Settlement and Urbanization in Early Islamic Palestine, 7th-11th Centuries: Texts and Archaeology Contrasted [1 ed.] 9781032008721, 9781003176169

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of figures
List of tables
Acknowledgments
1 Introduction
2 Settlement during early Islam: history and historiography
3 The Research Area
4 The Big Data
5 Technologies and daily life
6 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence
7 Settlement patterns through texts
8 Conclusions
Index

Citation preview

Settlement and Urbanization in Early Islamic Palestine, 7th-11th Centuries

This volume follows the changes that occurred in central Palestine during the longue durée between the 7th to the 11th centuries. That region offers a unique micro-history of the Islamicate world, providing the opportunity for intensive archaeological research and rich primary sources. Through a careful comparison between the archaeological records and the textual evidence, a new history of Palestine and the Islamicate world emerges – one that is different than that woven from Arabic geographies and chronicles alone. The book highlights the importance of using a variety of sources when possible and examining each type of source in its own context. The volume spans ancient technologies and daily life, ancient agriculture, and the perception of place by ancient authors. It also explores the shift of settlements and harbors in central Palestine, as well as the gradual development of a new metropolis, al-Ramla. Settlement and Urbanization in Early Islamic Palestine will be of particular interest to students and scholars of the history of Islam or the history of Palestine, or anyone working more generally in the methodology of historical research and integrating texts and archaeology. Hagit Nol is a Marie Curie postdoctoral fellow at the Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium, where she studies the distribution of early mosques. She is interested in early Islam, in economic and social history, and in the diffusion of knowledge and ideas. When she has time, she reads novels or watches Scandinavian TV series. In between, she raises two teenagers.

Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East Series editor: Greg Fisher, University of California Santa Barbara, USA

Advisory Board of Associate Editors: Ra’anan Boustan, University of California, Los Angeles, USA; Zeba Crook Carleton University, Canada; Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, University of California at Santa Barbara, USA; Matthew Gibbs, University of Winnipeg, Canada; John Lee, University of California at Santa Barbara, USA; Harry Munt, University of York, UK; Richard Payne, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, USA; Lucy Wadeson, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium; Philip Wood, Aga Khan University, London, UK; Alan Lenzi, University of the Pacifc, USA. Studies in the History of the Ancient Near East provides a global forum for works addressing the history and culture of the Ancient Near East, spanning a broad period from the foundation of civilization in the region until the end of the Abbasid period. The series includes research monographs, edited works, collections developed from conferences and workshops, and volumes suitable for the university classroom. Geography, Religion, and Sainthood in the Eastern Mediterranean Erica Ferg A Story of YHWH Cultural Translation and Subversive Reception in Israelite History Shawn W. Flynn Migration and Colonialism in Late Second Millennium BCE Levant and its Environs The Making of a New World Pekka Pitkänen Geography, Religion, and Sainthood in the Eastern Mediterranean Erica Ferg Settlement and Urbanization in Early Islamic Palestine, 7th-11th Centuries Texts and Archaeology Contrasted Hagit Nol https://www.routledge.com/classicalstudies/series/HISTANE

Settlement and Urbanization in Early Islamic Palestine, 7th-11th Centuries Texts and Archaeology Contrasted Hagit Nol

First published 2022 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2022 Hagit Nol The right of Hagit Nol to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Nol, Hagit, author. Title: Settlement and urbanization in early Islamic Palestine (7th11th centuries) : texts and archaeology contrasted / Hagit Nol. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2022. | Series: Studies in the history of the ancient Near East | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2021051502 (print) | LCCN 2021051503 (ebook) | ISBN 9781032008721 (hbk) | ISBN 9781032008738 (pbk) | ISBN 9781003176169 (ebk) Subjects: LCSH: Urban archaeology–Palestine. | Palestine— History—638-1917. | Palestine—Antiquities. | Ramlah (Israel)—Antiquities. | Islamic antiquities—Palestine. | Human settlements—Palestine. Classification: LCC DS111 .N57 2022 (print) | LCC DS111 (ebook) | DDC 956.94/03—dc23/eng/20220111 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021051502 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021051503 ISBN: 978-1-032-00872-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-00873-8 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-17616-9 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003176169 Typeset in Times New Roman by codeMantra

To my family

Contents

List of figures ix List of tables xiii Acknowledgmentsxv 1 Introduction1 2 Settlement during early Islam: history and historiography

17

3 The Research Area48 4 The Big Data89 5 Technologies and daily life133 6 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence183 7 Settlement patterns through texts243 8 Conclusions282 Index

291

Figures

2.1 An aerial image of qanāts near Maʿan, Jordan 28 2.2 An aerial image of Qaṣr al-Kharrāna and evidence for its agriculture 28 3.1 Geomorphological map of the research area 49 3.2 Excavated and surveyed nodes in the research area 51 3.3 An index of clusters and sites in the research area 52 3.4 Map of the Yarqon sites 54 3.5 Sites of the coast 56 3.6 Sites around Azor 58 3.7 Sites around Ramla 59 3.8 Nodes inside Ramla 60 3.9 Sites around Rehovot 62 3.10 The Gedera cluster 64 3.11 The research area on the Madaba Map 65 4.1 Clay objects 92 4.2 Bone fgurines (‘Coptic dolls’) 94 4.3 A bone fgurine from Azor 94 4.4 A lollipop-shaped object from Ramat Gan 95 4.5 Big-built fre installation from Na’an 99 4.6 Medium-lined fre installation from Tel Yavne 100 4.7 Small-lined Fire installation and two jars from Bet Dagan 102 4.8 Open container complexes 104 4.9 Open container complex type 4 from Ganne Tal 104 4.10 Open container complex type 5 from Na’an 105 4.11 Open container complex type 6 from Mazliah 106 4.12 Subterranean installations 108 4.13 Internal view of a barrel-shaped vault installation from Ramla 109 4.14 Inscription incised on plaster, after restoration, the Pool of the Arches 114 4.15 Equivalents of the Pool of the Arches according to their date 116 4.16 Spatial distribution of three architectural elements in Ramla 118 4.17 Relation of fagstone pavements to portable artefacts in Ramla 118 4.18 Spatial distribution of bell-shaped pits and sunken jars in Ramla 119

x

Figures 4.19 Spatial distribution of refuse pits, basalt rotary querns, and marble vessels in Ramla 4.20 Summary of activity areas in Ramla 5.1 Imagining fre apparatuses according to texts 5.2 Spatial distribution of fre installations in the research area 5.3 Cross-referencing glass waste with medium-lined FI 5.4 Cross-referencing lollipop objects with small-lined FI type 1 5.5 Cross-referencing pottery waste with big-built FI 5.6 Fire installations and fre remains on fve sites 5.7 Fire installations in the dwelling areas of Ramla 5.8 Fire installations in the industrial areas of Ramla 5.9 Cross-referencing fre installations and pottery waste in Ramla 5.10 Cross-referencing fre installations and kiln bars in Ramla 5.11 Cross-referencing fre installations and glass waste in Ramla 5.12 Spatial distribution of open-container complex types 2 and 3 5.13 Spatial distribution of open-container complex types 1, 4, and 5 5.14 Spatial distribution of open-container complex types 3, 5, and 6 5.15 Plastered barrel-shaped vault installations and industrial areas at Ramla 5.16 Subterranean installation type 5 in relation to activity areas in Ramla 5.17 Wells, channels, and bathhouses in the research area 5.18 Bathhouses, wells, and sāqiya jars 5.19 Wells, reservoirs, and sāqiya jars in Ramla 6.1 The nodes of the research area and reconstruction of water streams 6.2 Water installations in the research area 6.3 The distribution of wine and juice presses along watercourses 6.4 Querns in relation to natural water sources and wells 6.5 Sites in modern Ramla, Mazliah, and Yashresh 6.6 Sites in and around modern Ashdod 6.7 Sites in the research area and the concentration rate of their features 6.8 Spatial distribution of sites type 1 in relation to water streams 6.9 Spatial distribution of sites types 2, 3, and 4 6.10 Iron and rotary querns on site types 2, 3, and 4 6.11 Bone artefacts and stamped jar handles on site types 1 and 2 6.12 Spatial distribution of soapstone bowls and ‘grenades’ in Ramla 6.13 Spatial distribution of soapstone braziers and copper-alloy spatulas in Ramla 6.14 Spatial distribution of stamped jar handles and iron objects in Ramla 6.15 Spatial distribution of zoomorphic objects in Ramla 6.16 Spatial distribution of lollipops, marble vessels, and bone fgurines in Ramla

119 120 138 142 143 144 144 145 145 146 147 147 148 157 157 158 167 168 169 170 170 184 185 187 188 191 192 193 195 197 200 201 203 203 204 205 206

Figures 6.17 Spatial distribution of zoomorphic objects in the research area 6.18 Spatial distribution of marble vessels in the research area 6.19 Spatial distribution of stamped jar handles, bone fgurines, and soapstone bowls in the research area 6.20 Phases A to C in Ramla 6.21 Phase D and the subterranean cisterns in Ramla 6.22 Phase E in Ramla 6.23 The development of Ramla from the 7th to the 10th century (phase A to D) 6.24 Sites from phases A and B in comparison to pottery-based Umayyad structures 6.25 Ashlar and big-small walls in relation to phases C and D in Ramla 6.26 Ashlar and two-line walls in relation to phases D and E in Ramla 6.27 Lod from the 7th to the 11th century according to its architecture 6.28 Lod from the 7th to the 11th century according to its original dating 6.29 Mapping and clustering sites of phase A (7th century) 6.30 Mapping and clustering sites of phase B (8th century) 6.31 Mapping and clustering sites of phase C (9th century) 6.32 Mapping and clustering sites of phase D (late 9th to mid10th century) 6.33 Mapping and clustering sites of phase E (mid-10th to 11th century) 6.34 Nodes of the 7th and 8th centuries according to pottery and architecture 6.35 Nodes of the 9th and 10th centuries according to pottery and architecture 6.36 Nodes of the 10th and 11th centuries according to pottery and architecture 6.37 Typology of sites in phase A (7th century) 6.38 Typology of sites in phases A and B (7th–8th centuries) and pottery production 6.39 Typology of sites in phase C (9th century) 6.40 Typology of sites in phase D (late 9th to mid-10th century) 6.41 Typology of sites in phase E (mid-10th to 11th century) 7.1 Spatial distribution of al-Ramla coins from excavations in Israel/Palestine and Jordan 7.2 Spatial distribution of al-Ramla coins within the Ramla cluster

xi 207 207 208 211 212 213 213 214 215 215 216 217 220 221 222 223 225 228 229 230 232 233 234 234 235 270 271

Tables

3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6

The distance between toponyms Crops in the research area Correlations on the node level of medium-lined fre installations Small-lined FI type 1 and the characteristics of its nodes Small-lined FI type 2 and the characteristics of its nodes Distinguished elements and relative chronology A summary of the possible tpq for architectural elements Summary of the phases Terminology and function – fre apparatuses in the written sources A summary of terms and functions – fre apparatuses Terminology and translation – installations related to grape juice Dating open-container complexes Terminology and translation – water installations Terminology and translation – drainage and sewage installations Terminology and translation – storage facilities Crops and their water requirements in modern agriculture Crops and their tolerance of high salinity and excess water The main characteristics of type 1 sites Characteristics of type 2 sites The main characteristics of type 3 sites The main characteristics of type 4 sites Summary of artefacts patterns Dating results of nodes in Lod The chronology of sites according to their type Frequency of settlement-type terms in the fve Arabic geographies Comparing settlement-type terms from Palestine with other regions in the Arabic geographies A summary of settlement terms in different languages in Palestine in the 7th–13th centuries The history and identifcation of the two Azotus: scenario 1 The history and identifcation of the two Azotus: scenario 2 Settlement terminology along the 4th–13th centuries

67 69 101 103 103 113 114 117 137 139 154 156 161 162 164 186 189 194 196 198 199 208 218 227 249 250 253 258 259 260

Acknowledgments

This book is based on my Ph.D. dissertation at Universität Hamburg which was written not only through blood, sweat, and (mainly) tears but also with much assistance from supervisors and friends. I am indebted to all. Writing the book was possible thanks to the help and support of my editor Greg Fisher, my friend and copyeditor Anja Rutter, my parents Benny and Leah, and my dear men at home: Mohamed, Assif, and Anir.

1

Introduction

A sequence of political events can be deduced from chronicles on Greater Syria and Egypt in the 7th–11th centuries. According to these, the region was conquered by Arabs in the frst half of the 7th century. These Arabs were believers of a new Faith – Islam – and in the eastern Mediterranean their rule replaced the former Roman-Christian empire after hundreds of years of authority. The new power was led by the Umayyad family and based its capital in Damascus. In the year 750, the Abbasid dynasty took over and shifted the political center to Iraq and Baghdad. In the mid-9th century, the Tulunids operated as a regional authority under the Abbasids. The 10th century saw different groups struggling for power until the rise of the Fatimids, who then ruled for 200 years. Finally, the 12th century saw mainly wars between the Ayyubids and the Crusaders. This sequence of events, if true, gives only a partial picture and lacks the economic, social, and cultural aspects of the region’s history. The main questions concern who lived in the region at that time and what infuence the political changes had on their lives. More particularly, their income sources, trade networks, and technologies require some consideration, as well as their aesthetics, religion, and social organization. Some of these questions will be the focus of this study which concentrates on one case study in the Levant. By doing so, it aims to achieve an in-depth analysis of settlement types and occupation trends in one area of the Islamicate World (i.e. spaces ruled by Muslim elites or where Muslims are the majority)1 and a micro-historical perspective. In other words, this research conducts social history but employs methods which are less common in that feld. Archaeology is the natural candidate to answer such questions. It comes with no surprise that several publications have already offered conclusions to similar questions on Greater Syria.2 These studies introduce information derived from geographies and chronicles in Arabic, but mainly emphasize the data from archaeological excavations and surveys. Importantly, these studies assemble the interpretations and conclusions that excavation and survey teams have provided for archaeological sites and generally do not discuss the raw data afresh.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003176169-1

2

Introduction

The methodology I used for this research differs from former studies in several ways. First, I analyze and interpret texts and archaeology separately and then contrast them. A strong result would be a correlation of the two source groups, while contradictions should raise doubts about the authenticity of the written source or the methodology of the archaeological research. Moreover, I use the narratives in the texts from a critical and even a skeptical perspective. The third innovative approach of this research is a contextual interpretation of the datasets, namely, a classifcation of artefacts, sites, and toponyms through a consistent list of categories on the one hand, and through their unique set of characteristics on the other. At the same time, I avoid early interpretations of the data, in contrast to interpretations suggested in other studies or by common sense.3 For example, I do not presume that any site with a bathhouse or a mosque is a ‘city’. Alternatively, I argue that settlement types must be analyzed through the characteristics which resemble and differentiate them from their neighbors, and that for doing so, wider contexts should be taken into account. A special emphasis is given to the division between ‘form’, ‘term’, and ‘function’ of objects, structures, and settlements.4 In that regard, my main use of texts is for terminological purposes. The fourth distinctive method this research employs is a re-consideration of the archaeological data. Instead of employing the interpretation of excavators for sites and structures, I extract the raw data from the excavation reports. These data involve artefacts, raw materials, construction techniques, and spolia activities. Some of these might have been overlooked as insignifcant earlier, some might have been interpreted in the context of the site alone, whereas regional overview and a larger quantity of specimens might change these views. This method led to a novel chronology of installations and construction techniques and to a new dating tool for early Islamic sites. Finally, through this case study, I treat theoretical questions that concern the archaeological method, such as the identifcation of cities, or the distinction between contexts of production, distribution, and consumption. The name ‘Palestine’ conceals many denotations. Palestine is, frst, the land and homeland of the Palestinian nation. Second, it is the modern political domain of the Palestinian Authority and the territories occupied by Israel. Third, it is the name of the region governed by the British ‘Mandate’ until 1948. Moving back in history to early Islam and orienting the meaning of the term in this book, Palestine was an administrative territory which included the southern part of the later British domain. It comprised the settlements Caesarea, Jerusalem, Jericho, and Ascalon, as well as others between these. Historians of Islam occasionally disregard nation-states, or European colonies, and tend to consider only imagined historical territories such as ‘Arabia’ or ‘Andalusia’. However, the exact domain of these territories is unknown, borders were apparently absent, and the places they included changed over time. Archaeologists, on the other hand, excavate physical remains during geographically positioned excavations for which

Introduction

3

nation-states issued the licenses. One should not expect a correlation between a historical space and modern states. The historical space of Palestine in this study is part of historical Syria or al-Shām. In parallel, the physical domain is situated in central Israel which forms part, in my defnition, of Israel/Palestine in the Levant. The term ‘settlement’ also denotes different things. Its frst interpretation is an inhabited location with some social identity, such as ‘city’ or ‘village’. For that sense, I will keep using the word ‘settlement’ or use ‘settlement type’ when appropriate. These terms differ from ‘site’ in archaeological contexts which can indeed mean a ‘settlement’ but may describe any spot of human activity (e.g. a cemetery, a terrace, or a well). The second meaning has a wider spatial context and includes a populated area and its cultivated lands (henceforth ‘settled area’). The third denotation is the act of spatial domination (henceforth ‘occupation’). The fourth interpretation consists of the act of land occupation for cultivation or for the exploitation of natural resources (henceforth ‘colonization’). Another relevant term in that context is ‘settlement patterns’. This emphasizes the spatial differences between settlement types or between settled areas and changes over time in consecutive occupation or colonization periods. My inquiry into the settlement in historical Palestine and central Israel involves a list of questions and methods. The frst main branch examines settlement patterns according to the archaeological evidence (Chapter 5). To that end, I shall date architectural elements from stratifed contexts and then chart chronological changes within sites and in the region. In addition, types of sites are defned according to their artefacts, raw materials, installations, and chronology, along with interpretations of their economy, their relation to the landscape, and their contacts to other sites. In practice, the steps for establishing a site typology include reconstructing the landscape (Chapter 2), collecting raw data from the research area and classifying installations (Chapter 3), and interpreting the function of these installations (Chapter 4). In order to interpret the function of installations, and thus the economy of individuals and settlements, I frst analyze the ancient terminology for several devices. Second, I employ a method of ‘ethno-archaeology’ in fnding analogies in the use of similar devices in contemporary societies. For the reconstruction of the landscape and particularly the reconstruction of the natural water sources, I use aerial images, maps, and itineraries as late as the early 20th century. The second main branch of the research examines settlement patterns according to the texts, namely through narratives and terminology (Chapter 6). For the narratives, I examine the links between toponyms attributed to the research area. Regarding terminology, I analyze settlement types with the help of relevant terms in a wider dataset. This study promotes not only an understanding of the economy and landscape of the research area, but it also provides a micro-history of colonization and urbanization processes in the Islamicate world. The written sources are ambiguous regarding the defnition of cities, and yet, that settlement type

4

Introduction

is portrayed with confdence by modern scholars. I examine its relations with other settlement types and argue that a city is any settlement which can offer the whole range of services available within a region. As can be expected, a city is also occupied with trade. Unlike many of the geographical models, however, a city is not necessarily productive, big, or central to its surroundings. The settlement that is certainly big as well as central is the ‘metropolis’. During the 9th and 10th centuries, an urbanization process took place in the research area. The process included one settlement growing into a metropolis, overshadowing other cities, and strengthening its role as an economic center for settlements in its surroundings. The urbanization process also included the quick emergence of new settlements which also gained a high level of economic centrality. The subject of colonization over the Islamicate world in the 7th and 8th centuries is commonly deduced only from the narrative sources (written in the 9th and 10th centuries). The analysis of settlement patterns in this study demonstrates how settlements of specifc function – agricultural or ‘industrial’ – emerged in the 8th century to support cities and towns. Industrial settlements are, in fact, a new type of settlement. Another period of occupation can be observed with agricultural settlements in the late 9th century, emerging especially around the region’s metropolis. Overall, however, there seems to be no change in the total number of cities or other settlement types in the region over the 500-years period and beyond. Thus, claims for a zenith or decline during that time are untenable. The occupation of the former region’s capital and the establishment of a new capital are portrayed as a Muslim act (tamṣīr) in Muslim literature. Some modern scholars argue that both were accomplished by the military. However, the settlement patterns suggest that the new capital was established as part of the economic system of the old one, to support it with production activities. The establishment of the new capital as expressed in the written sources is thus legendary and rather doubtful. The following is an introduction to the main sources, methods, and approaches that are used in this work. As this research is interdisciplinary itself and also aims at an interdisciplinary audience, the following is intended to give readers some orientation by pointing to advantages and challenges in each source or method. This chapter starts with archaeology, the sub-discipline of spatial archaeology, in particular, continues with a list of textual sources and the main challenges for historians who use them, and then discusses the integration of texts with archaeology and the diffculties in doing that. The current state of research for other topics in this work, including urbanization and colonization in the Islamicate world, will be treated in the next chapter.

Archaeology and spatial archaeology Archaeology, in a general defnition, is the study of ancient societies through their material culture in context. Data are assembled mainly by excavations

Introduction

5

as well as surface and underwater surveys. Archaeologists collect portable artefacts and document their precise location (locus, pl. loci), record architecture and man-made changes in the landscape, and – during excavations – examine and document stratigraphy. The data is then analyzed by a classifcation of fnds through physical characteristics (typology), by a study of botanical and zoological remains, by dating the fnds, and by mapping the results. For interpretation, artefacts are compared to equivalents from other excavations, to ethnographic research, to art and texts, and to results from experimental archaeology. Moreover, relations are established between different elements, sites, or landscape. Finally, the hypotheses are set into the context of social models and/or historical information.5 Research questions of the discipline are, for example, historical sequence and events, daily life, diet, and ecology, technologies and economy, religion, artistic preferences, social organization, and ‘progress’ or changes. Its main assets are in highlighting non-elite groups (‘history of below’) and in presenting long-term processes.6 In addition to designated research excavations, surface surveys, and salvage (or rescue) excavations are also conducted. They play a very important role in this study since the results of well-documented salvage excavations are its main source and surveys come second. The advantages and faws of both derive from their randomness. On the one hand, salvage excavations cannot follow any beforehand research question, so even parts of the site which seem more interesting to the excavator cannot always be investigated. On the other hand, their very arbitrariness can yield surprising results. Their main advantage is that scholarly discourses are bypassed, that is, the preference of scholars for particular periods or for big sites over small ones becomes irrelevant.7 Surveys have very similar advantages in covering different types of sites across all of human history. In addition, they allow us to draw a wider spatial picture and to examine the relation between humans and the environment. The faws of surveys, as has been argued by many, are the often simplistic and inaccurate dating of portable artefacts, the lack of stratigraphic or any intra-site context, and the imbalance of fnds surfacing and surface representation.8 In other words, the reliability of surface surveys alone for dating purposes is low and their results should be read with caution. Two of the essential methods of archaeological thought and practice are categorization and chronology. The two aspects together produce a third method, periodization, which is conducted in several stages. First, the archaeologist groups the fnds under specifc characteristics (‘typology’). The varied types are dated and might become indicators of a certain time span (‘index fossils’). Then, different groups of artefacts with similar dates are gathered into more general periods (such as the 8th–10th centuries). Finally, the archaeological periods are often named based on a near-random attribution to political regimes in the collective history of that landscape (e.g. the Abbasid period). Importantly, in each of these stages a generalization is

6

Introduction

made, attaching a range of earlier and later types to the main category and adapting the material culture dates to political events. Periods of cultural continuity, hence, with no change in material culture – even after political changes or several centuries passing – are represented in the archaeological evidence as a single cultural unit and will be associated with a single political period. Other political periods in which the same material culture was used disappear from the historical sequence of that landscape. In other words, periodization suggests seemingly static periods on the one hand and methodological and invalid assumptions of gaps between political periods on the other.9 Since that is how the discipline operates, researchers must acknowledge that faw and should not place overmuch weight on the gaps at face value.10 Besides the diffculty of dating objects, the context of their multiple uses is impossible to determine. Binford has coined the term ‘Pompeii premise’ to describe the archaeological interpretation of contexts as frozen in time. Accordingly, fnds allegedly represent their original position.11 In contrast, Schiffer demonstrates the varied lifecycles of an artefact (‘formation processes’) following its initial use. That includes human acts (re-use, re-cycle, disposal, re-disposal, etc.) and natural processes (e.g. weathering, corrosion, or animal burrowing).12 The later formation processes of artefacts, many of them unknown to the archaeologist, make the dating of site abandonment nearly impossible. In Late Antique and Islamic archaeologies in the Levant, the two chief dating tools are coins and pottery, but due to their mobility (and the coins’ high value) the terminus post quem date they suggest may be in many cases irrelevant. For example, coins from the 3rd to the 7th century are commonly found in Israeli excavations in contexts (e.g. along with other coins) of the 13th or 14th century.13 Clearly, these sub-disciplines should practice other dating tools. Ideally, for dating purposes, a technology would be related to a short period or would change over time in a way which would enable a simple chronological typology.14 However, it can be assumed that some innovations were so successful that only minor adjustments were made to them over a long period. One example is the oil presses in Palestine, which show hardly any change for hundreds of years.15 Likewise, the round Roman pottery kilns seem to continue in use until the late 9th century, and bathhouses went through only very gradual changes from the 5th to the 16th century (Chapter 3). A different representation of such a problem is cultural rituals. For example, it is usually impossible to date Muslim burials in Israel/Palestine more accurately than to ‘the Islamic period’ (theoretically the 7th–19th centuries). The skeleton position is identical (laying on its side and facing Mecca), there are rarely any artefacts, and no epitaphs are found.16 It can be assumed that Christians and Jews kept their burial traditions for a long period too, which would mean that dating their burials as pre-Islamic is often inaccurate. In Bet Guvrin, for example, the Christian necropolis went out of use only in

Introduction 17

7

the late 8th century. Even later evidence, from the 9th century, is a mass grave of Christians on the Jordan River near Jericho, with the buried being laid on their back in a traditional manner,18 different from Muslim burials. In fact, it is not clear when Muslim burial according to Islamic law began in Palestine and what burial customs of Muslim believers were performed before that date. In short, technologies and rituals do not always correspond to – and can hardly ever represent – quick changes. In the next chapter, we will see how in Israeli archaeology, some technologies are assigned to the ‘Byzantine period’ with no justifcation. At the latest since the 1970s, archaeology perceives itself as dealing with material culture within a context. In practice, archaeological fnds are interpreted in relation to other fnds in their locus, layer, structure, site, or region, and to other characteristics in those spatial units.19 Several sub-disciplines have developed from that approach, including spatial archaeology, landscape archaeology, and household archaeology, all engraved in the philosophical infrastructure of the present research in addition to their methods. In spatial archaeology, the researcher seeks to detect trends, patterns of correlation, or a geometric order. Each artefact can be sliced into dozens of characteristics, among them form, material, size and weight, color, or decoration. Following an initial typology, cross-references highlight similarities between objects which imply the relations between them and their users. Then, models are created in order to understand the patterns and their dynamics in the research area.20 The relatively large amounts of data, Big Data in terms of digital research, are gathered through a consistent list of categories with a preference for quantity over quality. They allow clarity which samples cannot provide and enable a longue dureé perspective.21 When establishing a typology for an artefact or a structure, a neutral typology is preferable to one which includes possible functions (e.g. ‘wine press’, ‘workers camp’).22 Moreover, the similarities between characteristics are only one type of pattern. The others would be based on absences and contrasts.23 Finally, the goal of the method is to highlight patterns but not to explain them.24 The interpretation of any pattern involves trying on various theories and models until they correlate with other patterns. Instead of binding the data into the theory, Hodder and Hutson suggest “to accept the arbitrariness of our own categories and to be more open to alternative possibilities”.25 Household archaeology can be seen as an aspect of spatial archaeology. Specifcally, it investigates the spatial distribution and temporal patterns of fnd assemblages within dwelling spaces.26 One of the challenges in spatial archaeology is detecting patterns which relate to processes which occurred later on the site (e.g. spolia) and which changed the original order of artefacts in a layer or inside a structure.27 Landscape archaeology is another aspect of spatial archaeology. It emphasizes inter-site and environmental contexts, especially the relation of humans with raw materials and water sources.28 Landscape archaeologists are often intrigued by economic questions such as production, distribution, and

8

Introduction

consumption of objects. In other words, when a vessel is unearthed, a landscape researcher would inquire if it represents a nearby workshop, a shop from which it was sold, or a household which used it. However, the defnition of production areas, or the distinction between manufacture, distributional and consumption-related loci, is rarely explicit in the archaeological literature. Production is potentially the most visible and easiest to detect, leaving waste, debris, tools, and installations. Yet, developing spatial models will help recognize the relation between an installation and its waste, or the end product and its debris. Spatial distribution might also imply areas of consumption.29 This question is one of the focuses of the present research and along the work spatial models will be suggested. A fundamental criticism on archaeology which spatial archaeologists try to solve is the problem of the site defnition. According to the off-site approach, a ‘site’ is an abstract notion which changes in different contexts. On the one hand, it is understood as the basic empirical unit of archaeological space and on the other hand, it is considered a real entity such as a settlement or another representation of human activity. In effect, it is only a modern observation, therefore might be a random and invalid unit.30 One of the central diffculties is to determine the domains of a settlement. As an alternative, I have borrowed the term ‘node’ from Network Analysis. Here, it means small areas of archaeological investigation such as ‘sites’ in archaeological surveys or excavations of limited scale. Nodes comprise 2 to 60 excavation squares (often 5 × 5 m) and measure between 5 and 200 m in diameter. Following the results of this study, ‘sites’ were identifed as an independent node or a cluster of nodes that (a) contain architecture and (b) are distinct from other such clusters, often at a distance of several kilometers. I believe that these sites may well refect settlements. Nodes with no architecture contained instead burials or portable artefacts. The character of these nodes supports the geographical division between sites, hence, between clusters of nodes, as they may be interpreted as cemeteries and dumps outside settlements.

Texts and historiography In modern studies of early Islam, the term ‘historiography’ often denotes the composition of history by early Islamic authors. In modern history, however, it means a critical review of modern writing trends. The use of the term in this essay is the latter. Historical writing has gone through major changes in the middle 20th century mainly due to the Annales School. The Annales has shifted the focus from history as a sequence of political and military short-term events to a wider scale of economic and ecological longterm processes. That approach led in reverse to micro-history.31 Moreover, post-modernist thought challenged the perception of ‘truth’ and ‘reality’ and shaped source criticism. One of the known challenges in early Islamic studies is the textual bias. The most popular source for the narratives of the 7th–8th centuries are texts

Introduction

9

written by geographers and historians at least 200 or 300 years after the events they recount. Even more so, in the second half of the 12th century, writing was accelerated due to both changes in the script and the rise of endowment institutions which encouraged educational frameworks,32 so the corpus of written sources is even larger. Fred Donner summarizes four approaches of modern historians to the time gap between the alleged event and its written report: the descriptive approach which accepts a text as is, the source-critical approach which tries to remove later additions to original texts by contrasting them with other sorts of evidence, the tradition-critical approach which focuses on transmitters of narratives, on their socialpolitical contexts or on literary themes, and the skeptical approach which questions the existence of a core of truth altogether.33 The present research follows the three latter approaches, all of which question the reliability of texts, but it mostly complies with the tradition-critical approach. As an apriori assumption, terminology represents the language of its last author or of later editors of the text and therefore was used frequently in the present work. One of the views I hold is that there are no ‘better’ and ‘worse’ sources, or logical/illogical narratives. Contradictions between sources are caused by a great range of reasons, not necessarily because one is ‘correct’ and the other ‘fawed’. Still, as are most other archaeological studies, this essentially is a positivist inquiry which pursues ‘what really happened’. The main texts used in this study are narrative sources (geographies and chronicles), documentary evidence (epigraphy, papyri, and the Geniza), and Jewish legal literature. For specifc topics, it also utilizes texts which derive from lexicons and cooking books, from ḥisba manuals of market supervisors, from the Onomasticon of Eusebius and the Madaba mosaic map, and from Roman and Christian administrative lists. The geographers and chroniclers which were most employed include, in chronological order, al-Balādhurī (d. approx. 892), al-Yaʿqūbī (d. after 905), al-Iṣṭakhrī (d. after 950), al-Maqdisī (d. after 990), the Samaritan text Ha-Tūlīda (frst concluded in 1149), al-Idrīsī (d. 1165), Benjamin of Tudela (d. after 1170), William of Tyre (d. 1186), and Yāqūt (d. 1229). To a lesser degree, information was collected from books by Ibn al-Faqīh (d. after 903), al-Ṭabarī (d. 923), al-Jahshiyārī (d. 942), Ibn Ḥawqal (d. after 978 AD), Nāṣir-i Khusraw (d. 1072–1078), and al-Harawī (d. 1215). Great parts of information were extracted from online databases, in parallel to monographs, including the Arabic Papyrology Database (APD), Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique (TEI) for Arabic inscriptions, the Princeton Geniza Project Digital Library, and the Online Responsa Project for Jewish legal literature.34 Two remarks regard translation and transliteration. Translators usually need to decide between a smooth, literary, and less precise interpretation, and a literal decoding of words which is more precise at the terminological level but ‘clumsier’.35 This study follows the second approach which is essential for terminological analyses. Terms and names in Arabic and Hebrew which are commonly known in English were not transliterated. As  examples: caliph,

10

Introduction

Hanaf, Quran, Talmud Bavli, or specifc regimes (Fatimid, Abbasid). In the case of toponyms and sites, English names were used for most archaeological sites and general attributions (e.g. Jaffa, Baghdad) but transliteration was used for toponyms in a clearly literary context (Yāfā, Baghdād). Regarding Hebrew, this study followed the transliteration of Brill with a few adjustments.36

Combining texts and archaeology: different approaches Anders Andrén analyzes the relation of written sources and archaeology in different archaeological sub-disciplines across the world as well as in related disciplines and introduces fve methodological approaches for that combination. These include an aesthetic approach in which artistic styles are studied, a philological tradition which involves texts from archaeological contexts or the ways texts describe objects, a text-based history that is supplemented by archaeological answers to the economy, daily life, or nonelite groups, cultural history which focuses on objects and folklore, and, fnally, an archaeological tradition which depends on analogies.37 In Islamic archaeology, primary literature is often employed for site interpretation.38 In these cases, the picture, drawn by textual sources, biases archaeological interpretation of the site, and archaeology loses its potential as a counterbalance to the reality that the texts offer. One of the problems is that archaeologists, usually not trained as philologists, tend to read texts literally. The next chapter will present how the term sulḥan (surrender) is taken at face value and is attributed to archaeological sites,39 disregarding debates over that term by Noth and other tradition-critical historians.40 In short, the integration of text and archaeology often does not provide two independent sources. Instead, archaeological interpretation merely echoes the interpretation of the texts and gives just an illusion of independence. The identifcation of toponyms for archaeological or contemporary sites can illustrate the problems engendered by the integration of texts and archaeology. The identifcation of toponyms from the Bible is an old cultural practice in Palestine. The Muslim geographer ibn al-Faqīh, for example, refers David and Solomon to contemporary Jerusalem, while Yāqūt attributes the same fgures to al-Ramla. Likewise, William of Tyre informs his readers on the Philistine origin of different settlements such as Gaza or Ascalon.41 In modern scholarship, the frst to attempt to identify toponyms systematically were the Americans Edward Robinson and Eli Smith, in 1841. The two scholars surveyed the rural areas of Ottoman Palestine, mapped the Arabic toponyms, and matched them to biblical toponyms with similar phonetics and geographical attributions.42 The same method was applied by many, including the Zionist name committee for new Jewish settlements which insisted in many cases on the ‘right’ or ‘original’ historical toponym.43 In spite of the source criticism, modern research of geographical history shows continuity with that tradition. Today, the range of historical and geographical texts is broader, including sources from the early Islamic period.

Introduction

11

Leaving politics and national agendas aside, we should consider that the identifcation of toponyms is only speculative. Similar to the problem of a priori defnitions of ‘sites’, the main two uncertainties with toponym identifcation are the toponym’s exact location and its borders. That is true even in such a seemingly clear case as a well-recorded Ottoman site located atop earlier archaeological layers. First, sites of Early Islam in the Levant rarely have in situ inscriptions which refer to a toponym. A rare example of such an inscription is from thaghr ʿAsqalān, 1048 AD.44 Second, settlements shifted and got duplicated while keeping their names. Regarding the borders, an archaeological site can be either smaller or bigger than the imagined territory of a toponym, or of the spot where the inscription was found. In addition, different entities can run into each other without geographic or physical borders. The modern municipality of Ramla is composed of what seems to be several archaeological sites or clusters of activity. These sites could operate as a single entity (maybe named ‘al-Ramla’), or be regarded as separated entities, only one carrying the name al-Ramla. If the former was the case, then it is possible that even more archaeological sites were part of that ‘greater al-Ramla’, beyond the scope of the present municipality. Similar attempts to recognize specifc structures (sometimes in order to justify the site’s original identifcation) are similarly speculative and often biased. To conclude, toponyms cannot be automatically attributed to archaeological sites, if at all. Archaeology can contradict texts, and defnitely the interpretation of texts.45 For that reason, in the present research, archaeology and texts are divided and analyzed separately. In the frst place, archaeology is understood as an independent method which answers a unique set of research questions, including historical ones.46 Second, this work uses independent methods of analysis for the archaeological data and for texts, compares the results, and integrates them only in the discussion. Some scholars advise extracting such analyses and comparisons in each discipline separately,47 but it might be successfully applied also by single scholars.48 In this way, each dataset “inform[s] the other as well, allowing for new avenues of inquiry rather than the intentional dogmatic representations of facile explanations of the past”.49 Such cooperation must take into account the debate over ‘emic’ and ‘etic’ perspectives. Adopted from anthropology, an emic approach uses the categorization or interpretation initiated by the studied society. In contrast, an etic approach uses the ones of the outsider-scholar. Archaeology, in its essence, is an etic discipline which builds categories and models. Its interpretation might be valid but will forever be a guess of an outsider.50 Texts, on the other hand, give a glimpse into the inner world of the target community or some of its members. The study of language, or terminology, uses an emic perspective. Nevertheless, most research questions and methods working with texts are also etic in nature. An example to clarify these concepts is the defnition of a city. The emic perspective is the defnitions of a city by the

12

Introduction

studied society – what it is they label ‘city’ and the characteristics of such a place. The etic perspective, on the other hand, involves a set of categories by the archaeologist, numismatist, or historian for ‘city’ or ‘metropolis’. The division in this work between archaeology and texts thus enables the validation of the etic categorization for Israeli sites by comparing it to emic perceptions in Palestine and other regions in the Islamicate world.

Notes 1 The ‘Islamicate’ defnition emphasizes social and cultural aspects of life under a Muslim domination but is not immune of diffculties. See Ahmed (2016, especially pp. 157–175). I thank José C. Carvajal López for the reference and discussion. 2 Walmsley (2007); Taxel (2013, 2018); Avni (2014); Eger (2015). 3 Hodder (1986). 4 Khoury (1998). 5 Chang (1968). 6 Barker (1991); Andrén (1997); Milwright (2010: 5). 7 Also see Petersen (2005: 111). 8 Keller and Rupp (1983: 1); Barker (1991); David and Thomas (2008: 25). 9 Van der Leeuw (1981: 230–232); Lenzen (1995). 10 For a partial solution, see Whitcomb (1987). 11 Binford (1981). 12 Schiffer (1987). 13 Nol (2019: 46–47). 14 For a recent review of innovations and the diffusion of ideas, see Robert and Radivojević (2015). 15 Waliszewski (2014: 13, 171). 16 I am grateful to Abed al-Razek Matani for that information based on his unpublished MA. See also Insoll (1999: 172). 17 Avni, Dahari and Kloner (2008: 120). 18 Shamir (2015: 49). 19 Hodder and Hutson (2003: 173–181). 20 Clarke (1977: 10). 21 Gattiglia (2015: 2–6). 22 Hodder (1986: 24–25); Hodder and Hutson (2003: 171). 23 Hodder (1986: 126–143); Hodder and Hutson (2003: 167–190). 24 Gattiglia (2015). 25 Hodder and Hutson (2003: 182). 26 Allison (1999). See also Wilk and Rathje (1982). 27 Schiffer (1987: 14); Hodder and Hutson (2003: 171). 28 David and Thomas (2008: 25). 29 Costin (1991). 30 Thomas (1975); Dunnell (1992). 31 Tomich (2011). 32 Hirschler (2012: 17–18). 33 Donner (1998: 5–31). 34 The Arabic Papyrology Database, http://www.naher-osten.uni-muenchen.de/ apd, last accessed March 19, 2019; The Princeton Geniza Project Digital Library, https://geniza.princeton.edu/pgp/pgpsearch/, last accessed July 19, 2019; Online Responsa Project, http://www.responsa.co.il/ last accessed March 16, 2019; Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique (EPI), www.epigraphie-islamique.org, last accessed March 20, 2019.

Introduction

13

35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Talmon-Heller (2018: 174). E.g. ‘e’ instead of ę, ‘sh’ and ‘kh’ replacing š and ḵ, and v instead of ḇ. Andrén (1997: 107–135). Eger (2015: 12–13). E.g. Damgaard (2009: 86); Taxel (2013: 160). See Noth (1973). Ibn al-Faqīh: 102; Yāqūt II: 818; Babcock and Krey (1943 II: 219, 374). Silberman (1982: 43–47). Katz (1995). See also Benvenisti (2002); Masalha (2015). Sharon (1995: 80). Avni (2014: 30); Eger (2015: 8). See for example Schick (1987). E.g. De Ligt (1993: 34); Rosen (2006). Brandes (1999); Rosen (2006: 893). E.g. Gascoigne (2007); al-Rāshid (1986: 5–9, 22–23). Lenzen (1991: 171). A similar approach towards a dialogue, in the research of the Mamluk period, at Walker (2010: 113). 50 Hodder and Hutson (2003: 180–181).

References Primary sources Ibn al-Faqīh, ibn Bakr Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Hamdhānī (d. after 903). Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, Michael Jan de Goeje (ed.), 1885, Leiden: Brill. [William of Tyre] Willelmus Tyrensis Archiepiscopus. Chronicon, Robert Burchard Constantijn Huygens (ed.), 1986, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 63, 63A, Turnhout: Brepols. Emily Atwater Babcock and August Charles Krey (trans.), 1943. A History of the Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, by William, Archbishop of Tyre, 2 vols., New York: Columbia University Press. Yāqūt, Ya ͑ qūb ibn Abd ͑ Allāh (d. 1229). Muʿjam al-buldān, Ferdinand Wüstenfeld (ed.), 1866–1870, Jacut‘s geographisches Wörterbuch aus den Handschriften aus Berlin, St. Petersburg und Paris, 6 vols., Leipzig: Brockhaus. Secondary literature Ahmed, Shahab, 2016. What Is Islam? The Importance of Being Islamic, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Allison, Penelope M., 1999. “Introduction”, in: idem (ed.), The Archaeology of Household Activities, London and New York: Routledge, 1–18. Andrén, Anders, 1997. Between Artifacts and Texts: Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective, English ed. 1998, New York and London: Plenum Press. Avni, Gideon, 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Avni, Gideon, Dahari, Uzi, and Amos Kloner, 2008. The Necropolis of Bet Guvrin – Eleutheropolis, IAA Reports 36, Jerusalem. Barker, Graeme, 1991. “Approaches to Archaeological Survey”, in: Graeme Barker and John Lloyd (eds.), Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region, London: British School at Rome, 1–9. Benvenisti, Meron, 2002. Sacred Landscape: Buried History of the Holy Land since 1948, Berkeley: University of California Press.

14 Introduction Binford, Lewis R., 1981. “Behavioral Archaeology and the ‘Pompeii Premise’”, Journal of Anthropological Research 37(3): 195–208. Brandes, Wolfram, 1999. “Byzantine Cities in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries – Different Sources, Different Histories?”, in: Gian Pietro Brogiolo and Bryan Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden: Brill, 25–57. Chang, Kwang-chih, 1968. “Toward a Science of Prehistoric Society”, in: idem (ed.), Settlement Archaeology, Palo Alto: National Press Books, 1–9. Clarke, David L., 1977. “Spatial Information in Archaeology”, in: idem (ed.), Spatial Archaeology, London: Academic Press, 1–32. Costin, Cathy L., 1991. “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defning, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production”, Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–56. Damgaard, Kristoffer, 2009. “A Palestinian Red Sea Port on the Egyptian Road to Arabia: Early Islamic Aqaba and Its Many Hinterlands”, in: Lucy Blue, John Cooper, Thomas Ross, and Julian Whitewright (eds.), Connected Hinterlands: Proceedings of Red Sea Project IV, BAR International Series 2052, Oxford: Archaeopress, 85–98. David, Bruno, and Thomas, Julian, 2008. “Historical Perspective”, in: idem (eds.), Handbook of Landscape Archaeology, Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 1–25. De Ligt, Luuk, 1993. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben Publisher. Donner, Fred M., 1998. Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginning of Islamic Historical Writing, Princeton: The Darwin Press. Dunnell, Robert C., 1992. “The Notion Site”, in: Jacqueline Rossingnol and LuAnn Wandsnider (eds.), Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, New York and London: Plenum Press, 21–41. Eger, A. Asa, 2015. The Islamic-Byzantine Frontier: Interaction and Exchange Among Muslim and Christian Communities, London and New York: Tauris. Gascoigne, Alison L., 2007. “The Water Supply of Tinnīs: Public Amenities and Private Investments”, in: Amira K. Bennison and Alison L. Gascoigne (eds.), Cities in the Pre-modern Islamic World, London and New York: Routhledge, 161–176. Gattiglia, Gabriele, 2015. “Think Big about Data: Archaeology and the Big Data Challenge”, Archäologische Informationen 38: 113–124. Hirschler, Konrad, 2012. The Written Word in the Medieval Arabic Lands: A Social and Cultural History of Reading Practices, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hodder, Ian, 1986. Reading the Past, 1991 ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, Ian, and Hutson, Scott, 2003. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Insoll, Timothy, 1999. The Archaeology of Islam, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Katz, Yossi, 1995. “Identity, Nationalism, and Placenames: Zionist Efforts to Preserve the Original Local Hebrew Names in Offcial Publications of the Mandate Government of Palestine”, Names 43(2): 103–118. Keller, Donald R., and Rupp, David W., 1983. Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Area, BAR International Series 155, Oxford: BAR Publishing. Khoury, Nuha N.N., 1998. “The Mihrab: From Text to Form”, International Journal of Middle East Studies 30(1): 1–27.

Introduction

15

Lenzen, Cherie J., 1991. “The Integration of the Data Bases Archaeology and History: A Case in Point, Bayt Ras”, in: Adnan Bakhit and Robert Schick (eds.), Bilād al-Shām During the Abbasid Period (132 A.H./750 A.D.–451 A.H./1059 A.D.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on the History of Bilād alShām, English French Section, Amman: University of Jordan, 160–178. Lenzen, Cherie J., 1995. “From Public to Private Space: Changes in the Urban Plan of Bayt Rās/Capitolias”, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5: 235–239. Masalha, Nur, 2015. “Settler-Colonialism, Memoricide and Indigenous Toponymic Memory: The Appropriation of Palestinian Place Names by the Israeli State”, Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies 14(1): 3–57. Milwright, Marcus, 2010. An Introduction to Islamic Archaeology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Nol, Hagit, 2019. “Dating Early Islamic Sites Through Architectural Elements: A Case Study from Central Israel”, Journal of Islamic Archaeology 6(1): 41–80. Noth, Albrecht, 1973. “Zum Verhältnis von kalifaler Zentralgewalt und Provinzen in umayyadischer Zeit: Die ‘Ṣulḥ’-‘ʿAnwa’-Traditionen für Ägypten und den Iraq”, Die Welt des Islams 14: 150–162. Petersen, Andrew, 2005. The Towns of Palestine under Muslim Rule AD 600–1600, BAR International Series 1381, Oxford: Archaeopress. Al-Rāshid, Saʿad bin ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, 1986. Al-Rabadhah. A Portrait of Early Islamic Civilisation in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh: King Saudi University. Robert, Benjamin W., and Radivojević, Miljana, 2015. “Invention as a Process: Pyrotechnologies in Early Societies”, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25: 299–306. Rosen, Steven A., 2006. “The Tyranny of Texts: A Rebellion against the Primacy of Written Documents in Defning Archaeological Agendas”, in: Aren M. Maeir and Pierre de Miroschedji (eds.), “I will Speak the Riddles of Ancient Times”: Archaeological and Historical Studies in Honor of Amihai Mazar, Vol. II, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 879–893. Schick, Robert, 1987. “The Fate of the Christians in Palestine during the Byzantine-Umayyad Transition, AD 600–750”, PhD Thesis, Chicago: University of Chicago. Schiffer, Michael B., 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record, 1996 ed., Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Shamir, Orit, 2015. “Egyptian and Nubian Textiles from Qasr el-Yahud, 9th Century AD”, in: Antoine De Moor, Cäcilia Fluck, and Petra Linscheid (eds.), Textiles, Tools and Techniques of the 1st Millennium AD from Egypt and Neighbouring Countries, Tielt: Lannoo, 49–59. Sharon, Moshe, 1995. “A New Fâṭimid Inscription from Ascalon and Its Historical Setting”, ʿAtiqot 26: 61–86. Silberman, Neil Asher, 1982. Digging for God and Country: Exploration, Archeology, and the Secret Struggle for the Holy Land 1799–1917, New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Talmon-Heller, Daniella, 2018. “‘Arrising Desire for Visiting Jerusalem and Syria’ (Muthīr al-gharām ilā ziyārat al-Quds wa-l-Shām) and Twenty Two More Arabic Sources on Palestine”, Cathedra 167: 171–175 (in Hebrew). Taxel, Itamar, 2013. “Rural Settlement Processes in Central Palestine, ca. 640–800 C.E.: The Ramla-Yavneh Region as a Case Study”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 369: 157–199.

