deposed by his prime minister, AnchorZine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Tunisia’s heavy economic reliance on tourism since the mid-1960s, moreover, has been a questionable and precarious substitute for an emphasis on agricultural exports. Like Tunisia, Morocco—dominated by the ʿAlawite monarchy since independence—has almost no oil, but it does possess greater reserves of phosphates and a more prosperous agricultural sector. In 1976 Morocco annexed part of the former Spanish territory of Western Sahara, after which it became involved in a protracted guerrilla war with Polisario, a Sahrawi nationalist organization.

  • Recommend Us