16

Introduction

Taxel, Itamar, 2018. “Early Islamic Palestine: Toward a More Fine-Tuned Recognition of Settlement Patterns and Land Uses in Town and Country”, Journal of Islamic Archaeology 5(2): 153–180. Thomas, David Hurst, 1975. “Nonesite Sampling in Archaeology: Up the Creek Without a Site?”, in: James W. Mueller (ed.), Sampling in Archaeology, second ed. 1979, Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 61–81. Tomich, Dale, 2011. “The Order of Historical Time: The Longue Durée and Micro-History”, Almanack 2(2): 52–65. Van der Leeuw, Sander E., 1981. “Information Flows, Flow Structures and the Explanation of Change in Human Institutions”, in: idem (ed.), Archaeological Approaches to the Study of Complexity, Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam, 230–312. Waliszewski, Tomasz, 2014. ELAION: Olive Oil Production in Roman and Byzantine Syria-Palestine, Warsaw: Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology. Walker, Bethany J., 2010. “From Ceramics to Social Theory: Refections on Mamluk Archaeology Today”, Mamluk Studies Review 14: 109–157. Walmsley, Alan G., 2007. Early Islamic Syria: An Archaeological Assessment, Bath: Duckworth. Whitcomb, Donald, 1987. “Excavation in Aqaba: First Preliminary Report”, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 247–266. Wilk, Richard R., and Rathje, William L., 1982. “Household Archaeology”, The American Behavioral Scientist 25(6): 617–639.

2 Settlement during early Islam History and historiography

Research of early Islam calls for a designated overview of occupation, colonization, and settlement patterns. Most aspects within that bigger topic of ‘settlement’ are discussed by at least one of the three disciplines devoted to the history of the period – archaeology, art history, or text-oriented history. As we shall see, however, information from these fields tends to be based on paradigms on the one hand and less sound evidence on the other. It often lacks a critical reading of both primary written sources and excavation reports, and generalizations of selective case studies are still common. Our survey of secondary sources on the topic is ordered chronologically. It starts with settlement patterns prior to the Islamic rule during the Byzantine period and discusses the perception of that period until recently as an economic and demographic zenith. The subsequent themes are migration and occupation following the Arab conquests, which include the subjects of land holding and Muslim colonization (tamṣīr). The next topic deals with the ‘Desert Castle’ structures which are attributed to the early 8th century. Next, the architectural definition of the Islamic city is introduced, followed by a discussion of its evolution and institutions. The final two themes are settlement patterns of the 9th–11th centuries, discussed alongside the ‘agricultural revolution’ thesis of Watson. Many of these topics involve the concept of ‘decline’, which I am therefore going to consider first.

Golden ages and declines Studies in geographical history and archaeology often point to overwhelming changes. These transformations – defined by the concepts of ‘zenith’ and ‘decline’ – may follow specific events such as ‘revolutions’ and ‘catastrophes’.1 The 6th and early 7th centuries were perceived until only recently as a Golden Age in Palestine. Thus, scholars argued that the region experienced an economic, social, and demographic decline afterward in the 7th, 8th, or gradually during the 11th–13th centuries.2 A different example derives from Syria and Iraq, where colonization is believed to bloom in the Abbasid period, to decrease in the 10th century, and to grow once more but to a lesser degree in the 12th–13th centuries.3

DOI: 10.4324/9781003176169-2

18

Settlement during early Islam

In archaeology, several methods are used to identify a reduction in occupation and thence a demographic and economic decline. One indicator archaeologists use is the presence of open spaces within settlements which might signify agriculture (which in turn signifes a status inferior to a built area).4 An example is the alternation of ‘urban’ spaces in Caesarea into gardens which was understood as decline.5 This indicates a misinformed and a dichotomous perception of the ancient ‘city’ vs. the ancient ‘village’ or ‘farm’. In contrast, contemporary texts show that all three settlement types in Palestine incorporated agriculture (Chapter 7). The main method to evaluate decline is through archaeological surveys, where the intensity and distribution of pottery are thought to indicate demographic patterns. The emergence of new sites and the enlargement of existing sites are interpreted as growth, and desertion of sites and reduction of others are interpreted as decline. Surveys around Tel Yavne show smaller amounts of 8th–9th-century pottery and in fewer areas than 6th–7th-century pottery. Thus, the “fourishing settlement activity and growth” during the 6th–7th-century stands in contrast to its “signifcant reduction in territory and population” during the next period.6 Nevertheless, the archaeological evidence cannot provide a defnite date and cannot detect short-term desertion and reduction patterns. The spatial distribution of pottery does not necessarily correspond to the site size but might refect different technologies, different purchasing habits, or different habits of disposal.7 The absence of distinctive evidence (index fossils) does not automatically equal desertion. Alternatively, it might result from methodological categorization or from changes over time which involve re-use and recycling. To conclude, pottery evidence cannot indicate with certainty occupation and colonization movements. The interpretation of such processes is incomplete since migration and site establishment might derive from economic and social distress or other negative circumstances. The attempt to detect zenith and decline in history is not a very old issue. It can be found in intellectual writings of the 18th and 19th centuries, but only in the 20th century did it become the mainstream. Previously, the optimistic discourse of an endless ‘progress’ had been the common paradigm of the 19th century.8 According to the decline perspective, growth represents ‘good’ and decline equals ‘bad’. However, declines are not necessarily bad, certainly not for everyone. For example, a demographic decline might not necessarily mean a decreased quality of life but quite the opposite.9 Thus, the judgmental labels attached to such changes (‘good’ or ‘bad’) might be invalid for the studied society. A more relativist approach would persist in highlighting changes. One might also see changes as long-term processes which repeat themselves.10 In order to restore the premier meaning of ‘change’ as a long-term process, its reasons and implications should be investigated in detail.

Settlement during early Islam 19

A Byzantine boom – or not Not until quite recently did scholars of Late Antiquity argue for a demographic and economic Golden Age in Greater Syria during the Byzantine period. The demographic aspect was deduced from the expansion of existing sites, the establishment of new ones, and interpreting both as population growth.11 While its peak was dated to the late-6th-early 7th centuries in Palestine, in Syria it was assigned to the 5th–6th centuries.12 Economic welfare was believed to result from trade, Christian pilgrimage, and donations, and foreign investments in the Holy Land.13 It was refected in the abundance of church inscriptions, particularly from the 7th century,14 in the large number of coins and coin hoards from the late 6th century,15 and in the widespread distribution of Gaza amphorae ‘Late Roman 4’ (LR4) which was traditionally dated to the late 6th–7th century.16 Scholars also linked a text of the 4th century, expositio totius mundi (‘A Description of the Whole World’), with that prosperity.17 An early representative of the demographic paradigm in Israel is Michael Avi-Yonah. In 1966, in the English edition of his book from 1951, he writes that “[…] there is a gradual increase in the movement of population, which continues until the Persian invasion of 614”.18 Based on “a series of partial surveys” (four to be exact, published in 1918, 1930, 1941, and 1962), he argues that the proportions between the number of Roman-Byzantine sites and Palestinian villages in 1900 fell in the ratio of 1:4. Therefore, although noting that current Palestinian villages are probably more populated than the ancient ones, he calculates 2.8 million inhabitants for Palestine during the Roman-Byzantine period.19 Apparently, these calculations were originally submitted to the United Nations before 1948 as an indicator of the capacity of Palestine for Zionist immigration and occupations.20 Similar calculations were later presented by scholars such as Moshe Sharon and Yaron Dan.21 In short, the demographic paradigm was developed based on studies from the 1950s to the 1980s which compared results of scattered and outdated archaeological surveys with highly speculative data under major political and ideological strains. Clearly, the exact dates of the peak were never consistent, ranging from the 4th to the 7th century. Placing the four centuries of occupation under a single chronological umbrella was artifcial.22 Not surprisingly, therefore, more recent archaeological surveys have shown regions experiencing intensive colonization also earlier than the Byzantine period, in the 2nd–3rd centuries. In addition, variations in occupation trends were observed within the so-called ‘Byzantine period’.23 Most recently, an archaeological research conducted in Shivta, southern Israel, on its pottery and organic remains suggests a peak in the site’s wine production during the 5th century and a following decline in the 6th.24 The Byzantine Boom paradigm is thus being gradually abandoned. However, regional settlement patterns and the dating of sites are not always

20

Settlement during early Islam

getting updated.25 Moreover, archaeological fnds such as pottery, coins, and architecture (with or without Christian symbols) are sometimes still attributed to the Byzantine period at face value despite their wide or unclear date. For example, surveys in Tell Yavne revealed marble columns and other elements in contexts with pottery of the Byzantine and Early Islamic periods, yet they were interpreted as a possible Byzantine church, not an Early Islamic one.26 Likewise, scholars date winepresses to the 6th–7th centuries with continuity into the 8th century at the latest,27 while many of these installations should be dated to the 10th century (Chapter 6). Even Byzantine coins from the early 7th century, which are safely dated, were reproduced during the Umayyad period and remained in circulation for a long period,28 thence cannot represent the 7th century exclusively. To conclude, it is impossible to determine whether ‘Byzantine’ sites are Byzantine and not ‘Umayyad’ or even ‘Abbasid’. Settlement patterns in these periods are to be established, cautiously, afresh.

Migration, land holding, and the amṣār In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, scholars believed that the Arab conquests resulted from the immigration of Arab tribes. Later it was argued that the conquests were conducted by military forces followed by migration.29 Some scholars then suggest parallel processes of migration also before the conquests, at least into Syria.30 It must be noted, however, that ‘Arab’ tribes are not necessarily from Arabia but might have been of local origin.31 The Nessana papyri from southern Israel clearly indicate that an army of some sort was involved either in the occupation of the lands or their holding.32 Analyses of settlement patterns and the material culture could possibly answer these issues. In theory, detecting a late 6th-century colonization process would support the interpretation of a pre-conquest migration, and a 7th-century occupation – perhaps with cultural motives known earlier only from Arabia – would suggest a post-conquest migration. Unfortunately, portable artefacts from the 6th–7th centuries cannot yet be differentiated for each century and other characteristics have not been defned yet. The Muslim legal and historical sources point to two types of local responses to the Arab conquests in the mid-600s. The frst is surrender (sulḥan) which brought about a peace agreement (amān). Its opposite is a conquest by force (ʿanwatan). This division was of importance to the jurists, and some will say was created by them. It determined, for one, the level of tax the conquered communities needed to pay on their lands,33 and second, it decided whether a Muslim was allowed to possess these lands.34 Some modern studies accept these narratives uncritically, as for Ayla or Ludd which are reported to receive an amān.35 Other scholars argue that these texts cannot represent the reality of the conquests at face value, as they were written later.36 Whereas overall skepticism might not be the answer for every reader,

Settlement during early Islam 21 the repetition of these narratives makes them a clear literary topos and thus unreliable. Even if the conquests occurred and treaties existed, there is no way to verify either. Terminology for acquiring and taxing lands in the 1st centuries of Islam is obscure. The term qaṭīʿa which was used by historians in the 9th and 10th centuries seems to mean ‘grants’ in these contexts, probably of lands.37 In other words, the common differentiation between ‘garrison qaṭīʿa’, small plots of land which were granted in forts and cities on the frontier, and ‘agricultural qaṭīʿa’ which were large estates granted to the caliph’s family,38 seems to have no terminological grounds. Two additional methods to acquire lands were in the form of purchase by land holders to enlarge their property,39 and protection (iljāʾ) which land holders asked from their leaders in exchange for becoming their tenants.40 From the mid-10th century in Iraq, and elsewhere in the 11th–12th centuries, the iqṭāʿ (fef) system of land division emerges. By this, the rulers granted their commanders the right to collect taxes from specifc areas in return for military or other services.41 The Egyptian papyri imply that this method was not exclusive and different tax systems functioned simultaneously.42 Claude Cahen bases his well-known division of land holding types on religion. One type he identifes is privately owned land of indigenous people for which the kharāj tax had to be paid as long as the owner remained non-Muslim. The second type Cahen calls qaṭīʿa, lands originally owned by the state or the Church, which were then confscated or deserted. The Muslims that acquired them could pay a voluntary tithe (ʿushr).43 The division and interpretations by Cahen are contradicted by other sources.44 Most explicitly, studies on papyri demonstrate that the kharāj was a late term and practice.45 The earliest document to use the term derives from Balkh in the year 764 and describes kharāj as an annual yield or income, not a tax.46 At the same time, taxes of the 7th century, at least in Palestine, were mainly paid in labor and in kind.47 One Egyptian papyrus from the mid-8th century also implies that the practice of different land taxes for Muslims and non-Muslims was not customary then.48 Scholars commonly believe that the regions were frst taxed according to local practices and that the tax system was unifed only by the Abbasids.49 Thus, the fate of the conquered lands cannot be illuminated by this terminology. Modern scholarship that focuses on the colonization of conquered lands by Arabs highlights the term miṣr (pl. amṣār, verb tamsīr). When discussing the 9th century onwards, the term is understood to mean ‘metropolis’.50 As for the earlier period, the term often translates as ‘a garrison town’, hence with a military orientation, but also as a feature of infrastructure for urban centers.51 Scholars suggest that the amṣār were established in conquered areas in order to avoid assimilation with the native population, to prevent local rebellions, or to protect the local agriculture.52 Another explanation for miṣr is a resort from which militant campaigns or migration (hijra) could begin.53 Archaeologists have refned that defnition by adding its proximity to

22

Settlement during early Islam

old centers.54 The most famous settlements which are interpreted as amṣār are al-Baṣra and al-Kūfa, but Fusṭāṭ and Qayrawān are also regarded as such places.55 Scholars even reconstruct the development of the garrison tent camp into ‘real towns’.56 The explanation for regions without amṣār is that the Arabs settled also inside old cities.57 However, there are no textual grounds to the military or urban interpretation of the term miṣr. Archaeological attempts to defne a physical layout for the alleged-garrisoned miṣr have failed.58 The most elaborated early source is Kitāb al-Amwāl by Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 838). In this text, the miṣr is described as a ‘free zone’ from non-Muslim features, such as bīʿa (church or synagogue), alcohol, and pork. Moreover, it defnes the spaces (wujūh) which went through the process of tamsīr: settlements where the population had surrendered, any unpopulated land that the Muslims colonized (such as al-Kūfa and al-Baṣra), and every town that had been conquered by force (ʿanwatan) and which the conquerors decided to divide among themselves.59 This topic needs to be re-investigated through terminological analysis. In the meantime, I suggest interpreting tamsīr as a cultural colonization by Islam. The miṣr is thus a landscape or a territory with specifc religious characteristics and boundaries. A similar interpretation is offered by Hillenbrand for the site of ʿAnjar in Lebanon, as a Muslim refuge station and the means to colonize and Islamize the Syrian landscape.60 The Umayyad and Abbasid fortifed sites Monumental-fortifed structures in Greater Syria have been detected and called ‘Umayyad Palaces’ or ‘Desert Castles’ since the early 20th century. The defnition was given initially to the sites Quṣayr al-ʿAmra and Qaṣr alMushatta in Jordan, Khirbat al-Mafjar and Khirbat al-Minya in Israel/Palestine, and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī in Syria.61 Later on, excavated new sites were attributed to the initial group including Jabal Says and Khirbat al-Bayḍāʾ in Syria, Tulūl al-Shuʿayba in Iraq, and Jerusalem.62 The Desert Castles are dated in principle to the early 8th century and are often attributed to the Umayyad family. However, inscriptions are the most reliable dating tool in these contexts and these are scarce. Most of the sites certainly continued in use into the next centuries and evolved during later periods, as the few excavations show.63 The earliest inscriptions were found at Qaṣr al-Kharrāna and are dated to 92/710.64 Two foundation inscriptions are also known from Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī (109/727) and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī (110/728, lost), and another inscription from Khirbat al-Minya can be dated to the Umayyad period according to its formula.65 A different sort of inscription is a letter draft written with ink on a marble piece from Khirbat al-Mafjar. The text is addressed to Hishām amīr al-muʾminīn, hence the caliph, and probably Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 724–743). More hypothetically, the site was associated with Hishām’s nephew, Walīd II.66

Settlement during early Islam 23 Scholars sometimes suggest the concurrent presence of other sites based on their artistic motifs, but these arguments await stratigraphic support. In other words, some of these sites could have been established during the Abbasid period. The possible functions of these sites are under debate. The interpretations comprise palatial residences,67 agricultural estates,68 trade stations,69 a resort for Muslims,70 or early urban regional centers.71 For a historical context, Kennedy suggests that the castles were related to the qaṭīʿa practice. He explains their limited appearance in Iraq in contrast to the textual evidence as a methodological challenge in archaeology.72 Although the architectural resemblance between many of the Desert Castles implies patronage networks,73 it is generally agreed that they were not homogeneous artistically or functionally and maybe were not even one group.74 Scholars are developing typologies of these different structures according to size and a possible function for their better identifcation.75 At the same time, sites with what seems to be similar architecture but with different modern terminology, in farther locations, or of a later date, are often excluded from these typologies.76 This study suggests the function of at least one of the excluded sites, Ashdod-Yam, to be a 9th-century fortifed harbor. One can thus conclude that the architectural style of the so-called castles characterizes various structures during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods and plausibly represents many more social groups than the caliphs and their entourage alone.

The ‘Islamic city’ and urbanization The term ‘city’ is employed frequently in historical studies but not always with a clear defnition. Even with a distinct defnition, there often exist additional but unexpressed notions about the nature of such a place. For example, Kennedy defned ‘town’, many years ago, as any place which was titled madīna by the geographers but he also gave “special attention” to settlements with a mosque and a market, “both signs of real urban life” (my emphasis).77 In fact, there is not one ‘city’ – not in reality and not in perception. Identifcation of a place as ‘city’ depends on context and perspective.78 This study will show (Chapter 7) that during our time frame, inhabitants and visitors of Palestine were not explicit about the unique characteristics of cities, either. Features such as mosques and fortifcations were not exclusive to cities, neither were settlement size nor even the presence of trade activities. It is also diffcult to know when texts use madīna not for a regular city but for the metropolis or the administrative capital, which comprised another set of services. A number of early works can be suggested as most infuential on the concept of the city as developed by historians and geographers. These include the determination of an ideal ‘urban community’ by Weber in 1921, the ‘central place’ theory of Christaller from 1933 (after von Thünen, 1826), and the

24

Settlement during early Islam

‘parasite city’ paradigm of Finley from 1973. Pursuant to Max Weber, an urban community should comprise a fortifcation, a market, a court and autonomous law (at least partly), and autonomous administration. As a center of trade, it consists of specialized artisans; and as an autonomous administration, it is a political center for its surroundings.79 The basic model of von Thünen in economic geography measures the cost-effects of produce being transported from/to the market center. Thus, intensive agriculture is the closest to the market and grazing cattle is the farthest. The subsequent model, that of a ‘central place’ by Christaller, operates through a modular connection between centers. The competition between them creates a hierarchy of big and small centers.80 According to historian Moses Finley (or the ‘dendritic-mercantile systems’ model), a city is a single entity which controls its hinterland. The city dwellers depend on the countryside farmers who provide their food, but the city owns the resources, the authority, the means of production, and access to other resources.81 Despite their variation, all these modern paradigms hold that a city is central to its surroundings, involving different levels of control and dependence. In disciplines such as archaeology, the physical aspects of sites are supplemented by theoretical paradigms. Smith divides the defnition of cities in archaeology into two main approaches: the demographic defnition which sees the city as big and densely populated, and the functional defnition which sees the city as central to its surroundings.82 Scholars often expand these defnitions by adding physical characteristics they expect to fnd in cities such as specifc layouts (e.g. a gridiron plan) and architectural elements (e.g. fortifcations). A hierarchy of sites often follows these two main lines of identifcation, including smaller sites, isolated sites, sites with no fortifcations, and so on. This study will question the importance of both site size and geographical centralism of sites (Chapter 7). In particular, the gridiron represents the castra, the Roman camp, which was applied to settlements in colonized regions which in many cases later became a regional center, but it was not originally a feature of cities.83 Furthermore, several studies in history and archaeology cast doubt on the exclusiveness of big sites for commercial activities84 and hence the relevance of the central place theory and the other paradigms above. Thus, Horden and Purcell advocate differentiating center from hinterland as a research question, not as an a priori axiom.85 The topic of the city in Islamic realms attracts a great number of scholars from various disciplines. The chief two categories the Islamic city is defned through are its physical layout and its social organization. Scholars compare it frst to an ideal settlement, usually a utopian Roman city. Accordingly, sites with any other than a gridiron layout, as well as historical settlements without municipal institutions, are understood to signify inferior entities. Modern scholars explain the alleged changes from the utopian city into the Islamic one with religion (Islam, or Christianity), with an ideological decay of citizenship values, or with economic decay. According to the possible reasons for the alleged change, the city is then labeled ‘Arab’, ‘Muslim’, or

Settlement during early Islam 25 86

‘Oriental’. Counter-arguments for this paradigm are abundant, including an earlier, pre-Islamic, date for the changes or showing similar changes under the Byzantine rule.87 One direction of defense against the paradigm is an attempt to prove a planned urban space in Islamic sites, such as an orthogonal layout.88 In essence, as has been lately argued by Luz, placing all central settlements of the Islamicate world under one umbrella is ahistorical and un-geographical. Yet, paradigms as such are hard to be disposed of.89 This may explain the continued dominance of this one almost half a decade after similar points of criticism were raised by Hourani.90 The ‘Islamic city’ during the 1st centuries of Islam is believed to consist of dār al-imāra (lit. house of the Rule), a mosque, a bathhouse, and a market.91 In theory, such elements should help detect cities in archaeological contexts. Archaeologists indeed claim to have identifed market-mosque-bathhouse complexes in Jarash, Tiberias, ʿAnjar, and Khirbat al-Mafjar but do not necessarily defne the latter two ‘cities’.92 Moreover, few identifcations of dār al-imāra are offered, usually to structures commonly interpreted as a palace,93 but otherwise, that institution cannot be defned. Also attributed to the city are ‘industries’ such as pottery and glass production or textile dyeing.94 The other end of that dichotomy is the assumed non-industrial character of non-cities.95 The results of our examination will point to the bathhouse as an important element in cities, but mosques could not be detected, and production was conducted mostly in settlement types other than cities in the research area. Legal texts, chronicles, and geographies provide information about institutions of law enforcement which are sometimes attributed to any ‘city’96 but are in fact related only to the regional capitals. These institutions comprise the Muslim judge (qāḍī), the governor (ʿāmil), the police (shurṭa), the market inspector (muḥtasib), and the leadership of non-Muslims.97 The position of the muḥtasib is more elaborated upon than others in the sources and is closely related to the functioning of the metropolis. This role is signifcant for the discussion about the social organization of metropolises as well as markets in general. The undated theological concept of that offce is “commanding right and forbidding wrong”,98 but scholars connect its origins also to the Agronomos and similar positions for policing a market.99 The earliest datable evidence for the post in Muslim contexts is glass seals from the late 8th or the mid-9th centuries from Egypt with the terms muḥtasib or ṣāḥib al-sūq (‘the one responsible for the market’).100 The latter appears also in a text of the mid-9th century from Andalusia.101 The ḥisba books imply the muḥtasib’s responsibilities and the contexts of the market, among them those of supervising the production and sale of food, medicine, and cloth, of supervising the trade of slaves and animals, of inspecting the ovens, of examining the sanitation of the bathhouse and the mosque, and of keeping the main street free of shops or wells.102 A 9th/10th-century manual discusses also the moral duties of the muḥtasib such as stopping the manufacture and sale of alcohol (al-khumūr), which will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5 and banishing singers and feminine-men (mukhannathūn).103

26 Settlement during early Islam The term ‘urbanization’ is as abstract as ‘city’. Scholars who use the term relate it to the establishment of cities, to the physical enlargement of cities, or to population growth. One topic raised by French scholars in the mid-20th century, and more recently taken up by Kennedy, is ‘planned’ vs. ‘spontaneous’ cities in the Islamicate world. According to Elisséeff, a city was rarely created with “a ready-made plan which provides for the setting of important public buildings”. The exceptions would be, based on the narrative sources, Samarra, Baghdad, and the amṣār. Much more common are expansions of natural centers, such as a temple or a fortifed bridge, into a city.104 Kennedy emphasizes the economic elements which were invested by imperial or local authorities and which attracted new inhabitants.105 Whereas historians agree on urban growth during early Islam, they rarely date the process.106 Some attribute the frst phase of urbanization to the amṣār, which were allegedly erected following the conquests. Even though I believe miṣr has another meaning, it could still be possible that planned sites were built in the 7th century adjacent to old centers. The second phase of urbanization is ascribed to periods between the 9th and 11th centuries. On the one hand, political centers and districts were established,107 and on the other hand, the migration of artisans and converts strengthened existing centers.108 This study could not provide any concrete evidence for planned new settlements in the 7th century. However, it shows parallel processes in the 9th century which can be interpreted as aspects of urbanization: the shift in terminology for al-Ramla from a city into a metropolis, its physical growth and centrality for other settlements, and the relatively quick rise of three new sites which offered important services and acquired the status of regional centers.

Settlement patterns, nomadism, and the Islamic ‘agricultural revolution’ In 1974, a hypothesis regarding an agricultural revolution in early Islam was published by Andrew Watson and was elaborated upon during the following decade. Accordingly, the space which the Islamic empire had created allowed the exchange of agricultural knowledge and crops, which led to the effcient use of climate and resources. This made agriculture possible on hitherto unknown scales in many regions. Moreover, this ‘spontaneous’ or un-planned development was encouraged by the legal and political authorities.109 Since these publications more than 30 years ago, many authors have criticized it, arguing mainly for the existence of specifc crops and technologies in some areas prior to Islam.110 However, none have succeeded in either overturning the thesis as a whole or presenting an alternative one. On the contrary, Squatriti presents a growing trend of using it, especially in historical studies of a large-scale nature. He explains that Watson’s ‘revolution’ “is in the process of widespread dissemination, not an event of introduction”.111

Settlement during early Islam 27 Importantly, that paradigm (close or far from any ‘truth’) challenges the perception of the Roman culture as the peak of civilization. The literary sources, from the late 9th century onwards, present a handful of narratives on hydraulic investments that are attributed to the 7th to early 9th centuries. Projects were assigned to the Umayyads and their protégés, for example, all along the Euphrates/Tigris and its streams,112 and around Basra.113 Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik was criticized for infuencing the wheat and barley prices with his large crops.114 Hārūn al-Rashīd (ruled 786–809) is said to invest in canals along the Euphrates, Nahr al-Nīl, and along the Balīkh, in order to lead water to his gardens. In addition, one of his offcers commissioned a canal for Ḥarrān.115 His wife, Zubayda, is recorded as investing in wells and canals along Darb al-Ḥājj in Arabia, as were other members of the family.116 The sources of the late 9th and early 10th centuries mention also the diggers and engineers of such works in Iraq, sometimes termed aṣḥāb al-qanā.117 Some texts also cite the slaves who worked on the large estates.118 It is important to notice, that all this evidence derives from a single geographical region, around Iraq. Theoretically, that could either be explained as refections of reality (i.e. projects took place only there), or by a geographical bias of the sources. The epigraphic evidence which includes caliphal investments outside of Iraq (in Chapter 5) implies the latter. Archaeological studies in recent years have shown large-scale agricultural initiatives, probably in the 8th or 9th century, in different regions of the Islamicate world. One example is the sudden and temporary settlement in the Arabah, in Southern Jordan/Israel. Sometime in the 8th century, a series of sites was established in two sub-regions, with a connection to copper industry and to qanāt irrigation (Figure 2.1).119 I believe the raison d’etre of these settlements, at least in the middle Arava, was the arboriculture of date palms. Dates were an effcient multi-tasking crop, relatively proftable (in the Roman period), known in Palestine in earlier and later times, suitable for the local climate and brackish groundwater, and were in fact found extensively in the archaeo-botanic evidence. The ‘agricultural revolution’ in that context was in bringing irrigation technology to that arid land with the most suitable crop.120 In other words, the agricultural innovation here was combining several elements and expanding their use. There are other archaeological examples for hydraulic enterprises in that period. In the middle Euphrates, near Deir ez-Zur in eastern Syria, evidence of intensive activity was spotted by archaeologists and dated between the 8th and 9th century.121 In the plain of Miyānāb in Khūzistān, Iran, the settlement patterns imply enlarging the earlier (Sasanian) hydraulic projects and bringing new areas under intensive irrigation.122 In addition, some of the ‘Desert Castles’ are claimed to be related to agricultural projects in their vicinity. One example can be seen in the aerial images of Qaṣr al-Kharrāna and its surrounding agriculture (Figure 2.2). Another is the qanāts adjacent to Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī and to Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Gharbī.123 Finally, at Qaṣr al-Ṭūba, a well with a water-lifting device was found in relation to

28

Settlement during early Islam

Figure 2.1 An aerial image of qanāts near Maʿan, Jordan (APAAME_20070419_ FFR-0136, photographer: Francesca Radcliffe, courtesy of APAAME)

Figure 2.2 An aerial image of Qaṣr al-Kharrāna and evidence for its agriculture (APAAME_20020401_RHB-0239, photographer: Robert Howard Bewley, courtesy of APAAME)

the bathhouse,124 or to agriculture. Generally, it seems that the period saw more colonization along rivers and less on the mountains.125 To conclude, the thesis of Watson gains much support from the archaeological evidence.

Settlement during early Islam 29 One of Watson’s arguments is that large-scale agriculture is provoked by the needs of the city. In other words, demographic growth in cities brings about a growing demand for food.126 This argument relates to Finley’s ‘parasite city’ and is followed by many.127 It does not explain, however, why agricultural projects ended, and how the city dwellers were fed afterward. Kennedy contradicts the demographic growth explanation. For him, short-term colonization in regions which had never been exploited earlier, e.g. swamps and deserts, points to strong markets, while decline of these colonization episodes points to weakened markets. The demand, he believes, makes the investment of money, time, and labor worthwhile.128 An explanation for this type of investment might concern elites and luxury foods. One hypothesis is that the elite members try to lower the costs of luxury products by massive production which benefts them for the short term.129 The period between the 10th and 12th century is said to have seen the desertion of settlements and canals, at least in Syria and Iraq. Along with natural catastrophes such as climate change and earthquakes, scholars explain the phenomenon by political events and economic effects.130 Particular explanations for the agricultural decline include possible over-population and a competition for resources, high taxing in the iqṭāʿ system, and high maintenance expenses following the abolition of slavery.131 According to some Arabic narratives, the reason for the decline (as well as its implication) was the migration of peasants to cities.132 Looking at the issue from a different angle, Amar suggests that the agricultural decline (which he dates to the late 8th or early 9th century) relates to the emergence of merchants in the 9th century, implied in anti-agricultural hadiths.133 Another interpretation for the abandonment of settlements is the transition to ‘nomadism’.134 The term ‘nomad/s’ is often used but rarely defned. It entails unspoken assumptions about (a) tribes who (b) migrate constantly and (c) live exclusively from herding livestock (pastoralism). In contrast to the stereotype, ethnography of indigenous groups demonstrates that random mobility is non-existent. Most groups have either a circle of seasonal migration which consists of regular ‘stations’, or one stable base from which a part of the group migrates with the herds in specifc seasons. Second, the economy of mobile groups is not necessarily pastoral, and certainly not exclusively pastoral. At the same time, a pastoralist economy does not necessarily involve mobility. In short, mobility relates to specifc geographic and historical contexts. One cannot assemble all the communities which chose this solution into one group (‘nomads’).135 Also historically, distinguishing between badw and aʿrab based on early Arabic texts is almost impossible,136 as both were explained in the lexicons as desert dwellers.137 For example, only one Quranic citation implies that the second term is a general attribution and the former a specifc group. Also in later literature, the badwī was linked to specifc characteristics such as camel breeding.138 To conclude, instead of the term ‘nomadism’, one should use ‘pastoralism’ as one source of income and ‘mobility’ as a residence strategy. The combination of the two is possible but not a given.

30

Settlement during early Islam

Going back to agriculture, the abandonment of crop cultivation might be explained by a shift to a pastoralist economy. However, Walker suggests for the Ottoman period in Jordan that pastoralism was practiced in parallel with land cultivation and should not be simply interpreted as exclusive.139 Furthermore, both mobile activities and pastoralism leave archeological traces. Therefore, explaining the absence of remains by a shift to one or the other is simplifed and mistaken.140

Conclusions A comprehensive study of settlement patterns in the Islamicate world does not yet exist. There are, nonetheless, scattered fragments of research which suggest a tentative history of settlement. The 6th–8th centuries are characterized by a presence on small sites with agricultural technologies and by the colonization of more diffcult regions. At the same time, the material culture of this period on the bigger and older sites is not very distinctive. This pattern can be explained from the texts either as immigration (e.g. Arab or Arabian tribes) or, for the 8th century, as grants that the elite members received and which led to large agricultural investments. Other interpretations might involve local elites and internal migration. In the 9th-11th centuries, the opposite process seems to take place, with desertion of many small sites and clustering in the bigger sites. These centers can be divided into old settlements and new ones (often adjacent to the old ones). New centers as seen from the archaeological evidence are, for example, Fusṭāṭ, Ayla/Aqaba, and Ramla. It can be suggested that where new centers were established, old centers did not regain their centrality. However, many old centers (e.g. Jarash, Amman) adjusted by supplementing the market-mosque complex and using vacant spaces for industry. One element that does not enter any scenario is the military. If there existed a standing army that did not consist of locally drafted men, then archaeology has not revealed where it was stationed. Three central problems that emerge and repeat themselves in this survey are the scarcity of defnitions, the scarcity of terminological analyses, and the lack of differentiation between ancient terminology and physical identifcation. The latter is implied in the labeling of Early Islamic sites as amṣār or ribāṭs. It is also expressed in the interpretation of large sites as madīnas (cities) and anything smaller as non-cities. Research lacks, frst, a re-examination of modern terminology and defnition of settlement types, and second, micro-regional studies to highlight phenomena which macro studies miss. This study offers a new light on these questions via a thorough examination of one area in historical Palestine and today’s central Israel. Some of them, such as the topic of industries and installations, or the terminology of settlement types, will be analyzed in a wider context. I do not suggest that one case study can answer all questions or represent the whole Islamicate

Settlement during early Islam  31 world. Nevertheless, one case study which is addressed from different angles allows for in-depth research and observation of various nuances. It also illuminates the limits of both texts and archaeology regarding the information each can provide.

Notes 1 Horden and Purcell (2000: 300–303). 2 In Avni (2014: 11–17, 341–342). 3 Heidemann (2015: 38). See also Milwright (2010: 63). 4 Eger (2013: 125). 5 Patrich (2006); Holum (2011). 6 Fischer and Taxel (2007: 242). 7 Millet (1991). See different habits of disposal, for example, in Shivta, Tepper et al. (2018: 149). 8 Bennett (2001: 1–9). 9 Ward-Perkins (2001b: 366). See also Pamuk and Shatzmiller (2011). 10 Horden and Purcell (2000: 303). They suggest seeing these periods in terms of improvement and deterioration but these are also judgmental evaluations. 11 Ward-Perkins (2001a: 321); Magness (2012: 333); Avni (2014: 36). 12 E.g. Foss (1997). 13 Avi-Yonah (1958), discussed by Bar (2003). 14 Walmsley (2007b: 336–337). 15 Foss (1997: 200, 227); Walmsley (1999); Avni (2014: 323). 16 Majcherek (1995, 2004); Walmsley (2007a: 328–329); Masarwa (2011b: 152). Gaza amphorae are now often attributed to the 7th–8th centuries, e.g. ­Cytryn-Silverman (2010: 102–103). 17 E.g. Dan (1982: 19). 18 Avi-Yonah (1966: 219). 19 Avi-Yonah (1966: 221). 20 Tsafrir (1984). 21 Sharon (1976), followed by Tsafrir (1984: 70) and Dan (1984: 13). See also ­Avi-Yonah (1958). 22 See Northedge (1992: 50); Ward-Perkins (2001a: 316). 23 E.g. Bar (2003: 31–32, 2008: 41); Shatzman (2007); Leibner (2009). 24 Fuks et al. (2020). 25 Johns (1994), with no much change since then. 26 Fischer and Taxel (2007: 239). 27 E.g. Ayalon (1997). 28 Walmsley (1999); Heidemann (2009b: 499, 2010: 652–653); Nol (2019: 46–47). 29 Donner (1981: 3–7). See also Donner (1984); Kennedy (2001: 4); Sijpesteijn (2007a: 440, footnote 16). 30 Hasson (1984); Whitcomb (2009). 31 See Fisher (2020). 32 Kennedy (2001: 66). 33 E.g. Katbi (2010). 34 Kister (1991: 272–273). 35 Whitcomb (1989: 165); Schick (1992: 110); Petersen (2005: 25); Damgaard (2009: 86); Taxel (2013a: 160). 36 Noth (1973, 1984); Shoshan (2016: 6, 15). For a moderate solution, see Robinson (2000: 6). 37 Lecker (1989: 35). Also see al-Balādhurī: 144. 38 Sato (1997: 3–4); Kennedy (2001: 81–85, 2014: 163).

32

Settlement during early Islam

39 Al-Dūrī (1969: 7). 40 Ibid: 9–11. 41 Lambton (1965: 367–373); al-Dūrī (1969: 12–20); Sato (1997: 234–235); Heidemann (2009a: 161). 42 Frantz-Murphy (1999: 257–261). 43 Cahen (1953: 25–28), followed by Lambton (1965: 360–361). 44 E.g. Johansen (1988: 12). 45 Dennett (1950: 5–7); Frantz-Murphy (1986: 87, 2007); Legendre (2018). 46 Khan (2013: 26). 47 Kraemer (1958: 153–211); Kennedy (2001: 66–67). 48 Sijpesteijn (2007b). 49 E.g. Frantz-Murphy (1984); Donner (1998: 171–172). 50 Bosworth (1993). 51 Kennedy (2006: 23). See also Whitcomb (2006: 73–74). 52 Lapidus (1988: 34); Crone (1980: 29–30, 1999); Kennedy (2001: 7). 53 ʿAthamina (1987: 9); Bosworth (1993). 54 Whitcomb (1987: 266); Petersen (2005: 29); Walmsley (2007b: 104); Guidetti (2010). 55 Bosworth (1993); Northedge (1994); Kennedy (2010). 56 Ashtor (1976: 19). See also Whitcomb (2009). 57 Donner (2010: 137–139). 58 Whitcomb hypothesizes that Aqaba is a miṣr based on its Roman castra plan (Whitcomb 1994: 158) while Northedge (1994) provides no arguments for a similar claim about Fusṭāṭ. See also Soroush (2014a: 314). 59 Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām: 141. 60 Hillenbrand (1999: 91). 61 Grabar (1963). 62 Brisch (1963); Majhul (1972); Gaube (1974); Grabar et al. (1978: 15); Bacharach (1996: 33); Northedge (2009: 245). 63 E.g. Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī, Genequand (2012: 99); Khirbat al-Mafjar, Whitcomb (2016). 64 Abbott (1946); Imbert (1995). 65 Ritter (2016: 67, 78). 66 Baramki (1938: 53, Fig. 2); Hamilton (1969); Whitcomb and Taha (2013: 55). 67 Hillenbrand (1982); Northedge (2009); Whitcomb (2009: 242). 68 Grabar (1963); Sauvaget (1967); Kennedy (1992); Walmsley (2000a: 327); Whitcomb and Taha (2013: 62). 69 Grabar et al. (1978: 32–33); Bacharach (1996); Walmsley (2000b); Milwright (2010: 37). 70 Hillenbrand (1999). 71 Whitcomb (1994: 155–170, 2007); Genequand (2005); Petersen (2005: 29–30). 72 Kennedy (2014: 172). 73 Milwright (2010: 36). 74 Ibid: 35; Hillenbrand (1981: 65); Sourdel (1981); Grabar (1993); Walmsley (2007b: 99–105). 75 Grabar (1993); Genequand (2006). 76 For a similar argument, see Pradines (2020: 56–57). The excluded sites are fortresses or ribāṭs along the coast of Israel/Palestine (Khalilieh 2008; Masarwa 2011a; Taxel 2013b), caravanserais/ribāṭs in Paykand, Bukhara (Mirzaakhmedov 2012), palaces or caravanserais in the Arabian Peninsula (Whitcomb 1996; O’Kane 2014), and Abbasid palaces in al-Raqqa, Syria, and Samarra, Iraq (Northedge 2001; Siegel 2017: 14–17). For some discussion on these typologies see Whitcomb (1996: 25); Finster (2004); Northedge (2009); Avni (2014: 202– 203). Compare Siegel (2017: 164, 209–211).

Settlement during early Islam

33

77 Kennedy (1986: 89–90). 78 E.g. Abrams (1978); Abu-Lughod (1987); Brandes (1999); Horden and Purcell (2000: 92); Wickham (2005: 592–593). 79 Weber (1958: 72–73, 81). 80 Smith (1976: 7–16). 81 Finley (1973: 124–125); Smith (1976: 34); Launaro (2016: 234). 82 Smith (2016). 83 Benevolo (1980: 220). 84 De Ligt (1993: 112–134); Binggeli (2012); Gabrieli, Ben-Shlomo and Walker (2014); Nol (forthcoming). 85 Horden and Purcell (2000: 102–103). 86 References in Neglia (2008); Falahat (2014: 7–24); Luz (2016). 87 E.g. Kennedy (1985); Haldon (1999); Gawlikowski (1997); Avni (2014: 106). 88 For Ramla, see Sourdel (1981); Avni (2014: 177); Shmueli and Goldfus (2015). For Antioch, see Eger (2013: 111, 119). For additional examples, including Baysān and Ruṣāfa, see Foote (2000: 28). 89 Luz (2016). 90 Hourani (1970: 11). 91 E.g. Grabar (1969); Elisséeff (1980: 97–98); Whitcomb (2007: 15); Kennedy (2010). About this model, see Falahat (2014: 10). 92 Hillenbrand (1999: 63); Whitcomb (2007: 15); Walmsley (2007b: 105); Walmsley et al. (2008); Cytryn-Silverman (2009). 93 Creswell (1940a: 54–55); Hillenbrand (1999: 63); Northedge (1994: 232). 94 Milwright (2010: 146); Walmsley (2007b: 348–349). 95 E.g. Taxel (2014: 134). 96 E.g. Eddé, Bresc and Guichard (1990). 97 Abdel-Rahim (1980); Kennedy (1981); Buckley (1992); Reinfandt (2010); Simonsohn (2011); Tillier (2015). 98 Crone (2004: 300–301). 99 Foster (1970); Crone (1987: 107–108); Buckley (1992: 63); Narotzky and Manzano (2014: 40–42). 100 Morton (1991). 101 Buckley (1992: 61–63). 102 Buckley (1992); Serjeant (1953: 18, 28). 103 Serjeant (1953: 22–29). 104 Elisséeff (1980: 90–92). 105 Kennedy (2010). 106 Bulliet (1994: 71). 107 Bacharach (1991: 111–112); Whitcomb (2012). 108 Northedge (1992: 50); Bulliet (1994: 76); Milwright (2010: 146). 109 Watson (1983: 78–128). 110 Johns (1984); Crone (1985); Amar (1998: 37–38); Walmsley (2007a: 350–352); Decker (2009). 111 Squatriti (2014: 1210). 112 Verkinderen (2015: 55–98). 113 Al-Dūrī (1969: 8); Kennedy (2011a: 183). 114 Al-Dūrī (1969: 9–10). 115 Heidemann (2011: 49). 116 Al-Rashid (1980: 9–35). 117 ʿAbdul Jabbār (1973: 25–28). 118 ʿAbdul Jabbār (1975); Shatzmiller (1994: 38). 119 Nol (2015). See also: Avner (2016); Porath (2016); Avni (2018). 120 Nol (2015: 59–62). 121 Kennedy (2011a) after Berthier et al. (2010).

34

Settlement during early Islam

122 Soroush (2014b). 123 Porath (2016: 71*), with references. 124 Schiøler (1973: 92). 125 Walmsley (2007a: 350, 2007b: 110). 126 Watson (1983: 130–132). 127 E.g. Fall, Falconer and Lines (2002); Heidemann (2011, 2015); Avni (2014: 195). 128 Kennedy (2011b). For the new exploitation of swamps and deserts, see Eger (2011); Avni (2014: 203); Nol (2015). 129 Van der Veen (2003: 40). According to a defnition of the author and Doru Doroftei, elite is a group of individuals and their families, who are accepted in a given community as its legal authority and as a result enjoy social and economic privileges. The members of an elite access power through militant, spiritual, or economic means. For that goal, they employ networks and capital, they defeat their rivals, and they differentiate themselves through material culture and narratives. Elite groups of different levels use these strategies. This is a dynamic process. 130 Avni (2014: 327). 131 Al-Dūrī (1969: 17); Talbi (1981); Watson (1983: 139–143); Morony (1984); Krawczyk (1985); Northedge (1992: 50). 132 Al-Dūrī (1969: 9). 133 Amar (1997). 134 Milwright (2010: 63); Kennedy (2011b: XIII). More on this axiom at Saidel and van der Steen (2007: 1–2). 135 Rosen (2017: 25–52). 136 Franz, Büssow and Leder (2015: 4). 137 Pietruschka (2001). 138 Pietruschka (2001); Franz (2005). 139 Walker (2012). 140 See Rosen (2017: 59–69).

References Primary sources Abū ʿUbayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (d. 838). Kitāb al-Amwāl, Muḥammad Khalīl Harrās (ed.), 1968, al-Qāhira: Maktabat al-Kulliyāt al-Azhariya. Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā (d. 892). Kitāb Futūh al-buldān, Michael Jan de Goeje (ed.), 1866, Leiden: Brill. Secondary literature Abbott, Nabia, 1946. “The Ḳaṣr Kharāna Inscription of 92 H. (710 A.D.), a New Reading”, Ars Islamica 11/12: 190–195. Abdel-Rahim, Muddathir, 1980. “Legal Institutions”, in: Robert Bertram Serjeant (ed.), The Islamic City: Selected Papers from the Colloquium held at the Middle East Centre, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Cambridge, United Kingdom, from 19 to 23 July 1976, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 41–51. ʿAbdul Jabbār, Muhammad, 1973. “Agricultural and Irrigational Laborers in Social and Economic Life of ʿIrāq during the Umayyad and Abbāsid Caliphates”, Islamic Culture 47: 15–31. ʿAbdul Jabbār, Muhammad, 1975. “The ‘Serfs’ of Islamic Society under the Abbāsid Regime”, Islamic Culture 49: 107–118.

Settlement during early Islam

35

Abrams, Philip, 1978. “Towns and Economic Growth: Some Theories and Problems”, in: Philip Abrams and Edward Anthony Wrigley (eds.), Towns in Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 9–33. Abu-Lughod, Janet L., 1987. “The Islamic City – Historic Myth, Islamic Essence, and Contemporary Relevance”, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 19(2): 155–176. [Al-ʿAlī] El-Ali, Saleh A., 1959. “Muslim Estates in Hidjaz in the First Century A.H.”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 2(3): 247–261. Amar, Zohar, 1997. “The Relation of Man to the Flora and Agriculture of the Land of Israel in Medieval times”, in: Yvonne Friedman, Ze’ev Safrai, and Joshua Schwartz (eds.), Hikrei Eretz: Studies in the History of the Land of Israel Dedicated to Prof. Yehuda Feliks, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 167–178 (in Hebrew). Amar, Zohar, 1998. “The revolution in textiles in Eretz Israel and Syria in the Middle Ages”, Cathedra 87: 37–60 (in Hebrew). Ashtor, Eliyahu, 1976. A Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages, London: Collins. [ʿAthamina] Athamina, Khalil, 1987. “Aʿrāb and Muhājirūn in the Environment of Amṣār”, Studia Islamica 66: 5–25. ʿAthamina, Khalil, 1997. “Some Administrative, Military and Socio-Political Aspects of Early Muslim Egypt”, in: Yaacov Lev (ed.), War and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th -15th Centuries, Leiden: Brill, 101–113. Avi-Yonah, Michael, 1958. “The Economics of Byzantine Palestine”, Israel Exploration Journal 8(1): 39–51. Avi-Yonah, Michael, 1966. The Holy Land: From the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C to A.D. 640), a Historical Geography, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Avner, Uzi, 2016. “Desert Farming in the Southern ʿAraba Valley, Israel, 2nd Century BCE to 11th Century CE”, in: Fèlix Retamero, Inge Schjellerup, and Althea Davies (eds.), Agricultural and Pastoral Landscapes in Pre-Industrial Society: Choices, Stability and Change, Oxford and Philadelphia: Oxbow, 19–35. Avni, Gideon, 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Avni, Gideon, 2018. “Early Islamic Irrigated Farmsteads and the Spread of Qanats in Eurasia”, Water History 10: 313–338. Ayalon, Etan, 1997. “The End of the Ancient Wine Industry in the Middle Coast”, in: Yvonne Friedman, Ze’ev Safrai, and Joshua Schwartz (eds.), Hikrei Eretz: Studies in the History of the Land of Israel Dedicated to Prof. Yehuda Feliks, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press, 149–166 (in Hebrew). Bacharach, Jere L., 1991. “Administrative Complexes, Palaces and Citadels: Changes in the Loci of Medieval Muslim Rule”, in: Irene A. Bierman, Rifa‛at A. Abou-el-Haj, and Donald Preziosi (eds.), The Ottoman City and Its Parts: Urban Structure and Social Order, New York: Aristide D. Caratzas, 111–128. Bacharach, Jere L., 1996. “Marwanid Umayyad Building Activities: Speculations on Patronage”, Muqarnas 13: 27–44. Banning, Edward Bruce, 2002. Archaeological Survey, New York: Klumer Academic and Plenum Publishers. Bar, Doron, 2003. “Settlement and Economy in Eretz-Israel during the Late Roman and the Byzantine Periods (70–641 CE)”, Cathedra 107: 29–46 (in Hebrew).

36

Settlement during early Islam

Bar, Doron, 2008. ‘Fill the Earth’. Settlement in Palestine during the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods 135– 640 C.E, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi and Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies (in Hebrew). Baramki, Dimitri C., 1938. “Excavations at Khirbet al Mefjer. III”, The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquitis in Palestine 8: 1; 2: 51–53. Benevolo, Leonardo, 1980. The History of the City, London: Scolar Press. Bennett, Oliver, 2001. Cultural Pessimism: Narratives of Decline in the Postmodern World, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Binggeli, André, 2012. “Annual Fairs, Regional Networks, and Trade Routes in Syria, Sixth-Tenth Centuries”, in: Cécile Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 281–296. Bosworth, Clifford Edmund, 1993. “Miṣr”, in: Peri Bearman, Thierri Bianquis, Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Emery van Donzel and Wolfhart Peter Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, second ed., vol. VII, Leiden: Brill, 146. Brandes, Wolfram, 1999. “Byzantine Cities in the Seventh and Eighth Centuries – Different Sources, Different Histories?”, in: Gian Pietro Brogiolo and Bryan Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden: Brill, 25–57. Brisch, Klaus, 1963. “Das Omayyadische Schloß in Usais”, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 19: 141–186, Pl. 31–43. Buckley, Ronald Paul, 1992. “The Muḥtasib”, Arabica 39(1): 59–117. Bulliet, Richard W., 1994. Islam: The View from the Edge, New York: Columbia University Press. Cahen, Claude, 1953. “L’évolution de l’iqtaʿ du IXe au XIIIe siècle: Contribution à une histoire comparée des sociétés médiévales”, Annales 8: 25–52. Creswell, Keppel Archibald Cameron, 1940a. Early Muslim Architecture, Vol. I, Part I: Umayyads, second ed. 1979, New York: Hacker Art Books. Crone, Patricia, 1980. Slaves on Horses: The Revolution of the Islamic Polity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crone, Patricia, 1985. “Andrew M. Watson, Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World: The Diffusion of Crops and Farming Techniques (Book Review)”, Journal of Semitic Studies 30(2): 347–349. Crone, Patricia, 1987. Roman, Provincial and Islamic Law. The Origins of the Islamic Patronate, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crone, Patricia, 1999. “The Early Islamic World”, in: Kurt Raafaub and Nathan Rosenstein (eds.), War and Society in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds: Asia, the Mediterranean, Europe, and Mesoamerica, Washington: Harvard University Press, 309–332. Cytryn-Silverman, Katia, 2009. “The Umayyad Mosque of Tiberias”, Muqarnas 26: 37–61. Damgaard, Kristoffer, 2009. “A Palestinian Red Sea Port on the Egyptian Road to Arabia: Early Islamic Aqaba and Its Many Hinterlands”, in: Lucy Blue, John Cooper, Thomas Ross, and Julian Whitewright (eds.), Connected Hinterlands: Proceedings of Red Sea Project IV, BAR International Series 2052, Oxford: Archaeopress, 85–98. Dan, Yaron, 1984. The City in Eretz-Israel during the Late Roman and Byzantine Periods, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi (in Hebrew). Decker, Michael, 2009. “Plants and Progress: Rethinking the Islamic Agricultural Revolution”, Journal of World Archaeology 20(2): 187–206.

Settlement during early Islam

37

Dennett, Daniel C. Jr., 1950. Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Donner, Fred M., 1984. “Tribal Settlement in Basra during the First Century A.H.”, in: Tarif Khalidi (ed.), Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East, Beirut: American University of Beirut, 97–120. Donner, Fred M., 1998. Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginning of Islamic Historical Writing, Princeton: The Darwin Press. Donner, Fred M., 2010. Muhammad and the Believers at the Origins of Islam, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. Al-Dūrī, ʿAbdul ʿAzīz, 1969. “The Origins of Iqṭāʿ in Islam”, al-Abḥāth 22: 3–22. Eddé, Anne-Marie, Bresc, Henri, and Pierre Guichard, 1990. “Les autonomismes urbains des cites islamiques”, in: Les origins des libertés urbaines, Actes des congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l’enseignement supérieur public, Rouen, 1985, Rouen: Université de Rouen, 97–119. Eger, Asa A., 2011. “The Swamps of Home: Marsh Formation and Settlement in the Early Medieval Near East”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 70(1): 55–79. Eger, Asa A., 2013. “(RE)Mapping Medieval Antioch: Urban Transformations from the Early Islamic to the Middle Byzantine Periods”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 67: 95–134. Elad, Amikam, 1978. “The Coastal Cities of Palestine during the Early Middle Ages”, Cathedra 8: 156–178 (in Hebrew). Elad, Amikam, 1991. “Two Identical Inscriptions from Jund Filasṭīn from the Reign of the ʿAbbāsid Caliph, Al-Muqtadir”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 35(4): 301–360. Elisséeff, Nikita, 1980. “Physical Lay-Out”, in: Robert Bertram Serjeant (ed.), The Islamic City: Selected Papers from the Colloquium held at the Middle East Centre, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Cambridge, United Kingdom, from 19 to 23 July 1976, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 90–103. Falahat, Somaiyeh, 2014. Re-imaging the City: A New Conceptualisation of the Urban Logic of the “Islamic City”, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04596-8. Fall, Patricia L., Falconer, Steven E., and Lee Lines, 2002. “Agricultural Intensifcation and the Secondary Products Revolution along the Jordan Rift”, Human Ecology 30: 445–482. Finley, Moses I., 1973. The Ancient Economy, second ed. 1985, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Finster, Barbara, 2004. “Zur Tradition der umayyadischen Kastelle”, in: Martina Müller-Wiener, Christiane Kothe, Karl-Heinz Golzio, and Joachim Gierlichs (eds.), Al-Andalus und Europa, zwischen Orient und Okzident, Düsseldorf: Michael Imhof Verlag, 39–48. Finster, Barbara, and Schmidt, Jürgen, 2005. “The Origin of ‘Desert Castles’: Qasr Bani Muqatil, near Karbala, Iraq”, Antiquity 79: 339–349. Fischer, Moshe, and Taxel, Itamar, 2007. “Ancient Yavneh: Its History and Archaeology”, Tel Aviv 34(2): 204–284. Fisher, Greg, 2020. Rome, Persia, and Arabia: Shaping the Middle East from Pompey to Muhammad, London: Routledge. Foote, Rebecca, 2000. “Commerce, Industrial Expansion, and Orthogonal Planning: Mutually Compatible Terms in Settlements of Bilād al-Shām during the Umayyad Period”, Mediterranean Archaeology 13: 25–38. Foss, Clive, 1997. “Syria in Transition, A.D. 550–750: An Archaeological Approach”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51: 189–269.

38

Settlement during early Islam

Foster, Benjamin R., 1970. “Agoranomos and Muḥtasib”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 13(2): 128–144. Frantz-Murphy, Gladys, 1984. “Land Tenure and Social Transformation in Early Islamic Egypt”, in: Tarif Khalidi (ed.), Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East, Beirut: American University of Beirut, 131–137. Frantz-Murphy, Gladys, 1986. The Agrarian Administration of Egypt from the Arabs to the Ottomans, Supplément Aux Annales Islamologiques, Cahier 9, Le Caire: Institut Franc̦ais d’archéologie Orientale. Frantz-Murphy, Gladys, 1999. “Land-Tenure in Egypt in the First Five Centuries of Islamic Rule (Seventh-Twelfth Centuries AD)”, in: Alan K. Bowman and Eugene Rogan (eds.), Agriculture in Egypt from Pharaonic to Modern Times, New York: Oxford University Press, 237–266. Frantz-Murphy, Gladys, 2007. “The Economics of State Formation in Early Islamic Egypt”, in: Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Lennart Sundelin, Sofa Torallas Tovar, and Amalia Zomeño (eds.), From al-Andalus to Khurasan: Documents from the Medieval Muslim World, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 101–114. Franz, Kurt, 2005. “Resources and Organizational Power: Some Thoughts on Nomadism in History”, in: Stefan Leder and Bernhard Streck (eds.), Shifts and Drifts in Nomad-Sedentary Relations, Weisbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 55–77. Franz, Kurt, Büssow, Johann, and Stefan Leder, 2015. “The Arab East and the Bedouin Component in Pre-Modern History: Approaching Textual Representations and Their Changing Settings in Life”, Der Islam 92(1): 1–12. Fuks, Daniel, Bar-Oz, Guy, Yotam Tepper, Tali Erickson-Gini, Dafna Langgut, Lior Weissbrod, and Ehud Weiss, 2020. “The Rise and Fall of Viticulture in the Late Antique Negev Highlands Reconstructed from Archaeobotanical and Ceramic Data”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 117(33): 19780–19791. Gabrieli, R. Smadar, Ben-Shlomo, David, and Bethany J. Walker, 2014. “Production and Distribution of Geometrical-Painted (HMGF) and Plain Hand-Made Wares of the Mamluk Period: A Case Study from Northern Israel, Jerusalem and Tall Hisban”, Journal of Islamic Archaeology 1.2: 193–229. https://www. equinoxpub.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Gabrieli-Ben-Shlomo-andWalker-Appendix-27Jan15.pdf. Gaube, Heinz, 1974. Ein arabischer Palast in Südsyrien Ḫirbet el-Baiḍa, Beirut: Franz Steiner. Gawlikowski, Michael, 1997. “The Oriental City and the Advent of Islam”, in: Gernot Wilhelm (ed.), Die orientalische Stadt: Kontinuität, Wandel, Bruch, Saarbrücken: SDV, 339–350. Genequand, Denis, 2005. “From ‘Desert Castle’ to Medieval Town: Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharki (Syria)”, Antiquity 79: 350–361. Genequand, Denis, 2006. “Umayyad Castles: The Shift from Late Antique Military Architecture to Early Islamic Palatial Building”, in: Hugh Kennedy (ed.), Muslim Military Architecture in Greater Syria, Leiden: Brill, 3–25. Genequand, Denis, 2012. Les établissements des élites omeyyades en Palmyrène et au Proche-Orient, Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 200, Beirut: IFPO. Grabar, Oleg, 1963. “Umayyad ‘Palace’ and the ‘Abbasid ‘Revolution’”, Studia Islamica 18: 5–18.

Settlement during early Islam 39 Grabar, Oleg, 1969. “The Architecture of the Middle Eastern City from Past to Present: The Case of the Mosque”, in: Ira Lapidus (ed.), Middle Eastern Cities, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 26–42. Grabar, Oleg, 1993. “Umayyad Palaces Reconsidered”, Ars Orientalis 23: 93–102. Grabar, Oleg, Holod, Renata, James Knustad, and William Trousdale, 1978. City in the Desert: Qasr al-Hayr East, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Guidetti, Mattia, 2010. “Sacred Topography in Medieval Syria and Its Roots between the Umayyads and Late Antiquity”, in: Antoine Borrut and Paul M. Cobb (eds.), Umayyad Legacies: Medieval Memories from Syria to Spain, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 339–363. Haldon, John, 1999. “The Idea of the Town in the Byzantine Period”, in: Gian Pietro Brogiolo and Bryan Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden: Brill, 1–23. Hamilton, Robert W., 1969. “Who Built Khirbat al Mafjar?”, Levant 1: 61–67. Hasson, Isaac, 1984. “The Penetration of Arab Tribes in Palestine during the First Century of the Hijra”, Cathedra 32: 54–65 (in Hebrew). Heidemann, Stefan, 2006. “The History of the Industrial and Commercial Area of ʿAbbāsid Al-Raqqa, Called Al-Raqqa Al-Muḥtariqa”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 69(1): 33–52. Heidemann, Stefan, 2007. “Entwicklung und Selbstverständis mittelalterlicher Städte in der Islamischen Welt (7.-15. Jahrhundert)”, in: Kurt-Ulrich Jäschke und Christhard Schrenk (eds.), Was machte im Mittelalter zur Stadt? Selbstverständis, Außensicht und Erscheinungsbilder mittelalterlicher Städte, Heilbronn: Stadtarchiv Heilbronn, 203–244. Heidemann, Stefan, 2009a. “Charity and Piety for the Transformation of the Cities. The New Direction in Taxation and Waqf Policy in Mid-Twelfth-Century Syria and Northern Mesopotamia”, in: Miriam Frenkel and Yaacov Lev (eds.), Charity and Giving Monotheistic Religions, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 153–174. Heidemann, Stefan, 2009b. “Settlement Patterns, Economic Development and Archaeological Coin Finds in Bilad al-Sham: The Case of the Diyar Mudar – The Process of Transformation from the 6th to the 10th Century A.D.”, in: Karin Bartl and Abd al-Razzaq Moaz (eds.), Residences, Castles, Settlements, OrientArchäologie 24, Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 493–516. Heidemann, Stefan, 2010. “Chapter 16. Numismatics”, in Chase F. Robinson (ed.), Cambridge New History of Islam. Vol. 1: The Formation of the Islamic World, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 648–663. Heidemann, Stefan, 2011. “The Agricultural Hinterland of Baghdād, al-Raqqa and Samarrā .͗ Settlement Patterns in the Diyār Muḍar”, in: Antoine Borrut, Muriel Debié, Arietta Papaconstantinou, Dominique Pieri, and Jean-Pierre Sodini (eds.), Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides: Peuplement et dynamiques spatiales, Paris: Brepols Publishers, 43–57. Heidemann, Stefan, 2015. “How to Measure Economic Growth in the Middle East? A Framework of Inquiry for the Middle Islamic Period”, in: Daniella Talmon-Heller and Katia Cytryn-Silverman (eds.), Material Evidence and Narrative Sources, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 30–57. Hillenbrand, Robert, 1981. “Islamic Art at the Crossroads: East versus West at Mshattā”, in: Abbas Daneshvari (ed.), Essays in Islamic Art and Architecture in Honor of Katharina Otto-Dorn, Malibu: Undena, 63–86.

40

Settlement during early Islam

Hillenbrand, Robert, 1982. “La Dolce Vita in Early Islamic Syria: The Evidence of Later Umayyad Palaces”, Art History 5(1): 1–35. Hillenbrand, Robert, 1999. “ʿAnjar and Early Islamic Urbanism”, in: Gian Pietro Brogiolo and Bryan Ward-Perkins (eds.), The Idea and Ideal of the Town between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden: Brill, 59–98. Holum, Kenneth G., 2011. “Caesarea Palaestinae: A Paradigmatic Transition?”, in: Kenneth G. Holum and Hayim Lapin (eds.), Shaping the Middle East: Cities in Transition, Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 11–31. Hopkins, Keith, 1983. “Introduction”, in: Peter Garnsey, Keith Hopkins, and Charles R. Whittaker (eds.), Trade in the Ancient Economy, London: The Hegarth Press, ix–xxv. Hopkins, Keith, 1978. “Economic Growth and Towns in Classical Antiquity”, in: Philip Abrams and Edward Anthony Wrigley (eds.), Towns in Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 35–77. Horden, Peregrine, and Purcell, Nicholas, 2000. The Corrupting Sea, Twelfth ed. 2010, Malden: Blackwell. Hourani, Albert H., 1970. “Introduction: the Islamic City in the Light of Recent Research”, in: Albert H. Hourani and Samuel M. Stern (eds.), The Islamic City, Glasgow: University of Pennsylvania Press, 9–24. Imbert, Frédéric, 1995. “Inscriptions et espaces d’écriture au palais d’al-Kharrâna en Jordanie”, Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5: 403–416. Johansen, Baber, 1988. The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent: The Peasants’ Loss of Property Rights as Interpreted in the Hanafte Legal Literature of the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods, London: Croom Helm. Johns, Jeremy, 1984. “A Green Revolution?”, Journal of African History 25: 343–344. Johns, Jeremy, 1994. “The Longue Durée: State and Settlement Strategies in Southern Transjordan across the Islamic Centuries”, in: Eugene L. Rogan and Tariq Tell (eds.), Village, Steppe and State. The Social Origins of Modern Jordan, London and New York: British Academic Press, 1–31. Katbi, Ghaida Khazna, 2010. Islamic Land Tax – Al-Kharāj, from the Islamic Conquests to the ʿAbbāsid Period, New York: I.B. Tauris. Kennedy, Hugh, 1981. “Central Government and Provincial Élites in the Early ʿAbbāsid Caliphate”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 44: 26–38. Kennedy, Hugh, 1985. “From Polis to Madina: Urban Change in Late Antique and Early Islamic Syria”, Past and Present 106: 3–27. Kennedy, Hugh, 1986. “The Towns of Bilād al-Shām and the Arab Conquest”, in: Adnan Bakhit and Muhammad Asfour (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Bilād al-Shām during the Byzantine Period, vol. II, Amman: University of Jordan and Yarmouk University, 88–99. Kennedy, Hugh, 1992. “The Impact of Muslim Rule on the Pattern of Rural Settlement in Syria”, in: Pierre Canivet and Jean-Paul Rey-Coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance a l’Islam, VII-VIII siècles, Damas: Institut Français de Damas, 291–297. Kennedy, Hugh, 2001. The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State, London and New York: Routledge. Kennedy, Hugh, 2006. “From Shahristan to Medina”, Studia Islamica 102/103: 5–34. Kennedy, Hugh, 2010. “How to Found an Islamic City”, in: Caroline Goodson, Anne E. Lester, and Carol Symes (eds.), Cities, Texts, and Social Networks, 400–1500: Experiences and Perceptions of Medieval Urban Space, Farnham: Ashgate, 45–63. Kennedy, Hugh, 2011a. “The Feeding of the Five Hundred Thousand: Cities and Agriculture in Early Islamic Mesopotamia”, Iraq 73: 177–199.

Settlement during early Islam

41

Kennedy, Hugh, 2011b. “Introduction”, in: Antoine Borrut, Muriel Debié, Arietta Papaconstantinou, Dominique Pieri, and Jean-Pierre Sodini (eds.), Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides: Peuplement et dynamiques spatiales, Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, XI–XV. Kennedy, Hugh, 2014. “Land Holding and Law in the Early Islamic State”, in: John Hudson and Ana Rodríguez (eds.), Diverging Paths? The Shapes of Power and Institutions in Medieval Christendom and Islam, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 159–181. Khalilieh, Hassan S., 2008. “The Ribāṭ of Arsūf and the Coastal Defense System in Early Islamic Palestine”, Journal of Islamic Studies 19(2): 159–177. Khan, Geoffrey, 2013. Arabic Documents from Early Islamic Khurasan, Einstein Lectures in Islamic Studies 3, Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin. Kister, Meir Jacob, 1991. “Land Property and Jihād: A Discussion of Some Early Traditions”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 34(4): 270–311. Kraemer, Casper J. Jr., 1958. Excavations at Nessana, Vol. 3: Non-literary Papyri, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Krawczyk, Jean-Luc, 1985. “The Relationship between Pastoral Nomadism and Agriculture: Northern Syria and the Jazira in the Eleventh Century”, in: Michael G. Morony (ed.), Production and the Exploitation of Resources, 2002 ed., Aldershot: Ashgate/Varioam, 115–136. Lambton, Ann K.S., 1965. “Refections on the Iqṭāʿ”, in: George Makdisi (ed.), Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A.R. Gibb, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 358–376. Lapidus, Ira M., 1969. “Muslim Cities and Islamic Societies”, in: idem (ed.), Middle Eastern Cities, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 47–74. Lapidus, Ira M., 1988. A History of Islamic Societies, second ed. 2002, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Launaro, Alessandro, 2016. “Finley and the Ancient Economy”, in: Daniel Jew, Robin Osborne, and Michaeol Scot (eds.), M.I. Finley: An Ancient Historian and his Impact, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 227–249. Lecker, Michael, 1989. “The Estates of ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ in Palestine: Notes on a New Negev Arabic Inscription”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 52(1): 24–37. Legendre, Marie, 2018. “Landowners, Caliphs and State Policy Over Landholdings in the Egyptian Countryside: Theory and Practice”, in: Alain Delattre, Marie Legendre, and Petra Sijpesteijn (eds.), Authority and Control in the Countryside: From Antiquity to Islam in the Mediterranean and Near East (6th-10th Century), Leiden: Brill, 392–419. Leibner, Uzi, 2009. “Settlement and Demography in Late Roman and Byzantine Eastern Galilee”, in: Leah Di Segni, Yizhar Hirschfeld, Joseph Patrich, and Rina Talgam (eds.), Man Near a Roman Arch: Studies Presented to Prof. Yoram Tsafrir, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 14–28 (in Hebrew). Lenzen, Cherie J., 2000. “Seeking Contextual Defnitions for Places: The Case of North-Western Jordan”, Mediterranean Archaeology 13: 11–24. De Ligt, Luuk, 1993. Fairs and Markets in the Roman Empire, Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben Publisher. Luz, Nimrod, 2016. “The Islamic City Model and the Landscape of the Middle-Eastern Historical City: A Farewell to a Scholarly Paradigm”, The New East 55: 177–199 (in Hebrew. English summary: 285).

42

Settlement during early Islam

Magness, Jodi, 2012. The Archaeology of the Holy Land, from the Destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the Muslim Conquest, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Majcherek, Grzegorz, 1995. “Gazan Amphorae: Typology Reconsidered”, in: Henryk Meyza and Jolanta Mlynarczyk (eds.), Hellenistic and Roman Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean – Advances in Scientifc Studies, Warsaw: Research Center for Mediterranean Archaeology, 163–178. Majcherek, Grzegorz, 2004. “Alexandria’s Lond-Distance Trade in Late Antiquity – the Amphorae Evidence”, in: Jonas Eiring and John Lund (eds.), Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Århus: Aarhus University Press, 229–237. Majhul, Dakhil, 1972. “Telul esh Sheibah”, Sumir 28: 243–246 (in Arabic). Masarwa, Yumna, 2011a. “The Mediterranean as a Frontier: The Umayyad Ribāṭs of Palestine”, in: Hendrik Dey and Elizabeth Fentress (eds.), Western Monasticism Ante Litteram: The Spaces of Monastic Observance in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 177–199. Masarwa, Yumna, 2011b. “Transforming the Mediterranean from a Highway into a Frontier: The Coastal Cities of Palestine during the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods”, in: Antoine Borrut, Muriel Debié, Arietta Papaconstantinou, Dominique Pieri, and Jean-Pierre Sodini (eds.), Le Proche-Orient de Justinien aux Abbassides: Peuplement et dynamiques spatiales, Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 149–165. Millet, Martin, 1991. “Pottery: Population or Supply Patterns? The Ager Tarraconensis Approach”, in: Graeme Barker and John Lloyd (eds.), Roman Landscapes: Archaeological Survey in the Mediterranean Region, London: British School at Rome, 18–26. Milwright, Marcus, 2010. An Introduction to Islamic Archaeology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mirzaakhmedov, Sirodzh, 2012. “The Ribāṭ-Caravanserais from the Eastern Suburbs of Paykand. Archaeological and Historical Aspects”, Journal of Inner Asian Art and Architecture 7: 109–124. Morony, Michael G., 1984. “Landholding and Social Change: Lower al-ʿIraq in the Early Islamic Period”, in: Tarif Khalidi (ed.), Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East, Beirut: American University of Beirut, 209–222. Morton, Alexander H., 1991. “Ḥisba and Glass Stamps in Eighth- and Early Ninth-Century Egypt”, in: Yūsuf Rāģib (ed.), Documents de L’Islam médiéval: Nouvelles perspectives de recherché, Cairo: Institut français d’archéologie orientale, 19–42. Nakoinz, Oliver, 2012. “Models of Centrality”, in: Wiebke Bebermeier, Robert Hebenstreit, Elke Kaiser, and Jan Krause (eds.), Landscape Archaeology. Proceedings of the International Conference Held in Berlin, 6th – 8th June 2012, eTopoi. Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 3: 217–223. Narotzky, Susana, and Manzano, Eduardo, 2014. “The Ḥisba, the Muḥtasib and the Struggle over Political Power and a Moral Economy”, in: John Hudson and Ana Rodríguez (eds.), Diverging Paths? The Shapes of Power and Institutions in Medieval Christendom and Islam, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 30–54. Neglia, Giulia Annalinda, 2008. “Some Historiographical Notes on the Islamic City with Particular References to the Visual Representation of the Built City”, in: Salma K. Jayyusi, Renata Holod, Antillio Petruccioli, and André Raymond (eds.), The City in the Islamic World, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 3–46.

Settlement during early Islam

43

Nol, Hagit, 2015. “The Fertile Desert: Agriculture and Copper Industry in Early Islamic Arava (Arabah)”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 147(1): 49–68. Nol, Hagit, 2019. “Dating Early Islamic Sites through Architectural Elements: A Case Study from Central Israel”, Journal of Islamic Archaeology 6(1): 41–80. Nol, Hagit, forthcoming. “Early Islamic Copper Coins from Excavations in the Central Levant: An Indicator for Ancient Economy”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Northedge, Alastair, 1992. Studies on Roman and Islamic ʿAmmān. The Excavations of Mrs C-M Bennett and Other Investigations. Vol. I: History, Site and Architecture, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 71–104. Northedge, Alastair, 1994. “Archaeology and New Urban Settlement in Early Islamic Syria and Iraq”, in: Geoffrey R.D. King and Averil Cameron (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East II, Land Use and Settlement Patterns, Princeton: Darwin Press, 231–265. Northedge, Alastair, 2001. “The Palaces of the Abbasids at Samarra”, in: Chase F. Robinson (ed.), A Medieval Islamic City Reconsidered. An Interdisciplinary Approach to Samarra, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29–68. Northedge, Alastair, 2009. “The Umayyad Desert Castles and Pre-Islamic Arabia”, in: Karin Bartl and Abd al-Razzaq Moaz (eds.), Residences, Castles, Settlements, Orient-Archäologie 24, Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 243–260. Noth, Albrecht, 1973. “Zum Verhältnis von kalifaler Zentralgewalt und Provinzen in umayyadischer Zeit: Die ‘Ṣulḥ’-‘ʿAnwa’-Traditionen für Ägypten und den Iraq”, Die Welt des Islams 14: 150–162. Noth, Albrecht, 1984. “Some Remarks on the ‘Nationalization’ of Conquered Lands at the Time of the Umayyads”, in: Tarif Khalidi (ed.), Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East, Beirut: American University of Beirut, 223–228. O’Kane, Bernard, 2014. “Residential Architecture of the Darb Zubayda”, Beiträge zur islamischen Kunst und Archäologie 4: 202–219. Pamuk, Şevket, and Shatzmiller, Maya, 2011. “Plagues, Wages, and Economic Change in the Islamic Middle East, 700–1500”, The Journal of Economic History 74(1): 196–229. Patrich, Joseph, 2006. “Caesarea in Transition from the Byzantine to the Muslim Regime: The Archaeological Evidence from the Southwestern Zone (Areas CC, KK, NN), and the Literary Sources”, Cathedra 122: 143–172 (in Hebrew). English version, 2011, in: Kenneth G. Holum and Hayim Lapin (eds.), Shaping the Middle East: Cities in Transition, Bethesda: University Press of Maryland, 33–64. Petersen, Andrew, 2005. The Towns of Palestine under Muslim Rule AD 600–1600, BAR International Series 1381, Oxford: Archaeopress. Pietruschka, Ute, 2001. “Bedouin”, in: Jane Dammen McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, vol. I, Leiden: Brill, 214–217. Porath, Yosef, 2016. “Tunnel-Well (Qanat) Systems and Settlements from the Early Islamic Period in the ʿArava”, ʿAtiqot 86: 1*–81* (in Hebrew. English summary: 113–116). Pradines, Stéphane, 2020. “Coastal Fortifcations in the 9th Century Tunisia and Egypt”, in: idem (ed.), Ports and Fortifcations in the Muslim World: Coastal Military Architecture from the Arab Conquest to the Ottoman Period, Fouilles de l’Ifao 85, Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 53–77. Al-Rashid, Saad A., 1980. Darb Zubaydah: The Pilgrim Road from Kufa to Mecca, Riyad: Riyad University Libraries.

44

Settlement during early Islam

Reinfandt, Lucian, 2010. “Crime and Punishment in Early Islamic Egypt (AD 642– 969): The Arabic Papyrological Evidence”, in: Traianos Gagos (ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth International Congress of Papyrology, Ann Arbor 2007, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 633–640. Ritter, Marcus, 2016. “Umayyad Foundation Inscriptions and the Inscription of al-Walīd from Khirbat al-Minya: Text, Usage, Visual Form”, in: Hans-Peter Kuhnen (ed.), Khirbat al-Minya: Der Umayyadenpalast am See Genezareth, Orient-Archäologie 36, Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 59–83. Robinson, Chase F., 2000. Empires and Elites after the Muslim Conquest, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosen, Steven A., 2017. Revolutions in the Desert: The Rise of Mobile Pastoralism in the Southern Levant, New York and London: Routledge. Sato, Tsugitaka, 1997. State and Rural Society in the Medieval Islam: Sultans, Muqtaʿs and Fallahun, Leiden: Brill. Sauvaget, Jean, 1967. “Châteaux umayyades de Syrie”, Revue des etudes islamiques 35: 1–42. Shatzman, Israel, 2007. “Economy Conditions, Security, Problems and the Deployment of the Army in Later Roman Palestine. Part I: Economy and Population”, in: Ariel S. Lewin and Pietrina Pellegrini (eds.), The Late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest Proceedings of a Colloquium held at Potenza, Acerenza and Matera, Italy (May 2005), BAR International Series 1717, Oxford: Archaeopress, 153–200. Schick, Robert, 1992. “Jordan on the Eve of the Muslim Conquest A.D. 602–634”, in: Pierre Canivet and Jean-Paul Rey-Coquuais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance al’Islam VIIe-VIIIe siècle, Damas: Institut français de Damas, 107–119. Schiøler, Thorkild, 1973. Roman and Islamic Water-Lifting Wheels, Odense: Odense University Press. Serjeant, Robert B., 1953. “A Zaidī Manual of Ḥisbah of the 3rd Century (H)”, Rivista degli studi orientali 28: 1–35. Sharon, Moshe, 1976. “Destruction Processes and Nomadization in the Holy Land under Islamic Rule”, in: idem (ed.), Issues in the History of the Land of Israel under Islamic Rule, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 7–29 (in Hebrew). Shatzmiller, Maya, 1994. Labour in the Medieval Islamic World, Leiden: Brill. Shmueli, Oren, and Goldfus, Haim, 2015. “The Early Islamic City of Ramla in Light of New Archaeological Discoveries, G.I.S. Applications, and a Reexamination of the Literary Sources”, in: Daniella Talmon-Heller and Katya Cytryn-Silverman (eds.), Material Evidence and Narrative Sources, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 267–300. Shoshan, Boaz, 2016. The Arabic Historical Tradition and the Early Islamic Conquests: Folklore, Tribal Lore, Holy War, London and New York: Routledge. Siegel, Ulrike, 2017. Die Residenz des Kalifen Hārūn ar-Rašīd in ar-Raqqa/ar-Rāfqa (Syrien), Raqqa 4, Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. Sijpesteijn, Petra M., 2007a. “The Arab Conquest of Egypt and the Beginning of Muslim Rule”, in: Roger Bagnall (ed.), Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300–700, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 437–459. Sijpesteijn, Petra M., 2007b. “The Archival Mind in Early Islamic Egypt: Two Arabic Papyri”, in: Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Lennart Sundelin, Sofa Torallas Tovar, and Amalia Zomeño (eds.), From al-Andalus to Khurasan: Documents from the Medieval Muslim World, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 163–186.

Settlement during early Islam

45

Sijpesteijn, Petra M., 2009. “Landholding Patterns in Early Islamic Egypt”, Journal of Agrarian Change 9(1): 120–133. Simonsohn, Uriel I., 2011. A Common Justice: The Legal Allegiances of Christians and Jews under Early Islam, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith, Carol A., 1976. “Regional Economic Systems: Linking Geographical Models and Socioeconomic Problems”, in: idem (ed.), Regional Analysis. Vol I., Economic Systems, New York: Academic Press, 3–63. Soroush, Mehrnoush, 2014a. “The Miṣr of ʿAskar Mokram: Preliminary Report and Framework of Future Reseach”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 46: 299–320. Soroush, Mehrnoush, 2014b. “Irrigation in Khuzistan after the Sasanians: Continuity, Decline, or Transformation?”, in: Alessandro Gnasso, Emanuele E. Intagliata, and Thomas J. MacMaster (eds.), The Long Seventh Century: Continuity and Discontinuity in an Age of Transition, Oxford: Lang, 269–289. Sourdel, Dominique, 1981. “La fondation umayyade d’al-Ramla eu Palestine”, in: Hans R. Roemer and Albrect Noth (eds.), Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des verderen Orients, Leiden: Brill, 387–395. Squatriti, Paolo, 2014. “Of Seeds, Seasons, and Seas: Andrew Watson’s Medieval Agrarian Revolution Forty years Later”, The Journal of Economic History 74(4): 1205–1220. Saidel, Benjamin A., and Van der Steen, Eveline J. (eds.), 2007. On the Fringe of Society: Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives on Pastoral and Agricultural Societies, BAR International Series 1657, Oxford: Archaeopress. Stern, Samuel M., 1970. “The Constitution of the Islamic City”, in: Albert H. Hourani and Samuel M. Stern (eds.), The Islamic City, Glasgow: University of Pennsylvania Press, 25–50. Talbi, Mohamed, 1981. “Law and Economy in Ifriqiya (Tunisia) in the Third Islamic Century: Agriculture and the Role of Slaves in the Country’s Economy”, in: Abraham Labe Udovitch (ed.), The Islamic Middle East, 700–1900: Studies in Economic and Social History, Princeton: Darwin Press, 209–249. Taxel, Itamar, 2013a. “Rural Settlement Processes in Central Palestine, ca. 640– 800 C.E.: The Ramla-Yavneh Region as a Case Study”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 369: 157–199. Taxel, Itamar, 2013b. “The Byzantine-Early Islamic Transition on the Palestinian Coastal Plain: A Re-evaluation of the Archaeological Evidence”, Semitica et Classica 6: 73–106. Taxel, Itamar, 2014. “Luxury and Common Wares: Socio-Economic Aspects of the Distribution of Glazed Pottery in Early Islamic Palestine”, Levant 46(1): 118–139. Tepper, Yotam, Erickson-Gini, Tali, Yoav Farhi, and Guy Bar-Oz, 2018. “Probing the Byzantine/Early Islamic Transition in the Negev: The Renewed Shivta Excavations, 2015–2016”, Tel Aviv 45(1): 120–152. Tillier, Mathieu, 2015. “Dispensing Justice in a Minority Context: The Judicial Administration of Upper Egypt under Muslim Rule in the Early Eighth Century”, in: Robert G. Hoyland (ed.), The Late Antique World of Early Islam: Muslims among Jews and Christians in the East Mediterranean, Princeton: The Darwin Press, 133–156. Tsafrir, Yoram, 1984. “The Arab Conquest and the Gradual Decline of the Population of Eretz Israel”, Cathedra 32: 69 (in Hebrew). Van der Veen, Marijke, 2003. “When Is Food a Luxury?”, World Archaeology 34(3): 405–427.

46 Settlement during early Islam Verkinderen, Peter, 2015. Waterways in Iraq and Iran in the Early Islamic Period: Changing Rivers and Landscapes of the Mesopotamian Plain, London and New York: Tauris. Von Grunebaum, Gustav Edmund, 1955. “The Structure of the Muslim Town”, in: Islam: Essays in the Nature and Growth of a Cultural Tradition, The American Anthropologist 57: 141–158. Walmsley, Alan, 1999. “Coin Frequencies in Sixth and Seventh Century Palestine and Arabia: Social and Economic Implications”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 42(3): 326–350. Walmsley, Alan, 2000a. “Production, Exchange and Regional Trade in the Islamic East Mediterranean: Old Structure, New Systems?”, in: Inge Lyse Hansen and Chris Wickham (eds.), The Long Eighth Century, Leiden: Brill, 265–343. Walmsley, Alan, 2000b. “The ‘Islamic City’: The Archaeological Experience in Jordan”, Mediterranean Archaeology 13: 1–9. Walmsley, Alan, 2007a. “Economic Developments and the Nature of Settlement in the Towns and Countryside of Syria-Palestine, ca. 565–800”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 61: 319–352. Walmsley, Alan G., 2007b. Early Islamic Syria: an Archaeological Assessment, Bath: Duckworth. Walmsley, Alan, Blanke, Louise, Kristoffer Damgaard, Aicha Mellah, Stephen McPhillips, Lars Roenje, Ian Simpson, and Fanny Bessard, 2008. “A Mosque, Shops and Bath in Central Jarash: The 2007 Season of the Islamic Jarash Project”, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 52: 109–137. Ward-Perkins, Brian, 2001a. “Chapter 12: Land, Labour and Settlement”, in: Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, and Michael Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. XIV, Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425– 600, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 315–345. Ward-Perkins, Brian, 2001b. “Chapter 13: Specialized Production and Exchange”, in: Averil Cameron, Bryan Ward-Perkins, and Michael Whitby (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. XIV, Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425– 600, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 346–391. Watson, Andrew M., 1983. Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weber, Max, 1958. The City, New York: The Free Press. Whitcomb, Donald, 1987. “Excavation in Aqaba: First Preliminary Report”, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 31: 247–266. Whitcomb, Donald, 1989. “Evidence of the Umayyad Period from the Aqaba Excavations”, in: Adnan Bakhit and Robert Schick (eds.), The Fourth International Conference on the History of Bilād al-Shām during the Umayyad Period, Vol. II: English Section, Amman: University of Jordan and Yarmouk University, 164–184. Whitcomb, Donald, 1994. “The Miṣr of Ayla: Settlement at al-‘Aqaba in the Early Islamic Period”, in: Geoffrey R.D. King and A. Cameron (eds.), The Byzantine and Early Islamic Near East II: Land Use and Settlement Patterns, Princeton: The Darwin Press, 155–170. Whitcomb, Donald, 1996. “The Darb Zubayda as a Settlement System in Arabia”, ARAM 8: 25–32. Whitcomb, Donald, 2006. “The Walls of Early Islamic Ayla: Defense or Symbol?”, in: Hugh Kennedy (ed.), Muslim Military Architecture in Greater Syria, Leiden: Brill, 61–74.

Settlement during early Islam

47

Whitcomb, Donald, 2007. “An Urban Structure for the Early Islamic City”, in: Amira K. Bennison and Alison L. Gascoigne (eds.), Cities in the Pre-Modern Islamic World, London and New York: Routhledge, 15–26. Whitcomb, Donald, 2009. “From Pastoral Peasantry to Tribal Urbanites: Arab Tribes and the Foundation of the Islamic State in Syria”, in: Jeffrey Szuchman (ed.), Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives, Chicago: The University of Chicago, 241–259. Whitcomb, Donald, 2012. “Formation of the Islamic City: A Second Archaeological Period of Urban Transition”, in: Roger Matthews and John Curtis (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. II, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 619–631. Whitcomb, Donald, 2016. “The Mosques of Mafjar: A Sequence and Some Implications for Understanding Qasr Hisham”, in: Denis Genequand (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, vol. II, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 469–478. Whitcomb, Donald, and Taha, Hamdan, 2013. “Khirbat al-Mafjar and Its Place in the Archaeological Heritage of Palestine”, Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1(1): 54–65. Whittaker, Charles R., 1983. “Late Roman Trade and Traders”, in: Peter Garnsey, Keith Hopkins, and Charles R. Whittaker (eds.), Trade in the Ancient Economy, London: The Hegarth Press, 163–180. Wickham, Chris, 2005. Framing the Early Middle Ages, Norfolk: Oxford University Press. Wickham, Chris, 2019. “The Power of Property: Land Tenure in Fāṭimid Egypt”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 62: 67–107. Williams, Tim, 2007. “The City of Sultan Kala, Merv, Turkmenistan: Communities, Neighborhoods and Urban Planning from the Eighth to the Thirteenth Century”, in: Amira K. Bennison and Alison L. Gascoigne (eds.), Cities in the Pre-Modern Islamic World, London and New York: Routhledge, 42–62. Wirth, Eugen, 2000. Die orientalische Stadt im islamischen Vorderasien und Nordafrika, Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.

3

The Research Area

Geographical history combines information from texts, from archaeological evidence and from contemporary or semi-contemporary geography. The data that each source produces do not necessarily correlate with the data derived from the other two. Even more so, the abstract space and the physical domain are not the same, just as the modern landscape is not identical with the historical one. Correspondingly, this chapter follows the division between the physical and the abstract spheres, and between contemporary and historical landscapes. It starts with a description of the topography and climate of the research area, continues by summarizing the archaeological studies in the region and listing its main archaeological sites, and concludes by portraying the geography and the toponyms of its parallel abstract space. Chapter 7 discusses the possible match between a number of toponyms and sites such as Ludd and Lod.

The landscape: topography, water, and climate The physical research area is a triangle on the Mediterranean coast which lies between Tel-Aviv-Jaffa, Ashdod and Ramla in central Israel (Figure 3.1). Its maximal dimensions are 41 km north-south, 21 km west-east, and 46 km along the shore. Its general geographical defnition is the Southern Coastal Plain. Following biblical identifcations, the western section is called Peleshet and the eastern part ‘the Lower Shefela’. Topographically, the former is characterized by dune sands, many of them now stabilized, covering planar strips and low ridges of calcareous eolianite sandstone (kurkar) up to the height of 10 m. The ridge troughs condenses eroded kurkar and alluvial soils and drains runoff, making it a potential space for marshes. The Lower Shefela is composed of shallow valleys and kurkar plateaus, of 130–200 m height, covered with alluvial sediments and Dark Clay soils (Vertisols) such as Red Sandy Clay Loam (hamra). The coast is characterized by layers of beachrock. Studying the geological section of the dunes near Palmahim suggests low intensity cycles of sandy coverage in the Roman period, but a massive one during the Byzantine period.1 Quarries in the research area, of ancient and modern times, exploit kurkar, sand and hamra.2

DOI: 10.4324/9781003176169-3

The Research Area 49

Figure 3.1 Geomorphological map of the research area (Adapted from Almagor and Perat 2012: Fig. 1.2b by Ron Haran and Hagit Nol)

Whether the climate of 1,200 years ago was similar to the current one is still unclear. One study on the isotopic structure of oxygen in stalactites in Soreq Cave, near Bet Shemesh, shows waves of climate changes between the 5th and 8th century, with repeated shifts between 600 and 1,000 mm in the annual rainfall almost every century.3 However, even small changes, or differences between neighboring sites, might make the difference between a Mediterranean and a semi-arid climate, or the necessity or its absence to store water or irrigate artifcially.4 Therefore, at this point, climate changes are too vague and general to be regarded. The conditions of the early 20th century are thus a valid proxy for pre-industrial Palestine. Data of the Israel Meteorological Service from seventeen stations in the research area provide precipitation indices between the winters of 1930– 1931 and 1959–1960. On average, the annual rainfall was 450–550 mm, 44– 60 days a year, with 9–12 mm per rainy day. The annual rainfall extremes include 167 mm minimum in Gedera and around 250 in most other stations, and 750–900 mm maximum everywhere.5 The wet months in these years were mainly November to April. A sample of temperatures across one year, September 1959 to August 1960, was gathered from six stations.6 The hottest

50

The Research Area

months of the year proved to be July to September, with an average of 28 to 31 °C of the maximum temperatures and 19 to 22 °C minimum. The coldest months were January and February with an average of 17 to 20 °C of the maximum temperatures and 7 to 10 °C minimum. The hottest annual days, however, between 40 and 45 °C, were recorded in April or May. In addition, the southern coastal plain annually averages 200 days of dew, adding an important source of moisture for crops.7 The natural fresh water sources of the research area include surface runoff and groundwater. The latter is situated in the coastal aquifer, above the Saqiya Formation, and was the chief groundwater source in the state of Israel at least until the 1990s.8 A survey of wells around Ascalon, adjacent to the research area, recovered 51 modern wells and 21 ancient ones. Their depth is 50–70 cm, indicating the former level of groundwater on the site.9 Four rivers or streams in the research area drain off large basins from Palestine and/or eastern Israel to the sea in the west, including many tributaries on their way. That includes the Yarqon River (Arabic: Nahr al-ʿAwja), Nahal Ayalon (Wādī Muṣrāra), Nahal Soreq (Nahr Rūbīn) and Nahal Lakhish (Wādī Sukhrīr). Except for the Yarqon, all are ephemeral today. Yet, it is assumed that until the early 20th century, their bulk fowed all year long.10 For example, Nahr Rūbīn was noted by travelers as intensively fowing during winter, and partly streaming during summer due to the marshes or springs which kept flling it up.11 According to Avitsur, eight foods were documented between the 1930s and 1950s in the Yarqon River and Ayalon rivulet, every two to four years.12 Seasonal marshes were also recorded until the early 20th century north of Tel Aviv, east of Jaffa, west of Yavne, in Rishon Leziyyon, and near Ayanot.13 One should notice that in the 20th century, unlike other sites in the research area, Ramla had no fresh groundwater,14 and no streams or marshes in its proximity. This information should be considered in analyzing settlement patterns (Chapter 6). Besides foods, natural and artifcial water sources are a possible source for human parasitic diseases such as malaria. Different sources from the 19th to 20th centuries describe suffering from malaria in Palestine by the native population, by immigrants, and by British soldiers.15 The disease is caused by bites of the Anopheles mosquitoes which transmit the parasite Plasmodium. The parasites multiply in the host’s liver, then infect the bloodstream and destroy blood cells. The symptoms of the disease are cycles of fever, and usually sweat and shivering. Moreover, it has a high chance of causing anemia or vomiting, which are a life threat to infants. Up to the early 1960s, 16 species of the Anopheles were recognized, studied, and eliminated in Israel/Palestine. Each species had a different habitat, geographic distribution, fying distance, and breeding periods. They chiefy reproduced in marshes, irrigation canals, and wetlands around streams, but also in lakes, cisterns, and small ponds.16 The extent of the disease in Palestine or elsewhere before the 19th century is unknown. However, literature from the Roman period has given clear symptoms and relation to marshes which can be identifed

The Research Area 51 with malaria with certainty, and earlier texts suggest its presence even in the 5th century BC in Greece.17 Moreover, DNA tests on a limited number of human skeletal remains from the Roman period in Egypt and in Italy show positive results of the disease.18 The possible presence of malaria might be signifcant for the analysis of occupation trends (Chapter 6).

The archaeological evidence This sub-chapter presents the history of archaeological research in the region since the 19th century and its central results. Next, it introduces the main excavations on Early Islamic sites in the research area. Up to 2014, nearly 300 nodes with Early Islamic remains were revealed by archaeological excavations, and an additional 65 by surveys (Figure 3.2, Appendix 1). The term ‘node’, adopted from social network analysis terminology, is here used to demonstrate a spot of archaeological investigation or an area in a big excavation. It differs from the term ‘site’ which is interpretive and more confusing.19 I divide the nodes into six clusters, comprising the Yarqon, the coast, Azor, Ramla, Rehovot, and Gedera (Figure 3.3). The archaeological information from the clusters will be briefy summarized, whereas excavation fnal reports will get more attention. Unlike the next chapters, this one offers very little analysis. The studies are mainly presented through the excavators’ eyes, with their own terminology and dating.

Figure 3.2 Excavated and surveyed nodes in the research area

52

The Research Area

Figure 3.3 An index of clusters and sites in the research area

As a rule, archaeological sites are named according to their current Israeli municipality. This choice was made not in order to assist in forgetting the Palestinian history of the landscape, but to distinguish between the Ottoman/Palestinian settlement and the archaeological site; and between them and the textual toponym (e.g. Ramla and al-Ramla, or Lod and Ludd). In cases where several distinctly separated sites existed in one municipality, a name of a neighborhood or another attribution was given, unless the site is famous (e.g. Tell Qasile, Khirbat Dayrān). Known municipalities are written in English (e.g. Jaffa). If otherwise, Hebrew transliteration is based on the lists of the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics, and Arabic transliterations are in literary Arabic ( fuṣḥā) supported by the lists in The Survey of Western Palestine.20 Generally, the following terms belong to Hebrew/Arabic respectively: Tel/Tell, Horvat/Khirbat, and Kefar/Kafr. Geographical and archaeological surveys in the research area were conducted as early as the late 19th century. The frst type of surveys is the documentation of monuments, ruins, and contemporary structures by scholars such as Guérin (1869), Conder and Kitchener (1882) Clermont-Ganneau (1896) and De Vogüé (1914). The early delegations often identifed archaeological sites and Palestinian settlements with biblical, early Christian, or other historical toponyms. For example, Conder and Kitchener explain that “Lŭdd is the Old Testament Lod, the New Testament Lydda”.21 With a similar identifcation approach, Jacob Kaplan has conducted two archaeological surveys in the early 1950s, around Yavne and Gedera.22

The Research Area 53 A second sort of surveys is of Muslim or Islamic monuments, mainly from the Mamluk and Ottoman periods. Such surveys were led by Department of Antiquities of the British Mandate, by Jewish and Israeli scholars in the late 1940s to the early 1950s, and in past decades by Andrew Petersen, who has also published the earlier British data.23 Petersen has mapped mosques and shrines, Mamluk bridges, and hydraulic projects such as the water mills on the Yarqon River.24 The monuments are not always dated, and no one has yet summarized their history from a regional perspective. The survey of bridges includes three in the research area: near Yavne, near Ashdod, and Jisr Jindās between Ramla and Lod.25 These data will be considered in Chapter 6 in spite of their later date. A third sort of survey was conducted by Max van Berchem (1897) for Arabic epigraphy. Modern archaeological surveys in Israel are done as part of ‘the Map of Israel’ project since the late 1960s. The research area covers eleven regions or ‘maps’, each measuring 10 × 10 km. Most of the maps that have been used in this study were published in the past decade. However, many were concluded years or decades before the publication,26 thus representing earlier archaeological methods and outdated discourses. The maps of Tel Aviv and Petah Tiqwah, for example, were published in 2015, while the survey was concluded in 1976. This is signifcant especially regarding the identifcation of surveyed sites as ‘Byzantine’ or ‘Early Islamic’ and feeding the Byzantine Boom and Islamic Decline paradigms. Archaeological excavations have been conducted in the research area since the British Mandate. Sites around Tel Aviv which were suspected to be Biblical, such as Tel Gerisa, Tell Qalʿa and Tell Qasile, were excavated until the early 1950s. Final reports, or a full documentation of their Islamic layers, have never been published.27 In 1949 and 1956 Kaplan excavated the White Mosque of Ramla and published a brief article.28 Since then, several research excavations took place for example in Yavne-Yam and Tel Ashdod.29 Moreover, a few salvage excavations were carried out before the 1990s in Ramla.30 Still, most archaeological studies are later, following the establishment of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the enforcement of salvage excavations on construction sites.31 Final reports from Early Islamic sites started being published in 2004.32 Another sub-discipline which studies the research area, not always in correlation with the other two, is underwater archaeology. A good collaboration can be seen in Yavne-Yam, where an underwater survey was conducted besides the excavation.33 A second site that has been briefy examined is Jaffa, where a pier was revealed.34 The research area saw human occupation as early as the Epipaleolithic/Kebaran (18,000 to 12,500 BC) and Pottery Neolithic period (6th to 5th Millenium BC).35 In the Byzantine/Early Islamic Period, many new sites were established, or re-occupied a prehistorian site, such as Ramla, Ashdod-Yam, Azor, or Ramat Gan. Other sites were settled continuously or were re-occupied multiple times, including Tell Qasile, Tel Ashdod, or

54

The Research Area

Holot Yavne. In particular, sites from the Roman-Byzantine periods which include workshops, agricultural installations, or Christian ritual architecture (Na’an south, Khirbat Dayrān, Ganne Tal, and Gan Yavne) were occupied, or re-occupied, during Early Islam. A handful of regional studies were conducted on domains within the research area.36 Only one of these studies, however, looks at Early Islamic sites while examining the surroundings of Yavne and Ramla in the 7th–8th centuries. According to the author, the 7th century shows continuity, but dramatic changes took place in the 8th century, including abandonment and enlargement of sites and the cessation of wine production.37 The present research disputes some of these conclusions. The Yarqon The northern cluster is composed chiefy by sites along the Yarqon River (Figure 3.4). It comprises the sites Tell Qasile, Ramat Aviv, Ramat Hahayal, Hadar Yosef, Tel Gerisa, Bene Beraq and Bavli. Excavations around Tell Qasile have revealed a courtyard structure and adjacent elements, which will be discussed. Nearby winepresses were unearthed, a Samaritan ‘church’, and a road, all dated Byzantine.38 The evidence from other sites in that sub-region is too fragmentary and will not be presented in detail. They consist of various installations, not always clearly identifed. The next

Figure 3.4 Map of the Yarqon sites

The Research Area 55 chapters and the discussion in particular will demonstrate only very few characteristics which distinguish the Yarqon. It was characterized, for instance, by the presence of metal waste and the absence of pottery waste. Moreover, its economy was often related to Jaffa and seldom to Ramla. Distinctly, its sites had no coins from the mint of al-Ramla. Tell Qasile (32°6′1.83″N, 34°47′37.56″E) was excavated for several decades. In the fnal report, the remains from the Roman to the Mamluk periods received a total of four paragraphs.39 Finds which were considered to be Byzantine (stratum II), never published in detail, include a structure which was interpreted as a ‘public building’ (Area A) and a sitting bath (Area C?).40 The earliest Islamic phase of Tell Qasile (Ic) was frst dated to the 8th century but later on to the 9th century.41 Two wells and a few walls were related to that phase. The next phase (Ib) consists of a courtyard house, approximately 28 on 28 m, including a gate, stairs, and channels. It was destroyed by fre and was re-occupied in the Crusader period (the 12th century, phase Ia). A comparison to similar structures such as Abu-Ghosh and Yotvata resulted in its identifcation as a ‘khan’.42 That strata Ic (‘Early Islamic’) has been referred from the 8th to the 9th century allows us to infer that stratum II (‘Byzantine’) might represent the 8th century. The coast This cluster is the largest, running along the shore and its dunes. It includes the sites of Jaffa, Tel Yona, Rishon Leziyyon, Yavne-Yam, Holot Yavne, Gan Yavne, Tel Ashdod, and Ashdod-Yam (Figure 3.5). Many of these sites were investigated in a research excavation, and to some a fnal report was published. The following chapters will reveal the uniqueness of the coast, with specifc raw materials such as lead or beachrock, with the relative great number of wells, and with the absence of many crafts. The settlement patterns of the coast changed signifcantly, from a 7th century distribution to a clear abandonment perhaps in the 9th century. The southern part of the cluster went through a different pattern, with very intense activity in the 10th to 11th centuries. In Jaffa, rescue excavations were conducted on both sides of the Tell, and further north-east in the Flea Market (32°3′11.38″N, 34°45′19.94″E). Importantly, the excavators applied a systematic periodization to the data on many of the excavations, which makes their dating unifed all over the site.43 Much of the architecture in the relevant nodes was attributed either to the Late Byzantine period (stratum VI) or the Crusader period (stratum IV).44 The Early Islamic period was present in a construction technique of clay walls by ‘rammed earth’ (pisé de terre),45 which is unique to Jaffa. Another important element is a possible ‘juice-press’ which was dated as Byzantine.46 Yavne-Yam (31°55′22.52″N, 34°41′35.33″E) is a multi-period site on the coast. It includes Byzantine remains and an Early Islamic fortifed-square

56

The Research Area

Figure 3.5 Sites of the coast

structure. It is located at a natural anchorage which was favorable for anchoring south of Jaffa, except in winter.47 The site has been excavated since the 1960s, but a fnal report is still in preparation.48 The Byzantine complex includes domestic and industrial-commercial fnds, installations, a bath, and burials. In addition, artefacts that are attributed to Byzantine public

The Research Area 57 49

structures were found. The square structure (unknown size) includes a wall and a tower, the caldarium of a bathhouse, and an extramural staircase.50 Before excavation it had been dated to the 9th–11th centuries, but its construction is now attributed to the mid-7th or early 8th century.51 Many water installations were revealed around the site, including wells (dated to the Roman and Byzantine periods), a possible waterwheel, pools, and channels.52 Important artefacts include Byzantine/Early Islamic pithoi, some found complete and in situ, and marble columns with Arabic graffti.53 Ashdod-Yam is a fortifed-square structure of 40 × 60 m on the coast (31°46′50.68″N, 34°37′19.45″E). It was surveyed and excavated, and a brief report was published for its archival material.54 The unclear stratigraphy enabled only a general Early Islamic-Crusader date. However, a relative chronology could be established for the architectural elements, starting with the external structure and towers, southern rooms and a bath-well complex, continuing with a mosque, followed by the eastern rooms and a second well, and concluding with a subterranean element, perhaps for water storage.55 The portable artefacts are rich, comprising inter alia jar stamped handles, a lead seal, and glass weights.56 In spite of the unclear stratigraphy, the layer under the Islamic-Crusader layer was dated to the 5th–6th centuries, including an early well and walls. Another thick layer was identifed between the ‘Islamic’ and ‘Byzantine’ layers, composed by Roman-Islamic pottery, shells, and construction waste. It was interpreted either as a time buffer following the site abandonment, or as construction fll. Both interpretations relied on the belief that a Byzantine site existed under the fortress or adjacent to it.57 Three additional sites in the cluster are Holot Yavne, Gan Yavne and Tel Ashdod. Holot Yavne (31°50′59.38″N, 34°42′25.92″E) was investigated in several surveys, while an excavation revealed a much smaller site. It comprises little architecture, many portable artefacts (mainly Persian and Mamluk) and an undated well nearby.58 Gan Yavne (Khirbat Burqa, 31°46′43.92″N, 34°42′1.20″E) is a big site which was excavated in several salvage digs and is dated mainly to the Byzantine period. The excavations unearthed a bathhouse hypocaust, a wine press, a burial cave, and a church with an inscription from 511 AD.59 In addition, a complex of subterranean kilns was dug and identifed as a ‘pottery workshop’.60 The last site is the multi-period Tel Ashdod (31°45′28.24″N, 34°39′25.84″E). Its latest phases, dated until the 7th century, constitute some architecture, water installations, a kiln, and ovens.61 At the foot of the Tell, three additional nodes have been uncovered: Byzantine/Early Islamic burials, refuse heaps of Byzantine period kiln waste, and a Persian wheel and an irrigation system dating back from the Roman to the Islamic period.62 Azor Sites around Azor, along Nahal Ayalon, also include Ramat Gan, Or Yehuda, Bet Dagan, Kafr Jinnis, and Ben-Gurion Airport (Figure 3.6). Most nodes were excavated as salvage projects, which are briefy summarized.

58

The Research Area

Figure 3.6 Sites around Azor

The next chapters will display the unique characteristics of the cluster, including several installations and rare portable artefacts, which can otherwise be found only in Ramla. Its main singularity is the establishment of a chain of sites from the 8th to 9th centuries. The frst site is Or Yehuda (Kafr ʿĀnā, 32°1′21.34″N, 34°51′50.25″E) which was published in a fnal report but provides only scarce relevant results, mainly Byzantine and Early Islamic portable artefacts from refuse pits.63 In Azor (32°1′15.10″N, 34°48′17.24″E) burials were revealed along with structures and a hypocaust (6th to 10th centuries).64 On the Ben-Gurion Airport site (Ẓahr al-Khirba) a winepress was excavated, dated to Late-Byzantine and Early Islamic periods (Weinberger 2004). Bet Dagan (32°0′16.13″N, 34°49′40.04″E) presents a winepress, structures, and several pools (the latter unpublished).65 Kafr Jinnis (31°59′47.73″N, 34°54′19.25″E) is the only site in the cluster with detailed information. In the fnal report, the excavator identifed a domestic area, a winepress, and agricultural areas within four layers, from the Late-Roman/Byzantine period onward. In layer III, a rectangular courtyard was found (no plan has been published), with 7th-century coins under its foor. All around the site, many dug refuse pits were recovered, revealing rich portable fnds (e.g. coins, basalt bowls, and stamped jar handles) along with slag and metal-production waste.66 A neighboring excavation revealed conduits made of clay pipe.67

The Research Area 59

Figure 3.7 Sites around Ramla

Ramla This cluster is the most thoroughly excavated and the one with the most fnal reports. Its further division involves the northern cluster (Lod, Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya, and Horvat Zerifn), the southern cluster (Nesher Quarries, Tel Hamid, Na’an north/south, and Tel Malot), and the center, with Ramla, Mazliah, and Yashresh (Figure 3.7). The following introduction will start with the latter. Until 2014, more than 100 nodes with Early Islamic remains were recorded inside Ramla municipality and another twenty in Mazliah and Yashresh (Figure 3.8 While most scholars debated if to regard Mazliah and Ramla one site or not,68 I will argue that Ramla was composed of several sites, at least in parts of its history, so Mazliah is one site in a cluster. At any rate, when ‘Ramla’ is cited that would mean Ramla, Mazliah, and Yashresh unless one of them was explicitly cited. Ramla is unique in its material culture, acting as a hub to almost any type of evidence from the region, and maintaining its own installations and artefacts. In spite of its very impressive level of publications, and some assemblages forming one coherent picture,69 for a long time, no attempt was made to analyze the characteristics of fnds70 or to detect differences in fnds in varied parts of the city. A recent Ph.D. dissertation, however, examined the chronology of excavations according to the pottery,71 which will be compared to our results in Chapter 6. The following presentation concentrates

60

The Research Area

Figure 3.8 Nodes inside Ramla

on fve fnal reports: Ma’asiyahu Prison, Ofer Park, Marcus Street, the Police station, and Mazliah. The fnal report of the White Mosque Street excavation from 2017 is not presented here and did not enter the analyzed data.72 An excavation not far from Ma’asiyahu Prison (31°56′10.9″N, 34°52′49.1″E) was the frst in Ramla to be published in a fnal report. The 8th–11th-century site presents walls, pools, a relatively large number of cesspits, and portable artefacts. Remains of red color in the pool pointed to dyeing activities for the excavator.73 Next, the Ofer Park excavation (31°55′28.49″N, 34°51′29.30″E) yielded two living phases with unclear architecture but many installations such as ‘sunken jars’. Around the excavation area, building elements, and marble fragments were found along with a heap of clay bricks and grinding basalt and beachrock stones. Some pottery production evidence was represented by jug wasters, one attached to slag, as well as stoppers and kiln bars. The site has been dated to the 9th–11th century.74 The fnal report includes bronze weights, inscribed objects, inscriptions on marble, and animal bones.75 A large excavation was conducted in Marcus Street, south of the Pool of the Arches (31°55′49.04″N, 34°52′16.46″E) and resulted in stratifcation of four phases between the 8th and the 11th century. The evidence includes structures, streets, and drainage systems which the author describes as “very precise town planning”.76 In the 9th century (phase III) a big courtyard structure existed along with a ‘public’ water cistern and street pavement.

The Research Area 61 In the 10th and 11th century, a number of pools, septic tanks, and drainage channels were built and modifed.77 During the excavation near the police station, north of the white mosque (31°55′51.03″N, 34°52′8.02″E), fve phases have been detected from the Umayyad to the Ottoman periods. Stratum V and IV (early 8th century and mid-8th to late 10th century) consist of stone structures, cisterns, channels, and pipes. The whole area is abundant with flled rubbery trenches and refuse pits.78 According to the pottery, however (‘grenades’, lamps, stamped jar handles, zoomorphic vessels, water pipes), the assemblage as a whole should be dated to the Abbasid period.79 Other fnds from the excavation comprise glass vessels and raw material, 250 coins, a stamp and weights, and stone vessels.80 South of Ramla, the site of Mazliah was thoroughly excavated. A fnal report has been published on one of the projects (approximately 31°54′50.65″N, 34°51′59.13″E) as well as one dissertation. In the fnal report, layers from the Middle Bronze Age onwards were uncovered, including Roman and Late-Roman flls, Late Byzantine-Umayyad installations, and Abbasid-Fatimid installations. The Byzantine-Umayyad phase consists of a structure, a pool, an oven (ṭabūn), an oil press, two possible winepresses, two pottery kilns, and glass waste (implying a furnace). The Abbasid-Fatimid phase is represented by cisterns, ‘subterranean vaulted chambers’, 43 plastered pools, and channels and pipes.81 The site is interpreted as industrial, and on the basis of texts from the 13th to 15th centuries, as being related to the production of linen fbers.82 Additional excavations in Mazliah have uncovered two bathhouses, a winepress, pottery kilns, and many septic tanks and shallow pools.83 Excavations around Ramla, chiefy in Na’an north and Yashresh, have unearthed water channels and a built aqueduct. Following one line of argumentation, the different segments belong to one complex which is entitled qanāt bint al-kāfr.84 It is dated to the Umayyad period on the basis of the historical sources whereas the number of Abbasid coins found within are explained as coming from a renovation phase.85 Scholars associate the water source of the aqueduct with springs near Tell Gezer and its destination in Ramla’s big cisterns.86 However, conduits around Yashresh are interpreted as irrigation channels.87 The excavated segments are somehow varied (e.g. walls width, foundation techniques, coverage), except for the pinkish plaster on top, and might suggest different construction times, or owners. The northern cluster of Ramla’s sub-region includes Lod, Horvat Zerifn, and Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya. Rescue excavations in Lod in recent years revealed evidence from the Roman or Byzantine period to the 9th century as dated by architecture and installations, but most of these excavations are very limited in scale and display a diffcult stratifcation. One rescue excavation (31°57′41.22″N, 34°54′4.54″E), for example, yielded fnds from the Persian to the Early Islamic periods (layers Ib-III) and a later undated layer of burials (stratum Ia). Layers IIb and IIa (Byzantine) consist of pavements between flls of pottery from the 6th to 8th centuries and layer Ic (Abbasid

62

The Research Area

or ‘Early Islamic’) comprises a structure.88 The portable artefacts include Byzantine, Umayyad, and Abbasid coins.89 Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya is located east of Lod (31°56′57.19″N, 34°55′49.73″E). The excavation has revealed three phases, from the Late Byzantine period to the 10th century. It involves a courtyard structure of approximately 30 on 30 m, an oil press, and an irrigation system of a channel, a pool, and a drainage pit. The site is interpreted as a monastery which was transformed into a farm after the Arab conquest.90 Rehovot The Rehovot sub-region is composed of Tel Yavne, Nes Ziyyona, Yad Eli’ezer, Weizmann Institute (Khirbat al-Badd), Khirbat Dayrān, Horvat Hermas (Khirbat Hirmās), Khirbat al-ʿAṣfūra, Kefar Gabirol, Ge’alya, and Zarnūqa (Figure 3.9). The unique characteristics of this cluster are its industrial nature, involving the manufacture of pottery and glass, and a very specifc type of fre installation. Except for two earlier sites, most can be dated to the late 9th century. One striking observation was the lack of cisterns or wells in this area, in spite of the sites’ apparent distance from any natural water source. Modern Yavne hosts at least two sites: the Abū Ḥurayra shrine from the Mamluk Period, which is excluded from this study, and Tel Yavne from the Middle Bronze Age onwards. The surveys on the Tel imply an

Figure 3.9 Sites around Rehovot

The Research Area 63 occupational extension in the Byzantine period around it,91 but the rescue excavations indicate a shift to the southeast only, mainly from the 7th to the 9th centuries. These digs unearthed a possible reservoir and a complex of subterranean kilns.92 In Rehovot, Khirbat Dayrān (31°53′40.73″N, 34°48′42.38″E) has been thoroughly excavated and published. One excavation revealed architecture and installations in three phases from the 8th to 10th centuries. It includes an oven (perhaps for metal processing), a pool, basins and pits, querns, a screw weight, and a conduit. The excavator believes the site to be Jewish or Samaritan due to one pool (resembling the miqwe of ritual Jewish purifcation) and the so-called ‘Samaritan’ lamps. Moreover, she suggests that the architecture from the Byzantine period was erased by the site’s inhabitants of the Early Islamic period.93 Adjacent excavations have uncovered a structure and a stove (8th–9th centuries) and a Byzantine winepress.94 The site Yad Eli’ezer (Ṣarafand al-Kharāb, 31°56′13.81″N, 34°48′19.06″E) has at least two layers from the 7th to the 10th centuries and two later ones. It contains structures, marble columns, ṭabūn ovens, and jar burials. The excavator suggests that the site was agricultural and industrial (for glass and metal production) similar to other sites in that area, and perhaps supported the city of Ramla.95 Gedera The information on the southern sub-region (Figure 3.10) is very limited, based mainly on surveys. It comprises, frst, Maghār, Tell Qaṭra, and Khirbat Ḥabra which are topographically distinctive, sitting on kurkar ridges in areas with a high risk of fooding. They are assumed to be multi-period according to their pottery, including Byzantine and Early Islamic periods. In addition, a number of sites were investigated in salvage excavations, such as Kefar Mordekhay (Khirbat al-Fātūna), Aseret (Bashīt), a Byzantine bathhouse in Yad Binyamin, and winepresses in Ganne Tal.

Textual sources and the history of toponyms Historical toponyms must not be matched with archaeological sites, architectural remains, or modern municipalities without further investigation. The main uncertainties are the exact location of the settlement and its borders. It can be presumed, nonetheless, that toponyms with clear geographical or topographic attributions were located in the vicinity of physical remains or a modern site by the same name. Moreover, one can expect toponyms to stay in one area even when shifting. The research area according to texts includes, frst, the toponyms al-Ramla, Ludd, Yāfā, Azdūd, Yubnā, Dājūn, ʿĀqir and Ônô, and second, the territory around or between them. In this sub-chapter, I introduce the written sources, information on the geography and agriculture of the region to them, and general details on the toponyms

64

The Research Area

Figure 3.10 The Gedera cluster

of the region. The themes the sources treat and are relevant to this study are the water installations inside or around settlements, the products which were produced in settlements or distributed from them, the economic and social role of settlements in the region, and the terminology which was used to defne their settlement type. The frst two topics will be presented and discussed in detail in Chapter 5. The other topics will be briefy introduced in the following and will be treated thoroughly in Chapter 7. Places which are attributed to the research area are found already in the Old Testament, and later on in early rabbinic literature, in the Onomasticon of Eusebius, and on the Madaba mosaic map. Eusebius’s Onomasticon (approx. 4th century AD) is a dictionary of biblical toponyms which gives their main biblical references and geographical attribution, as well as the contemporary state of sites with a similar name. The Madaba mosaic map (the mid-6th to early 8th century) similarly describes Biblical Palestine and its neighbors, illustrating contemporary features of identifed toponyms and perhaps their settlement type (Figure 3.11).96 Relevant sources from the Early Islamic period comprise geographic and historical works, legal texts and correspondences of Jews from the Geniza, Christian chronicles and administrative lists, and coins/seals. The Christian sources were not always accessed directly but through secondary literature. That includes chiefy the Taktikon, a text which was written or edited in 882 by Photius. It lists toponyms under the Jerusalem patriarchate.97 Most coins and

The Research Area 65

Figure 3.11 The research area on the Madaba Map (Adapted by Ron Haran and Hagit Nol from Avi-Yonah 1954: Pls. 7 and 8)

seals with relevant toponyms derive from private collections and not from excavations. Much of the information relates to al-Ramla or several other toponyms, as will be presented in the following, and not to the whole research area. When the name Filasṭīn is used in texts, it usually refers to an administrative entity, or to the geographic domain between Asqalān, Bayt al-Maqdis, and Qaysāriya. However, on coins and in later texts it might represent al-Ramla, the region’s capital. Some sources from a later period are used less frequently in this introduction, including geographies, chronicles, and lexicons. The Ottoman period (16th to early 20th century) is covered by a greater range of sources: maps and aerial images, itineraries and surveys, and administration registrations. In some cases, their information has been included in this research. The native languages of Palestine during Late Antiquity and early Islam are under debate. By the 5th century, Christians, Jews, and Samaritans used Aramaic in theological issues and Greek for most secular topics.98 Scholars assume that after the 7th century the lingua franca changed from Greek to Arabic whereas Aramaic remained the spoken language.99 Still, this hypothesis is diffcult to test, as undated graffti and epitaphs – one of the clear sources for a more popular, everyday culture – are often dated indiscriminately to the Roman and Byzantine period.100 Examples of the late use

66

The Research Area

of Aramaic, at least in the religious sphere, include Samaritan inscriptions from the 11th to 13th centuries.101 Jews from Palestine and Egypt used a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic in legal writing at least until the 11th century, when Hebrew was replaced with Arabic and Judeo-Arabic. Securely dated evidence are the theological writings of the Melkite Christians which had shifted from Greek to Arabic by the 9th century.102 Geography The texts contribute scattered information as to the terminological defnition or geography of the research area. In the Onomasticon, the name Shefela (lowland) is attributed to “all of the lowland that surrounds Eleutheropolis (Bayt Jibrīn) to the north and west”, referring to both the biblical and contemporary toponym.103 It is also cited in a Syriac text by Epiphanius (d. 403), a native of Eleutheropolis, as “the seacoast”.104 The area from Jaffa to Caesarea is called ‘Sarona’ in the Onomasticon. In the Geniza, Shefela is mentioned in at least three texts from the 9th to 12th centuries. In one, it is said that “the Shefela is Ramla which is near Jaffa”, and in an earlier text, “the inhabitants of the Shefela are Ramla and its surroundings (or its jurisdiction)”.105 Of the Muslim contemporary and semi-contemporary sources, alMaqdisī has the richest description of al-Shām. The region’s summary includes its topography, resources (i.e. water, mines), special crops and the main exported products, religions and law schools (madhāhib), and values of coins and measures.106 William of Tyre writes about the adjacent Ascalon that the felds around it are “overlaid with sand” and therefore are “unft for agriculture” but are adapted to growing vineyards and fruit trees. The valleys north of Ascalon, on the other hand, “when well fertilized and irrigated with water from the wells” supply a suffcient amount of fruits and vegetables.107 Rather more common is the discussion of water sources. When al-Yaʿqūbī writes about al-Ramla, he mentions two rivers: a small nameless one, and “a river named Abī Fuṭrus twelve miles away” (17–23 km).108 The latter is plausibly the Yarqon River which passes through Antipatris.109 Yāqūt comments on a Nahr al-ʿAwja (again, the Yarqon River) which originates in Nābulus and meets the sea between Yāfā and Arsūf, where some battles took place.110 A different river is cited in the Taktikon, “the stream of Azotus”, which signifes the northern border of Ascalon’s archdiocese.111 Al-Iṣṭakhrī and Ibn Ḥawqal write that Filasṭīn’s water supply is from rain and, according to the latter, also dew (ṭall). Except for the Nābulus area, trees and felds are maintained by dry farming (wa-asjāruhā wa-zurūʿuhā aʿdhāʾ).112 Al-Idrīsī presents a partially copied text where Palestine’s water sources are said to be rain and foods or streams (al-suyūl), and its trees are scarce (wa-asjāruhā qalīla).113 Three authors observe the distance between key sites (Table 3.1).114 The measures they use are varied, including marḥala (46–60 km), half marḥala,

The Research Area 67 Table 3.1 The distance between toponyms al-Maqdisī al-Idrīsī ʿAsqalān – Ludd ʿAsqalān marḥala – al-Ramla (46 km)

ʿAsqalān – Yāfā marḥala Azdūd – ʿAsqalān Azdūd – Ghazza marḥala Azdūd – Yubnā al-Ramla – Abī Fuṭrus river al-Ramla marḥala – Azdūd al-Ramla – Bayt marḥala al-Maqdis al-Ramla – Ludd 1 mile (1.5–2 km) al-Ramla – almarḥala māḥūz (the port) c marḥala al-Ramla – Nābulus marḥalad al-Ramla – Qaysariyya al-Ramla – Yāfā marḥala al-Ramla – Yubnā Yāfā – Ludd Yāfā – Qaysariyya Yāfā – Yubnā

marḥala kabīra (77 km) from Filasṭīn

Benjamin of Tudela

Other

65.9 km 61.2 km

One day

63.9 km 23.5 km

Two parsāʾôt marḥala

Five parsāʾôt (22–32 km)

marḥala

Moderna

30.7 km 18.7 km 12 miles (17–23 km)b

37.6 km 53.2 km 4.7 km

One day

72.5 km

marḥala kabīra Half a day Half marḥala (23 km)

77 km Five parsāʾôt

24.1 km 18.9 km

24.8 km 12 miles 30 miles 63.6 km (42.5 km) by Theodosius e 22.9 km Five parsāʾôt

a Based on modern/Israeli toponyms as offered by www.tremp.co.il (in Hebrew), last accessed on May 2018. b Al-Yaʿqūbī: 116. c This place (al-māḥūz) is plausibly situated outside the research area, as al-Maqdisī’s orders it between Yāfā and Arsūf, hence, north of Yāfā. d Does not appear in the Leiden manuscript. See al-Maqdisī: 192, footnote c. e Wilkinson (1977: 65).

or marḥala kabīra (lit. big marḥala); fve parsāʾôt (22–32 km); a day or half a day (unclear if a day’s walk or ride); and miles (1.4–2 km).115 The table shows that al-Maqdisī applies the term marḥala equally to short and long

68 The Research Area distances (e.g. from al-Ramla to both Azdūd and the farther ʿAsqalān; or, equaling a day or half a day by al-Idrīsī). That suggests the term to mean a distance unit different than ours, maybe units presented on schematic maps. Remarkably, there seems to be a correlation between fve parsāʾôt, half a day and 12 miles. Another correlation can be made between marḥala kabīra and a day’s journey. These measures, however, should not be taken at face value and cannot be used to help in locating toponyms in the physical world. They should be seen as general units. The following table also provides distances between modern municipalities which bear the same name as the ancient toponyms as a general assessment. When comparing modern with historical names, ‘half a day’ roughly equals 19–25 km and ‘one day’ about 61–77 km. If we estimate 6 km/h for a walk on foot and that a day’s walk would last about 6 h, resulting in 36 km a day, we may assume a ‘day’ to mean a donkey or hoarse ride. Alternatively, eight to ten hours walk at 8 km/h would give similar results on foot. Agriculture Crops grown in the region from the 3rd to the 16th century can be identifed in texts and mosaics. Comparisons of the varied sources with contemporary agriculture (Table 3.2) point to a number of crops which are common in the region, such as vine, fg, and dates. Starting with the latest evidence, recent agriculture in the area exploits almost all available hamra plateaus, and includes orchards, vines, fower hothouses, and feld crops, together with animal husbandry and beekeeping.116 In recent history, the dune sands also knew human exploitation, such as mawāsī agriculture (garden plots on the western side of the sands), orchards, and grazing.117 In particular, watermelons were grown along the entire shore in the 19th century and special export ports for sailboats were opened during summer, as in Yavne-Yam or Arsūf.118 Texts of the 15th–16th century note carob, melon, watermelon, and cucumber east of al-Ramla, sesame (taxed by the Ottomans) in Jaffa, taro, and sugar canes between Gaza and al-Ramla, and, just as in the 19th century, watermelons with no irrigation on the sands of Jaffa.119 Wild plants, some of them attributed to the research area, are diversifed. They grow in four principal habitats: the sands and the shore, inland kurkar ridges, hamra and the inhabited areas, and streams and marshes.120 Al-Maqdisī lists products which were exported from the main centers in ‘Filasṭīn’ (meaning Syria in that context) and then discusses them again under kūrat Filasṭīn.121 The exports from Filasṭīn (this time, al-Ramla) include: oil, dried fgs (al-quṭṭayn), raisins, carob, soap, and textiles. From Bayt al-Maqdis came: cotton, raisins, apples, pine nut (qadm Quraysh), and according to another edition, bananas (mūz). Additional fruits which were listed under kūrat Filasṭīn but are not specifed to any toponym are: plum (al-jāṣ al-kāfūrī), fresh date (raṭb), bitter orange (nārinaj), citron (utrujj, or itranj), sycamore, carob (kharnūb), Christ’s Thorn Jujube (nabq), and jujube

The Research Area 69 Table 3.2 Crops in the research area The research area

Adjacent toponyms or not specifed

Vine

Yes

Pomegranate Almond Olive Fig Sycamore Date Banana

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bayt al-Maqdis

Frequent Yes

V

al-Shām ʿAsqalān, al-Shām al-Shām al-Shām Bayt al-Maqdis

Lupin Gundelia Cotton

al-Shām

Frequent Yes Yes Wild Yes Yes Frequent Frequent Frequent Yes Yes

Bayt al-Maqdis al-Shām

Christ’s Thorn Jujube Cat thyme Sumac

Sesame Sugar canes Taro Grain Watermelon Melon Cucumber Ar. cucumber Luffa Onion Broad bean Artichoke Asparagus

Frequent Yes

Bayt al-Maqdis

Pear Peach Pine nut

Modern

Yes Yes Frequent Wild Wild Yes Ornemental Bayt al-Maqdis al-Shām al-Shām al-Shām

Citron Orange Carob Apricot Apple

The research Judean area, 15th–16th mosaics centuries

Wild Wild Wild Wild Wild Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Wild Yes ? ?

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes al-Shām al-Shām

Yes Yes

Yes Yes (Adjacent) (Adjacent)

70 The Research Area (ʿannāb). That list also includes feld crops and wild plants such as cabbage (karnab), asparagus (halyūn), truffe (kamāh), taro (qulqās), Mandragora offcinarum (luffāḥ), sumac, lupin (turmus), and Gundelia tournefortii (ʿakūb).122 Other sources from the 10th to 13th centuries describe vine, pomegranate, and almonds on the sands of Jaffa and Ascalon, olives in these areas and around al-Ramla, fgs near Jaffa and al-Ramla, sycamore ( jamīz) in Jaffa, and date palms in Ramla.123 A Geniza text mentions broad bean (Vicia faba) and onion in al-Ramla.124 Medical literature of the 10th–11th centuries notes sumac as exported from ʿAsqalān, and Teucrium capitatum ( jaʿda) from al-Shām.125 In Ramla, mosaics until the early 11th century, present pomegranate, citron, grapes, possibly fg, and a palm tree.126 The last evidence is from the Roman and Byzantine period. Mosaics attributed to that period from sites between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem (‘Judea’) show mainly vine. Other crops that are illustrated frequently are pomegranate, citron, melon/watermelon, fg, apple, pear, and peach. Crops with singular examples comprise Armenian cucumber (Cucumis melo var. fexuosus), luffa, apricot, olive, grain, date, artichoke, asparagus, and pine.127 According to Talmud Bavli, the region between Lod and Jamnia had many vineyards, and fg was cultivated between Lod and Ônô.128 Table 3.2 enables comparisons between early and contemporary crops, and between the literature and the mosaics. The table shows that the most commonly cultivated crops, i.e. those which occur in texts, mosaics and contemporary agriculture, are vine, olive, pomegranate, fg (and sycamore?), date-palm, and citron. Apple and pine nut, which appear only on mosaics from Judea, should be attributed to Jerusalem and not the research area. The fowers and vegetables are specifed only in the general al-Shām lists, but since many of them can be found growing wild in the research area, their early presence is implied. The comparison also highlights inconsistencies. For example, orange, sesame, and sugar cane do not appear in mosaics and are noted only in later literature, which suggests their late introduction to the region. Another inconsistency concerns one frequently illustrated fruit, the pear, which does not correlate with the Arabic literature crops or with contemporary agriculture. Moreover, two crops are said to grow in the area during early Islam but are not cultivated today: almonds and date palms. The former needs a cold and dry climate and the latter requires heat in order to yield produce. These inconsistencies might derive from wrong identifcations, or the existence of different species. Alternatively, they might imply a different approach by earlier farming, such as the use of these trees for other functions, and/or settling for a small yield which is considered unproftable today. Settlements Best-attested toponyms in the research area comprise al-Ramla, Palestine’s capital, as well as Ludd, Yubnā, Yāfā, and Azdūd. Other information is

The Research Area 71 scarce and many toponyms appear solely in one type of text or in one period. Places which are cited only by Yāqūt, or only in the Madaba Map, are excluded from this presentation but will be included in the analysis. While installations and sources of income will be thoroughly discussed in Chapter 5, and terminology of settlement types and the regional role of settlements in Chapter 7, the following presents a brief introduction to place names, to the physical description of the area, and to its administrative role. Toponyms are principally transliterated from Arabic, but in some cases from Hebrew or Greek. Al-Ramla is the toponym which got the most attention from chroniclers and geographers as well as documents in the Geniza. The name appears also on an Early Islamic seal129 and on coins from the Umayyad and early Abbasid periods. Al-Maqdisī draws a detailed description of the settlement, with its streets, mosque, and bathhouse,130 and some information can be gathered on Jewish daily life.131 Authors from the late 9th to the early 13th century defne al-Ramla either as the capital of Filasṭīn/al-Shām,132 or as a big city133 which is another term for a metropolis.134 Besides the elaborated information the sources provide on the water installations of al-Ramla, including pits, wells, and an aqueduct (Chapter 5), many of them deal with the establishment of al-Ramla as a new city. According to the narrative of  the earliest sources, al-Ramla was erected as a city in a short time by one of the Umayyad family members.135 Early and modern historians have tried to fnd the reason for replacing Ludd as the region’s capital and as an economic center, and to decide whether that was a planned process or a spontaneous move.136 Through an analysis of terminology and narratives, I am going to demonstrate how al-Ramla grew into a metropolis before the late 9th century and overshadowed neighboring cities such as Yāfā and Ludd. According to sources of the 11th and 12th centuries, and to coins post 877, the capital changed its name to the name of the region, Filasṭīn.137 This change correlates with the transformation of al-Ramla – and its surroundings – into a metropolis. Ludd can be found in Muslim, Christian, and Jewish sources, as well as on coins and seals. Of importance are its varied names, its regional status, and its relation to al-Ramla. The names of the settlement vary from the Roman period to the 12th century but are often presented with equivalents which confrm their analogy, e.g. “Lod also Lydea also Diospolis” on the Madaba Map.138 Other names are Ludd in Arabic and different variations around the name George or Saint George. It is called, for example, Georgioupolis in the Taktikon, while the various manuscripts of Benjamin of Tudela use Sāgôrîs, Shergôrsh or Shereganô “which is Lod”.139 Clearly, from the 6th to the 12th century ‘George’ and its variants formed an important part of the settlement name, and thus of its identifcation and maybe identity. The earliest representation for the tradition is from Theodosius, writing in the early 6th century that in Diospolis, “[…] Saint George was martyred. There too is his body, and at it many miracles take place”.140 Epiphanius the monk reports

72

The Research Area

in the 9th century that in Diospolis “rest the remains of the great martyr St. George”, and its large church, where the torturer’s wheel stands.141 William of Tyre discusses once “the glorious tomb” of the martyr George. Moreover, he narrates an incident during the time when Turks marched to Lydda after burning al-Ramla and attacking the population and the latter fed to St. George church.142 Otherwise, very little is known about Ludd – its economy or population – in the early Islamic period. I will argue that when alRamla grew into a metropolis, Ludd was integrated into that entity. Only its identity around Saint George church, and Saint George memory, survived. The Arabic Yubnā appears on the Madaba Map as “Jabneel which is also Iamnia” and in Crusader sources as Ibenium, Ibelin, or Hibelin.143 Benjamin of Tudela comments on “Ibelin which is Yavne, the place of Midrash”.144 Its scattered physical descriptions include a church on the Madaba Map, a “precious mosque” ( jāmiʿ nafīs) in the 10th century,145 and a shrine to Abū Hurayra in sources of the 12th–13th centuries.146 Yubnā clearly enjoyed some administrative status before the 9th century, as a bishopric, a kūra, and a mint.147 Regarding its economy, fshermen are recorded among the inhabitants in the Roman period, and al-Maqdisī marks it as the origin (maʿdin) of the fne Dimashqi fgs.148 Some inconsistencies with its terminology imply that the toponym is attributed to more than one settlement. A place which is suspected to be adjacent to Yubnā is Māḥūz Yubnā which al-Maqdisī specifes as one of Palestine’s ribāṭs.149 Scholars have identifed that toponym with Maḥouza d’Yamnin of the 5th century and Maoza d’yamnias of the 6th century. It has also been brought in association with al-Idrīsī’s term māḥūz al-thānī (the second port).150 Whereas the term māḥūz is translated as a port, and is known to derive from Aramaic,151 it is rare in ancient texts and its translation is tentative. The toponym Yāfā is commonly cited in literary texts but rarely with many details. Most of the sources repeat one formula according to which it is located by the sea. In letters of merchants from the Geniza, in the mid11th century, Yāfô is noted as “the port of Ramla” where goods arrive by sea, but in the 12th century, al-Idrīsī describes madīnat Yāfā as the port ( furḍa) of Bayt al-Maqdis, not of al-Ramla.152 Al-Maqdisī elaborates that in spite of its small size, Yāfā is the treasury (khizāna) of Filasṭīn and the port ( furḍa) of al-Ramla. He also describes a fortress (hiṣn manīʿ) with several gates of which the sea gate is all made from iron, a mosque that looks out over the sea, and fne anchorages.153 Abū-l-Fataḥ and Ibn Khaldūn report in the 13th–15th centuries that Ibn Ṭūlūn instructed in the 9th century to fortify the settlement.154 Last, al-Yaʿqūbī gives an ambiguous detail that the people of al-Ramla sought refuge in Yāfā (ilayhā yanfru ahl al-Ramla).155 The place-name Azdūd creates an identifcation challenge. In early sources, two places are named Azotus, but in most of the later texts, only one name is indicated. According to lists of the Roman and Christian administrations, in the 6th century, there are: Azotus Paralios (Azotus by the coast) and Azotus Mesogeios (μεσογειος, Azotus inland). While the former

The Research Area 73 keeps its name in later lists, the latter becomes Azotus Hippenos (ιππινος) and then changes into Azotus Hipposhunes (ιπποσυνης).156 A similar duality can be found in the Onomasticon of the 4th century with Ashdod which is Azotus, and Azotus which is also Ashdod; and on the Madaba Map, with one Azotus Paral[ios] and one Ashdo[d].157 By the late 10th century, alMaqdisī and al-Idrīsī cite only one toponym in road maps or distance lists, but the name is mentioned as Māḥūz Azdūd in the list of ribāṭs.158 Some scholars have suggested that Azotus Paralios has become Māḥūz Azdūd.159 Sources of the 12th and 13th century comment on one settlement and identify it with a biblical settlement.160 A terminological analysis will indicate that the inland Azotus has become Azdūd, and has kept its regional status as a city along the whole period, while the city Azotus Paralios gradually came to be perceived only as a port. Four more toponyms are provided with little to no details: Dājūn, ʿĀqir, Ônô, and Ḥaṣôr. Al-Maqdisī lists the routes inside al-Ramla and mentions the Dājūn Alley from which one reaches “a city named Dājūn which has a mosque”. Yāqūt describes it as “a qarya of the towns of al-Ramla in alShām”.161 Similar names are mentioned in earlier sources, including Keparadagon in the Onomasticon which is said to be a huge kome between Lydda and Jamnia, and [Bet]odegana in the Madaba Map.162 ʿĀqir, according to al-Maqdisī, “is a big qarya with a big mosque ( jāmiʿ). They have the desire to do well (lahum al-raghba fī-l-khayr), and there is no bread equal to theirs on the route to Mekka”.163 Later, Yāqūt writes that al-ʿAqir (or al-ʿAqar) is “from the towns of al-Ramla”.164 Akkaron is cited in the Onomasticon as “a huge kome of Jews between Azotus and Jamnia to the east” and is marked in the Madaba Map.165 Onous or Ônô is named only in the Byzantine lists and the Jewish sources. It is frst listed by Hierocles as a city, then appears in the later administrative lists under the archdiocese of Ioppe as Onnou.166 In early Jewish sources, it is mentioned as being adjacent to Lod, with fg groves between the two, but also in a threnody on the massacre of Jewish communities.167 The last toponym, Ashor or Ḥaṣôr, is only hypothetically located in the research area. It is cited in the Onomasticon and later on in Jewish texts from the 11th century. Eusebius recognizes both the biblical toponym (Ασωρ) and the contemporary kome “in the eastern territory of Ashkelon”.168 One document in the Geniza is a private letter addressed to some authorization. The correspondent asks to move from Ḥaṣôr to Ashqalôn in future times of distress (beʿēt ṣārâ) since the latter is better fortifed and protected (beṣûrâ w-mûḥzeqet yôtēr).169 Friedman fags several more texts with the toponym: one ketûbâ (marriage certifcate), which locates Ḥaṣôr “on the salt sea”, the Mediterranean (d-Ḥaṣôr d-ʿāl gaf yāmâ d-melîḥâ) and another text that mentions one cantor in Ḥaṣôr from al-Ramla. Both documents indicate the Jewish jurisdiction of al-Ramla on that toponym. A third text calls it a fortress (Mivṣār Ḥaṣôr).170 Scholars have suggested different locations for it, from Rafaḥ to Caesarea,171 but it is more likely to fnd it close to al-Ramla, and plausibly to Ascalon.

74

The Research Area

Notes 1 Singer (2007: 23–30); Gal, Lahav and Ramon (2008: 17–31); Almagor and Perat (2012: 20–22, 48, 99–117); Ackermann (2015). 2 E.g. Sasson (2003: 32–33); Glick (2009); Barda and Zbenovich (2012: site 20); A Survey of Deserted Quarries, The Quarries Rehabilitation Fund, http://www.kasham. org.il/seker.php?act=cat (in Hebrew), last accessed on January 1st, 2015. The research area answered the survey areas: GDR 10-II, ASD 10-I, and RSH IV-7. 3 In Ackermann (2015). 4 Rosen Miller (2007: 7); Manning (2013). 5 Based on data from the Israel Meteorological Service database https://ims.data.gov. il/ (in Hebrew), accessed on April 8th, 2017. The stations were chosen based on geographic distribution with preference to the longest period of records, with a minimum of fifteen years (Nes Ziyyona, Rehovot, Ramla airport, Na’an, Mazkeret Batya, Nezer Sereni, Gedera, Giv’at Brenner, Qevuzat Yavne, Rishon Leziyyon, Zerifin, Miqwe Yisra’el, Jaffa city hall, Tel Aviv Sarona). Three additional stations with a shorter documentation period (Ashdod, Palmahim and Lod airport) were examined with cautioun. 6 Stations: Lod airport, Bet Dagan, Jaffa port, Riding Beach, Ashdod, Qevuzat Yavne. 7 Koucky (2008: 11). 8 The Hydrological Service (1996). 9 Lass (2008); Nir (2008). 10 Skutelsky and Perelmuter (2012: 22). 11 Sasson (2008). 12 Avitsur (1957: 192). 13 Clermont-Ganneau (1896: 158); Kligler (1930: 27, 164); Avitsur (1957: 188); Survey of Palestine, 1:20,000, Sheet 12/14, Yibna, 1929, reprint 1936, The National Library of Israel. 14 Picard (1940). 15 Kligler (1930). 16 Kligler (1930). 17 Retief and Cilliers (2004); Sallares, Bouwman and Anderung (2004). 18 Soren (2003); Michelle Gamble, pers. comm., November 2019. 19 See Dunnell (1992). 20 Palmer (1881: 213–220, 265–277). 21 Conder and Kitchener (1882: 252). 22 Kaplan (1953, 1957). 23 Mayer et al. (1950); Avitsur (1963); Petersen (1995, 2001). 24 Petersen (2001: 141). 25 Petersen (2010: 297–298). 26 Sion (2014). 27 Sukenik (1935); Meizler (1949); Avitsur (1957: 65–68); Kaplan (1959a: 7); Mazar (1980). 28 Kaplan (1959b). 29 Dothan and Freedman (1967); Fischer (1991). 30 E.g. Rosen-Ayalon and Eitan (1966); Ben-Dov (1984). 31 Avni and Cytryn-Silverman (2008); Avni (2021). 32 Sion (2004); Gorzalczany (2004); Kletter (2005a). 33 Galili and Sharvit (1991). 34 Glick (2013). 35 E.g. Kaplan (1972: 68–69); Schuldenrein (1986); Parnos, Milevski and Khalaily (2010). 36 E.g. Kaplan (1972). 37 Taxel (2013a: 190).

The Research Area 75 38 Ritter Kaplan (1978); Safrai (1978); Tsafrir (1979); “A road from the Byzantine period in Haaretz Museum, license no. 1351 – a forth excavation report”, designated to Yosef Porath, from Etan Ayalon, 19.3.1986 (in Hebrew). Authority of Antiquities Archive: Tel Aviv, Tel Qasille, A-1351/1984 Etan Ayalon. The exact location of the node is unknown. 39 Mazar (1980). 40 Mazar (1980: 12, 1988); Meizler (1949). 41 Taxel (2009). 42 Ayalon, Gilboa and Shacham (1988); Ayalon, Gilboa and Harpazi (1990). 43 Peilstӧcker (1998). 44 E.g. Arbel (2008). 45 Peilstӧcker et al. (2006). 46 Arbel and Rauchberger (2015). 47 Galili and Sharvit (1991). 48 Fischer and Taxel (2014). 49 Tal and Taxel (2012: 502). 50 Fischer and Taxel (2014: 215, Footnote 1). 51 Fischer (2005); Tal and Taxel (2012: 502). 52 Ayalon (1983, 1999); Vitto (1991, 1998); Nir and Eldad-Nir (1985, 1991); Tal and Taxel (2012: 503); Fischer and Taxel (2014); Vunsh et al. (2014). 53 Ayalon (1991); Sharon (2005b); Ayash and Ganor (2009); Taxel (2013b: 94); Fischer and Taxel (2014: 227). 54 Pipano (1986); Nahlieli (2008); Raphael (2014). 55 Nahlieli (2008); Masarwa (2011); Vunsh, Tal and Sivan (2013); Raphael (2014: 20); Israel Antiquities Authority Archives: Excavation Files: Ashdod-Yam, Dov Nahlieli, Yumna Masarwa and Miki Ein Gedy, A-2658/1998. 56 Masarwa (2006: Fig. 10); Amitai-Preiss (2014); Raphael (2014: 33, Table 8:10, 59–61). 57 Pipano (1986); Raphel (2014: 17–18). 58 Barda and Zbenovich (2012: sites 2, 3); Gorzalczany et al. (2011); Gorzalczany, Barkan and Iechie (2010). 59 Avner (2000); Van den Brink (2000); Sion et al. (2010); Di Segni (2012). 60 Gadot and Tepper (2003). 61 Dothan (1971: 146); Dothan and Freedman (1967: 32–35); Dothan and Porath (1982: 44–45); Swauger (1971). 62 Baumgarten (2000, 2014: 12); Kogan-Zehavi (2006). 63 Taxel (2007). 64 Van den Brink (1999, 2005). 65 Peilstӧcker and Kapitikon (1998); Gorzalczany and Jakoel (2013). 66 Messika (2006). 67 Milevski and Rapuano (2001). 68 E.g. Avni (2014: 171–173, 2021); Tal and Taxel (2008: 79, 211). 69 Luz (1997); Shmueli (2009). 70 Herriot (2013). 71 Torgë (2017). 72 Herriot (2017). 73 Sion (2004). 74 Kletter (2005a). 75 Amitai-Preiss (2005); Kletter (2005b); Sade (2005); Sharon (2005a). 76 Toueg (2006). 77 Toueg (2007). 78 Gutfeld (2010: 14–17). 79 Cytryn-Silverman (2010: 98). 80 Amitai-Preiss (2010); Chachy-Laureys (2010); Gorin-Rosen (2010); Khamis (2010). 81 Tal and Taxel (2008); Tal, Jackson-Tal and Freestone (2008).

76

The Research Area

82 Tal and Taxel (2008: 123, 2012: 504). 83 Gorzalczany (2006, 2009); Gorzalczany and ʿAd (2010); Gorzalczany and Marcus (2010); Oren, Gorzalgzany and ʿAd (2012). 84 E.g. Gorzalczany and Amit (2014, after Conder and Kitchener). 85 E.g. Zelinger (2000). 86 Kaplan (1959b: 111); Luz (1997: 38–39); Gorzalczany (2011: 195); Gorzalczany and Amit (2014: 74); Toueg and Arnon (2018). 87 Shmueli (2012a). 88 Haddad (2008, 2013). 89 Kool (2013). 90 Kogan-Zehavi and Hadad (2013). 91 Fischer and Taxel (2007: 232). 92 Gorzalczany (2002); Yannai (2014). 93 Bouchenino (2007). 94 Kogan-Zehavi (2008); Roll and Ayalon (2009); Barkan (2014). 95 Gorzalczany (2004). 96 Avi-Yonah (1954: 9–17, 21–23); Donner (1986); Christides (1986: 11–12); Piccirillo (1992: 28); Bahat (1996). 97 Levy-Rubin (2003). 98 Amos (1986: 30–32); George (2010: 34–38). 99 E.g. Ellenbaum (1998: 130–131); Hoyland (2004). 100 E.g. Eshel and Eshel (2005). 101 Ben-Hayyim (1945); Ben Zvi (1945). 102 Griffith (1998). 103 Eusebius of Caesarea: 152. 104 Mayerson (1996: 258). 105 Assaf (1941): w-ha-Shefēlâ hīʾ Ramlâ ha-qerôvâ le-Yāfôʾ (11th–12th century), w-yôshvê ha-Shefēlâ hēm Ramlâ w-sevīvôteyha (9th century). 106 Al-Maqdisī: 179–189. 107 Babcock and Krey (1943 II: 219–220). 108 According to the interpretation of Arabic measures, 1 mile equals 1.92 km, 1 Persian mile equals 1.728 km, and 1 Roman mile equals 1.472 km (Cardarelli 2003: 66, 71, 76). 109 Al-Yaʿqūbī: 116; Sharon (1993). 110 Yāqūt IV: 131. 111 Levy-Rubin (2003: 210). 112 Ibn Ḥawqal: 111; al-Iṣṭakhrī: 56. 113 Al-Idrīsī: 90. 114 Al-Maqdisī: 176, 192; al-Idrīsī: 90; Benjamin of Tudela: k.ḥ.-k.ṭ. 115 According to the interpretation of Jewish measures, Parsâ/Parasang is 4.481 km; according to the interpretation of ancient Iranian measures, Parasang is 6.4 km; according to the interpretation of ancient Arabic measures, Farsakh is 5.76 km (Hirsch et al. 1906; Cardarelli 2003: 66, 76). According to Cardarelli (2003: 76), 1 marḥala is 8 farsakh, which are 5.76 km each. According to Ahmad (1992: 160), alIdrīsī used Arabian measures where 1 marḥala is 25–30 miles (or 8–10 farsakh, or a day of walk), each mile is almost 2 km. A ‘long marḥala’ is 40 miles, equal to 77 km. 116 Deshe Institute (2014: 18). I also consulted the sites: http://www.yavnet.org.il; http:// www.shiller.org.il; http://bilu.org.il, last consulted on October 2019. 117 Gal, Lahav and Ramon (2008: 21); Taxel et al. (2018). 118 Avitsur (1976: 199). 119 Amar (2000: 206–327). 120 Consulted with the online lexicon www.wildflowers.co.il which includes botanic and horticulture details as well as information on historical and popular use (in Hebrew, botanical summaries in English). 121 Al-Maqdisī: 180–181.

The Research Area 77 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171

Translations by Amar (2000: 169–170); Le Strange (1890: 16). Amar (2000: 107–214). Assaf (1941); Gil (1983 II: 417–418, Text 228). Lev (2002: 170–172). Rosen-Ayalon (1976: 105, Fig. 3); Avner (2008). Avital (2017: 307). Avi-Yonah (1966: 196). Amitai-Preiss (2014). Al-Maqdisī: 164–165. Gil (1983 II: 284, doc. 160, 313, doc. 182, 417–418, doc. 228). Al-Yaʿqūbī: 328; al-Maqdisī: 164; al-Idrīsī: 356. E.g. al-Iṣṭakhrī: 56; Nāṣir-i Khusraw: 63–65; Benjamin of Tudela: 28. Nol (2020). E.g. al-Balādhurī: 143–144; Ibn al-Faqīh: 102. E.g. Petersen (2005: 31–32); Walmsley (2007: 104–105); Guidetti (2010); Luz (2017). Nāṣir-i Khusraw: 65 and Ha-Tūlīda: Florentin (1999: 97); Gat (2007: 60). See also Foster (2016). Avi-Yonah (1954: 61–62). Benjamin of Tudela: 21, 29; Levy-Rubin (2003: 210). Wilkinson (1977: 65). Schwartz (1991: 128). Babcock and Krey (1943 I: 332, II: 428). Fischer and Taxel (2007: 221–224, 230–231); Kool and ʿAd (2016: 165–166). Benjamin of Tudela: 28. Al-Maqdisī: 176. Yāqūt IV: 1007; al-Harawī: 33 after Le Strange (1890: 553). Fischer and Taxel (2007: 230–231); Taxel (2013a: 163–164). Al-Maqdisī: 176; Avi-Yonah (1966: 196). Al-Maqdisī: 177. Fischer (2008), followed by Tal and Taxel (2012: 501). See De Goeje in al-Maqdisī: 177–178, note q. Al-Idrīsī: 356; Goitein (1973: 46, 95). Al-Maqdisī: 174. Levy-Rubin (2002: 27–30, 38, footnote 518). Al-Yaʿqūbī: 329. Compare translation by Le Strange (1890: 550). Hierocles Synecdemus: 41; Georgii Cyprii: 52; Timotheos (1939: 79); Levy-Rubin (2003: 210). Eusebius of Caesarea: 22–23; Avi-Yonah (1954: 70). Al-Maqdisī: 177, 192; al-Idrīsī: 90–91. Masarwa (2006: 18–19). Palmîd, Benjamin of Tudela: 28; Azotu, Babcock and Krey (1943 II: 235); Yazdūd, Yāqūt IV: 1018. Al-Maqdisī: 165; Yāqūt II: 515. Eusebius of Caesarea: 51; Avi Yonah (1954: 62). Al-Maqdisī: 176. Yāqūt III: 697. Eusebius of Caesarea: 22–23; Avi-Yonah (1954: 69). Hierocles Synecdemus: 41; Georgii Cyprii: 51; Timotheos (1939: 79); Levy-Rubin (2003: 210). Avi-Yonah (1966: 196); Friedman (1983). Eusebius of Caesarea: 20. Mann (1920-1922 I: 170). Gil (1983 III: 429–430, Text 569). Friedman (1981: 316–317, Text 34, 319, footnote 3). Gil (1983 II: 81); Friedman (1981: 316–317).

78

The Research Area

References Primary sources Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā (d. 892). Kitāb Futūh al-buldān, Michael Jan de Goeje (ed.), 1866, Leiden: Brill. Benjamin of Tudela (d. after 1173). The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, Marcus Nathan Adler (trans. and ed.), 1907, London: Oxford University Press. Eusebius of Caesarea (d. 339/340). Eusebius, Onomasticon, Steven R. Notley and Ze’ev Safrai (trans. and eds.), 2005, Leiden and Boston: Brill. Georgi Cyprii. Descriptio orbis romani, Henricus Gelzer (ed.), 1890, Lipsiae: Teubneri. Al-Harawī (d. 1215). Kitāb al-Ishārāt ilā maʿrifat al-ziyārāt, Janine Sourdel-Thomine (ed.), 1953, Guide des Lieux de pèlerinage, Damas: Institute français de Damas. Hierocles Synecdemus, Augustos Burckhardt (ed.), 1893, Teubneri: Lipsiae. Ibn al-Faqīh, ibn Bakr Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Hamdhānī (d. after 903). Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, Michael Jan de Goeje (ed.), 1885, Leiden: Brill. Ibn Ḥawqal, Abū al-Qāsim (d. after 978). Kitāb Masālik wa-l-mamālik, Michael Jan De Goeje (ed.), 1873. Viae Regnorum, Descriptio Ditionis Moslemicae, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum II, Leiden: Brill. Al-Idrīsī, Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdallāh ibn Idrīs al-Ḥamūdī al-Ḥasanī (d. 1165). Kitāb Nuzhat al-mushtāq f ī ikhtirāq al-āfāq. Enrico Cerulli, Francisco Gabrieli, Giorgio Levi Della Vida, Luciano Petech, and Giorgio Tucci (eds.), 1970–1984. Opus Geographorum, Neapoli and Roma: Brill. Al-Iṣṭakhrī, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad (d. after 950). Kitāb Masālik wa-l-mamālik, Michael Jan De Goeje (ed.), 1870. Viae Regnorum, Descriptio Ditionis Moslemicae, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum I, reprint 1967, Leiden: Brill. Al-Maqdisī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. after 990). Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat alaqālīm, Michael Jan De Goeje (ed.), Description Imperii Moslemici, second ed. 1906, Leiden: Brill. Nāṣir-i Khusraw (d. 1072–1078). Safar Nāma, Charles Schefer (ed. and trans.), 1881. Sefer Nameh. Relation du voyage de Nassiri Khosrau en Syrie, en Palestine, en Égypte, en Arabie et en Perse, Paris: Ernest Leroux. The Tulida. A Samaritan Chronicle, Moshe Florentin (ed. and tr.), 1999, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi (in Hebrew). [William of Tyre] Willelmus Tyrensis Archiepiscopus. Chronicon, Robert Burchard Constantijn Huygens (ed.), 1986, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 63, 63A, Turnhout: Brepols. Emily Atwater Babcock and August Charles Krey (trans.), 1943. A History of the Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, by William, Archbishop of Tyre, 2 vols., New York: Columbia University Press. Al-Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb (d. after 905). Kitāb al-Buldān, ed. by M. J. de Goeje, Kitâb al-Aʿlâq an-nafîsa VII, Auctore Ibn Rosteh, et Kitâb al-Boldân, Auctore al-Jaqûbî, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum VII, second ed. 1892, reprint 2014, Leiden: Brill, 231–373. Yāqūt, Ya ͑ qūb ibn Abd ͑ Allāh (d. 1229). Muʿ jam al-buldān, Ferdinand Wüstenfeld (ed.), 1866–1873, Jacut‘s geographisches Wörterbuch aus den Handschriften aus Berlin, St. Petersburg und Paris, 6 vols., Leipzig: Brockhaus.

The Research Area  79 Abbreviations HA-ESI Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel Secondary literature Ackermann, Oren, 2015. “Yavne-Yam (North): Geomorphology and Environment”, ʿAtiqot 81: 59–67 (in Hebrew. English summary *120–*121). Ahmad, Maqbul, 1992. “Cartography of al-Sharīf al-Idrīsī”, in: John Brian Harley and David Woodward (eds.), The History of Cartography. Vol. II, Book I: Cartography in the Traditional Islamic and South Asian Societies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 156–174. Almagor, Gideon, and Perat, Itamar, 2012. Israel Mediterranean Coast, third ed., Geological Survey of Israel Report GSI/28/2012 (in Hebrew). Amar, Zohar, 2000. Agricultural Produce in the Land of Israel in the Middle Ages, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi (in Hebrew). Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, 2005. “Arabic-Inscribed Pottery from Ramla”, ʿAtiqot 49: 121–122. Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, 2010. “The Coins”, in: Oren Gutfeld, Ramla: Final Report on the Excavation North of the White Mosque, Qedem 51, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 265–285. Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, 2014. “Two Glass Weights from the Ribat at Ashdod-Yam”, in: Sarah Kate Raphael, Azdud (Ashdod-Yam): An Early Islamic Fortress on the Mediterranean Coast, BAR International Series 2673, Oxford: Archaeopress, 63, 104. Amos, Alan, 1986. “Syriac Sources for the History of Bilād al-Shām from the Commencement of the Byzantine Era to the Islamic Conquest, with a Note on the Christian and Jewish Aramaic Sources”, in: Adnan Bakhit and Muhammad Asfour (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Bilād al-Shām During the Byzantine Period, vol. II, Amman: University of Jordan and Yarmouk University, 17–34. Arbel, Yoav, 2008. “Yafo, the Flea Market Compound”, HA-ESI 120, http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=900&mag_id=114. Arbel, Yoav, and Rauchberger, Lior, 2015. “Yafo, Magen Avraham Compound”, HA-ESI 127, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=23799. Assaf, Simha, 1941. “Documentary Regarding the Jewish Settlement in Ramla and the Shefela”, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 8: 61–66 (in Hebrew). Avi-Yonah, Michael, 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society. Avi-Yonah, Michael, 1966. The Holy Land: from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C to A.D. 640), a Historical Geography, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Avital, Anat, 2017. “The Representation of Crops and Agricultural Tools in Late Roman and Byzantine Mosaics of Judea and Jerusalem”, in: Eyal Baruch and Avraham Faust (eds.), New Studies on Jerusalem 22, Ramat Gan: Ingeborg Rennet Center for Jerusalem Studies, 303–322 (in Hebrew. English summary: 19*–20*). Avitsur, Shmuel, 1957. Ha-Yarqôn; Ha-Nahār w-G elīlôtāv, The River and Its Territories, Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad (in Hebrew). Avitsur, Shmuel, 1963. A Survey of Water Power Installations in Eretz Israel (1953– 1955), Tel Aviv: Avshalom Institute (in Hebrew). Avitsur, Shmuel, 1976. Daily Life in Iretz Israel in the XIX Century, Jerusalem: A. Rubinstein Press and ʿĀm Ha-Sēfer Press (in Hebrew).

80

The Research Area

Avner, Rina, 2000. “Barqa”, HA-ESI 111: 79–81 (in Hebrew. English summary: *60). Avner, Rina, 2008. “Mosaic Pavements from the Excavations South of the White Mosque”, Qadmoniot 135: 22–24 (in Hebrew). Avni, Gideon, 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Avni, Gideon, 2021. “Excavations in Ramla, 1990–2018: Reconstructing the Early Islamic City”, in: Andrew Petersen and Denys Pringle (eds.), Ramla: City of Muslim Palestine, 715–1917. Studies in History, Archaeology and Architecture, Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 31–63. Avni, Gideon, and Cytryn-Silverman, Katia, 2008. “Editors’ Note”, Qadmoniot 135: 1 (in Hebrew). Ayalon, Etan, 1983. “Yavne-Yam”, Hadashot Arkheologiyot 83: 48–49 (in Hebrew). Ayalon, Etan, 1991. “The Huge Jars of Yavne-Yam”, in: Moshe Fischer (ed.), Yavne Yam and Its Surrounding, Palmahim: Kibbutz Palmahim Press, 80–88 (in Hebrew). Ayalon, Etan, 1999. “Yavne-Yam, ‘Persian-Wheel’ (Saqiya) Well”, HA-ESI 109: 109– 110 (in Hebrew. English summary: *72). Ayalon, Etan, Gilboa, Erel, and Smadar Harpazi, 1990. “An Arab Public Building and Crusader Remains at Tell Qasile – the 12th and 13th Seasons”, Israel – People and Land 5–6 (23–24): 9–22 (in Hebrew). Ayalon, Etan, Gilboa, Erel, and Tzvi Shacham, 1988. “A Public Building of the Early Arab period at Tell Qasile”, Israel – People and Land 4 (22): 35–52 (in Hebrew). Ayash, Edna, and Ganor, Amir, 2009. “Yavne-Yam”, HA-ESI 121, http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1170&mag_id=115. Bahat, Dan, 1996. “A New Suggestion for the Dating of the Madaba Map”, in: Gabriel Barkai and Eli Shiller (eds.), Eretz-Israel in Madaba Map, Ariel 116, Jerusalem: Ariel, 74–75 (in Hebrew). Barda, Leticia, and Zbenovich, Vladimir, 2012. The Archaeological Survey of Israel: Map of Gedera (85), http://www.antiquities.org.il/survey/new/default_en.aspx. Barkan, Diego, 2014. “Rehovot (South), Khirbat Deiran”, HA-ESI 126, http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=10589&mag_id=121. Baumgarten, Ya’aqov, 2000. “Evidence to a Pottery Workshop from the Byzantine Period at the Foot of Tel Ashdod (‘ʿAd Halom’ Site)”, ʿAtiqot 39: *69–*74 (in Hebrew. English summary: 201). Baumgarten, Yaʿaqov, 2014. “ʿAd Halom: A Saqiye Installation from the Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods at the Foot of Tel-Ashdod”, HA-ESI 126, http://www. hadashot-ESI.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=14719&mag_id=121 (in Hebrew, English summary). Ben-Dov, Meir, 1984. “Remains of Public Buildings in Ramla of the Days of the Umayyads and Mamluks”, Qadmoniyot 66–67: 82–85 (in Hebrew). Ben-Hayyim, Ze’ev, 1945. “A Samaritan Inscription of the XIth Century”, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 12: 74–82 (in Hebrew). Ben Zvi, Izhak, 1945. “A Samaritan Inscription of the Ayyubid Period”, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 12: 82–84 (in Hebrew). Van Berchem, Max, 1897. Inscriptions arabes de Syrie, La Caire: Extrait des mémoires de l’institut égyptien. Bouchenino, Aviva, 2007. “Building Remains and Industrial Installations from the Early Islamic Periods at Khirbat Deiran, Rehovot”, ʿAtiqot 56: 119–144 (in Hebrew. English summary: *84–*85).

The Research Area 81 Van den Brink, Edwin C.M., 1999. “Azor, Ha-Histadrut Street”, HA-ESI 110: *43. Van den Brink, Edwin C.M., 2000. “Barqa (South)”, HA-ESI 112: 125. Van den Brink, Edwin C.M, 2005. “Azor”, HA-ESI 117, http://www.hadashot-esi. org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=165&mag_id=110&previewit=TrUe. Cardarelli, François, 2003. Encyclopaedia of Scientifc Units, Weights and Measures, London: Springer. Chachy-Laureys, Rachel, 2010. “The Stone Artifacts”, in: Oren Gutfeld, Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque, Qedem 51, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 303–323. Christides, Vassilios, 1986. “Byzantine Sources of the Bilād al-Shām: A Critical Evaluation”, in: Adnan Bakhit and Muhammad Asfour (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Bilād al-Shām during the Byzantine Period, vol. II, Amman: University of Jordan and Yarmouk University, 7–16. Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, 1896. Archaeological Researches in Palestine during the Years 1873–1874, vol. II, Tr. John Macfarlane, London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Conder, Claude Reignier, and Kitchener, Horatio Herbert, 1882. The Survey of Western Palestine. Vol. II: Samaria, London: The Palestine Exploration Fund. Cytryn-Silverman, Katia, 2010. “The Ceramic Evidence”, in: Oren Gutfeld, Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque, Qedem 51, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 97–211. Deshe Institute, 2014. The Atlas of Kurkars, Tal Aviv: Deshe Institute (in Hebrew). Di Segni, Leah, 2012. “Greek Inscription in the Church of Bishop John at Khirbet Barqa-Gan Yavneh”, in: Lesław Daniel Chrupcala (ed.), Christ Is Here! Studies in Biblical and Christian Archaeology in Memory of Michele Piccirillo, ofm, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum Collectio Maior 52, Milano, 153–158. Donner, Herbert, 1986. “The Mosaic Map of Madaba and Its Sources – a Main Instrument for Historical and Topographical Research in Byzantine Palestine on Both Sides of the Jordan”, in: Adnan Bakhit and Muhammad Asfour (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Bilād al-Shām during the Byzantine Period, vol. II, Amman: University of Jordan and Yarmouk University, 175–186. Dothan, Moshe, 1971. “Ashdod II-III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965 and Soundings in 1967”, ʿAtiqot English Series 9–10. Dothan, Moshe, and Freedman, David N., 1967. “Ashdod I: The First Season of Excavations 1962”, ʿAtiqot English Series 7. Dothan, Moshe, and Porath, Yosef, 1982. “Ashdod IV: Excavation of Area M. The Fortifcation of the Lower City”, ʿAtiqot English Series 15. Dunnell, Robert C., 1992. “The Notion Site”, in: Jacqueline Rossingnol and LuAnn Wandsnider (eds.), Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, New York and London: Plenum Press, 21–41. Ellenblum, Ronnie, 1998. Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eshel, Esther, and Eshel, Hanan, 2005. “A Fragment of a Samaritan Inscription from Yavne (Jamnia)”, Tarbiz 74(2): 313–316 (in Hebrew). Fischer, Moshe (ed.), 1991. Yavne Yam and Its Surrounding, Palmahim: Kibbutz Palmahim Press (in Hebrew). Fischer, Moshe, 2005. “Archaeology and History of Yavne-Yam”, in: idem (ed.), Yavne, Yavne-Yam and Their Surroundings, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 173–208 (in Hebrew).

82

The Research Area

Fischer, Moshe, 2008. “Yavneh-Yam”, in: Ephraim Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol. V, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2073. Fischer, Moshe, and Taxel, Itamar, 2007. “Ancient Yavneh: Its History and Archaeology”, Tel Aviv 34(2): 204–284. Fischer, Moshe, and Taxel, Itamar, 2014. “Yavne-Yam in the Byzantine-Early Islamic Transition: The Archaeological Remains and Their Socio-Political Implications”, Israel Exploration Journal 64(2): 212–242. Foster, Zachary J., 2016. “Was Jerusalem Part of Palestine? The Forgotten City of Ramla, 900–1900”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 2016: 1–15. Gadot, Yuval, and Tepper, Yotam, 2003. “A Late Byzantine Pottery Workshop at Khirbet Baraqa”, Tel Aviv 30: 130–157. Gal, Adiv, Lahav, Hava, and Uri Ramon, 2008. Palmahim Survey, Tel Aviv: Deshe Institute (in Hebrew). Galili, Ehud, and Sharvit, Jacob, 1991. “Yavne-Yam Anchorage, the Finds of the Maritime Survey”, in: Moshe Fischer (ed.), Yavne Yam and Its Surrounding, Palmahim: Kibbutz Palmahim Press, 111–120 (in Hebrew). George, Alain, 2010. The Rise of Islamic Calligraphy, London: Saqi. Gil, Moshe, 1983. Palestine during the First Muslim Period, Parts II-III: Cairo Geniza Documents, Tel Aviv: University Press and Ministry of Defense Press. Glick, Alexander, 2009. “Tel Qasile (West)”, HA-ESI 121, http://www.hadashot-esi. org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1234&mag_id=115. Glick, Alexander, 2013. “Yafo, Yafo Harbor”, HA-ESI 125, http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=6481&mag_id=120. Gorin-Rosen, Yael, 2010. “The Islamic Glass Vessels”, in: Oren Gutfeld, Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque, Qedem 51, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 213–264. Gorzalczany, Amir, 2002. “Tel Yavne”, HA-ESI 114: 84–85 (in Hebrew. English summary: *72). Gorzalczany, Amir, 2004. “A Site of Late Byzantine and Early Islamic periods in Ṣarafand el-Kharab, Nes Ẓiyyona”, ʿAtiqot 46: 37–47 (in Hebrew. English summary: *130–*131). Gorzalczany, Amir, 2006. “Ramla (South)”, HA-ESI 118, http://www.hadashot-esi. org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=341&mag_id=111. Gorzalczany, Amir, 2009. “Ramla (South)”, HA-ESI 121, http://www.hadashot-esi. org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1254&mag_id=115. Gorzalczany, Amir, 2011. “The Umayyad Aqueduct to Ramla and Other Finds Near Kibbutz Na‘an”, ʿAtiqot 68: 193–219. Gorzalczany, Amir, and ʿAd, Uzi, 2010. “Ramla (South)”, HA-ESI 122, http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1418&mag_id=117. Gorzalczany, Amir, and Amit, David, 2014. “The Early Islamic Aqueducts to Ramla and Hebron”, in: Christoph Ohlig and Tsvika Tsuk (eds.), Cura Aquarum in Israel II, Water in Antiquity, Schriften der Deutschen Wasserhistorischen Gesellschaft 21, Siegburg: DWhG, 71–80. Gorzalczany, Amir, Barkan, Diego, and Livnat Iechie, 2010. “A Site from the Persian, Hellenistic and Early Islamic Periods at Holot Yavne”, ʿAtiqot 62: 21*–46* (in Hebrew. English summary: 171–172). Gorzalczany, Amir, and Jakoel, Eriola, 2013. “Bet Dagan”, HA-ESI 125, http:// www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=5419&mag_id=120.

The Research Area 83 Gorzalczany, Amir, and Marcus, Jenny, 2010. “Ramla (South)”, HA-ESI 122, http:// www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1335&mag_id=117. Gorzalczany, Amir, Dayan, Ayelet, Angelina Dagot, and Hagit Ashkenazi, 2011. “Palmahim-Ashdod Junction, Survey”, HA-ESI 123, http://www.hadashot-esi. org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1850&mag_id=118. Griffth, Sidney H., 1998. “What has Constantinople to Do with Jerusalem? Palestine in the Ninth Century: Byzantine Orthodoxy in the World of Islam”, in: Leslie Brubaker (ed.), Byzantium in the Ninth Century: Dead or Alive? Papers from the 13th Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 1996, Aldershot: Ashgate, 181–194. Guérin, M. Victor, 1869. Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine. Judée, Paris: Imprimé par autorisation de l’Empereur à l’imprimerie impériale. Guidetti, Mattia, 2010. “Sacred Topography in Medieval Syria and Its Roots between the Umayyads and Late Antiquity”, in: Antoine Borrut and Paul M. Cobb (eds.), Umayyad Legacies: Medieval Memories from Syria to Spain, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 339–363. Gutfeld, Oren, 2010. Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque, Qedem 51, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Haddad, Elie, 2008. “Lod”, HA-ESI 120, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_ Detail_Eng.aspx?id=864&mag_id=114. Haddad, Elie, 2013. “Remains of a Public Building from the Byzantine Period and a Farmhouse from the Early Islamic Period North of Tel Lod”, ʿAtiqot 76: 23*–39* (in Hebrew. English summary: 219–220). Herriott, Conn, 2013. “Excavation at Ramla (Taʿavura Junction) – 2011, Early Islamic Graves and Other Features”, NGSBA Archaeology 2: 131–139. Herriott, Conn, 2017. “Chapter 5: Sofstone Vessels”, in: “Excavations at Ramla (White Mosque Street)”, NGSBA Archaeology 4: 165–175. Hirsch, Emil G., Benzinger, Immanuel, Joseph Jacobs, and Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, 1906. “Weights and Measures”, in: Isidore Singer (ed.), The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls, 483–490. http://jewishencyclopedia.com/ articles/14821-weights-and-measures. Hoyland, Robert, 2004. “Language and Identity: The Twin Histories of Arabic and Aramaic (and: Why did Aramaic Succeed where Greek Failed?)”, Scripta Classica Israelica 23: 183–199. The Hydrological Service, 1996. “Development of Exploitation and the State of Groundwater Sources in Israel till Autumn 1994”, Mayim w-Hashqayā 351(January): 40–45 (in Hebrew). Kaplan, Jacob, 1953. “Archaeological Survey in the Gederah-el-Mughar Area”, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 17(3–4): 138–143 (in Hebrew). Kaplan, Jacob, 1957. “Archaeological Survey of the Yavneh Region”, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 21(3–4): 199–207 (in Hebrew). Kaplan, Jacob, 1959a. The Archaeology and History of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, Tel Aviv: Masada (in Hebrew). Kaplan, Jacob, 1959b. “Excavations at the White Mosque in Ramla”, ʿAtiqot English Series 2: 106–115. Kaplan, Jacob, 1972. “The Archaeology and History of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa”, Biblical Archaeologist 35(3): 66–95.

84

The Research Area

Khamis, Elias, 2010. “The Metal Artifacts”, in: Oren Gutfeld, Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque, Qedem 51, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 279–285. Kletter, Raz, 2005a. “Early Islamic Remains at ʿOpher Park, Ramla”, ʿAtiqot 49: 57–99. Kletter, Raz, 2005b. “Early Islamic Bronze Weights from Ramla”, ʿAtiqot 49: 117–119. Kligler, Israel J., 1930. The Epidemiology and Control of Malaria in Palestine, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Kogan-Zehavi, Elena, 2006. “Tel Ashdod”, HA-ESI 118, http://www.hadashot-esi. org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=340&mag_id=111. Kogan-Zehavi, Elena, 2008. “Remains of an Early Islamic Settlement and a Hellenistic (Roman?) Tomb at Khirbat Deiran, Rehovot”, ʿAtiqot 57: 77*–90* (in Hebrew. English summary: 170–173). Kool, Robert, 2013. “The coins from the Excavation at Lod”, ʿAtiqot 76: *41–*43 (in Hebrew). Kool, Robert, and ʿAd, Uzi, 2016. “A Late Twelfth-Century Silver Purse Hoard from Ibelin”, Israel Numismatic Research 11: 163–180. Koucky, Frank L., 2008. “Physical Environment”, in: Lawrence E. Stager, J. David Schloen, and Daniel M. Master (eds.), Ashkelon I: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 11–15. Lass, Egon H. E., 2008. “Survey of Water Wells”, in: Lawrence E. Stager, J. David Schloen, and Daniel M. Master (eds.), Ashkelon I: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 107–126. Le Strange, Guy, 1890. Palestine under the Moslems. A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500, London: Alexander P. Watt. Lev, Efraim, 2002. “Trade of Medical Substances in the Medieval and Ottoman Levant (Bilād al-Shām)”, in: Yaacov Lev (ed.), Towns and Material Culture in the Medieval Middle East, Leiden: Brill, 159–183. Levy-Rubin, Milka, 2003. “The Reorganisation of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim Period”, ARAM 15: 197–226. Luz, Nimrod, 1997. “The Construction of an Islamic City in Palestine: The Case of Umayyad al-Ramla,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 7: 27–54. Luz, Nimrod, 2017. “Lod and Ramla and Not Ramlod: On a Geographic Anomaly and the Longue Dureé of Urban History”, in: Alon Shavit, Tawfq Daʿadli, and Yuval Gadot (eds.), Lod “Diospolis – City of God”: Collected Papers on the History and Archaeology of Lod, vol. III, Lod: Tagliyot (in Hebrew), 21–41. Mann, Jacob, 1920–1922. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fātimid Caliphs, 2 vols., 1970 ed., New York: Ktav Publishing House. Manning, Sturt W., 2013. “The Roman World and Climate: Context, Relevance of Climate Change, and Some Issues”, in: William V. Harris (ed.), The Ancient Mediterranean Environment between Science and History, Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 39, Leiden: Brill, 103–170. Masarwa, Yumna, 2006. “From a Word of God to Archaeological Monuments: A Historical-Archaeological Study of the Umayyad Ribāṭs of Palestine”, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton: Princeton University. Masarwa, Yumna, 2011. “The Mediterranean as a Frontier: The Umayyad Ribāṭs of Palestine”, in: Hendrik Dey and Elizabeth Fentress (eds.), Western Monasticism

The Research Area 85 Ante Litteram: The Spaces of Monastic Observance in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 177–199. Mayer, Leo Ary, Pinkerfeld, Jacob, Hayim Ze’ev Hirschberg, and Judah Leib Maimon, 1950. Some Principal Muslim Religious Buildings in Israel, Jerusalem: The Governmental Printer. Mayerson, Philip, 1996. “Another Unreported Ashkelonian Jar: The Sabitha/Sapation”, Israel Exploration Journal 46: 258–261. Mazar, Amihai, 1980. Excavations in Tell Qasile. Part One, the Philistine Sanctuary: Architecture and Cult Objects, Qedem 12, Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Meizler, Benjamin, 1949. “The Excavations in Tell Qasile (A Primarily Survey)”, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 15(1–2): 8–18 (in Hebrew).Messika, Natalie, 2006. “An Early Islamic Period Site at Kafr Jinnis Near Lod”, in: Ze’ev Herzog and Israel Roll (eds.), Salvage Excavation Reports,3, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 84–112. Milevski, Yanir, and Rapuano, Yehuda, 2001. “Kh. Kfar Jinis”, HA-ESI 113: 93–98 (in Hebrew, English summary: *65). Nahlieli, Dov, 2008. “Ashdod-Yam”, in: Ephraim Stern (ed.), The New Encyclopaedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, vol V, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1575–1576. Nir, Ya’akov, 2008. “Water Wells”, in: Lawrence E. Stager, J. David Schloen, and Daniel M. Master (eds.), Ashkelon I: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 105–106. Nir, Ya’akov, and Eldad-Nir, Iris, 1985. “Yavne Yam – the Beach Well”, Hadashot Arkheologiyot 86: 23 (in Hebrew). Nir, Ya’akov, and Eldad-Nir, Iris, 1991. “The Hellenistic Well in Yavne-Yam”, in: Moshe Fischer (ed.), Yavne Yam and Its Surrounding, Palmahim: Kibbutz Palmahim Press, 106–110 (in Hebrew). Nol, Hagit, 2020. “Cities, Ribāṭs and Other Settlement Types in Palestine from the Seventh to the Early Thirteenth Century: An Exercise in Terminology”, AlMasāq 32(3): 243–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503110.2019.1692555. Oren, Eliran, Gorzalczany, Amir, and Uzi ʿAd, 2012. “Ramla (South)”, HA-ESI 124, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=2176&mag_id=119. Palmer, Edward Henry, 1881. The Survey of Western Palestine. Arabic and English Name Lists, London: The Palestine Exploration Fund. Parnos, Giora, Milevski, Ianir, and Hamoudi Khalaily, 2010. “Remains from the Late Prehistoric to Early Islamic Periods at the Foot of Tel Malot (East)”, ʿAtiqot 64: 25–77. Peilstӧcker, Martin, 1998. “Yaffo”, Hadashot Arkheologiyot 108: 69–70 (in Hebrew). Peilstӧcker, Martin, and Kapitikon, Arie, 1998. “Beit Dagan”, Hadashot Arkheologiyot 108: 84–85 (in Hebrew). Peilstӧcker, Martin, Re’em, Amit, Elie Haddad, and Peter Gendelman, 2006. “Yafo, Flea Market Complex”, HA-ESI 118, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=431&mag_id=111. Petersen, Andrew, 1995. “Preliminary Report on an Architectural Survey of Historic Buildings in Ramla”, Levant 27: 75–101. Petersen, Andrew, 2001. A Gazetteer of Buildings in Muslim Palestine, Part 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

86

The Research Area

Petersen, Andrew, 2005. The Towns of Palestine under Muslim Rule AD 600–1600, BAR International Series 1381, Oxford: Archaeopress. Petersen, Andrew, 2010. “Medieval Bridges of Palestine”, in: Urbain Vemeulen and K. D’Hulster (eds.), Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras, VI, Leuven: Peeters, 291–306. Picard, Leo, 1940. “The Groundwater in Palestine”, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 7: 29–52 (in Hebrew). Piccirillo, Michele, 1992. The Mosaics of Jordan, Amman: American Center of Oriental Research. Pipano, Shlomo, 1986. “An Arabic Fortress on the Shore”, Teva va-Aretz 28: 23–25 (in Hebrew). Raphael, Sarah Kate, 2014. Azdud (Ashdod-Yam): An Early Islamic Fortress on the Mediterranean Coast, BAR International Series 2673, Oxford: Archaeopress. Raphael, Kate, and Kool, Robert, 2014. “The Coins”, in: Sarah Kate Raphael, Azdud (Ashdod-Yam): An Early Islamic Fortress on the Mediterranean Coast, BAR International Series 2673, Oxford: Archaeopress, 38–58, 101. Retief, François, and Cilliers, Louise, 2004. “Malaria in Graeco-Roman Times”, Acta Classica 47: 127–137. Roll, Israel, and Ayalon, Etan, 2009. “A Byzantine Wine Press at Kh. Duran (Rehovot)”, in: Etan Ayalon, Rafael Frankel, and Amos Kloner (eds.), Oil and Wine Presses in Israel from the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods, BAR International Series 1972, Oxford: Archaeopress, 265–267. Rosen-Ayalon, Miryam, 1976. “The First Mosaic Discovered in Ramla”, Israel Exploration Journal 26(2/3): 104–119. Rosen-Ayalon, Miryam, and Eitan, Avraham, 1966. “Ramla”, Hadashot Arkheologiyot 17: 6–8 (in Hebrew). Rosen Miller, Arlene, 2007. Civilizing Climate: Social Responses to Climate Change in the Ancient Near East, Lonham: Altamira Press. Sade, Moshe, 2005. “Archaeozoological Remains from Ramla”, ʿAtiqot 49: 127–130. Sallares, Robert, Bouwman, Abigail and Cecilia Anderung, 2004. “The Spread of Malaria to Southern Europe in Antiquity: New Approaches to Old Problems”, Medical History 48: 311–328. Sasson, Avi, 2003. “Maghar: A Village of Caves from the Ottoman Period in the Coastal Plain”, Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 21: 11–38. Sasson, Avi, 2008. “Lower Nahal Soreq (Wādī Rūbīn) during the Ottoman period and the British Mandate”, in: Adiv Gal, Hava Lahav, and Uri Ramon, Palmahim Survey, Tel Aviv: Deshe Institute, 85–88 (in Hebrew). Schuldenrein, Joseph, 1986. “Paleoenvironment, Prehistory, and Accelerated Slope Erosion along the Central Israeli Coastal Plain (Palmahim): A Geoarchaeological Case Study”, Geoarchaeology 1(1): 61–81. Schwartz, Joshua J., 1991. Lod (Lydda), Israel: From Its Origins Through the Byzantine Period 5600 BCE-640 CE, BAR International Series 571, Oxford: Archaeopress. Sharon, Moshe, 1993. “Nahr Abī Fuṭrus”, in: Peri Bearman, Thierri Bianquis, Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Emery van Donzel and Wolfhart Peter Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, second ed., vol. VII, Leiden: Brill, 910–911. Sharon, Moshe, 2005a. “New Inscriptions from the Salvage Excavation at Ramla”, ʿAtiqot 49: 123–125.

The Research Area 87 Sharon, Moshe, 2005b. “Arabic Inscriptions from Yavne-Yam”, in: Moshe Fischer (ed.), Yavne, Yavne-Yam and Their Surroundings, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 253–258 (in Hebrew). Shmueli, Oren, 2009. “The City of Ramla during the Early Islamic Period in Light of the Excavations Conducted in the Area of the White Mosque”, M.A. Thesis, Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University (in Hebrew). Singer, Arieh, 2007. The Soils of Israel, Berlin: Springer. Sion, Ofer, 2004. “Remains of an Early Islamic Settlement in Ramla”, ʿAtiqot 46: 67–92. Sion, Ofer, 2014. “Fifty Years for the Establishment of the Archaeological Survey of Israel Association”, Devar ʿĀvār 21: 9–11 (in Hebrew). Sion, Ofer, et al., 2010. “Barqa”, HA-ESI 122, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1480&mag_id=117. Skutelsky, Orit, and Perelmuter, Moshe, 2012. Gaʿagūʿîm le-nāḥal, Reviving Streams and Wetlands in Israel, [Tel Aviv]:The Society for the Protection of Nature in Israel (in Hebrew). Soren, David, 2003. “Can Archaeologists Excavate Evidence of Malaria?”, World Archaeology 35(2): 193–209. Sukenik, Eliezer L., 1935. “Tell el Jerīshe”, Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 4: 208–209. Swauger, James L., 1971. “The Trench”, in: Moshe Dothan, “Ashdod II-III: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations 1963, 1965 and Soundings in 1967”, ʿAtiqot English Series 9–10: 177–179. Tal, Oren, Jackson-Tal, Ruth E., and Ian C. Freestone, 2008. “A Secondary Glass Workshop”, in: Oren Tal and Itamar Taxel, Ramla (South): An Early Islamic Industrial Site and Remains of Previous Periods, Salvage Excavation Reports 5, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 66–76. Tal, Oren, and Taxel, Itamar, 2008. Ramla (South): An Early Islamic Industrial Site and Remains of Previous Periods, Salvage Excavation Reports 5, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University,. Tal, Oren and Taxel, Itamar, 2012. “Socio-Political and Economic Aspects of Refuse Disposal in Late Byzantine and Early Islamic Palestine”, in: Roger Matthews and John Curtis (eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Vol I: Mega-Cities and Mega-Sites, the Archaeology of Consumption and Disposal, Landscape, Transport and Communication, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 497–518. Taxel, Itamar, 2007. “Stratigraphy and Architecture”, in: Ram Gophna, Itamar Taxel, and Amir Feldstein, Kafr ʿAna: A Rural Settlement in the Lod Valley, Salvage Excavation Reports 4, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University 9–32. Taxel, Itamar, 2009. “Between Jaffa and Apolonia – Tel Aviv Area during the Late Roman, Byzantine and Early Muslim Periods”, in: Etan Ayalon (ed.), The Hidden History of Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum, 112–139 (in Hebrew). Taxel, Itamar, 2013a. “Rural Settlement Processes in Central Palestine, ca. 640– 800 C.E.: The Ramla-Yavneh Region as a Case Study”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 369: 157–199. Taxel, Itamar, 2013b. “The Byzantine-Early Islamic Transition on the Palestinian Coastal Plain: A Re-evaluation of the Archaeological Evidence”, Semitica et Classica 6: 73–106.

88

The Research Area

Taxel, Itamar, Sivan, Dorit, Revital Bookman, and Joel Roskin, 2018. “An Early Islamic Inter-Settlement Agroecosystem in the Coastal Sand of the Yavneh Dunefeld, Israel”, Journal of Field Archaeology, https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690. 2018.1522189. Torgë, Hagit, 2017. “The Development of Ramla during the Early Islamic Period in Light of the Archaeological Evidence”, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University. Toueg, Ron, 2006. “Ramla, Marcus Street”, HA-ESI 118, http://www.hadashot-ESI. org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=338&mag_id=111. Toueg, Ron, 2007. “Excavation in Marcus Street, Ramla: Stratigraphy”, Contract Archaeology Reports 2: 12–37. Toueg, Ron, and Arnon, Yael Datia, 2018. “Ramla, the Pool of the Arches: New Evidence for the Water Inlet into the Pool”, ʿAtiqot 93: 125–161. Vitto, Fanny, 1991. “The Port of Jamnia”, in: Moshe Fischer (ed.), Yavne Yam and Its Surrounding, Palmahim: Kibbutz Palmahim Press, 75–79 (in Hebrew). Vitto, Fanny, 1998. “Maḥoza D-Yamnin: A Mosaic Floor from the Time of Eudocia?”, ʿAtiqot 35: 117–134. De Vogüé, M. Le Marquis, 1914. “La citerne de Ramleh”, Mémoires de l’institut national de France 39: 163–180. Vunsh, Reuven, Tal, Oren, and Dorit Sivan, 2013. “Horbat Ashdod-Yam”, HA-ESI 125 http://www.hadashot-ESI.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=2294. Vunsh, Reuven, Tal, Oren, Dorit Sivan, and Moshe Fischer, 2014. “YavneYam”, HA-ESI 126, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng. aspx?id=7483&mag_id=121. Walmsley, Alan G., 2007. Early Islamic Syria: An Archaeological Assessment, Bath: Duckworth. Weinberger, Daniel, 2004. “Dhahr el-Khirba”, HA-ESI 116, http://www.hadashotesi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=23&mag_id=108. Wilkinson, John, 1977. Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades, Warminster: Aris and Philips. Yannai, Eli, 2014. “Yavne”, HA-ESI 126, http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_ Detail_Eng.aspx?id=13677&mag_id=121. Zelinger, Yehiel, 2000. “Na’an (East), the Aqueduct to Ramla”. HA-ESI 111: 76–77 (in Hebrew. English summary: *58).

4

The Big Data

Big Data analyzing tools are designed to process large amounts of data, and in this case, varied archaeological fnds and diversifed details on these fnds. The characteristics of each artefact, or any other cultural item, can be broken down into dozens of components, such as form, material, size and weight, color, or decoration. Each of the categories can then be cross-referenced with other elements in order to observe similarities and contrasts and can be mapped for detecting spatial patterns. Grouping fnds according to their physical characteristics (i.e. typology) can be applied to any of these categories. The scholar cannot know in advance which category is more signifcant than others. The function of types, the meaning of specifc characteristics, and the interpretation of patterns can be suggested only after all the data have been analyzed.1 The research area is composed of 364 archaeological nodes, about 100 of which are situated inside Ramla municipality, and the rest on 50 other sites. The data derive from portable artefacts and raw materials, architectural elements and installations, construction methods, spolia and re-use activities, and texts. In this chapter, I present positive results, i.e. elements and characteristics which during research have proven relevant to specifc patterns. Relevant for later comparisons are some portable artefacts and a number of construction techniques. Next in this chapter, I introduce some of the primary results: the typology of installations, chronological patterns, and spatial patterns inside Ramla. Cross-referencing was done on three levels of correlation: by physical relation in the locus or excavation context, by correlation on the node level, and by geographical proximity on the site level. Both raw and interpreted data will be used in Chapter 5 to establish the economy of the area, and in Chapter 6 to arrive at a typology of the sites. One more note regards terms and interpretation. In the previous chapter, I presented sites similar to the way they were presented in their original publications. In this chapter, however, the material is primarily introduced according to characteristics such as form, material, and technique, or a very general function (e.g. fre installation). Neutral terms are used here, often invented for that purpose, whereas terms used by the excavators are not necessarily cited.

DOI: 10.4324/9781003176169-4

90

The Big Data

Portable artefacts and raw materials Portable fnds in the research area are made of clay, glass, stone, metal, shells, and animal bones. In addition, raw and waste materials of possible crafts (pottery, glass, and metals) have been found. Artefacts introduced here are recurrent and can be detected by the naked eye. Their possible origin implies economic and/or social networks within the research area and will be discussed. Their chief role comes at a later stage of the research, when they will be cross-referenced with other elements and mapped, in order to fnd correlations. Since glass artefacts and most of the pottery require designated studies by specialists, they are excluded from these analyses and this introduction. Nonetheless, clay pipes and jars may be mentioned as part of an installation in the next section. All common portable artefacts in the region were also unearthed at Ramla. Other key sites with some of the less common fnds are Ashdod-Yam, Jaffa, Azor, Lod, Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya, Tell Qasile, and Tel Ashdod. Most fnds were found on other known (and published) Early Islamic sites in greater Syria, such as Fusṭāṭ, Hama, or Caesarea. Rather than trying to contest or verify their dating, I am solely using them in cross-references. Moreover, it has been attempted to use mainly neutral attributes and to avoid highly interpretive terms (e.g. ‘luxurious’). Stone artefacts from the research area comprise architectural elements such as columns and pavement stones, inscribed slabs, and vessels or tools including bowls, mortars or grinders, pestles, weights, and pressing stones. The raw materials were frequently limestone, kurkar, and basalt, but also marble, beachrock, and soapstone were used. Beachrock is local and can be found along the coast. It was used for construction until the beginning of the 20th century.2 However, only one ancient quarry has been found so far, near Acre, for large millstones of 1 m.3 Basalt is a volcanic rock, with deposits in various areas in the Levant and on the Aegean islands. According to isotopic examinations, basalt objects on sites from western Israel derive from the area of Tiberias.4 Marble has the farthest source of the three stones, as it was quarried in western Turkey and Greece. White marble, which is the one most used in Israel/Palestine and in Jordan, originates in Marmara.5 Whereas the geological defnition of marble is that of a calcareous rock that went through physical and chemical transformations (metamorphism),6 many other rocks might have similar characteristics or a similarly smooth appearance. Therefore, literary sources which mention ‘marble’ (Arabic: rukhām) or even marble quarries in Palestine cannot represent what is considered marble today.7 The most common stone vessel is a basin (or ‘bowl’) of various sizes, sometimes on three legs, made of marble, basalt, or limestone. Another type of basin, only of marble, has four fat handles. The distribution of the latter is clear: along the coast from present Syria to Southern Israel, with rare examples more than 80 km inland, and within Cyprus.8 Judging by the relatively large amounts of fnished artefacts, and fve unfnished examples,9 one

The Big Data 91 of the production centers was Caesarea. These artefacts are usually dated to the Byzantine period. A comprehensive overview of basins from other materials has, to my best knowledge, not yet been published. Another type of object made of stone is weights of a specifc form, connected with oil pressing. Last, grinding, pounding, and pressing tools are relatively rare in the research area but can sometimes be found in secondary use. The group includes fat and round millstones of the ‘rotary querns’ type, of 25–45 cm in diameter. Such millstones are known from Tel Yoqne’am in the 10th century.10 The rotary querns in the region are made mainly of basalt but also of beachrock, and once of marble. Both basalt and beachrock specimens can be found in Ramla. The installation is attributed to grain milling. Soapstone vessels are an index fossil of sites from the 8th to 9th century in the Levant and Egypt, yet little research has been devoted to them.11 They generally include greyish/greenish softstone types such as steatite, chlorite, or talc.12 The most common artefacts are ‘pots’ or ‘bowls’, ‘braziers’ or ‘incense burners’, and – though absent from the research area – open ‘lamps’ with triangular or star form. Since these items were related to fre, it can be assumed that the main advantage of the material had to do with fre resistance.13 The ‘bowls’ can further be divided into heavy straight-walled containers, commonly with two fat handles, and short, decorated thin-walled specimens. The ‘brazier’ is a small container with four legs and one handle. Braziers and lamps were recovered on key sites, among them Qaṣr alḤayr al-Sharqī,14 Baalbek,15 and Fusṭāṭ,16 but the bowls are widespread with many examples from the Negev and the Arava, as well as al-Ṭūr in Sinai.17 It is generally accepted that the provenance of the soapstone was south-east Arabia and south-east Iran, areas where such vessels had already existed before the 8th century and continued in production and use long after the 10th.18 However, petrographic analyses of vessels from the Arava imply a more local source, such as Sinai or Southern Transjordan.19 The presence of half-fnished objects shows that production was carried on directly in the quarries or adjacent settlements.20 The sphero-conical vessel, or ‘grenade’ (Figure 4.1:1), is one of the most widespread artefacts found in Early and Middle Islamic contexts. It is well known from sites in Egypt and Syria, Iraq to Iran, Azerbaijan to Russia, and Uzbekistan.21 On Israeli sites, the decorated examples might likely represent the 11th/12th to the 14th century while the plain ones apparently derive from the 10th century and earlier.22 A large number of samples were found in Cairo (Fusṭāṭ), some bearing the potter’s signature or sitting inside a designated basket.23 Examples from Iran likewise bore inscriptions with the potter’s signature but also blessings for healthy drinking.24 Different interpretations were given for the function of this vessel, including containers for perfume, medicine, or mercury, hand grenades, aeolipiles, or beer containers.25 Laboratory tests on one sample in Israel showed pyrite (FeS2) content,26 but a specimen from Bet-She’an was found with traces of mercury,27 as did several earlier samples.28 In the research area, ‘grenades’ were

92

The Big Data

Figure 4.1 Clay objects (drawings: Ron Haran) 1) sphero-conical vessel from Ramla, after Cytryn-Silverman 2010: Photo 9.23. 2) zoomorphic object from Ramla, after Sion 2009b: Fig. 12:9. 3) water-wheel jar from Nahal Shahaq in southern Israel, after Israel, Nahlieli and Ben-Michael 1995: Fig. 6:14. 4) stamped jar handle from Ashdod-Yam, after Masarwa 2006: Fig. 10:7

found only in Ramla and on one adjacent site. In Marcus Street in Ramla, 46 specimens were unearthed, some of them deformed.29 Another less common types of clay artefacts are zoomorphic objects (Figure 4.1:2). These are found with the shapes of donkey/horse, deer, or sheep. They are usually interpreted as lamp-fllers, and seldom as toys,30 though they might have been lamps themselves, as has been suggested for one similar object from Fusṭāṭ.31 These artefacts may correspond with zoomorphic vessels from the 4th to 6th centuries found in tombs along the coast of Northern Israel. The Late Roman ancestors used a greater variety of animals (including bulls, doves, and cocks), at least one vessel featuring a cross, and are assumed to be related to a Christian population.32 For the Early Islamic objects, the main typological division is between glazed and unglazed wares, a difference which can be explained as a chronological development. For example, the later specimens derive from the early 11th century at Caesarea.33 Vilozny notices an additional distinction within the unglazed group between decorated and undecorated specimens.34 Regarding their spatial distribution, one cluster of zoomorphic vessels has been found between central Israel to Jericho and another in northern Israel, between Beth Shean, Tiberias, and Caesarea.35 Other examples were unearthed only on the sites of Baalbek and al-Raqqa.36

The Big Data 93 The so-called water-wheel jars (sāqiya) in Israel/Palestine are dated from the 3rd to the 19th centuries. Their common features are a conical or cylindrical shape, a wide mouth, a small narrowing in the neck, and no handles (Figure 4.1:3) but that form was modifed over the years.37 Similar vessels were unearthed in Spain, Morocco, Tunisia, and Egypt.38 Following ethnological comparisons, scholars suggested that it was used in a water-wheel device which lifted water from pits or wells. The jar form allows for tying it to a rope or a chain and thus supports such an assumption. However, Schiøler comments that only large amounts of sherds on the well bottom, and traces such as green algae, could confrm it.39 By contrast, Ayalon claims that any signifcant number of sāqiya jars implies the use of an adjacent water source.40 The water-wheel lifting devices in big centers are believed to be related to bathhouses.41 In the next chapter I will show that there is no spatial correlation between sāqiya jars and bathhouses and that at least in Ramla, the jars are probably related to the local reservoir. A much more common object type in the research area are handles of heavy jars bearing a round stamp with a symbol or a text (Figure 4.1:4). Based on the inscriptions and petrographic analyses, it is believed that these jars/handles derive from the site and surroundings of Nabi Samwil, 8 km northwest of Jerusalem.42 Up until now, the largest corpus has been found in Ramat Rahel (4 km south of Jerusalem) and enables various observations about style and production.43 Scholars suggest a number of possible purposes for the inscriptions: a potter’s mark, a blessing/symbol of success for the potter or the jar owner, or administrative control of some sort over the jars or their content.44 In the research area, the spatial distribution of the handles in Ramla, Jaffa, and Ashdod-Yam suggests a link to export. Although limited in number, objects made of bone or ivory can be found on many of the research sites. The distinction between the two materials is not always clear, and therefore both are grouped together. Several objects have been found repeatedly: ‘dolls’ or fgurines, beads, combs, decorated sticks or pins, and more rarely, game pieces. The bone fgurines, the socalled ‘Coptic dolls’, measure 10 cm in length (Figures 4.2 and 4.3). They are interpreted as toys or fertility-related objects and some were found in burials.45 However, two perforated specimens imply they were used as jewelry or amulets.46 In Fusṭāṭ, these dolls were dated to the year 800,47 but can be attributed in general to a longer period spanning the 9th–10th centuries. The doll type of a more schematic design (Figures 4.2:4 and 4.3) might be of an even later date, namely the 10th–12th centuries.48 In addition to Fusṭāṭ, specimens were found in al-Mina, Hama, Caesarea, Nessana, and Jerusalem.49 Ivory remains which highly suggest production – broken objects and scraps of certain molds – were identifed at Aqaba in a context dated to the 7th century.50 In the research area, six dolls have been found, one unearthed in a young female burial in Ramla.51 The small number of metal fnds shows a variety, including bowls, working tools, jewelry, knife blades, nails, coins, and weights. The main metals

94 The Big Data

Figure 4.2 Bone fgurines (‘Coptic dolls’) (drawing: Hagit Nol and Ron Haran) 1) Ramla (node 99), after Segal 1996: Fig. 143. 2) Fusṭāṭ, after Scanlon 1968: Pl. 4, Fig. 46. 3) Nessana, after Colt 1962: Pl. 21:6. 4) Ramla (node 96), after Kletter 2005: Fig. 24:1

Figure 4.3 A bone fgurine from Azor (courtesy of Israel Antiquity Authority)

The Big Data 95 which can be found in the research area are copper alloys and iron, but also some lead has been reported. Without isotopic analyses, the source of these metals remains obscure and one can only offer a map of potential origins.52 A study of copper alloy objects from Beth Shean shows that in Early Islam the copper alloys used were bronze (at least 2% tin), brass (at least 5% zinc), and gunmetal (zinc and tin, each with low percentages). These fndings stand in contrast both to the Byzantine fnds of the site and to Islamic artefacts in museums which show a clear preference for brass. Another chronological observation is that while 2% of lead was typically used for lowering the smelting point in copper alloys, in several artefacts it was used on levels of 15–20%, including Fatimid artefacts from Ramla.53 Iron was found mostly as knife blades and nails but has not yet been studied in detail. Lead could be used in pipes, weights, or inlays but is as yet similarly unexamined. One of the more interesting metal fnds is a copper-alloy object with a ‘lollipop’ form (Figure 4.4). This artefact has received diverse interpretations, from an incense burner or a cosmetic mortar, to a scoop, an eye-dropper, or a lamp-fller.54 Its dating varies between the 11th and the 13th centuries, but on the evidence of two hoards in northern Israel (one inside a sunken jar),

Figure 4.4 A lollipop-shaped object from Ramat Gan (photographer: Clara Amit, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

96

The Big Data

they should be dated to the 10th–11th centuries.55 Allan claims that even though the origin of this artefact is not clear, its handles imply an imitation of stone vessels. He suggests an origin in Iran with Egyptian infuence.56 Also made of metal, and comparatively abundant, are copper-alloy weights. Chronologically, copper-alloy and lead weights were produced in the early Umayyad period, continuing forms of the Byzantine period.57 However, the brick, barrel, or hexagon shapes58 should be dated not earlier than the Fatimid period.59 The weights can be understood as an alternative to copper coins but their precise use (e.g. with or without a balance) is not clear. Save for three large coin hoards from Ramla and Tel Ashdod and several stray silver coins, most coins are from copper alloy. They were found in very limited numbers but on almost every site. The coins can be dated to the Umayyad period and the early Abbasid period until the mid-9th century, which correlates with other sites in the Islamicate world.60 Some of the coins bear an inscription which includes the name of their mint and thus can point to their approximate production site. This identifcation enables network inquiries and economic interpretations on a level which is rarely possible with archaeological fnds. Furthermore, it can suggest the production locus of the mint and can help to match toponyms to specifc places. In the research area, coins are almost exclusively inscribed with al-Ramla. Other specimens include inscriptions of Dimashq and Īliyāʾ among others. Shells were often found as a construction material in plaster and were usually not analyzed. However, shells from Mazliah were sources from the Mediterranean Sea (12 of 13), and from the Red Sea (one specimen).61 In addition, mother-of-pearl was detected in Ramla and Khirbat al-ʿAṣfūra, with a possible Red Sea origin. The last type of remains is materials associated with specifc crafts, including pottery, glass and metals. Pottery production remains include deformed vessels and molds. The literature treats wedges (kiln bars) as part of the pottery industry, but that assumption is tested in Chapter 5 and reveals a more complex relationship between that industry and the wedges. The waste of glass blowing includes deformed vessels, molds, and glass chunks. Metal smelting comprises mainly slag but also raw metals. All of these crafts might also create burnt clay bricks as a byproduct but they were excluded here unless remains of the industrial process were attached.

Construction techniques and installation designs A small number of foor plans have been published from sites in the research area. Most of the architecture, however, has never been fully revealed owing to the nature of the excavation or to the poor state of remains. Even so, it is possible to study construction methods and materials from the architectural remains. Categories which were observed and proved to be relevant are the construction methods used for walls, pavement materials, and plastering and mortaring techniques. They will be introduced shortly. Categories which

The Big Data 97 yielded no patterns, or were insuffcient, are the width of walls, materials and techniques for wall foundations, and those pertaining to foor infrastructures. Walls in the research area are sometimes of mud but mostly built of stone. The stone walls can be divided into four styles, all of them with the common width of about 0.7 m: single-wythe wall of big ashlar stones (‘Ashlar’), double-wythe wall of medium-sized stones with a fll of small stones (‘two lines’), single-wythe wall of medium to big-sized stones supplemented by small stones (‘big-small’), or single-wythe wall made of small or various-sized feldstones (‘feldstone’). No geographical correlation was found to this typology in the research area. The ‘two lines’ walls are known from the Negev and the Arava where they are dated to the 9th century, and from southwestern Saudi Arabia where they are dated as pre-Islamic.62 The literature, however, lacks relevant observations from other regions to allow comparisons. Pavement materials and techniques are diverse. The most common methods found are plaster, chalk with gravel, or raw white mosaic. Pavement can also be of mosaic with a polychrome pattern or inscription, clay bricks, or fagstones. Whereas most techniques provide no correlation, polychrome mosaics and fagstone pavements can be assigned to specifc periods, the former up to the 7th century and the latter to the 9th to mid-10th century. Moreover, the fagstones represent certain activities which point to an industrial area and/or a market. Another construction element is the mortar. Mortar is only infrequently noted in reports, under various terms, and is seldom accompanied by pictures. With the caveat of data limitations, four main techniques could be observed: clay alone, a combination of materials such as sand, ash, sherd grits, shell grits, coal grits, or burnt olive stones, debesh, which is a mix of mortar and small to medium-sized stones, and no mortar at all (‘dry’). Debesh is used in the research area as a binding material, as plaster for walls, or as the sole construction material. In this study, the term is given to any mixture of small feldstones and mortar, also when not titled as such in the original report. The debesh was found to be an index fossil of the late 9th to the mid-11th century. The last element is plaster. Porath has established a chronological typology to recognize undated aqueducts of Late Antiquity (and Early Islam) by the number of plaster layers and their initial color. Plaster in Antiquity was made of slaked lime (burned chalk, treated with water following its reduction), water, and aggregates. Additional materials could be added to the mix for specifc needs. Variations depended on locally available resources, such as sand and shells in the coastal regions, while organic materials and minerals were added to improve the plaster durability.63 In the research area, the limited information on plasters, such as their color or additional materials, does not allow the use of Porath’s typology. However, two techniques are clear and ft into specifc time frames: a layer of sherds between two layers of plaster in the late 9th to mid-10th century, or sherds attached to the top plaster, sometimes in a vertical (‘standing’) position, in the early 9th to the mid-10th century.

98

The Big Data

More fruitful than construction methods is an investigation into the installations of the research area which enables a clear typology. These include installations related to fre, complexes of open containers, installations related to water and/or storage, bathhouses, and designated refuse pits. For a systematic analysis, all were initially divided into small individual elements (‘fragmented installations’). These elements were sorted according to form, size, material, and constructing methods. The second stage of analysis, the results of which are presented in the following section, is a reconstruction of the ‘fragmented elements’ into ‘complex installations’ via physical relations or spatial relations on the node level. The importance of this method lies in identifying less expected relations. Refuse differs from other features since it is defned more by its content than its container. In the study area, refuse is refected by the existence of animal bones, portable artefacts, construction blocks or marble items, and craft wastes. The three types of refuse contexts defned are: dug refuse pits, refuse heaps, and refuse in various containers. Despite my classifcation as refuse, this does not necessarily indicate primary disposal and not even disposal at all but can also mean organized spaces for secondary-use material, for example. In Ramla, dug pits and heaps appear both on the fringes and in the center of the activity areas. The dug pits also correlate with specifc fre installations and suggest the ‘industrial’ manufacture of an organic product. Fire installations (FI) In the archaeological literature, scholars use several terms for fre installations. The term ‘kiln’ addresses the context of pottery or glass productions and does not necessarily relate to a form or size. The term ‘furnace’ is seldom used for any production. Remains of round and clay-lined freplace are usually called ṭabūn, regardless of their size. Finally, traces of fre with no built installation are defned as ‘hearth’ (in modern Hebrew, môqēd). In addition, the term ‘pottery workshop’ is given to contexts which are interpreted as being related to pottery production in general, not necessarily with a fre installation on site. The physical remains in broader terms chiefy comprise built installations, jars or bowls with fre remains (such as ash and charcoal), carbonized bricks, and broken and disposed of clay-lined installations. Regarding spatial patterns, fre remains can be found in the whole research area, but built installations are surprisingly absent from YavneYam despite excavations on site. The built installations could initially be divided into four types based on their construction methods and size. The ‘big-built fre installation’ (BB FI) is often termed a ‘kiln’ (Figure 4.5). It is sometimes dated to the 1st–3rd centuries AD (the Roman period) but not necessarily on frm grounds. It was lowered into the ground, frequently built of mud bricks, 2–3 m in internal diameter, and with a round or an oval foor plan. Moreover, it may include an internal pillar which likely carried a second foor (nodes 108, 140, 291,

The Big Data 99

Figure 4.5 Big-built fre installation from Na’an (photographer: Gil Tsion, the University of Haifa)

351). Two installations of a similar type were unearthed in Aqaba, 250 m north of the fortifed site.64 In the research area, this type can be found surrounded by pottery waste, including ash and deformed vessels (nodes 132, 265) or only adjacent to such waste contexts (nodes 108, 134, 140). On the node level, nine out of fourteen nodes have refuse. ‘Medium-lined fre installations’ (ML FI, Figure 4.6) are round, 1–1.5 m in internal diameter, partly lowered, and built from or lined with mud. It is called either ‘kiln’ or ṭabūn in the literature. In the Rehovot area, this type has an additional air-tube on the side, constructed of two to three long jars. For Tel Yavne, scholars argue it to be a glass kiln.65 In Nishapur, similar installations have been unearthed in many of the rooms, with a broken jar at the bottom of each installation, connected to a channel of several other jars. The excavators interpreted that installation as a brazier that was used also as a grill or a heater.66 In the research area, ten/eleven of the twelve nodes with that type include structures (with a clear preference for feldstone in nine/ten nodes) and/or channels (in eight nodes). In addition, six nodes yielded glass-production remains and four, pottery waste (Table 4.1). The ‘Small-lined fre installation’ (SL FI, Figure 4.7) is known in the literature as ṭabūn. Through analogies to modern communities and texts, the name mistakenly links that installation to domestic baking.67 Similar to the former type, it is rounded and lined with mud. However, it is generally situated on a foor rather than lowered into one, its internal diameter is of

100

The Big Data

Figure 4.6 Medium-lined fre installation from Tel Yavne (photographer: Amir Feldstein, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

0.4–0.8 m, and its remains vary between 0.3 and 1 m in height. Its contextual examination shows that it is almost always adjacent to walls (nodes 15, 141, 148, 162, 176, 284, 300) sometimes in a corner (nodes 46, 213). On the node level, the SL installations can be grouped into two sub-types according to their different contexts (Tables 4.2 and 4.3). Small-lined fre installation type 1 is related to structures (with some preference for the ‘bigsmall’ construction method), channels, and portable fnds of animal bones and copper-alloy artefacts. It is rarely related to industrial waste or to other refuse. Interestingly, it appears on most sites but usually only in one node (except for Ramla/Mazliah). Small-lined fre installation type 2 is distinctly the opposite. On the one hand, it comprises almost no channels, no animal bones or special portable artefacts. On the other hand, in half of the nodes, the installation is found in a complex of several adjacent fre installations of the same type. In six of the nodes there exists a designated refuse pit (which is uncommon), and in three of the nodes, the remains of glass production. Another type of built fre installation is a freplace made of mud bricks, connected to a small-square container and to a wall. On the node level, it includes channels and several portable objects: marble columns, basalt

The Big Data 101 Table 4.1 Correlations on the node level of medium-lined fre installations Site

Node Details

Correlations

Certain Vent Waste type

Structures

Fieldstone

Channels

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Ramla Mazliah

17 134

Azor Azor

166 178

Yad Eliʿezer

216

Tel Yavne

274

Weizmann Institute Khirbat Dayrān Khirbat Dayrān Horvat Hermas Kefar Gabirol Ganne Tal

276

Yes

283

Tel Ashdod Total 12

Yes (Also SL) Yes

284

Yes

291

(Also BB) Yes

292 300 351

Pottery, glass

(Also SL)

Yes

Glass (slag) Glass (slag) Glass (slag) Pottery

Yes

Yes (Installation)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

(Installation)

Yes

Yes

Pottery, glass Yes

Glass

Yes

Yes

Yes

5

Pottery 8

Yes 11

Yes 10

Yes 8

artefacts, and coins. Such an installation can be found in Mazliah (node 136) and Ashdod-Yam, while Yavne-Yam (node 239) shares similar characteristics of the node. Open container complexes The term ‘container’ denotes here any installation which may contain liquids. These containers, usually titled ‘pools’, ‘vats’ or ‘pits’ in relevant publications, are of various sizes, with a square or round form, and paved with white mosaic or plaster. Complexes of open containers include several types in which the fragmented elements are physically linked. In other cases, elements relate only to the node level. The frst fve types of complexes are often interpreted as winepresses. All are characterized by a horizontal mosaic surface and a round or a deep round or octagonal container (Figure 4.8). The fve types are absent from Yavne-Yam and Ashdod. In Ramla, only one type is found (type 5), in Mazliah. Open container complex type 1 (OCC1) includes one round container paved with mosaic, with a hollow and one stair. It also consists of several

102

The Big Data

Figure 4.7 Small-lined Fire installation and two jars from Bet Dagan (photographer: Amir Gorzalczany, courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority)

more containers in different shapes, all lowered into the main mosaic surface. It has been recovered in Ramat Gan, Rishon Leziyyon, and Ganne Tal. Open container complex type 2 (OCC2) consists of two round containers, each paved with a white mosaic with a hollow and possibly comprises one stair. It also includes one or two smaller containers between the main round ones, a holed stone in the middle of the mosaic surface, and an underground drain from the stone to the small containers. It was found in Lod (node 154) and on an adjacent site, Ben Gurion Airport. Open container complex type 3 (OCC3) is similar, but with only one round container. It was found on the sites of Bet Dagan, Rishon Leziyyon (with two such installations), and Tell Qasile. Three of the four examples have an additional segment, maybe a later one, but never of the same shape or type. The type without additions could also be detected in the Sharon, in Kafr Ya’abez.68 Open container complex type 4 (OCC4) resembles the former types in the use of a holed stone with an underground channel to another container. However, it is a large installation, with a symmetric shape of the mosaic surface and the holed stone in the center, surrounded by several other mosaic surfaces (or ‘cells’) and two rectangular, round or octagonal containers

The Big Data 103 Table 4.2 Small-lined FI type 1 and the characteristics of its nodes Site

Node Certain

Ramla Ramla Ramla Na’an south Kafr Jinnis

15 26 46 109 123

Yes

Mazliah Bet Dagan Azor Ramat Gan Tell Qasile

141 162 166 184 208

H. Zerifn Jaffa Yad Binyamin AshdodYam Total 14

213 257 302

Yes Yes Yes Yes (Not in situ) Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Waste

Refuse Walls BS Channels Bones Copper Yes Yes Yes

Pottery Dug pit Yes

Yes

319 2

3

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes metal slags

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

8

5

5

9

5

Abbreviations: BS = ‘Big-small’ walls

Table 4.3 Small-lined FI type 2 and the characteristics of its nodes Site

Node Certain

Waste

Refuse Walls BS Channels Bones Copper

Ramla Na’an south Lod

12 108

Yes (3) Yes (4)

Glass

Yes

Yes

144

Yes

Yes

Lod

148

Yes

Bet 163 Dagan Azor 167

Yes

Azor

176

Yes (2)

Azor

178

Ganne Tal Total 9

300

Yes (4), Glass also ML slag Yes (4), Glass also ML 5 multiple 3

Dug pit Dug pit Dug pit? Dug pit Dug pit Dug pit? 6

7

Yes

Abbreviations: BS = ‘Big-small’ walls

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes 1

2

0

0

104 The Big Data

Figure 4.8 Open container complexes (drawing: Hagit Nol and Ron Haran)

Figure 4.9 Open container complex type 4 from Ganne Tal (courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority)

on one side (Figure 4.9). A study of the architecture of this type in Israel presents three clusters: around the ‘Negev Towns’, around Rehovot and Ascalon, and around Haifa.69 In the research area, it can be found in Khirbat Dayrān and Ganne Tal, with some simpler versions on Tell Qasile. Scholars debate over the function of each element in the installation.70 Some claim that the external surfaces/cells were treading vats and that the central mosaic surface was used for pressing. Others argue that the external cells were used for keeping the grapes in the sun before treading, and that the central mosaic was intended for both treading and pressing. Still, most agree that the holed stone in the middle of the central surface held the beam of the press screw, that the big containers were collecting vats (likely also for an early fermentation), and that the container between them was a settling pit. Contrary to this interpretation, Urmann suggests that the holed stone was a hand press.71

The Big Data 105

Figure 4.10 Open container complex type 5 from Na’an (photographer: Hagit Torgë, courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority)

Open container complex type 5 (OCC5, Figure 4.10) is distinctively different from the former types. It is composed of a series of parallel rectangular mosaic-paved containers of circa 3 × 2 m which drained into other containers. It can be found in Jaffa (node 263), Na’an south, and Mazliah (138). The patched segments in Bet Dagan resemble that type (Figure 4.8:3). In Jaffa, the installation was interpreted as a juice press,72 but the other two were called winepresses. One difference between the open container complex types can be observed in their drainage technique. Types 2 and 3 include drains made of clay pipes, whereas types 1, 4, and 5 have hewn perforation for drainage. In parallel, types 3, 4, and 5 comprise also hewn channels. This difference seems to relate to chronology and will be discussed. Very different installations comprise the last type, Open container complex type 6 (OCC6, Figure 4.11). This is a cluster of two to fve rectangular containers of various heights, two of which are sometimes connected by a clay pipe. This installation is commonly interpreted as a dyeing or tanning facility,73 perhaps due to its resemblance to modern tanning installations in Morocco. However, in the next chapter, I will show how it correlates perfectly with open container complex type 5 and perhaps relates to the production of syrup (dibs).

106 The Big Data

Figure 4.11 Open container complex type 6 from Mazliah (photographer: Amir Gorzalczany, courtesy of Israel Antiquities Authority)

Water and storage installations The most abundant installation group is related to water and/or storage, according to a general interpretation. It includes built wells, open and covered channels, sunken jars, and other types which I group under the name ‘subterranean installations’. The frst type in this category, the wells, are a well-known and an essential feature in human history, yet very little primary research seems to exist on their construction techniques or typology. The frst known wells derive from Neolithic contexts in Israel, Cyprus, and Crete. The basic construction technique has been applied all over the world and is being used up to the present day.74 A round or square shaft is dug into the soil to various depths up until it fetches groundwater. The dug sides are usually lined with stone, bricks, terracotta, or wood. Wilson suggests that wide shafts, usually of rectangular shape, represent a water-lifting device such as water wheel. These were perhaps used for a public bathhouse.75 However, examples of water wheels in Israel, from the Roman to the Mamluk periods, are all outside central settlements and seem to be connected mainly to irrigation systems.76 The research area features many wells, sometimes in Byzantine or Roman contexts. While in Ramla only one has been identifed, three wells have been revealed in Yavne-Yam, two inside the fortifed structure of Ashdod-Yam

The Big Data 107 and another two near Tel Ashdod. Nine additional wells have been reported so far from excavations or surveys, not always having a certain date (e.g. Bet Dagan, Ramat Hahayal, Tell Qasile, Nes Ziyyona). Only seldom were the wells described in detail, or excavated. The limited information there shows mainly non-distinct similarities, including construction with ashlar stones, 1.1–1.5 m in external diameter, an adjacent system of square ‘pools’ and channels. In addition, there seem to be many variables, such as the use of mortar or plaster and water-lifting devices. Even so, the wells in Ashdod-Yam (L515) and Yavne-Yam (node 238) were both paved at the bottom with fat beachrock stones, maybe to avoid erosion.77 The sketchy examples of channels show a high diversity in material and building techniques, in internal and external width, and in height. Still, three principal types can be defned. The frst type is a ‘Byzantine’ shallow carved and plastered channel, which sometimes includes a series of nozzles. Channels of this type have been documented at Horvat Hermas, Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya, and Yashresh. Somewhat similar channels were revealed in Caesarea, with a different form of nozzle, and were dated to the frst phase of the Early Islamic period.78 The second type comprises channels built of stones in various techniques, some covered with fagstones or other large stones. In one version of this type, as found in the so-called aqueduct near Ramla, it includes round shafts or manholes. Underground channels which were dug underneath structures and covered by stones are grouped under this type as well. The third type of channel is narrow, shallow, and short and can be found inside installations. In several instances, a clay pipe runs inside a channel. Otherwise, clay pipes have been found exposed, integrated into walls, or set into mortar or debesh. Different kinds of jars have been unearthed in situ, buried in the ground with their ends approaching the foor. These include massive jars (pithoi or dolia) which measure 1–1.2 m in height, as in Yavne Yam,79 and jars with a broken rim or base. Both these types are limited in the research area and thus are excluded from the analysis. Another type comprises intact jars which measure a maximum of 0.70 m in height and 0.60 m in diameter. In two excavations, the content of such jars was revealed: one held olive stones, the other game pieces.80 The function of similar installations has been suggested to be storage of dry or liquid goods.81 Sunken jars have also been found in the excavations of Nishapur, Iran. The excavator in Iran claimed it to be a common installation in contemporary houses of the region in the 1940s.82 In Ramla, I suggest a correlation between sunken jars and dwelling areas, in the following. The group I call ‘subterranean installations’ can be divided into fve types based on their shape, construction method, and size. Admittedly though, there are also many resemblances between all types and this group seems to derive from one ‘world’ (Figure 4.12). The frst type is well established in the literature as a ‘bell-shaped pit’. It is a dug feature of cylindrical form with a domed ceiling, lined with feldstones

108 The Big Data

Figure 4.12 Subterranean installations (drawing: Hagit Nol and Ron Haran) 1) bell-shaped pit. 2) dome-shaped pit. 3) barrel-shaped vault. 4) subterranean installation type 5

or small carved stones, and plastered. In many cases, it comprises also a square shaft and a square opening of about 0.5 × 0.5 m, sometimes built of ashlar stones. Some of these openings are blocked by a big stone. Pipes are connected to this type at least in seven out of the sixteen nodes. The second type of subterranean installation is similarly well introduced as a ‘dome-shaped pit’. It is built of stones or debesh and its upper part protruded above ground. In many cases, its ceiling has been demolished but where survives, the opening is also square, built of ashlar stones. On the node level, it seems to correlate with glass waste (in fve out of twelve nodes) or metal artefacts (in six nodes). In some publications, it is not always clear which of the two types was found. Both are present only in Ramla and its surroundings and in Ashdod. The analysis of activity areas in Ramla will show distinct distributions of the two. The third subterranean installation can be called a ‘barrel-shaped vault’ (BSV, Figure 4.13). It has a rectangular ground plan and a barrel-shaped debesh ceiling and can come in various sizes Two main variations have been observed regarding foor construction: one with plaster, the other without. Three detailed examples (nodes 55, 137, 142) present widths of 1.5–1.7 m, varied lengths of 3 to 6.4 m, and a height of around 2 m. Variations within the sample include channels connected to one wall in one of the specimens (node 142).83 Avni argues that similar installations in Caesarea and Acre from the late 10th century, paved with mosaic or stone slabs, were utilized for the storage of dry goods.84 Alternatively, the un-plastered variation could have been also a cesspit.85 The Pool of the Arches in Ramla and its parallels comprise another type of subterranean installations, the water reservoirs. The frst structure (more than 400 m2) was dug into the ground and lined with small stones. It includes sixteen cruciform pilasters and ffteen square pillars, connected by pointed arches, and its roof originally had six barrel vaults.86 The three structures under the White Mosque in Ramla are 9 m deep and include pilasters of the same form as in the Pool of the Arches, connected by pointed arches.87 Rosen-Ayalon convincingly demonstrates the similarities between these structures and the Pool of the Arches and explains them as contemporaneous construction.88 An oral tradition in Lod suggested a similar subterranean cistern to exist beneath the Saint George’s church complex.

The Big Data 109

Figure 4.13 Internal view of a barrel-shaped vault installation from Ramla (photographer: Ron Toueg, the University of Haifa)

A survey which was conducted nearby in the 1960s indeed revealed another subterranean parallel,89 but for reasons of safety, access to the structure was prohibited and no further details are available. Subterranean installation type 5 (SI5) is a round open shaft of 1 m in depth and 1 m in internal diameter, lined by medium-sized feldstones. Excavated examples from Ramla have the shape of a cone90 or a cylinder.91 Save for one excavation, in which the installation has been interpreted as a silo,92 it is usually understood to be a cesspit. In three nodes (6, 10, 107), the installation cut into one earlier plaster foor and was later covered by another. In several cases (in nodes 45, 64, and 135), this type is adjacent to other un-plastered installations. In other instances (nodes 5, 6, 55), the excavators argue it to have been located in a courtyard. It can be found only in Ramla, but there it is well spread throughout the sites. The following analysis will date it and put it into relation with an absence of sunken jars on its nodes. Bathhouses A bathhouse is a complex installation which combines the use of water, fre, and open containers. Scholarly interest in Middle Eastern bathhouses is

110

The Big Data

often being directed to the Hellenistic-Roman and the Mamluk-Ottoman periods for which textual sources and architectural remains are relatively abundant. Much less attention is given to baths of the Byzantine-Umayyad period and even less to those of the 9th–12th centuries.93 It can be suggested that the ‘lack of evidence’ for Early Islamic bathhouses results, initially, from their long continuity. Excavations in Jarash, Hammat Gader, and alBāra present installations which seem to span periods of 400–500 years.94 Another possible reason for the lack of evidence is the physical changes baths went through and the absence of indicative features following these changes. The big Roman bathhouse was ideally composed of several elements: a reception hall, a room with cold water ( frigidarium), a room with warm and another with hot water (tepidarium and caldarium), a dry room with dry heat (laconicum), latrines, and a service area which included the furnace.95 The hot and warm baths were heated by the circulation of hot air through tubes in the walls and under an elevated foor which was set over a series of brick columns (hypocaust). The furnace was connected to the hypocaust and placed under a water tank (i.e. a boiler).96 The two main gradual transformations in bathhouses between the Roman and the Ottoman periods regarded heating technology and internal design. The heating system changed from hot air to steam after the end of the 4th century.97 By the Ottoman period, the architects of baths had given up the hypocaust altogether. Based on the ‘early’ bath of al-Andarin,98 for instance, it can be presumed that the furnace warmed the tubs directly. However, examples in present Israel and Syria suggest the use of hypocausts at least until the 9th century,99 or even until the 12th century.100 In the big bathhouses, during the 7th–8th centuries, the hot rooms became smaller, and the cold room was enlarged, whereas in the smaller Roman baths, the hot rooms became smaller, and individual sitting tubs replaced the collective pool (piscina) already in the 4th century.101 In the Crusader period in Palestine, the laconicum had benches and water basins of stone and adjacent private niches.102 The tepidarium was included until the 18th century at least, but the sitting tubs were often replaced by “hand basins and outlets for water”.103 Two principal systems in the bathhouse are water supply and drainage. Whereas bathhouses are theoretically associated with water lifting devices, excavations have revealed other supply methods. In the early bathhouse of al-Andarin, water was supplied to the pools by a well together with a cistern flled with clay pipes from the roof. The abundance of sāqiya sherds and some architectural remains led the excavator to interpret the well as a water-wheel device “powered by a circulating animal”,104 but that interpretation seems rather premature. In Marea, water reached the pools by clay pipes from a central cistern, using the principle of ‘communicating vessels’. Also here, some lifting technology was proposed,105 without supporting evidence. In Hammat Gader, two systems worked in parallel, for hot and cold waters. The frst system led water from the hot spring to an adjacent pool

The Big Data 111 and from there through a subterranean channel to the bathhouse pools. The second system brought cold water from a spring at 1.5 km distance, frst by a pipe and later in time by an aqueduct. Each pool received water from fountains.106 The reuse of water in bathhouses is not always taken into account in the archaeological interpretation. Usually, drainage systems led greywater directly to the sewer, as in Marea, Jarash, and Qaṣr al-Ḥayr al-Sharqī,107 or ran through the latrines frst, just as in Roman baths,108 including al-Andarin and the Mamluk Hammam al-Manjak in Busra.109 Perhaps differently, the water from Hammat Gader’s pools was drained back into the Yarmuk River, while in Baqʿa al-Gharbiya the destination of the drain is unknown.110 The last common characteristic of Byzantine-Umayyad bathhouses in Egypt, Israel/Palestine, and Syria is their marble pavement.111 Other baths are paved with fags made of basalt or limestone or with polychrome mosaics, such as in Khirbat al-Mafjar.112 The excavation in Qinnasrīn suggests changes in trends during the 7th–9th centuries, starting with a polychrome mosaic, changing to limestone fags, and concluding with a marble pavement.113 A different example is Hammat Gader, where various pavements were used in both phases (the earlier phase starting in or after the 6th century, the later one in or after the 9th century based on the presence of debesh). In particular, in the second phase, pavements were made of marble, basalt, or stone, often in secondary use.114 Similar to the former example, however, there was no evidence for mosaics in the second phase. Two out of ten bathhouses in the research area have been described in some detail. In Ganor Complex in Jaffa (node 244), the bath was dated Byzantine. It was built of ashlar stones, with one hot room heated by steam from a furnace and several cold rooms. The water was provided from an adjacent well (surrounded by numerous sāqiya sherds) and then was drained by channels.115 The bath in Ashdod-Yam was composed of a furnace and one or two bathtubs. It received water from a plastered well,116 through four clay pipes.117 The absence of a hypocaust from both excavations dates them to later than the 9th century. Since the hypocaust is the simplest element to detect in bathhouses, its absence demonstrates the identifcation challenges. The other eight reported bathhouses include Mazliah (node 136), Lod (159), Azor (hypocaust, 177), Tell Qasile (208), Yavne-Yam (caldarium, 240, 239?), Yad Binyamin (303), Gan Yavne (hypocaust, 343), and Nir Galim (357).

Chronology This study supports the dating of sites from the Early Islamic period through construction techniques and installation designs. The main advantage of using architecture for dating purposes is its immobility while its apparent disadvantage is the long usage, both primary and secondary. However, short-term changes (of 1200 660 >220 450–580 150–600 250

a According to Munitz (2013: 64, Table 15), the annual rainfall was 350–550 mm in the threeyear experiment and the various additions were 100–260 mm. In Netzer et al. (2009), the minimum treatments for wine vines (20–40%) were 392 mm in addition to 385 mm average rainfall. Local grape-vine farmers are reported to irrigate with 500 mm. b Ziplevitch et al. (2018). The experiment was conducted in an arid region for Medjool dates with a 100% and a 75% treatments. Compare Sperling et al. (2014), where irrigation reached 2,000 mm. c Holland, Hatib and Bar Ya’akov (2009: 151); Schwartz et al. (2009); Ayars et al. (2017). Despite the considerately high quantities of water, scholars agree that pomegranate is resistant to drought and can yield also in arid zones. d Sánchez-Blanco et al. (1989). The annual rainfall was 317–330 mm in the two-year experiment and the minimal annual addition was 340 mm. Some of the trees were irrigated by fooding. e Abd-El-Rhman et al. (2017); Tapia et al. (2003). In the Israeli Arava, experiments show that the best yield comes from irrigation twice a day with no fertilizer (Chaim Oron, agriculture consultant, pers. comm., July 2018). f Lavee et al. (2007) and Lodolini et al. (2016) compared the yield of irrigated and non-irrigated trees in Israel and Palestine with average rainfall of 450 and 487 mm respectively. Ben-Gal et al. (2011) irrigated trees in Israel with at least 200 mm (a 30% treatment) for a region of minimum 379 mm rainfall. g The lower measure is based on dry farmed trees in Egypt in el-Sharakawi and el-Monayeri (1976). Naor et al. (2014) report on the former recommendation of agricultural guides in Israel to irrigate with 250 mm. They advise an irrigation of 600 mm (i.e. in addition to average rainfall of 350–500 mm in the area of their experiment, according to Israel Meteorological Service data, https://ims.data.gov.il). h Naftaliyahu et al. (2008, in particular Tables 8 and 9).

Agricultural experiments show that even dry-farmed crops will greatly beneft from irrigation. Wheat, as the following example demonstrates, can almost double its yield when irrigated in the dry months. According to one study in Israel, 400 mm annual rainfall makes possible harvests of 400–500 kg/dunam of wheat (equal to 4,000–5,000 kg/ha). Fields which received a lower quantity of rainfall and were compensated with irrigation during the dry months until reaching the same water quantity (or less) in total yielded 550–760 kg/dunam, that is, at least 137% of the former value. On the other hand, felds which were watered with less than 230 mm annually yielded less than 100 kg/dunam, 20–25%.2 According to Goitein, medieval families consumed one ardab of grain per month, equal to 70 kg.3 Taking that calculation at face value means that one dunam of land in a good year (i.e. with more than 400 mm rainfall) without irrigation, in one harvest, could feed

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 187 about six families. With some irrigation, the same feld could feed eleven families. Less than 230 mm in a bad year meant feeding one and a half families only. Similar results are obtained for olives, vine, and almonds, where additional watering of 30% at least resulted in double or triple yield.4 In short, irrigation would have provided security in that area. Looking at the relation between water sources and specifc installations highlights another angle for this inquiry. The distribution map of wine and juice presses (Figure 6.3) shows grape presses along Nahal Ayalon, on the coast, and in Ganne Tal. Vine requires a minimum of 450 mm water annually, which means additional irrigation in some years. The presence of grape presses mainly adjacent to natural water sources supports the notion of their being irrigated. Thus, the grape presses in Rishon Leziyyon and Khirbat Dayrān imply irrigation, though the source of water is yet to be established. Figure 6.4 relates querns to natural and artifcial water sources. Also in this case, most querns were found in the Rehovot cluster, where the water source awaits identifcation. This result shall be discussed in the following. Several explanations can be offered for the absence of water installations in the Rehovot cluster. One is that channels and sāqiya jars which were found on some sites represent the transportation of water over long distances. Another suggestion is that these sites had architectural solutions which cannot be detected in the archaeological remains such as rainwater containers on roofs or natural reservoirs.

Figure 6.3 The distribution of wine and juice presses along watercourses

188

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.4 Querns in relation to natural water sources and wells

A third possibility is a hypothetical expanse of marshes around Rehovot and/or a frequency of foods in that region. However, waterlogged soils are not suitable for most crops. Excess water leads to a delay in growth and reproduction which can then result in high plant mortality. The effects of excess water worsen where water is brackish, i.e. with a chloride concentration level between 600 and 4,000 ppm (parts per million). When the water component evaporates, the salinity level of the soil will rise. The main effect of salt is to prevent roots from absorbing essential nutrition. Despite these harsh conditions, some plants endure foods and others even rely on it.5 Even in these cases, however, different species of the same crops can react differently to similar conditions and similar species might react differently in various soils and climates.6 In order to test the marsh hypothesis, the possible crops of the region need to be examined for their tolerance of such conditions – excess water and high soil salinity. Table 6.2 introduces three of the crops which tolerate excess water: wheat, pomegranate, and citron. Wheat and pomegranate can additionally endure saline soils, whereas the cultivation of citron necessitates leaching. Date palms do not tolerate excess water. However, since they endure high soil salinity and consume between 900 and 2,000 mm of water to begin with, the situation of waterlogging might never occur. This means that these four crops could have grown around Rehovot even if the area was fooded or had high groundwater and the water was brackish. Similar to

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 189 Table 6.2 Crops and their tolerance of high salinity and excess water Crop

Salinity tolerancea

Excess water toleranceb

Vine Date Pomegranate Citron Fig Olive Almond Wheat

No Yes Yes No Moderately Moderately No Yes

Noc No Yes Yes No Nod No Yese

a Grattan (2002: 4); Levy and Syversten (2004: 38). b Kozlowski (1984: 136–137). c I thank Yishai Netzer for discussing excess water and vine diseases with me. d See also Ben-Gal et al. (2011). e Mittra and Stickler (1961).

dates, vine does not tolerate excess water. Different than date palms, however, it does not endure salinity and does not require as much water. Therefore, the juice presses around Rehovot might represent the borders of the fooded area if the hypothesis proves valid. To conclude, most sites in the research area settled near water streams. Besides the expected convenience of being adjacent to running water, the streams enabled irrigation of felds and orchards. While most of the crops we expect to have been cultivated in the region need no watering other than rainfall, irrigation during dry seasons not only secured a harvest but also ensured it be increased signifcantly even during normal rainfall. Surprisingly enough, one area, between Ramla to Rehovot, is located far away from any water stream. In that area, there is no indication of wells and cisterns on most sites. In modern times, this area suffers from particularly low rainfall which allows the horticulture of only a few crops. Nonetheless, agriculture must have taken place there according to the archaeological evidence. Wheat and vine must have grown in the vicinity; the latter requires more water than often available. One of the possible scenarios to explain this shortage is having marshes and foods in parts of the area. Some of the expected crops indeed endure excess water and high salinity soil which marshes and foods can cause. This scenario will be explored again later in the chapter.

Typology of sites In archaeological literature, sites are often interpreted and characterized as ‘cities’, ‘farms’, or ‘camps for workers’. The interpretation is based on specifc elements on a site that are associated with the label it receives. For example, fortifcations might inspire the label ‘fort’ or ‘town’. This section, like others of this study, offers another approach by postulating that: (a)  sites

190 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence can be understood only in a regional context, i.e. by comparison to other sites; (b) scholars cannot predict which elements would be relevant to differentiate between sites, and, eventually, to defne them. Therefore, I frst present characteristics which seem signifcant, then the classifcation of sites in accordance with them, additional correlations which were found to the types, and fnally, their interpretation. This interpretation will be compared to classifcation according to contemporary texts in the next chapter. Only then do these sites receive the labels ‘cities’, ‘towns’, or ‘villages’. Following the results of this process, ‘sites’ were identifed as any independent node or a cluster of sequencing nodes that (a) include architecture and (b) are distinct from other such clusters, often at a distance of several kilometres. These sites may well refect settlements. Nodes without architecture contained burials or portable artefacts and may support the notion of boundaries of sites when refecting cemeteries and dumps outside settlements. A couple of modern municipalities, Ramla and Ashdod, consist of a few sites. Most other sites, however, seem to correlate spatially with their modern entity. In Ramla, mapping some of the architectural elements resulted in a few possible clusters: the center, Mazliah, the stadium, Ofer Park, Vilna, Ma’asiyahu Prison, Ofeq, Yashresh, and Haqal (Figure 6.5). The distance between the boundaries of these clusters measures about 400 m but the division is not hermetic. One of the maps, with all the excavations at Ramla, suggests that the gaps between the clusters are not methodological (i.e., related to areas which were not excavated). Mapping Ashdod similarly results in a number of sites, among them Ashdod-Yam and Tel Ashdod (Figure 6.6). Certain features, artefacts, and characteristics differentiate sites and assist in their classifcation. Elements which emerged as signifcant are water installations, fre installations, bathhouses, presses, channels, fagstone pavements, and copper coins. The typology is not perfect, frst because several small sites provided too little information to allow for their classifcation (e.g. Nesher Quarries). Second, it lacks a temporal distinction and relies on ‘essential’ and unhistorical characteristics of sites. This subject will be dealt with in the discussion. Early in the investigation, it became evident that bathhouses are extremely rare in the research area, and winepresses are equally uncommon. Another observation indicates that fagstone pavements and fre installations stand in contrast to wells, subterranean installations, and channels. Four types of sites have tentatively been classifed according to features they possessed or lacked. The maps (Figure 6.7) illustrate the percentage of these features on sites according to general categories (fre installations, grape presses, bathhouses, pits or wells, channels, and fagstone pavements. This typology proved sustainable after correlating it with the presence or absence of additional fnds (objects made of iron, rotary querns, and craft wastes). Site types were then mapped, and spatial patterns could be observed regarding their location, the distance between sites of the same group, the relation

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 191

Figure 6.5 Sites in modern Ramla, Mazliah, and Yashresh

192

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.5 (continued)

Figure 6.6 Sites in and around modern Ashdod

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 193

Figure 6.7 Sites in the research area and the concentration rate of their features

between types, and their relation to topography and natural water sources. These comparisons supported the typology once more. The frst group (site type 1, Table 6.3) comprises sites that answer all or almost all of the criteria. These include fre installations (BB, ML, or SL2), water installations such aswells, bell-shaped pits, or plastered BSV

BB, ML SL2 BB, ML, SL2 BB BB

SL2

Mazliah Lod Azor

Tell Qasile Jaffa

Bet Dagan

Wine Juice, wine? Juice, wine

Juice Wine

Fire Presses installations

Site

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Well

Well Well

BSV, bell BSV BSV

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Metal Metal

Pottery, glass, metal Pottery Glass

Bathhouses Water Channels Flagstone Coins Craft waste materials installations pavements

Table 6.3 The main characteristics of type 1 sites

194 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 195 (barrel-shaped vaults), bathhouses, grape presses, channels, fagstone pavements, and copper coins (for details on these objects and installations, see Chapter 4). The sites that answer all of these characteristics are Mazliah, Lod, and Tell Qasile. The group also includes Jaffa, Azor, and Bet Dagan, which lack a fagstone pavement, a press, or a bathhouse, respectively. The map shows that all six sites are located in the northern part of the region, with a 4–8 km distance between them (Figure 6.8). It also indicates that all sites are on the coast or adjacent to the Ayalon watercourse. We might assume a road between these sites. The next category (site type 2, Table 6.4) is for sites that comprise fre installations and/or fagstones as well as channels and/or water installations. It includes two sites in Ramla and ten sites elsewhere. Only one site in the group, Holot Yavne, lacks channels altogether. A map that sketches the spatial distribution of this type (Figure 6.9) demonstrates its spread from the centre of the research area toward the south. The map also indicates its spatial division from site type 3 One site, Yad Binyamin, with only a bathhouse and fagstone pavement, could perhaps ft this type but was excluded as the evidence was considered insuffcient. The six sites of type 3 contain fre installations and may have a fagstone pavement but show no channels or any other water installation (Table 6.5). The table indicates that these sites comprise no bathhouses or coins. Moreover, their fre installations are limited to one type each, either a BB or an ML. The spatial distribution of type 3 sites is limited to the central and

Figure 6.8 Spatial distribution of sites type 1 in relation to water streams

BB, ML

BB, SL2 SL2

Ramla, Centre

Ramla, Stadium Na’an south Kafr Jinnis Tel Yavne Khirbat Dayrān Horvat Hermas Ashdod-Yam Gan Yavne Holot Yavne Tel Ashdod Ganne Tal

ML ML, SL2

BB

BB, ML ML BB, ML

Fire installations

Site

Wine

Wine

Juice

Yes Yes

Well, BSV BSV Well Well, BSV

Well, BSV, bell Bell

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Pottery, metal Pottery, glass Glass

Pottery, glass, metal Pottery Pottery, glass Metal Pottery, glass Metal Pottery, glass

Presses Bathhouses Water Channels Flagstone Coins Craft waste installations pavement materials

Table 6.4 Characteristics of type 2 sites

196 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 197

Figure 6.9 Spatial distribution of sites types 2, 3, and 4

northern parts of the research area, whereas at Ramla, this type could not be identifed. Most sites belong to the last group, site type 4 (Table 6.6), with four sites inside Ramla and fourteen beyond. In contrast to the former group, these sites have no fre installations and no fagstone pavement, but they do possess channels and/or other water installations. The site of Ben-Gurion Airport is an exception, having a winepress and no water installations, but it was added to the group due to the absence of other characteristics and to the presence of coins. Unlike the three former types, this group is distributed all over the region. Most type 4 sites are at least 4 km from each other. Four sites out of the eighteen of type 4 (22%) and one out of the six in type 3 (17%) were surveyed, excavated only in soundings, or have remained unpublished. In other words, the characterization of these types might have been infuenced by an imbalance in research data. However, the relative number of excavated sites of these types, and in type 4 their total number, are suffcient to indicate their characteristics. Additional attributes correlate with the site types and imply their nature. A comparison between the craft wastes of each site type (Tables 6.3–6.6) points to very little waste but from varied crafts on type 1 sites, in contrast to intensive industry on type 2 sites. Type 3 sites contained pottery waste and metal but no glass waste. Only fve sites of type 4 included waste, but at these fve sites, it was from a variety of crafts. Rotary querns and iron remains could not be found on type 1 sites, with the exception of Mazliah, but have been found on sites of the other three types (Figure 6.10). A correlation

Fire installations

BB BB BB ML ML ML

Site

Or Yehuda Ramat Gan Hadar Yosef* Yad Eli’ezer Weizmann Institute Kefar Gabirol

Bathhouses

Table 6.5 The main characteristics of type 3 sites

Wine

Pottery, metal Pottery, metal? Pottery Pottery Yes

Coins Craft waste materials

Yes Yes

Presses Water Channels Flagstone installations pavements

198 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Yes

Wine

Wine

Well Well, BSV Well Bell, BSV? Bell/dome

Well

Well Well Well

BSV

BSV

Bell

Fire installations Bathhouses Presses Water installations

Site only surveyed or unpublished

a 

Ramla, Vilna Ramla, Ofer Park Ramla, Ma’asiyahu Ramla, Haqal Na’an north Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya Ben-Gurion Airport Ramat Hahayal Al-Khayriyya a Nes Ziyyona Khirbat al-ʿAṣfūra Khirbat Ḥabraa Rishon Leziyyon Yavne-Yam Hazor Ashdoda Sede Uzziyyahua Horvat Zerif n Ashdod (node 327)

Site

Table 6.6 The main characteristics of type 4 sites

Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Pottery, glass

Pottery

Glass, metal

Pottery, glass Pottery, glass, metal

Channels Flagstone Coins Craft waste materials pavements

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 199

200

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.10 Iron and rotary querns on site types 2, 3, and 4

has been detected between type 1 and 2 sites and artefacts made of bone and/or stamped handles of big jars (Figure 6.11). In summary, the characteristics of type 1 sites are very distinct and make their interpretation relatively simple. These six sites offered all the services available at the time (water, fre, bath, agriculture, market) and two of the more uncommon portable artefacts (jars with stamped handles and objects made of bone). These sites are located on a central route, between Ramla and the coast. It can be presumed that the type constitutes settlements which benefted from dynamic trade. The limited waste from crafts at the sites (except for Mazliah) could mean that most artefacts were exchanged but not produced in their domains. The clear absence of iron tools and rotary querns might refect the absence of large-scale agriculture in their economy. Sites of type 2 seem, at a superfcial glance, only slightly different from sites of type 1, comprising many of the same installations or services and even the same rare artefacts. However, their variation is signifcant, starting with the distribution of sites, which seems random, the abundance of fre installations along with craft waste and rotary querns, and the limited number of bathhouses and presses. Their function, like type 1 sites, must revolve around trade. A spatial support for this function is the absence of these sites from the domain of type 1 sites. Unlike type 1, however, this group is more related to what I interpret as industrial and agricultural production.

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 201

Figure 6.11 Bone artefacts and stamped jar handles on site types 1 and 2

Sites of types 3 and 4 constitute opposites. Type 4 shows very few installations besides channels, wells, and cisterns, which can mean that its main source of income was agriculture. In addition, these sites exclude fagstone pavements, which implies scarce trade. Nevertheless, a number of these sites included craft waste or a winepress, indicating some level of production. Some also yielded coins, evidence that refects a sort of exchange. Sites of type 3 all include fre installations, while on only some of them, a fagstone pavement and/or pottery waste was found. They comprise no water installations, bathhouses, or winepresses. The essence of these sites revolves around the production of pottery and perhaps other produce, as some sites had rotary querns or metal waste. The absence of channels suggests these to be the only sites not involved in agriculture. The data supplied by Itamar Taxel on glazed pottery from the 9th to 11th centuries in Israel/Palestine lend support to our site typology. In the research area, sites with two to fve of the more common types of glazed pottery include sites type 2 (Tel Yavne, Kafr Jinnis, and Khirbat Dayrān) and type 3 (Or Yehuda [Kafr ʿĀnā] and Yad Eli’ezer [Ṣarafand al-Kharāb]). In contrast, Yavne-Yam and sites of type 1 (Ramla, Jaffa, and Tell Qasile) yielded at least four additional types of glazed pottery. Moreover, only Ramla and Yavne-Yam show imported Chinese vessels.7 These results allow us to consider Yavne-Yam to be site type 1 despite absent elements – fre installations and fagstone pavements.

202

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Production and distribution The identifcation of production, distribution, or consumption contexts in archaeology is rarely explicit in the literature. In general, production is characterized by craft waste and deformed vessels, by production tools and specifc installations (to be interpreted), and by a relatively high number of vessels of the same ware or material.8 A production site can also be a quarry of specifc raw materials and/or objects. Distribution contexts are related to possible trade routes, to specifc forms of architecture which are interpreted as marketplaces, and to fnds with a variety of provenances.9 Contexts of consumption would theoretically have no production waste or deformed vessels but might include a larger variety of end artefacts.10 In reality, craft waste could have been moved or removed for recycling or for secondary use and thus does not necessarily represent the locus of primary production. Typological groupings – without additional petrographic studies – are not suffcient to demonstrate production contexts since vessels of similar styles were used across wide regions.11 In short, one should expect the contexts of production, distribution, and consumption to mix and overlap frequently. In this study, installations designed to produce pottery and glass, as well as wine or grape syrup, could be identifed in some cases (Chapters 4 and 5). Much of the production – certainly of most organic materials, but even of pottery, glass, and metals – is absent from the archaeological record. Thus, the economic context of actual fnds and the stage of their lifecycle at the time of their deposition must be yet identifed. In the following, I suggest a spatial model which may assist in this challenge. For that purpose, I analyze the distribution of ten end-products inside Ramla, their distribution across the research area, and their presence across the Islamicate world. The objects comprise ‘grenades’, zoomorphic vessels, stamped jar handles, copper-alloy lollipops and small spatulas, bone fgurines, and soapstone bowls and braziers, along with the more generally found marble vessels and iron objects. The next maps frst display various modes of the spatial distribution of fnds inside Ramla. The fagstone pavements which I interpreted as industrial areas (Chapter 4) appear as reference points in all the maps. The other two activity areas – those for refuse and those for dwelling – were excluded from most maps for aesthetic reasons but should be kept in mind. A repetition of spatial characteristics in relation to activity areas and to clustering is expressed as patterns. These patterns stand independently but also rely on the contrasts between them. Five patterns could be observed in the spatial distribution of the ten object types. The frst pattern comprises ‘grenades’ and soapstone bowls (Figure  6.12). Both are common in the northern industrial area. The second pattern similarly involves activity in an industrial area, but this time in Mazliah, including the soapstone braziers and the copper-alloy spatula (Figure  6.13). ‘Grenades’ were likely found in part of Mazliah’s industrial area. The third spatial pattern comprises the industrial area of central Ramla, this time with fnds distributed around it, such as the stamped jar

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 203

Figure 6.12 Spatial distribution of soapstone bowls and ‘grenades’ in Ramla

Figure 6.13 Spatial distribution of soapstone braziers and copper-alloy spatulas in Ramla

204 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.14 Spatial distribution of stamped jar handles and iron objects in Ramla

handles (Figure 6.14). Iron seems associated with the last two patterns, with presence both in Mazliah and around the northern industrial area. Iron and stamped handles were present also in refuse areas. The fourth and ffth patterns are rather different. Pattern number four is formed solely by zoomorphic vessels (Figure 6.15). First, these objects are spread across the entire modern municipality of Ramla. Second, though they can be found in the industrial areas, they are chiefy part of the repertoire of the dwelling areas (which are represented by bell-shaped pits), even in Mazliah. In contrast to the former four patterns, the last one is characterized by its scarcity, lack of clustering, and a relation mainly with the refuse areas (which are represented by rotary querns made of basalt). It is formed by copper-alloy lollipops, marble vessels, and bone fgurines (Figure 6.16). The regional patterns include possible trade routes and a correlation with site types. The important factors in the former are: clustering of similar fnds, imagined lines (i.e. hypothetic routes) between sites, and their possible relation to the coast or the Yarqon River. One pattern is the clustering of fnds in or closely around Ramla, such as the ‘grenades’ and the soapstone braziers. Another pattern is a clear route between Ramla and Tell Qasile as refected by the zoomorphic objects (Figure 6.17). A third pattern is the similarity of clustering around Ramla and Ashdod-Yam, which is represented by marble bowls and grinders (Figure 6.18). The same relation is implied by the spatulas and stamped handles. Another pattern suggests a connection

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 205

Figure 6.15 Spatial distribution of zoomorphic objects in Ramla

between Ramla and Jaffa, as expressed by the stamped handles, the bone fgurines, and the soapstone bowls (Figure 6.19). The information and patterns of each fnd type are summarized in Table 6.7. The data include the wider distribution of each fnd type in the Islamicate world (the term ‘common’ representing a distribution beyond Syria

206 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.16 Spatial distribution of lollipops, marble vessels, and bone fgurines in Ramla

and Egypt), whether its source is located outside the research area, the number of sites on which it was found in the research area, its hypothetical route from Ramla to a site on the coast, its presence or absence from sites type 1, and the spatial pattern it showed inside Ramla (marked by the pattern number).

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 207

Figure 6.17 Spatial distribution of zoomorphic objects in the research area

Figure 6.18 Spatial distribution of marble vessels in the research area

208

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.19 Spatial distribution of stamped jar handles, bone fgurines, and soapstone bowls in the research area

Table 6.7 Summary of artefacts patterns Object

Wider distribution

External source

Number of Route sites

Pattern number inside Ramla

Iron Lollipops Spatula Bone fgurines Soapstone bowls Soapstone braziers Marble vessels ‘Grenades’ Stamped jar handles Zoomorphic vessels

Common Common Common Caesarea?

Ten+ Five Six Three

Ashdod Jaffa

2, 3 5 2, 5 (1), 5

Syria-Egypt

Four

Jaffa

1

Syria-Egypt

One

Common

Caesarea?

Common

Two Near Seven Jerusalem Six

Syria

Ten+

2 Ashdod Ashdod, Jaffa Tell Qasile

5 1, 2 3 4

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 209 Despite the small sample, the table suggests a number of conclusions. First, there is a correlation between the distribution in Mazliah (pattern 2), artefacts which were widespread throughout the Islamicate world, and the lack of trade routes. This applies to iron, ‘grenades’, spatulas, and soapstone braziers. I suggest that Mazliah produced these objects for local use. Second, the Ramla-Ashdod route correlates with the same object type on six or more sites and with the distribution mode around central Ramla (pattern 3 or 5). The correlation applies to jars with stamped handles, to marble vessels, and to spatulas. This correlation might imply that central Ramla operated as a distribution center for these products. Ashdod-Yam could have been another distribution center, and certainly an export-import site through its harbor. This reading conforms to Ashdod-Yam’s fortifed structure, with one gate facing the sea and the other inland. Nevertheless, it contradicts the common interpretation of the site as a (military-related) fortress.12 A third correlation can be found between fnds from an external source, local distribution, a Ramla-Jaffa route, and the distribution inside or around central Ramla (patterns 1, 3, or 5). The reason for the pattern of the Ramla-Jaffa route is not necessarily a geographical one and may relate to the nature of most sites on that route as sites type 1. Whereas the provenances of the artefacts lay outside the research area, they are not distant: the jars with stamped handles probably originated in the adjacent region of Jerusalem (about 40 km distance), the fgurines perhaps in Caesarea (75 km), and the soapstone bowls were very common in the Negev and might have originated from a source not too far away (85 km to Beer-Sheva, 130 km to Sede Boqer). The presence of non-local products on sites type 1 and in central Ramla indicates the role of these places as distribution centers. The absence of similar fnds on other sites in the region implies that they were also consumed on sites type 1 and central Ramla or were distributed to other regions, not locally. The zoomorphic vessels were unique both in their regional pattern and in their pattern within Ramla. Their spatial distribution mainly inside the dwelling areas might point to household manufacture. This interpretation, together with their route to Tell Qasile which sits on the Yarqon River and adjacent to the coast, suggests that they were exported through that site. Tell Qasile could have acted as a trade port but based on the archaeological evidence exported only one type of artefact. Their destination is unknown. Alternatively, the distribution might represent consumption but the direction of the route from Ramla solely northwards makes this option less convincing. The special distribution of ‘grenades’ and soapstone artefacts – regionally and inside Ramla – implies the manufacture of a third product. This third product would thus necessitate the import of soapstone and the local production of ‘grenades’. Several scholars suggested associating ‘grenades’ with mercury and laboratory tests confrmed this possibility (Chapter 4).13

210

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Mercury was obtained by craftsmen in the past chiefy from cinnabar (HgS) after which it could be heated to 500° C to extract it by a process of sublimation.14 In particular, for our research period, a recipe by the alchemist al-Rāzi (d. 925) mentions heating for the preparation of mercury.15 A resistance to heat was noted by archaeologists as one of the distinct advantages of soapstone. In short, the third product manufactured with soapstone bowls and ‘grenades’ might have been mercury. This series of interpretations also requires a discussion on luxury goods. These are defned as products which go beyond immediate necessities, are exceptional in their composition or source and hence relatively expensive, and assist specifc individuals or groups to mark their social status.16 The identifcation of luxury goods in an assemblage of artefacts; however, it is not that simple. Many years ago, Cipolla made a distinction between luxury goods, which had travelled far, and basic products, which had not.17 Taxel stresses the importance of frequency in archaeology. Thus, for him, luxurious vessels are the ones that are imported and rare.18 In contrast, Laiou argues that the same goods can travel both short and long distances, and Hopkins explains most levels of ancient societies purchased expensive and imported goods (e.g. textiles), only not to the same amount.19 In fact, it might be chiefy the quantity of more ‘ordinary’ products that would signify the well-to-do or politically important individuals and groups.20 Our artefacts provide further doubts as to the identifcation of luxury goods. The last maps indicate that imported objects are not necessarily uncommon, for example, the marble vessels. Likewise, some of the uncommon artefacts such as lollipops were produced locally. Soapstone braziers were plausibly imported, and certainly uncommon, but were possibly used for the designated production of another product (mercury) and not as markers of social/political status. The only artefact type which was both imported and scarce is bone fgurines. Even this object, however, did not travel far and did certainly not involve expensive materials. To conclude, rarity and importation cannot represent luxury goods at face value. Which particular artefacts were considered ‘luxury’ by the population of the research area, if any, are yet unknown. The spatial patterns inside Ramla might refect the three modes of production, distribution, and consumption. Patterns 1 and 2 present fnds in the industrial areas of central Ramla and Mazliah, respectively. Both refect production, but not necessarily of the revealed artefact. Pattern 3 shows fnds around the industrial area of central Ramla which refects distribution. One might also assume that a physical market surrounded that center. Pattern 4, in which the fnd type is widely distributed in domestic areas, refects household manufacture. Based on the contrast to these patterns, pattern 5 (scarce and arbitrary distribution) might refect consumption. This model should be tested on additional Early Islamic sites in the Levant. The identifcation of modes through intra-site relations and regional distribution might apply also elsewhere.

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 211

Chronology Along with economic questions, one core interest in the study of settlement patterns is temporal, namely, detecting changes over time. This section explores trends of occupation in the research area and inside two of its sites, starting with Ramla. The data are based on architectural elements and installations which have been dated in Chapter 4. They are then compared to pottery-based results achieved by other studies. The case study of Ramla highlights additional architectural elements which support the initial dating. The section continues with the dating of Lod and concludes with a regional overview. Ramla through time In Ramla, 79 nodes could be dated according to their architectural elements which were defned earlier. The distribution maps at the following will demonstrate the possible development of Ramla from phase A to E. Some of these nodes have only a single element which allows only a highly tentative dating. This is most signifcant with phase A, the identifcation of which relies only on mosaic foors, and with phase B, whose identifcation is based on fagstone pavements. Both elements repeat or continue into later phases. Phase A (7th century) is represented by two possible nodes (Figure  6.20), one near the Stadium (node 67) and the other in the Shoftim

Figure 6.20 Phases A to C in Ramla

212 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.21 Phase D and the subterranean cisterns in Ramla

neighborhood (node 91). The tentative phase B (8th century) adds only two more nodes, one of them in Mazliah. In phase C (the 9th century) the former nodes grow into possible clusters (Figure 6.20). In phase D (880–960), additional to cisterns such as the Pool of the Arches, the clusters enlarge. Save for Mazliah, these clusters seem to unify into one site (Figure 6.21). Finally, phase E (961–1040) is more tentative but shows a physically narrower site (Figure 6.22A summary of the development until the mid-10th century is suggested in Figure 6.23. This reconstruction is different from the one suggested by Hagit Torgë based on a critical examination of pottery in Ramla. Torgë dates the evidence in time slices of 50–130 years starting with the Umayyad and Abbasid periods (701–750, 751–850), continuing with years 851–970, and concluding with the Fatimid period (971–1100). In each time slice, she defnes the territory of Ramla as a single domain between its ends. The method resulted in several Umayyad structures followed by an occupation until the mid-9th–10th century of nearly all Ramla, and fnally a reduction of size in the Fatimid period.21 Despite the different reconstruction Torgë offers, some of her main arguments are similar: (1) in both reconstructions, Ramla reaches its maximum dimensions in the late 9th to mid-10th century; (2) in the earliest phase of Ramla, the early architectural elements are scattered (Figure  6.24)22; (3) both methods present the early stage of the site

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 213

Figure 6.22 Phase E in Ramla

Figure 6.23 The development of Ramla from the 7th to the 10th century (phase A to D)

214 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.24 Sites from phases A and B in comparison to pottery-based Umayyad structures

near the Stadium, even though Torgë extends that cluster north to the White Mosque; (4) in the northern cluster, the nodes of the two methods are not identical but provide a similar domain. A series of soundings was conducted in 1949 and 1956 within the ruins of the White Mosque. It revealed three architectural phases.23 Pottery was found outside any stratigraphic context and was chiefy dated from the 10th to the 15th century. Two inscriptions were unearthed and were added to two formerly recorded ones, the four spanning the 12th to the 15th century. Kaplan dated the three phases based on the inscriptions and the narrative sources to the early 8th, late-12th, and 13th–14th centuries. However, a recent re-examination of the ceramics of that excavation, as well as fnds from adjacent projects, dates the earliest sherds to years 750–900.24 Also above the surface, no architectural elements from the complex could be dated earlier than the Ayyubid period, the early 12th century.25 Hence, no physical evidence supports the early 8th century date. Furthermore, one of the construction features of the northern wall which was argued to form the earliest phase is debesh (“rubble bound by mortar”), an element which I argue to characterize phases D and E (the late 9th to the mid-11th century). Figures 6.20 and 6.22 indeed show the relation of the mosque’s location with phase D. The following is an attempt to identify additional architectural elements which can serve as index fossils also beyond Ramla. There seems to exist a

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence  215

Figure 6.25  Ashlar and big-small walls in relation to phases C and D in Ramla

Figure 6.26  Ashlar and two-line walls in relation to phases D and E in Ramla

216 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence correlation between the established chronology and some of the wall construction methods. In Ramla, ashlar walls correlate with phases D and E, whereas the big-small walls and the two-line walls correlate best with phase D (Figures 6.25 and 6.26). These correlations will be tested on other sites and on the whole region. Lod through time The development of Lod can be illustrated through pottery and architecture, similar to Ramla. The frst series of maps shows phases of the site based on its initial dated elements (i.e. construction techniques and installation designs) and the supplemented wall styles. In the maps of each phase, elements from prior phases are not presented. These maps (Figure 6.27) show one pear-shaped site in the 7th century which has transformed into a long ellipse by the 9th century. The site’s south-eastern part shifted to south-south-west and north-east. A rough estimate suggests that, despite the change, the site retained its size. In the 11th century, the site kept its general new shape but shrank slightly. The second series of maps shows three phases of the site according to other studies and pottery. The date of the nodes was defned as the 7th, the 9th, or the 11th century for practical reasons. The 7th-century date includes fnds which were identifed by the excavators as “Byzantine” or “Umayyad”

Figure 6.27 Lod from the 7th to the 11th century according to its architecture

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence  217 or were originally dated between the 6th and the early 8th century. The 9th-century date includes finds which were labeled “Abbasid” or “Islamic” or that were dated between the 8th and the 10th century. The 11th-century category includes finds identified as “Fatimid”, “Ayyubid”, or “Crusader”, or that were dated to the 11th and 12th century. The maps (Figure 6.28) present a different distribution than the one based on architecture, with many more nodes and larger domains but with a similar trend in the 9th century towards the north-east and south-west. The fourth map in the series compares the architecture of phase D (the late 9th to mid-10th century) with the pottery of the 9th century and demonstrates a high resemblance between the two. In the 11th century, the site shrinks remarkably but keeps a similar physical domain to the one sketched according to architecture. Assuming that both methods are generally correct, the variations in their results for the 7th–8th centuries point to the limitations of the new dating method for that phase. Table 6.8 lists all the nodes that were considered in this research part of Lod. It compares their original dating based on pottery with dating based on architecture. The table shows that the four nodes defined as phase A based on a polychrome mosaic (7th century) are indeed dated to the Byzantine period or to the Roman period and later. Other ‘Byzantine’ nodes have no distinguishable architectural elements and are thus absent from the architecture maps. Some of the nodes have no architecture (e.g. nodes 150 and 153) but most do. This result might inspire archaeologists

Figure 6.28  Lod from the 7th to the 11th century according to its original dating

218 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence Table 6.8 Dating results of nodes in Lod Node Original date

General century

Phase by architecture

7th 9th 11th Primary elements 143

Yes

147 148

Byzantine, Crusade ByzantineUmayyad 6th–7th centuries Byzantine, Islamic Byzantine-Islamic Byzantine-Islamic

149 150

Roman-Abbasid Islamic?

Yes Yes Yes

151

Islamic

152

Roman-Islamic

Yes Yes

153 154 155

6th–8th centuries AD 590 (coin) ByzantineOttoman Roman-Fatimid

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes D (debesh, layer of sherds between two of plaster) Yes Yes Yes B–D (sunken jars, fagstones)

144 145 146

156 157

Walls

Yes D/E (barrel-shaped vault)

Yes

D (bigsmall)

Yes Yes Yes

D/E (debesh)

Yes Yes Yes Yes

D/E (ashlar)

D/E (debesh)

D (bigsmall)

Yes

A D/E (debesh) A, C? (fagstones), D (plastered BSV)

158 159 160

Mamluk/ Ottoman Byzantine Byzantine Byzantine

Yes Yes Yes

A?

161

Byzantine

Yes

A

D/E? (ashlar?) D/E (ashlar)

D/E (ashlar)

to continue the architectural typology for earlier periods. In the meantime, nodes comprised of unclassifed architecture and 7th-century pottery can plausibly be dated to the 7th or 8th century. Another observation about the table is that ‘Islamic’ pottery correlates with our phases D and E, the late 9th to the mid-11th century. In addition, wall styles correlate with the former dating method in three nodes. These results highlight the strength of our method for understanding the 10th century. Due to the characteristics of pottery usage, in a case of contradiction between dates provided by pottery and by architecture, such as in node 144, architecture should be considered more reliable. Pottery may change its location multiple times and during a long period within its lifecycle, including its disposal – sometimes centuries after its primary use, secondary use, and recycling.

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 219 The site on the two series of maps is much narrower than a reconstruction for Byzantine and early Islamic Lod suggested by Ashkenazi et al. who include pottery as well as historical descriptions.26 According to the latter, early Islamic Lod is the largest in the history of the site and resembles the physical domain presented here for the 7th century (Figure 6.27). The difference between the two reconstructions derives, frst, from different data, as our nodes are generally not from the 5th to 6th centuries unless they continued to later periods. Second, the defnition of the periods is different. It seems that Ashkenazi et al. date the early Islamic period to the 7th–8th centuries, which indeed fts our defnition of the 7th century according to pottery. They explain that, based on the literary sources, the settlement of Ludd reached its peak in the 8th century and then experienced a decline.27 In contrast, the series of reconstructions according to architecture points to a relatively large site at least until the 10th century. Regional overview through architectural elements After learning the strengths and limitations of the new dating method, occupation maps can now be sketched for the whole research area. The information about the sites is later summarized in Table 6.9 which compares chronology with typology. In the following, each fgure represents a phase and consists of three or four maps with relevant nodes. In addition to a straightforward map of nodes with dated architectural elements, one map places the nodes on a reconstruction of watercourses, another map presents the nodes with the supplementing wall techniques (in phases D and E), and the last map shows my interpretation regarding possible clusters and/or the biggest sites in that phase. As we have learned, the data from the 7th to 8th centuries are more limited than the others. Moreover, we need to assume that some elements were in use also in later periods. Most importantly, the absence of sites from the map in some periods does not refect their actual absence. The maps in this section present a number of shifts. This includes, frst, the substitution of the largest sites in each phase. Even more explicitly, the maps show different occupation trends on the coast, along the streams, and in the Rehovot area. Some of these trends I will later suggest to be related. The results are then compared to settlement patterns based on pottery. The architectural ‘representative remains’ of the 7th and 8th centuries are limited. In the 7th century, a number of sites sat on the shore, from YavneYam north, comprising Tel Yona, Jaffa, and Tell Qasile (Figure 6.29). Most sites in this phase were adjacent to water streams, except for Ramla/Mazliah, Horvat Hermas, and Tel Ashdod. The Soreq stream had no settlement close to it except Na’an south. Two possible clusters were situated near Tel Ashdod/Gan Yavne and around Lod. Lod was the largest site in the whole region during that century. In the 8th century (Figure 6.30), a small number of 7th-century sites are in evidence but most nodes are of new sites, such as

220  Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.29  Mapping and clustering sites of phase A (7th century)

Mazliah, Holot Yavne, and Weizmann Institute. All sites in this phase are located inland. Most noticeable is the occupation along the northern side of the Ayalon stream, with the sites Ramat Gan, Or Yehuda, and Kafr Jinnis. There are no sites with wider regions in this century as far as can be seen

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 221

Figure 6.30 Mapping and clustering sites of phase B (8th century)

from construction activity. Ramla/Mazliah is marked on the map only as a possible reference point. We should presume that Lod is still the largest site in the region. The 9th–10th centuries mark a number of changes, starting with very intensive architectural activities. In the 9th century (Figure 6.31), occupation

222

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.31 Mapping and clustering sites of phase C (9th century)

returns to the coast, with a 7th-century site in the north (Tell Qasile) and a new site in the south (Ashdod-Yam). A new occupation trend can be seen along the Soreq stream with Tel Yavne, and some more activity around Na’an. The largest site from this time onward is Ramla. However, Lod is still

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 223 bigger than most other sites, whereas the sites Na’an south and Tel Malot indicate some clustering. In the late 9th century (phase D), new construction methods are identifed in long-lived sites such as Jaffa on the coast, Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya near Lod, and others near Ashdod (Figure 6.32). Most importantly, at least ten

Figure 6.32 Mapping and clustering sites of phase D (late 9th to mid-10th century)

224

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.32 (continued)

new sites emerge inland in that century between Bet Dagan and modern Rehovot, most of them far from any watercourse: Khirbat Dayrān, Yad Eli’ezer, and Horvat Zerifn. Additional to Ramla and Lod, two sites are relatively large: Tel Yavne and Ashdod-Yam. As evidenced by wall techniques, intense construction activity can be observed also in Gan Yavne, Kafr Jinnis, Na’an north, Azor, and Jaffa. Phase E (Figure 6.33) is more tentative than the two former phases since its identifcation is based on elements that continue from phase D. If this dating is realistic, this phase experienced the reduction of sites such as Tel Yavne and the disappearance of others, including Ramat Gan and Kafr Jinnis along the Ayalon stream as well as Khirbat Dayrān and Weizmann Institute in Rehovot. The largest site in this period is Ramla, followed by Lod, Na’an north, and Ashdod-Yam. Not very distinct are at least two clusters which were not marked on the maps, one along Nahal Lakhish and another around Ramla. In summary, the architecture-based occupation maps suggest a number of patterns. The frst pattern is the shift of the sites on the coast and on the mouth of the Yarqon River: Yavne-Yam and Tel Yona present no architectural remains later than the 7th century, whereas Ashdod-Yam emerged in the 9th century and became one of the largest sites in the region at the end of that century. Tell Qasile expanded in parallel. It seems likely that all four sites functioned as harbors on some level and that Ashdod-Yam and Tell Qasile replaced Yavne-Yam and Tel Yona in the 9th century. In contrast,

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 225 Jaffa perhaps retained its role. The second pattern relates to an occupation of the inland area around Rehovot, an area without runoff water. Sites could be found in that region at least from the 7th to 8th centuries, such as Horvat Hermas and Weizmann Institute, but in the late 9th century, a high number of sites emerge toward the north of that area. Some of these seem to disappear in the following phase, which means that they enjoyed only

Figure 6.33 Mapping and clustering sites of phase E (mid-10th to 11th century)

226 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.33 (Continued)

a short occupational period. The third pattern relates to a relatively high number of sites occupation along the Ayalon stream, between the 8th and the mid-10th century. The region’s largest site in the 7th century, Lod, was replaced by Ramla before the 9th century. From that point on, Ramla was three times larger than Lod. However, Lod remained a relatively large site in the following centuries. Other large sites active in parallel were Tel Yavne and Ashdod-Yam. A primary comparison of our ahistorical typology of sites with the dating results in Table 6.9 shows no conclusive results, but modest observations can be offered. Sites of type 1, except for Bet Dagan, existed from the 7th or 8th century (phases A or B) to the 11th century (phase E). At least half the sites of type 2 date from phase A onward, but the other half vary in their construction dates. Sites from type 3 are clearly a later innovation, from phase B or C. Regarding sites of type 4, only four sites date to the 7th century, and almost half of the sites date to the late 9th century. From the temporal perspective, all sites but four are represented in phase D. The exceptions (Yavne-Yam, Horvat Hermas, Or Yehuda, and Holot Yavne) do not belong to a single site type. The regional overview in architecture and pottery A comparison between occupation trends in the research area based on architecture and the trends based on pottery (and coins) results in only a partial

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 227 Table 6.9 The chronology of sites according to their type Site type 1

Phase

Site type 2

Mazliah Lod

B–E A–E

Azor

A–E

Tell Qasile

Ramla, Center A–E Ramla, Vilna Ramla, A, Ramla, Ofer Park Stadium C–E Na’an south A–D Ramla, Ma’asiyahu Kafr Jinnis B–D Ramla, Haqal

A, C–E A, Tel Yavne D–E D Khirbat Dayrān Horvat Hermas Ashdod-Yam B–C Gan Yavne

Jaffa Bet Dagan

Site type 3 Or Yehuda Ramat Gan Hadar Yosef Yad Eli’ezer Weizmann Institute Kefar Gabirol

B–D D–E B–D D

Holot Yavne Tel Ashdod Ganne Tal

Phase

Site type 4

phase C–E C–D D–E D

C–E

Na’an north

D–E

D

Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya Ben-Gurion Airport Ramat Hahayal Al-Khayriyya

A, D

Yavne-Yam Hazor-Ashdod

A A, D–E

A–C

A, C

C–E A, D–E B–C Nes Ziyyona D–E A, D Khirbat al-ʿAṣfūra D–E C–E Khirbat Ḥabra Rishon Leziyyon D

Sede Uzziyyahu Horvat Zerifn D–E Ashdod (node 327) D

correlation. Similar to the analysis of occupation in Lod, the pottery-based date of nodes was defned as the 7th, the 9th, or the 11th century. Here, in order to limit some of the methodological biases, I included only excavated nodes with architecture. Looking at the three maps of pottery together (Figures 6.34–6.36) indicates that the occupation trends of the 7th and the 9th centuries look similar. The distribution of 7th and 9th-century pottery, although repeated on most sites, is often reduced in number in the 9th century. The 11th century shows a very different picture, with a much smaller number of sites. These sites might comprise pottery only of one century, unlike the two other categories which include periods of 200–250 years. Still, the reason for the smaller number of 11th-century nodes is plausibly not only methodological and other explanations should be explored. Figure 6.34 displays the distribution of 7th-century pottery and compares it to phases A and B (the 7th and 8th centuries). It frst shows the correlation of 7th-century nodes with some phase-A nodes but also with phase-B nodes. This result suggests that dating sites based on architecture is more refned than

228

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.34 Nodes of the 7th and 8th centuries according to pottery and architecture

using pottery for that purpose, even with only one architectural element as an index fossil. Another result to be discussed is nodes which show the architecture of phases A or B but no 7th-century pottery, as observed in four cases. In three of them, the reason for the absence of pottery is methodological, as these are surveyed nodes which I excluded from the fgure. The fourth node, however, is a winepress at Ben-Gurion Airport which certainly had phase-A architecture but only later pottery. Other architecture at the site indicates that it was occupied also in later periods. One explanation for the absence of 7th-century pottery is that the winepress was connected to an adjacent phase-B site in that period, Kafr Jinnis, which indeed has relevant pottery. At the other end, many sites had 7th-century pottery and no phase-A or B architecture, chiefy in nodes between Ramla and Tel Yavne. Several of these sites: Tel Yavne, Khirbat Dayrān, Rishon Leziyyon, and Ganne Tal had architecture only from the 9th century onward. This gap may be a result of the limited data available for the architecture-based dating method for phases A and B. Thus, some of these sites may have existed in the 7th or 8th century. However, the gap is also linked to the use of early pottery in later installations, especially for plastering and isolation, and to other post-use activities such as disposal.28 The next maps (Figure 6.35) present the distribution of 9th-century pottery and its comparison to phase-C and D nodes (the 9th and late 9th–10th centuries). The maps show a high correlation between the two dating

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 229

Figure 6.35 Nodes of the 9th and 10th centuries according to pottery and architecture

methods for that period. This is most noticeable with sites between Lod and Jaffa and between Ashdod-Yam and Tel Yavne. One sub-region which does not correlate is along the Yarqon River, near Tell Qasile. In addition, a small number of sites with 9th-century pottery show no concurrent architecture, starting with Yavne Yam and continuing with three sites around Gedera. This result comes with no surprise for the Gedera sites, as they give very little information and were excluded from other analyses and lists, but for Yavne Yam and the Yarqon area, an explanation is required. One interpretation may be that 9th-century pottery was brought to the site later than the 9th or 10th century, but no later pottery justifes this reading. Thus the pattern can be explained as a disconnection between some settlements and the social networks of their time. The most signifcant irregularity noticeable in these maps is for nodes and sites with phase-C or D architecture and no relevant pottery. Examples include Ganne Tal and Yad Binyamin east of Ashdod and Rishon Leziyyon north-west from Ramla. This pattern is connected to a former trend in which nodes identifed as Byzantine had no concurrent architecture. In other words, we have nodes with phase-C or D architecture but no 9th-century pottery, and with 7th-century pottery but no phase-A or B architecture. In these places, pottery and architecture are not concurrent. This observation highlights the main disadvantages of pottery for dating

230

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.36 Nodes of the 10th and 11th centuries according to pottery and architecture

purposes due to its mobility and reuse and thus the better reliability of architecture in most cases. Pottery of the 11th century (Figure 6.36) derives from only a limited number of sites. Most of these sites are relatively large, including Ashdod-Yam, Lod, and Jaffa. Other sites seem to surround these places, for example around Ashdod, or around Ramla. Scholars identify this situation as a “mass-abandonment of rural settlements across Palestine”.29 The tentative distribution map of architecture from phase E is indeed a reduced version of phase D, yet it presents a much richer picture than the one based on pottery. The reasons for the variation in the results are methodological: (1) the 11th–13th-centuries wares in the Levant are relatively understudied and thus are still diffcult to classify30; (2) copper coins after the mid-9th century are absent from the archaeological evidence31; (3) the period’s equivalent for coins, copper-alloy weights, continued into later periods32 and cannot act as index fossils; (4) the architectural elements in phase E continued from the previous phase and give only the optimistic picture of a maximum expansion. In summary, the 11th century saw the spatial modifcation of sites and the abandonment of others, but presumably to a lesser degree than the picture sketched by pottery and coins would have us believe. Future studies of sites and portable fnds from these centuries will surely provide a better understanding of occupation trends.

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 231

Testing economic models In economic geography, three theoretical models are often used to analyze and explain regional economies and relations between settlements: ‘central place’, ‘solar model’, and ‘dendritic-mercantile systems’. These models are used also in landscape archaeology for classifying sites into types, measuring the distance between them, analyzing their relation to natural or other resources, and comparing their artefacts, their craft waste, and their installations. The three models will be tested on the research area based on the previous analyses, with an emphasis on a temporal perspective. I will show that the theoretical models do not provide an overall explanation of our settlement patterns, but some of their variants can be considered for specifc periods and circumstances. The ‘central place’ theory measures the cost-effectiveness of produce being transported from and to the market centre. The competition between centers is thought to create a hierarchy of big and small centers. According to the ‘solar model’, markets consist of a binary hierarchy and operate in a network.33 Archaeologically, the frst model would be identifed by a recurrent distance between sites of a similar size or function, by a spatial relation between sites of the same type around sites of production or trade, and by the distribution of varied artefacts from recurrent single sites to their surroundings. With a more complex calculation and a different interpretation, the second model should operate similarly. According to the ‘parasite city’ concept by Finley (and the similar ‘dendritic-mercantile systems’ model), a small number of settlements (i.e. cities) own the regional resources and control the conditions of production and the access to other resources while being provided with food from their hinterland.34 In practice, the few sites which sit on trade routes and/ or adjacent to natural water sources are defned ‘central’ and are expected to control satellite sites where agriculture and production take place.35 The satellite sites are to be self-suffcient with a tendency to focus on a single industry. Hence, besides their geographic location, central sites would be identifed by artefacts that only one or none of their surrounding sites would have, by a variety of artefacts, and by the lack of installations found on the satellite sites. In short, in this model, central sites are active consumers and satellite sites are active producers, in contrast to the former models where central sites are both active producers and distributors. The methods to test the models include mapping site types according to their architectural phases and discussing distribution directions. These tools are somewhat speculative. First, my premise is that only new architecture can securely refect a settlement of the time. Five sites that were classifed as types 3 and 4 could not be dated and were thence excluded from this analysis. Second, despite the use of temporal classifcations, site types are still undated. Therefore, changes in the typology of sites over time were largely not identifed. Yavne Yam, for example, is classifed and presented

232

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.37 Typology of sites in phase A (7th century)

on maps as site type 4 although it used to be large and central and could have previously been classifed as type 1. Sites that were previously observed as larger during the phase are marked in bigger symbols. The map for site types during phase A (Figure 6.37) may demonstrate a situation of the ‘dendritic-mercantile systems’, having Lod as its central site. I classifed Lod earlier as site type 1. It sits both on the Ayalon stream and on a route to Jaffa. The analysis of industry on-site showed that Lod lacks the more common crafts (pottery, glass, or metal) despite a single clay mold for pottery decoration that was unearthed in one of the excavations.36 The inhabitants of Lod were engaged with production of organic produce, perhaps soap or textile dyeing. Moreover, one winepress operated on the site. In the 7th century, Lod was the largest site in the region. The map shows that east from Lod lies Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya (site type 4), north to it lies Ben-Gurion Airport (site type 4), and south to it are situated Ramla’s center and Ramla’s Stadium (sites type 2). Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya operated an oil press and a stone quarry, Ben-Gurion Airport site operated a winepress, and the sites of Ramla might have produced pottery. In other words, Lod could have received food, vessels, and materials necessary for consumption and distribution from its hinterland. Since it also controlled the resources – water and trade networks – it fts the theoretical model. Other sites on the map do not present any pattern during phase A. Mapping phase B (the 8th century) did not result in any visible pattern. However, mapping both phase A and B, along with the waste of pottery

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 233

Figure 6.38 Typology of sites in phases A and B (7th–8th centuries) and pottery production

production (which is undated), provides a possible reconstruction of the relation between sites and site types (Figure 6.38). As we learned earlier, sites of type 1 were occupied with trade but rarely with pottery production. Sites of type 2 are characterized by trade and production, sites of type 3 by production, and sites of type 4 by agriculture. The map suggests that some of the type 2 sites were self-suffcient, such as Na’an south and Tel Ashdod. Most remarkably is the Ramla cluster which seems self-suffcient and could have kept distributing also to Lod. Sites of type 3 (e.g. Or Yehuda, Ramat Gan), which are adjacent to sites from type 1 or 2, could have produced pottery for use and distribution by their neighbors. The very few sites of type 4 could have produced for the same neighbors. To conclude, the emergence of site type 2 in the 8th century might relate to their support for sites on the main route. The model of the ‘dendritic-mercantile systems’ still applies in this period. The following three maps imply changes in the economic relations between sites in the research area from the 9th century. In phase C (Figure 6.39), only sites of type 2 are represented in the southern area, between Ramla and Ashdod-Yam. It is possible that these sites were self-suffcient. In Ramla, two sites of type 4 are added to the cluster. In the late 9th century (Figure 6.40), a high number of sites of type 4 emerge, many of them adjacent to sites type 2. The map clearly shows the growth of occupation

234 Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Figure 6.39 Typology of sites in phase C (9th century)

Figure 6.40 Typology of sites in phase D (late 9th to mid-10th century)

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 235

Figure 6.41 Typology of sites in phase E (mid-10th to 11th century)

around Ramla-Mazliah. Both site type 3 and 4 west of Ramla could have supported Tel Yavne (which expanded in the period) or Ramla. If the former, then a ‘solar system’ was in operation, with a number of small clusters that produced for the bigger center (Ramla). This seems to be the case also with a new site type 1, Bet Dagan, which can be related only to this phase. In the mid-10th and 11th centuries (Figure 6.41), Ramla is left mainly with a small number of sites type 4 around it, so if a solar system was in existence earlier, it was now altered. Lod has fewer supporting sites adjacent to it and thus might have become a part of the Ramla cluster. Regarding the most ftting theoretical model to understand the system of Ramla and its surroundings, the answer is not straightforward. Ramla was, on the one hand, the producer of pottery (e.g. zoomorphic objects) and the distributor of products such as marble vessels and spatulas to its surroundings. This demonstrates a distribution direction from the center outside and thus supports the ‘central place’ theory. On the other hand, the spatial distribution of sites type 3 and 4 around it, and the several sources of pottery and glass also around Ramla, point to the opposite direction toward the center. It can be suggested that the iron and marble vessels from Ramla are in fact working tools necessary to Ramla’s satellite sites, and that the center thus controlled the resources in accordance with the ‘dendritic-mercantile systems’. In any case, that system was not exclusive, as the sites in the north (Azor, Jaffa, and Tell Qasile) and in the south (Ashdod-Yam and its neighbors) operate differently.

236

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Conclusions: settlements, occupational trends, and economy According to one interpretation, the research area has four types of sites. Sites of type 1 are characterized by trade and services but lack intensive production. They are located in the northern part of the research area and sit either on the route from Ramla to Jaffa or along the Yarqon River. Except for Bet Dagan of the late 9th century, these sites existed from the 7th or 8th century onward. Site type 2, which can be found chiefy in the southern half of the region, is also occupied with trade but is mostly self-suffcient. It becomes popular in the 9th century. Site types 3 and 4 are sites which supported another site. Usually, they are located near sites of type 1 which correlates with the latter’s lack of intensive production. Site type 3 is characterized by industry and forms a special phenomenon from the 8th century to the mid-10th century. Type 4 is characterized by agriculture. It existed during the whole period but became more popular in the 10th century. The research area went through several other changes, as well. First, its largest site and presumably main economic center, Lod, was replaced by Ramla before the 9th century. From the mid-10th century, both places became part of one big center, surrounded mainly by agricultural sites of type 4. Some sites point to various levels of centralism over the years, i.e. Ashdod-Yam and Tel Yavne, whereas the status of northern sites in the research area, Tell Qasile, Jaffa, and Azor, was more stable. Lod slightly shifted over time but retained the same general size. In contrast, Ramla was a cluster of sites which started as two industrial sites in the 7th century for the support of Lod. In the 8th century, the cluster was supplemented by the industrial Mazliah, raised two more type 4 sites in the 9th century, and physically united into one entity in the late 9th century with even more agricultural support. Unlike any other site of type 1, Mazliah was self-suffcient and its industries produced mostly for its local population and its surroundings. Two main spatial transformations occur in the research area. The frst is a possible replacement of harbors during the 9th century. The second is occupation around Rehovot with industry and agriculture – despite the lack of natural and artifcial water sources – in the late 9th century. A holistic explanation for the two trends would be the rising of groundwater and the emergence of marshes covering the hinterland in the 8th to 9th centuries. On the one hand, high groundwater and marshes would block the mouth of the Soreq stream, would isolate Yavne-Yam, and would necessitate the construction of new harbors. On the other hand, foods would introduce water to the surroundings of Rehovot. Scholars explain a similar trend of site abandonment on the coast during the Early Bronze II-III (3rd millennia BC) as the result of growing marshes, communities’ isolation, and diseases. On two of the sites, the soil indeed contained a high percentage of wetland plants retrieved from relevant layers.37 The geomorphological evidence of the dunes near Yavne-Yam suggests a great cycle of sandy coverage during the Byzantine period (6th–8th centuries).38 According to Ackermann, this could result in a growing distance from

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 237 groundwater which might have led to the desertion of coastal sites. Alternatively, intense accumulation of alluvial sediment in the stream mouths, together with a possible rise in groundwater (caused by the rise of the sea table), enabled fooding and the creation of marshes. These two conditions might have applied: in the neighboring Ascalon, groundwater was very high according to the ancient wells,39 and in Nahal Lakhish, alluvial sediments were intense in or immediately after the Byzantine Period (6th–8th centuries).40 This hypothesis is supported by a variety of fragmentary evidence. First, agricultural data show that a number of crops, among them wheat, citron, and pomegranate, tolerate excess water and could grow in such conditions. Wheat can grow based on annual rainfall alone, but only with additional irrigation would it provide a high yield. Second, the archaeological evidence presents rotary querns, which are interpreted as a millstone for grains, especially in the proposedly fooded sites of Rehovot. Third, al-Maqdisī notes brackish groundwater in the late 10th century in al-Ramla.41 The high sea table might have raised the groundwater but also caused it to turn brackish through a possible intrusion of saltwater into the freshwater aquifer.42 More circumstantial evidence is provided by al-Maqdisī who praises the bread of a settlement named ʿĀqir.43 While we cannot identify the location of this toponym with precision, according to the Madaba Map it should be around Rehovot or Gedera. The area is hence known for its wheat in the 10th century. From the mid-10th century onward, some of the Rehovot sites disappear. Yet, three sites of type 4 which are designated for agriculture (Khirbat alʿAṣfūra, Nes Ziyyona, and Horvat Zerifn) seem to continue their occupation in that period without any runoff water. One can only speculate how the earthquake in Mazliah, dated to 1033, resulted in a fundamental decline in the groundwater level.44 To conclude, the hypothesis is that groundwater was high in the Ramla-Rehovot area from the 8th to the mid-11th century. Its frst infuence was the isolation of Yavne-Yam and its replacement with Ashdod-Yam in the 9th century. Then, foods around Rehovot from the 9th century enabled irrigation of wheat felds and, eventually, allowed for the occupation of this area from the late 9th to the 11th century.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Flaishman, Rodov and Stover (2008: 140). Naftaliyahu et al. (2008, in particular Tables 8 and 9). In Frenkel and Lester (2015: 172), with no reference. Lavee et al. (2007); Netzer et al. (2009); Ben-Gal et al. (2011); Naor et al. (2014); Lodolini et al. (2016). Kozlowski and Pallardy (2002). Kozlowski (1984: 136–137). Taxel (2014: Table 1). Costin (1991). Gabrieli, Ben-Shlomo and Walker (2014); Nol (forthcoming), with references.

238

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

10 Palmer (2003: 53–55). Notice that the British terminology of ‘productive sites’ for sites rich in metalwork should not be confused with ‘production sites’. 11 For consumption areas of several wares in Jordan and Israel/Palestine and for their possible provenances, see Walmsley (2012). 12 E.g. Masarwa (2011). 13 Ettinghausen (1965: 219–221); Kogan-Zehavi and Hadad (2012: 96). 14 Mainz (2015: 174–175). 15 Stapleton, Azo and Ḥusain (1929: 386). 16 Van der Veen (2003). 17 Cipolla (1956: 56–57). 18 Taxel (2014: 135). 19 Hopkins (1978); Laiou (2012: 126). 20 Van der Veen (2003: 420). For diplomatic gifts and quantity of ‘regular goods’, see Cutler (2001: 250–255). 21 Torgë (2017: 153–168, Maps 2–6). 22 The data is based on published excavations of Umayyad structures: 26, 41, 50, 79, 95, 150 (Torgë 2017: Map 2) but the latitude/longitude details are mine and might be incorrect. 23 Kaplan (1959). 24 Torgë (2017: 144–145). 25 Burgoyne (2021: 197). For a different interpretation of the remains, see Avni (2021). 26 Ashkenazi et al. (2016: Figs. 11 and 12). 27 Ibid: 26. 28 For the identifcation problem of 7th–10th-century pottery in agricultural lands from the 11th to 12th centuries, see for example Taxel (2018: 166). 29 Taxel (2018: 161). See also Avni (2014: 17). 30 Jenkins (1992); Avissar and Stern (2005: 1). 31 Heidemann (2010: 660). 32 Kletter (2019). 33 Smith (1976: 7–16). 34 Smith (1976: 9–15, 33–34). 35 Banning (2002: 159–170). 36 Haddad (2013: 35*, Fig. 10:17). 37 Faust and Ashkenazy (2007: 42). I am grateful to Oren Ackermann for the reference and discussion. 38 Ackermann (2015). 39 Lass (2008). 40 Rosen Miller (1986: 58). 41 Al-Maqdisī: 164. 42 See Hoover et al. (2017). 43 Al-Maqdisī: 176: wa-laysa mithl khubzuhum ʿalā jāddat Makka (“and there is no bread equal to theirs on the route to Mekka”). 44 For Mazliah, see Gorzalczany (2011). For the results of modern earthquakes in the USA, see Gorokhovich and Ullmann (2010).

References Primary sources Al-Maqdisī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. after 990). Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat alaqālīm, Michael Jan De Goeje (ed.), Description Imperii Moslemici, second ed. 1906, Leiden: Brill.

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 239 Secondary literature Abd-el-Rhman, I.E., Attia, Moharam F., Esmail A.E. Genaidy, and Laila F. Haggag, 2017. “Effect of Potassium and Supplementary Irrigation on Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality of Fig Trees (Ficus Carica L.) under Drought Stress Conditions”, Middle East Journal of Agriculture 6(4): 887–898. Ackermann, Oren, 2015. “Yavne-Yam (North): Geomorphology and Environment”, ʿAtiqot 81: 59–67 (in Hebrew. English summary *120–*121). Ashkenazi, Hai, Gadot, Yuval, Alon Shavit, and Oren Shmueli, 2016. “GIS Reconstruction of Ancient Lod Settlement Patterns”, in: Alon Shavit, Tawfq Daʿadli, and Yuval Gadot (eds.), Lod “Diospolis – City of God”: Collected Papers on the History and Archaeology of Lod, vol. III, Lod: Tagliyot, 11–45 (in Hebrew). Avissar, Miryam, and Stern, Edna, 2005. Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk Periods in Israel, IAA Reports 26, Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Avni, Gideon, 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Avni, Gideon, 2021. “Excavations in Ramla, 1990–2018: Reconstructing the Early Islamic City”, in: Andrew Petersen and Denys Pringle (eds.), Ramla: City of Muslim Palestine, 715–1917. Studies in History, Archaeology and Architecture, Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 31–63. Ayars, James E., Phene, Claude J., Rebecca C. Phene, Suduan Gao, Dong Wang, Kevin R. Day, and Donald J. Makus, 2017. “Determining Pomegranate Water and Nitrogen Requirements with Drip Irrigation”, Agricultural Water Management 187: 11–23. Banning, Edward Bruce, 2002. Archaeological Survey, New York: Klumer Academic and Plenum Publishers. Ben-Gal, Alon, Yermiyahu, Uri, Isaac Zipori, Eugene Presnov, Ehud Hanoch, and Arnon Dag, 2011. “The Infuence of Bearing Cycles on Olive Oil Production Response to Irrigation”, Irrigation Science 29: 253–263. Bernstein, Zvi, 2004, The Date Palm, Tel Aviv: Israel Fruit Board (in Hebrew). Burgoyne, Michael H., 2021. “The White Mosque”, in: Andrew Petersen and Denys Pringle (eds.), Ramla: City of Muslim Palestine, 715–1917. Studies in History, Archaeology and Architecture, Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 184–202. Cipolla, Carlo M., 1956. Money, Prices, and Civilization in the Mediterranean World, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Costin, Cathy Lynne, 1991. “Craft Specialization: Issues in Defning, Documenting, and Explaining the Organization of Production”, Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 1–56. Cutler, Anthony, 2001. “Gifts and Gift Exchange as Aspects of the Byzantine, Arab, and Related Economies”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 55: 247–278. Cytryn-Silverman, Katia, 2008. “Three Mamlūk Minarets in Ramla”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 35: 379–432. Ettinghausen, Richard, 1965. “The Uses of Sphero-Conical Vessels in the Muslim East”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24(3): 218–229. Faust, Avraham, and Ashkenazy, Yosef, 2007. “Excess in Precipitation as a Cause for Settlement Decline along the Israeli Coastal Plain during the Third Millennium BC”, Quaternary Research 68: 37–44. Flaishman, Moshe A., Rodov, Victor, and Ed Stover, 2008. “The Fig: Botany, Horticulture and Breeding”, Horticultural Reviews 34: 132–196.

240

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Frenkel, Miriam, 2015. “’Proclaim Liberty to Captives and Freedom to Prisoners’. The Ransoming of Captives by Medieval Jewish Communities in Islamic Countries”, in: Heike Grieser and Nicole Priesching (eds.), Gefangenenloskauf im Mittelmeerraum: Ein interreligiöser Vergleich, Hildesheim: Olms, 83–97. Gabrieli, R. Smadar, Ben-Shlomo, David, and Bethany J. Walker, 2014. “Production and Distribution of Geometrical-Painted (HMGF) and Plain Hand-Made Wares of the Mamluk Period: A Case Study from Northern Israel, Jerusalem and Tall Hisban”, Journal of Islamic Archaeology, 1.2: 193–229. Online Appendix at https://www.equinoxpub.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Gabrieli-BenShlomo-and-Walker-Appendix-27Jan15.pdf. Gorokhovich, Yuri, and Ullmann, Lee, 2010. “Ground Water Resources and Earthquake Hazards: Ancient and Modern Perspectives”, in: Larry W. Mays (ed.), Ancient Water Technologies, Dordrecht: Springer, 201–215. Gorzalczany, Amir, 2011. “The Umayyad Aqueduct to Ramla and Other Finds near Kibbutz Na‘an”, ʿAtiqot 68: 193–219. Grattan, Stephen R., 2002. “Irrigation Water Salinity and Crop Production”, ANR Publication 8066, https://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8066.pdf. Haddad, Elie, 2013. “Remains of a Public Building from the Byzantine Period and a Farmhouse from the Early Islamic Period North of Tel Lod”, ʿAtiqot 76: 23*–39* (in Hebrew. English summary: 219–220). Heidemann, Stefan, 2010. “Numismatics”, in: Chase F. Robinson (ed.), Cambridge New History of Islam. Vol. 1: The Formation of the Islamic World, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 648–663. Holland, Doron, Hatib, Kamel, and Irit Bar Ya’akov, 2009. “Pomegranate: Botany, Horticulture, Breeding”, Horticultural Reviews 35: 127–191. Hoover, Daniel J., Odigie, Kingsley O., Peter W. Swarzenski, and Patrick Barnard, 2017. “Sea-Level Rise and Coastal Groundwater Inundation and Shoaling at Select Sites in California, USA”, Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies 11: 234–249. Hopkins, Keith, 1978. “Economic Growth and Towns in Classical Antiquity”, in: Philip Abrams and Edward Anthony Wrigley (eds.), Towns in Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 35–77. Jenkins, Marilyn, 1992. “Early Medieval Islamic Pottery: The Eleventh Century Reconsidered”, Muqarnas 9: 56–66. Kaplan, Jacob, 1959. “Excavations at the White Mosque in Ramla”, ʿAtiqot English Series 2: 106–115. Kletter, Raz, 2019. “Metal Weights from Khirbat Burin”. ʿAtiqot 94: 241–243. Kogan-Zehavi, Elena, and Hadad, Shulamit, 2012. “A Building and an Olive Press from the Byzantine-Abbasid Periods at Khirbat el-Thahiriya”, ʿAtiqot 71: 84–112 (in Hebrew). Kozlowski, Theodore T., 1984. “Responses of Woody Plants to Flooding”, in: idem (ed.), Flooding and Plant Growth, Orlando: Academic Press, 129–163. Kozlowski, Theodore T., and Pallardy, Stephen G., 2002. “Acclimation and Adaptive Responses of Woody Plants to Environmental Stresses”, Botanical Review 68(2): 270–334. Laiou, Angeliki E., 2012. “Regional Networks in the Balkans in the Middle and Late Byzantine Periods”, in: Cécile Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 125–146. Lass, Egon H.E., 2008. “Survey of Water Wells”, in: Lawrence E. Stager, J. David Schloen, and Daniel M. Master (eds.), Ashkelon I: Introduction and Overview (1985–2006), Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 107–126.

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence 241 Lavee, Shimon, Hanoch, Ehud, Maria Wodner, and Haim Abramowitch, 2007. “The Effect of Predetermined Defcit Irrigation on the Performance of cv. Muhasan Olives (Olea europaea L.) in the Eastern Coastal Plain of Israel”, Scientia Horticulturae 112(2): 156–163. Levy, Yoseph, and Syversten, Jim, 2004. “Irrigation Water Quality and Salinity Effects in Citrus Trees”, Horticultural Reviews 30: 37–82. Lodolini, Enrico M., Polverigiani, Serena, Saed Ali, Mohammed Mutawea, Mayyada Qutub, Fabio Pierini, and Davide Neri, 2016. “Effect of Complementary Irrigation on Yield Components and Alternate Bearing of a Traditional Olive Orchard in Semi-Arid Conditions”, Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 14(2): e1203, http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2016142-8834. Mainz, Vera V., 2015. “The Metals of Antiquity and Their Alloys”, in: Seth C. Rasmussen (ed.), Chemical Technology in Antiquity, ACS Symposium Series 1211, Washington: American Chemical Society, 139–180. Mittra, Mrinal K., and Stickler, Fred Charles, 1961. “Excess Water Effects on Different Crops”, Transaction Kansas Academy of Science 64(4): 275–286. Munitz, Sarel, 2013. “Development of Canopy and Climate Based Model for Irrigation of Wine Grapevines”, unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Rehovot: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Naftaliyahu, Uzi, Nir, Uri, Asher Azenkot, Ofer Goren, Yiftah Giladi, On Rabinovitch, Dudi Shemesh, et al., 2008. “Tests Summary of Bread-Wheat Species – Countrywide 2008”, Nir Vatelem 10: 8–19 (in Hebrew). Naor, Amos, Assouline, Shmuel, Reuven Birger, Asher Azenkot, Yoni Gal, and Moti Peres, 2013. “Development of Irrigation Management Protocol for Mature Almond, submitted to the Head Scientist Foundation in the Ministry of Agriculture”, https://www.mop-zafon.org.il/he/node/224 (in Hebrew). Netzer, Yishai, Yao, Chongren, Moshe Shenker, Ben-Ami Bravdo, and Amnon Schwartz, 2009. “Water Use and the Development of Seasonal Crop Coeffcients for Superior Seedless Grapevines Trained to an Open-Gable Trellis System”, Irrigation Science 27: 109–120. Nol, Hagit, forthcoming. “Early Islamic Copper Coins from Excavations in the Central Levant: An Indicator for Ancient Economy”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Palmer, Ben, 2003. “The Hinterlands of Three Southern English Emporia: Some Common Themes”, in: Tim Pestell and Katharina Ulmschneider (eds.), Markets in Early Medieval Europe: Trading and ‘Productive’ Sites, 650–850, Cheshire: Windgather Press, 48–60. Rosen Miller, Arlene, 1986. “Environmental Change and Settlement at Tel Lachish, Israel”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 263: 55–59. Sánchez-Blanco, María Jesús, Torrecillas, Arturo, Francisco del Amor, and A. León, 1989. “Effect of Irrigation Regimes on the Stages of Reproduction in Citrus limonum L. cv. Verna”, Advances in Horticultural Science 3(1): 13–16. Schwartz, Elinor, Tzulker, Revital, Ira Glazer, Irit Bar-Ya’akov, Zeev Wiesman, Eff Tripler, Igal Bar-Ilan, Hillel Fromm, Hamutal Borochov-Neori, Doron Holland, and Rachel Amir, 2009. “Environmental Conditions Affect the Color, Taste, and Antioxidant Capacity of 11 Pomegranate Accessions’ Fruits”, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57(19): 9197–9209. El-Sharakawi, al-Hasanin Mohamed, and el-Monayeri, M., 1976. “Response of Olive and Almond Orchards to Partial Irrigation under Dry-Farming Practices in Semi-Arid Regions”, Plant and Soil 44: 113–128.

242

Settlement patterns through archaeological evidence

Smith, Carol A., 1976. “Regional Economic Systems: Linking Geographical Models and Socioeconomic Problems”, in: idem (ed.), Regional Analysis. Vol I., Economic Systems, New York: Academic Press. Sperling, Or, Shapira, Or, Eff Tripler, Amnon Schwartz, and Naftali Lazarovitch, 2014. “A Model for Computing Date Palm Water Requirements as Affected by Salinity”, Irrigation Science 32: 341–350. Stapleton, Henry E., Azo, Rizkallah F., and Hidāyat M. Ḥusain, 1929. “Chemistry in ʿIraq and Persia in the Tenth Century A.D.”, Memoirs of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal 8: 317–418, reprinted in Fuat Sezgin (ed.), 2002. Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyāʾ Ar-Rāzi, Texts and Studies I, Natural Sciences in Islam 73, Frankfurt am Main: Institute for the History of Arabic-Islamic Science. Tapia, R., Botti, Claudia, Oscar Carrasco, Loreto Prat, and Nicolas Franck, 2003. “Effect of Four Irrigation Rates on Growth of Six Fig Tree Varieties”, in: Margarita López Corrales and Maria Josefa Bernalte García (eds.), Procceedings of the 2nd Internetional Symposiom on Fig, ISHS Acta Horticulturae 605: 113–118. Taxel, Itamar, 2014. “Luxury and Common Wares: Socio-Economic Aspects of the Distribution of Glazed Pottery in Early Islamic Palestine”, Levant 46(1): 118–139. Taxel, Itamar, 2018. “Early Islamic Palestine: Toward a More Fine-Tuned Recognition of Settlement Patterns and Land Uses in Town and Country”, Journal of Islamic Archaeology 5(2): 153–180. Torgë, Hagit, 2017. “The Development of Ramla during the Early Islamic Period in Light of the Archaeological Evidence”, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University (in Hebrew). Van der Veen, Marijke, 2003. “When Is Food a Luxury?”, World Archaeology 34(3): 405–427. Walmsley, Alan, 2012. “Regional Exchange and the Role of the Shop in Byzantine and Early-Islamic Syria-Palestine: An Archaeological View”, in: Cécile Morrisson (ed.), Trade and Markets in Byzantium, Washington: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 311–330. Ziplevitch, Efraim, Stromza, Avi, Pini Sarig, Chaim Oren, and Guy Reshef, 2018. “Research no. 3239: A Re-Investigation of the Irrigation Method and Water Quantities in Medjool Dates, Report for 2018’s Season”, The Plants Production and Marketing Board, Israel, http://www.plants.org.il/index.aspx?id=4278&itemID=4711, accessed May 2nd, 2021 (in Hebrew).

7

Settlement patterns through texts

In our contemporary world, many of us identify forms of residence in terms of ‘cities’ or ‘villages’ among others. We tend to associate specifc characteristics with these terms, and we have some concept of how to differentiate between them. Complete lists of such terms in specifc times and geographies then act as ‘sets’ of settlement types for the relevant societies. The defnitions of the terms, however, are vague and the characterizations are contextual. Societies in various regions and times have diverse sets of settlement types, they understand terms differently, and they call settlement types with similar characteristics by different names. Furthermore, various perspectives dictate the terminology and ‘sets’. Finally, the categories to distinguish between settlement types are not necessarily systematic.1 The diffculties of identifcation multiply when historians apply their own “set of cultural assumptions” about contemporary settlement types to the imagined past.2 The challenge worsens when archaeologists and art historians defne the nature of sites based on these assumptions. Sites larger than others in their vicinity are often identifed as ‘cities’ along with sites with specifc layouts (e.g. gridiron) or sites that are interpreted as central. Moreover, the typologies of sites are sometimes based on a combination of terminology and archaeology. Examples include the division into cities, villages, hamlets, and farms suggested for Byzantine Palestine, the detection of the ‘castle/village’ (ḥiṣn/qarya) complexes in Spain, or the identifcation of the site of Madīnat al-Fār in Syria with the toponym Ḥiṣn Maslama, based on its ‘ḥiṣn (fortress) architecture’.3 Throughout this chapter, I am going to sketch a more grounded picture of settlement types in the research area. I frst present the division of types through terminology in texts from the 7th to the early 13th century from and about Palestine (Filasṭīn). The research aims to detect sets (or complete lists) of settlement types, the theoretical character of settlement types as declared by authors at the time, the characteristics which these authors associated with toponyms ‘in practice’, and the elements which differentiate settlement types. With these directions, I attend to observe changes over time or differences which result from diverse perspectives. Second, I apply this typology to the toponyms of the research area in order to detect changes and

DOI: 10.4324/9781003176169-7

244  Settlement patterns through texts variations. Third, I will look at a small number of narratives which treat relations between settlements in the research area and express changes within these places. Finally, I will compare settlement types based on terminology with site types based on archaeology (Chapter 6). The comparison between the two sorts of types is applied to both the research area, with specific archaeological sites and toponyms, and the broader domain.

Terminology of settlement types in Palestine The terminology in this chapter is examined through various media, comprising epigraphy, papyri, non-Muslim literary sources, and Arabic geography. The modern translations of the terms are also significant, both for the contextual interpretation of the term and for historiographic purposes, and will be noted (in parentheses). When absent from the editions, my own translation will be suggested [in brackets]. In the early stage of this research, I read full texts and noted words which might represent settlement types. These selected words were then put into search tools (often online). Some of these words were later excluded when proven to relate to property, agriculture, administration, or architectural elements. The texts were chosen for their relatively rich vocabulary of settlement types, with no other preference. While document collections and search tools can be selective, I balanced the possible biases by assembling all major sources available. The terms were gathered by a quantitative method from sources with richer data (i.e. Arabic geographies) and from all other texts through context. The texts use terminology of settlement types in a number of forms, each with a different level of denotation: (a) a direct reference, and thus a distinct one, e.g. “al-Ramla is a madīna”, (b) a general reference, which is more ambiguous, e.g. “two markets are in the madīna”, (c) a fixed or historic ‘incorporated toponym’, which means a term which is part of the place name, or a formative affiliation, and therefore does not reflect its contemporary status. For example, toponyms in Greek such as Nicopolis or Diospolis might have kept their name even after losing their administrative (or other) essence as polis. Next, I identified coherent sets of settlement terms. One of the methods involved looking at terms listed together in a sentence, which indicates their concurrency, antonymy, and relative importance. Another method was to compare toponyms which were addressed by more than one type of source, which highlights parallels or synonyms, translation of terms, and changes in the terminology. Terminology in the various sources The texts are divided into four groups. The first group comprises two chronicles ascribed to non-Muslim residents of Palestine in the 12th century and one list of church records from the 9th or 10th century. The second group consists of various documents written by Jews between the 8th and the early

Settlement patterns through texts

245

13th century. The next source corpus introduces papyri, inscriptions, and seals which were found in Israel/Palestine. Last, and, the most detailed, is a source corpus of fve geographies composed by Muslim scholars from the late 9th to the early 13th century. In this section, I list the terms the source uses for settlement types plus their modern translation. When feasible, I also defne the form of reference by which the term is displayed (‘direct’, ‘general’ or ‘incorporated toponym’), and provide sentences which use several terms together. TERMINOLOGY IN CHRISTIAN AND SAMARITAN TEXTS

The frst text is the Samaritan chronicle Ha-Tūlīda which describes human history from Adam onwards. Its frst part is composed in Aramaic and Hebrew and was frst completed in 1149.4 In the book, the term medhīnā or medînâ (city) appears either as an incorporated toponym (e.g. Medhīnāth al-Qāhira, Medînāt Shekhem, Medhīnāth ʿAzza),5 or as a direct reference.6 The terms kefar (village), qiryâ (village), bēt [house] and ṭîrâ [castle] are also listed, mainly as incorporated toponyms. A possibly related term is migdāl which Florentin translates as ‘church’7 and Neubauer (similar to Modern Hebrew) as ‘tower’.8 Two sentences place the main terms together, medhīnāth, kefar and qiryâ. The frst is w-ʿazvū mā dhawā lūn min qiryân w-min medînān […], which has been translated as “they left their villages and cities”.9 The second, more detailed sentence is […] w-pelēg kohanēhā Bēnē Aharôn ʿal amedhīnāth Shamrāʾī w-legô qiryathūn w-legô kefariyūn (“and he divided the Aaron-descendant priests between the Samaritan cities and inside their qiryâs and inside their villages”).10 The translation of qiryâ will be addressed below by the comparison to other languages. The second source is the Latin chronicle of William of Tyre (d. 1186). The terminology William uses for settlements is varied and its English translation is inconsistent. A survey of the index of the Latin manuscript by Huygens shows the frequent use of the terms urbs (city, town), civitas (city), and castrum (castle/fortress). Additional terms are metropolis (the capital), municipium (town, village),11 oppidum (fortress/stronghold, town),12 arx (castle),13 monasterium, viculus (village),14 and villa (village, villa).15 Three sentences represent concurrent terms. The terms urbs and oppidum are placed together in a story of the Turks, whom he claimed to have neither (non habentes urbes vel oppida).16 A further couple of terms, civitas, and municipium, is used in a narrative about the Crusade conquests, in which ‘no settlement did not request a treaty’ (civitas ulla vel municipium).17 A third sentence lists three terms together: nostrorum urbes, villas & municipia (“the cities, villas, and fortifed places of our people”).18 These sentences suggest that urbs is a synonym for civitas, and perhaps oppidum and municipium are also synonyms. Another Christian source is the Taktikon in Greek, written or edited around 880 by Photius, which describes the domain of authority exercised by the Jerusalem patriarchate (Palestine and its surroundings). The Taktikon

246

Settlement patterns through texts

marks toponyms and topographic elements in the landscape and notes many terms of settlement types. Two different versions of the manuscript exist, one published by Palamas in 1862 (which I could not access) and the other published by Timotheous in 1939.19 The latter seldom mentions the terms polis (πολεως, town), monasterion (μοναστηριον) and kastron (κάστρο̣ν,̣ fortress).20 Fortresses are either independent entities, based on their names (e.g. Kastron Choulda or ‘the White Kastron’),21 or exist within a settlement (i.e. in Azotus). More frequent are the terms kome and choria. The term kome (κώμη, village) appears chiefy in incorporated toponyms including Kome Zounou (ζωονου, Ônô) or Kafarshef (καφαρσεφ, Kafr Sābā),22 but also in the formula kome Gaza which follows the formula klimatos Galga.23 The term choria (χωρια, sing. chorion) Levy-Rubin translates once as an ‘estate’ regarding two choria in the area of Capitolias. The other examples of choria in Timotheous’s text appear in the other manuscript as perichora, which Levy-Rubin translates as ‘environs’ or ‘surroundings’.24 TERMINOLOGY IN THE JEWISH SOURCES

The Jewish texts, in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic, comprise documents from the Geniza, rabbinic legal texts, and the geography of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela. The rabbinic texts consist of Sheʿelôt w-Teshûvôt (Responsa, lit. questions and answers) and Halākhôt G edôlôt (Great Halachas) of the Geonim,25 Igeret lā-Rav Sherîrā Gaʾôn (Epistle of Rabbi Sherira Gaon, 980),26 and Sēfer hā-Qabālâ lā-Rav Avrāhām Ben Dāvid (The Qabalah Book of Rabbi Abraham Ben David, 1161).27 The Geniza documents were accessed through the Princeton Geniza Project Digital Library, with additional publications of Mann and Gil along with the marriage certifcates (ketūbâ) published by Friedman.28 While many of these documents relate to the Jewish communities in Palestine, others regard activities in Egypt, Syria, Yemen, or Spain and North Africa. The most common terms in Hebrew/Aramaic are medînâ/medhīnāthā (city) and ʿîr (village or town).29 In marriage certifcates, the terms often appear directly, such as “in [al-]Ramla the medhīnāthâ which is adjacent to Ludd”.30 As incorporated toponyms, medînâ is frequent and involves famous toponyms (e.g medînāt Baṣrâ, medînāt Ramlâ, medînāt Fās).31 Seldom, ʿîr was used also as an incorporated toponym (e.g. ʿîr Ṣahrajt).32 Both medînâ and ʿîr are used in ‘general references’ with activities or groups of an imagined space, such as the elite (e.g. gedôlē hā-ʿîr)33 or a punishment imposed on the medînâ.34 However, only the ʿîr is present in poetic expressions, such as ʿîr miqlaṭ (a refuge town),35 or ʿîr maṣôr (a town under siege).36 In addition, only ʿîr is used in fxed formulas, such as ‘the capital’ (hā-ʿîr ha-gedôlâ, lit. ‘the big city’)37 or the common formula for Jerusalem, ‘the city of sanctity’ (ʿîr ha-qôdesh).38 The few texts that situate the two terms together clarify the regional superiority of the medînâ. Examples of this are the phrase “Jerusalem and

Settlement patterns through texts 39

e

247

all ʿîreha”, a story about the (people of the) m dīnôt who escaped to the ʿayārôt,40 or a list of toponyms in which medînāt Ṣefat is repeated while the adjacent ʿîrs change.41 Based on the poetic application of ʿîr and its use in important formulae, it can be suggested that it was the symbolic and perhaps ideal term for ‘city’. In practice, however, as most ‘direct references’ show, medînâ meant ‘city’ and ʿîr referred to an inferior entity under the authority of the medînâ. Less common terms in these sources include mivṣār (fortress), qiryâ (town), kefar and neṣîv. The rabbinic texts give importance to kefar, which is very uncommon in documents of the Geniza.42 Sokoloff translates the term as ‘village’.43 One text discusses a situation in which “the owners of the kefars”, hence the landlords (beʿalē hā-kefarîm), gather to settle the tax portions in consonance with the size of their lands (qārqaʿôt) and to make their bribes even.44 The term kefar is also mentioned in an earthquake report in the Geniza, under the jurisdiction of Nābulus (Shekhem w-kŏl kefareyhā).45 The term qiryâ appears only once in the Geniza, as the incorporated toponym Qiryāt Ônô.46 Mivṣār (fortress) appears in contexts such as “all the coast mivṣārs until Mivṣār Ḥayfā”.47 One relevant reference for neṣîv comes in the sentence “neṣîvîm on the roads”.48 Mann translates it as “the garrisons of the commerce routes”,49 but the context implies a structure or a settlement type. Importantly, three terms are encountered together in a text which describes the Jewish community in Palestine in the line “to the entire communities of Israel which are in Erez Israel in mivṣāreyhā and ʿîreyhā and kefareyhā”.50 The Geniza documents written in Arabic or Judeo-Arabic51 chiefy use the terms balad (city) and madīna (city). In addition, single references can be found in the document ‘A Guide to Jerusalem’ to dayr (monastery) and qaṣr (fortress, palace),52 and in other scattered texts to ḥiṣn (fortress),53 qarya – as an incorporated toponym,54 balda (village, town or city),55 and ḍayʿa (village).56 Outside Palestine, one text from Fusṭāṭ adds information about a qaṣr that is also a burj.57 The references to balad are not concrete enough to justify a translation as ‘city’ instead of the more general ‘settlement’. It appears chiefy as an imagined space within a general reference, e.g. “the balad was caught by heavy rain and snow”.58 The term madīna is employed less frequently, mainly as an incorporated toponym,59 but also as a general reference (e.g “I entered the madīna”,60 “the walls of the madīna”).61 The last source in this category is Sēfer Masāʿôt (lit. Book of Journeys) written in Hebrew by Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela (d. after 1173). The terms Benjamin uses for toponyms in Palestine include only ʿîr (city), medînâ (city, town, or district) and kefar (village),62 but elsewhere he also uses kerakh (town),63 and migdāl (tower or castle).64 The term ʿîr is used in direct references to places like Yerūshālēm,65 or in the fxed formula ʿîr gedôlâ (great city).66 Medînâ, however, appears either as an incorporated toponym or as a physical space. Distinct examples, though regarding other regions than Palestine, comprise statements that “Medînāt Bagdad is ʿîr gedôlâ”.67 A different example, from Palestine, is about the toponym Medînāt Ḥebrôn which

248 Settlement patterns through texts is ʿîr.68 A sentence that places concurrent terms together, regarding the Nile, is medînôt w-kerakhîm w-kefarîm mi-ze w-mi-ze (“Along both banks […] are cities, towns, and villages”).69 TERMINOLOGY IN EPIGRAPHY AND PAPYRI

The main advantages of the documentary evidence are their authenticity and their early date. Nevertheless, these texts are also the most scattered and they rarely note terms of settlement types. Relevant epigraphy comprises foundation inscriptions, waqf inscriptions, seals, and inscribed pottery. The two former were chiefy accessed through the online database Thesaurus d’épigraphie islamique (TEI).70 In inscriptions, terms linked with Palestine are qarya, ḍayʿa (property/estate),71 burj (tower) and thaghr (coast fortress).72 Regarding terms on foundation inscriptions, many of them are a direct reference (e.g. “he commanded the construction of this blessed burj”),73 but always represent specifc architectural elements (e.g. fortifcations), not independent settlement types. Thaghr ʿAsqalān, however, is an incorporated toponym mentioned in inscriptions from Ascalon and Acre. While the term thaghr (pl. thughūr) is often associated with the frontier or with military activity,74 Bonner believes that its early meaning was ‘fortifed town’ and that only the plural form, in a later period, meant ‘frontier’.75 The waqfs provide a different type of direct reference to ḍayʿa76 and indicate the association of the term with property, not necessarily with a settlement type. Seals and stamped pottery present the terms madīna (city), dayr (monastery), kafr (village), bayt (home), kūra and iqlīm. The lead seals found in Israel/Palestine can be dated approximately to the late 7th century.77 The terminology they bear often relates to incorporated toponyms while the meaning of the distinct references is debatable. One seal, for example, bears the text khātim [seal] kūrat Nābulus, iqlīm Bayt Ṣāmā, Kafr Nimt.78 Kafr and Bayt are always incorporated toponyms, such as Kafr Ḥabrā, Kafr Lidā, and Bayt Ṣūr.79 In accordance with the sources I previously presented, kūra and iqlīm are administrative titles. One seal that bears kūrat ʿAsqalān on the one side and madīnat ʿAsqalān on the other80 implies that ʿAsqalān answered both defnitions of madīna and kūra. Yet, not every madīna was kūra, as in the inscribed seal khātim kūrat Qaysārīya on one side and madīnat Arsūf on the other.81 A somewhat similar medium is that of stamped ceramic jars which have been discovered in excavations in Israel/Palestine and are dated to the 8th–10th centuries.82 Some bear the inscription Dayr Samwīl (or Shamwīl),83 which is an incorporated toponym. The scarce papyri found and published in Israel/Palestine derive from Nessana and Khirbat al-Mird. The relevant documents from Nessana, written mainly in Greek, are dated to the 7th century. They use the terms kome (village),84 chorion which Kraemer translates as “our native town”,85 kastron (camp), and polis (city district).86 In fact, while Elusa is always the polis, also in earlier papyri, Nessana changes from the kome it was in the 6th century,87

Settlement patterns through texts

249

into a kastron in the early 7th century and a chorion at the end of the 7th century.88 One papyrus in Arabic and Greek presents a possible administrative hierarchy in which the people (ahl, ἀπὸ) of Nessana/al-Naṣtān are said to be from the iqlīm (klima, κλήμα, region) of Elusa/al-Khalūṣ and kūrat (chora, χώρ ̣α, province) Ghazza.89 The highly damaged papyri from Khirbat al-Mird, written in Arabic, are attributed to the 7th century by Grohmann. A single relevant document uses the sentence fī qarya min kūrat […] (“a village belonging to the district”).90 TERMINOLOGY IN THE ARABIC GEOGRAPHIES

Five geographers who portrayed Palestine from the late 9th to the early 13th century were chosen for the purposes of this chapter. The fve provide richer information on the toponyms of Palestine than other contemporaneous authors (e.g. Ibn Ḥawqal or Ibn al-Faqīh). These authors include Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb al-Yaʿqūbī (d. after 905), Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad al-Fārisī, known as al-Iṣṭakhrī (d. after 950), Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Maqdisī (d. after 990), Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdallāh ibn Idrīs, known as al-Idrīsī (d. 1165) and Ya‘qūb b. ‘Abd Allāh Yāqūt (d. 1229). The analysis of the geographical data is mostly quantitative. Table 7.1 displays terms of settlement types that appear in the whole manuscript in question. Table 7.2 which follows compares these terms with the ones used only for settlement types in Palestine. The tables exclude terms that are very general and were not studied such as balad [settlement], mawḍiʿ [place], and manzil [house]. It also excludes terms with a clear administrative use such as kūra [local or regional province],91 the word miṣr [metropolis, regional capital] which usually means ‘Egypt’ in the same manuscripts, and the infrequent qaṣaba [capital or citadel]. At the same time, the table consists of terms that were often used to describe elements within sites and not necessarily settlement types, such as ḥiṣn, qalʿa, and ribāṭ and incorporated Table 7.1 Frequency of settlement-type terms in the fve Arabic geographies

madīna balda bulayda bulayd qarya ḍayʿa ḥiṣn qalʿa ribāṭ dayr Total

al-Yaʿqūbī

al-Iṣṭakhrī

al-Maqdisī

al-Idrīsī

Yāqūt

643 (83%) 3 0 0 44 (6%) 17 36 (5%) 17 2 13 (1.5%) 775

910 (62%) 3 0 0 275 (19%) 34 87 (6%) 71 (5%) 77 (5%) 14 (1%) 1,471

1,001 (50%) 26 1 0 338 (17%) 51 277 (14%) 115 (6%) 169 (8%) 24 (1%) 2,002

5,070 (69%) 26 0 0 759 (10%) 53 1,002 (14%) 273 (4%) 115 (1.5%) 39 (0.5%) 7,337

4,023 (31%) 471 237 50 5,247 (41%) 166 1,059 (8%) 577 (4%) 75 (0.5%) 972 (8%) 12,877

250

Settlement patterns through texts

Table 7.2 Comparing settlement-type terms from Palestine with other regions in the Arabic geographies Term/author

al-Yaʿqūbī

al-Iṣṭakhrī

al-Maqdisī

al-Idrīsī

Yāqūt

madīna qarya ḍayʿa balda bulayda bulayd ḥiṣn qalʿa ribāṭ dayr marsā qaṣr balad

AF A A A

AF AF A A

AF AF AF A Aa

AF AF A A

A A A A

A A A A

A(F) A AF/(F) AFb

A A

A A

A A

AF A A A A A AF

AF AF A A AF AF AF A A AFb A AF

Abbreviations and symbols: F = Palestine; A = Other regions; () = Not a settlement type a Appears once b Incorporated toponym

toponyms (e.g. Madīnat al-Salām). Nonetheless, the contextual analyses which follow will refne that list. Table 7.1 shows the three terms most used by all authors and in relatively great numbers: madīna (town, city), qarya (village) and ḥiṣn (fortress).92 The next most important terms are ribāṭ, qalʿa and dayr. When comparing the fve authors, the ratio of the terms and the actual number of appearances they have in the manuscript are usually varied. The term ribāṭ is mentioned by all authors, but with a clear zenith around the time of al-Maqdisī (8%), followed by a sharp decline. Furthermore, Yāqūt in the early 13th century represents a terminological revolution. First, he uses three new terms, two of them (bulayda and balda) frequently for settlements he claims to have visited. Second, he is the frst to use the terms dayr and qarya extensively, the latter even more than madīna. Table 7.2 demonstrates that the only term which is mentioned in relation to Palestine by all fve authors is madīna. Closely following, qarya is attributed to Palestine by four geographers. Terms that cannot be found in these texts for settlement types in Palestine but are found elsewhere are qalʿa, balda, and qaṣr. Terms that are associated with Palestine only by single geographers and represent settlement types are ribāṭ and ḍayʿa by al-Maqdisī; bulayd, bulayda and to some degree dayr by Yāqūt; and balad and ḥiṣn by Yāqūt and to some degree al-Idrīsī. Some of these terms can be found in the texts, but not as independent settlement types. For instance, the term ḥiṣn is used by earlier geographers but only for fortifcation elements inside other settlement types, such as in the madīnas Yāfā and Qaysāriyya or the qarya Ḥabrā.93 Places can alternatively be described as fortifed (ḥaṣīn) such as the madīna Maymās.94 Likewise, the term balad is used early, but mainly as a

Settlement patterns through texts

251

physical domain inside settlements. As opposed to that, Yāqūt defnes toponyms directly as ḥiṣn such as Tall al-Ṣāfyya or Qāqūn and as balad, such as Aṭrūn.95 Al-Idrīsī writes that Palestine has ḥuṣūn and then lists several ḥuṣūn north of ʿAkkā.96 ʿAkkā lies beyond the study territory but is close enough to be regarded as relevant. The term qalʿa can similarly be found in the description of Yubnā, but in the meaning of a hill or tell that the settlement sits on.97 The fve geographers use diverse terms to illustrate the function of ‘capital’. Importantly, either these terms incorporate the word madīna or the toponyms they defne are identifed also as madīnas. Al-Yaʿqūbī uses the term madīnat X al-ʿuẓmā (lit. the greatest) fourteen times, for example for Aswān and al-Qayrawān.98 However, he defnes central toponyms in al-Shām ‘the madīna of the region’, so that Dimashq is madīnat al-Shām and Ṭabariyya is madīnat al-Urdunn.99 Al-Iṣṭakhrī mentions al-madīna al-ʿuẓmā rarely in the manuscript (fve times, e.g. Fusṭāṭ), and introduces the term qaṣaba (41 times, e.g. “her qaṣaba is madīnat Dimashq”).100 Relying on the examples of Qurṭuba and Fās,101 he uses the two terms as synonyms. In addition, he entitles Ṭabariyya as al-Urdunn’s al-madīna al-kubrā [the greatest madīna] and al-Ramla as Filasṭīn’s al-madīna al-ʿaẓīma [the great madīna].102 The next author, al-Maqdisī, defnes two types of capitals, the miṣr as the capital of the iqlīm and qaṣaba as the capital of the kūra. He never uses the term al-madīna al-ʿuẓmā. He explains that miṣr is defned differently by jurists, linguists, and the common people but that only administrative centers such as Dimashq ft the title.103 The two later authors seldom mention the earlier term (three and fve times) and use qaṣaba instead. Still, al-Idrissī identifes the two central places of Palestine, al-Ramla and Bayt al-Maqdis, as “the madīna”.104 The term ribāṭ is particularly debated in research, interpreted by Bosworth as “frontier forts which also partook of the nature of religious retreats”.105 In reality, the early geographies include limited information on that institute which keeps their interpretation vague. A contextual analysis of related terms has enabled three possible explanations.106 The frst interpretation is that ribāṭs were religious retreats which provided secondary services such as security, postal services, or accommodation. The other possibility is a change over time, with watch stations frst, gradually changing into religious retreats. The third option is the combined function suggested by Bosworth. It can be concluded with certainty that ribāṭ is not a synonym to ḥiṣn and was not necessarily fortifed. For example, al-Maqdisī mentions no distinct fortifcation in the Palestinian ribāṭs, one of them in Yāfā, in contrast to his description of Yāfā’s ḥiṣn.107 Moreover, in Palestine as in many other regions, it was not a settlement type but a structure or a human order inside another entity. Sets of settlement types In this section, I have employed two methods to investigate the sets of terminology for each language or community. The frst method is a comparison

252 Settlement patterns through texts between different types of sources which treated the same toponyms.108 That comparison indicates equivalents in the various languages and also changes over time. For example, the most distinct term is madīna with its parallels medînâ, medhīnāthā, urbs and Benjamin of Todela’s ʿîr. The equivalents repeat in toponyms such as Ghazza, ʿAsqalān, Qaysāriyya, Arsūf, Nābulus, Arīḥā, and Jerusalem. Distinctively, the term kūra is exclusively used for madīnas. The repeated description of Qaysāriyya as madīna before Yāqūt (who describes it as balad) might either imply that the settlement had fallen into sudden decay or that the terms are synonyms in this context. Relying on a single toponym (Jerusalem) which is noted by William of Tyre and Yāqūt, qaṣaba and metropolis are equivalents. Based on Kafr Sābā (and to some extent on Ônô), the terms qiryâ/qarya and kome are equivalents. Concerning changes over time, by the 12th or 13th century Bayt Jibrīn (a madīna) and Bayt Laḥm (qarya) had become bulayd while Jerusalem had transformed from a madīna into a qaṣaba. The second method for detecting sets of settlement types observes sentences that list two to three types together and demonstrate their concurrency and antonymy. That includes “in mivṣāreyhā and ʿîreyhā and kefareyhā” (Hebrew Geniza); medînôt w-kerakhîm w-kefarîm (Benjamin of Tudela); ʿal amedhīnāth Shamrāʾī w-legô qiryathūn w-legô kefariyūn (HaTūlīda); and nostrorum urbes, villas & municipia or civitas ulla vel municipium (William of Tyre). These sets of terms can be placed in one chart which displays the languages and sources across the whole period (Table 7.3). These sets follow the previous toponym comparison, modern translations, and word similarity. In addition, the terms which were used for Palestine by the geographers were added, divided into two periods. All fortifcation terminology entered one category, regardless of its representation of independent settlement types. Incorporated toponyms entered the list but were marked as such. Pursuant to this method, madīna is a synonym to polis, urbs, and to Benjamin’s ʿîr while qarya is a synonym to kome, chorion, oppidum and the Geonim’s ʿîr, and kafr is a synonym to ḍayʿa. The most distinctive pattern in Table 7.3 is the transformation of terms at three specifc points in time. An early change occurred when chorion in Greek took the place of kome before the late 7th century. That terminological change is argued to be typical for the Byzantine administration and related to changes in the ‘identity’ of places for tax-collecting purposes.110 While the 9th-century Taktikon frequently uses the term kome, all cases are either incorporated toponyms (e.g. kome Zounou) or an administrative formula (i.e. the kome of Gaza). In other words, the term did not necessarily return to its original meaning. A second change occurred in Arabic before the 10th century, when the local term kafr was replaced by ḍayʿa. A third and most extensive transformation occurred in the 12th–13th centuries. First, in Arabic, terms like balda and bulayda were introduced, the former also in the Geniza in the year 1100. Moreover, it seems that bulayd

Ep, Pp

Media

Pp

Greek

kastron

XXXX

Gnz, Rs

Hebrew Gnz

JudeoArabic

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX

mivṣār

ḍayʿa

qarya

madīna, balad

Ge, Ep

Arabic

XXXX XXXX XXXX

XXXX XXXX

Ge

Ch

Latin

kefar

qiryâ

XXXX

XXXX

migdāl

kefar

kerakh

madīna

Ge

Arabic

XXXX

monasterium castrum, arx

XXXX

dayra ḥiṣn

oppidum, qarya, municipium bulayda villa, viculus bulayd/ ḍayʿa

medhīnā ʿîr, urbs, civitas medînâ

Ch

Aramaic Hebrew

dayr ḥiṣn, qaṣr burj, ḥiṣn, migdāl, thaghra ṭîrâa

madīna medînâ madīna, (symbolic: balad ʿîr) qarya ʿîr balda, qaryaa kafra, kefar ḍayʿa ḍayʿa

Ge, Ep

Arabic

monasterion dayra kastron burj, ḥiṣn

komea, komea chorion (chorion) (chorion)109

XXXX XXXX XXXX

dayra

kafra

qarya

polis

Tk

Greek

Abbreviations: Ch = Chronicles, Ep = Epigraphy, Ge = Geography, Gnz = Geniza, Pp = Papyri, Tk = Taktikon, Rs = Responsa a Incorporated toponyms

Village, town Hamlet, farm, estate, village Monastery Fortress, citadel, tower, camp Century 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th

Translations City, town madīna polis

Arabic

Language

Table 7.3 A summary of settlement terms in different languages in Palestine in the 7th–13th centuries

Settlement patterns through texts 253

254

Settlement patterns through texts

replaced ḍayʿa in Palestine. Third, conforming to an analysis of Benjamin of Tudela’s manuscript, ʿîr gradually replaced medînâ. In addition, the term kerakh in Hebrew, which in the Talmud has often been a synonym to the Roman polis111 and then disappeared, returned 400 years later – as a synonym to qarya, presumably a synonym to balda. The ffth kind of modifcation is in the fortifcation terminology, where vocabulary in Arabic inscriptions was added (thaghr), words in Hebrew were replaced (migdāl instead of mivṣār) and ḥiṣn (already around 1,065 in the Geniza) entered the terminology of Palestine. When looking at the sets of settlement types in different languages and different periods, the only term or function that is absent in many of them is the monastery. This does not mean that monasteries did not exist. The scarce Christian texts (Taktikon from the 9th century and William of Tyre’s chronicle from the 12th), as well as the ‘Guide to Jerusalem’ in Judeo-Arabic,112 do mention monasteries. Their absence from the geographies and other non-Christian sources suggests a very limited number of monasteries, or their lack of social and political signifcance for the broader society. Despite the seeming indifference to monasteries by non-Christians, most settlement types were defned and identifed equally by different communities in Palestine. The difference between the sources is in the focus they give to smaller establishments. The Arabic geographies before Yāqūt, as well as the Geniza, give very little attention to kafr and ḍayʿa – which are, in contrast, found in the waqf inscriptions, the Samaritan chronicle, and the Jewish Responsa. This indicates the city-centric perspective of the geographers and the Jewish merchants, which must be considered by modern historians when reconstructing ancient geographies. Characteristics of settlement types This section investigates the way authors defned settlement types and their characteristics and how they differentiated between them. I focus on the characteristics of the kafr, the difference between madīna and qarya, and an interpretation of fortifcation elements and fortifed settlements. Translations of the various terms conclude this section. The local term kafr shifted to ḍayʿa in Arabic before the 10th century and transformed into bulayd in the 13th century. Historians and translators interpret these terms diversely, from ‘village’113 to ‘hamlet’,114 ‘farm’,115 and ‘estate’.116 The ownership of both the kefar in our rabbinic sources (beʿālê ha-kefarîm) and the ḍayʿa in inscriptions is private,117 implying its suitable translation as ‘estate’. However, in Egypt in the 10th century, 23 ḍiyāʿ of orthodox Christians were subsumed under one name (Sakāṭīnā),118 implying their independence and the ‘hamlet’ interpretation. Similarly, Safrai explains the Talmudic kefar as either a ‘hamlet’ or an ‘estate’.119 At any rate, the meaning of these terms in the 1st centuries is a small residential unit with agricultural lands that could be privately owned.

Settlement patterns through texts

255

The term qarya in Arabic has been commonly translated as ‘village’.120 Hence, it is interpreted as a non-city, and more specifcally as a small and peripheral settlement. However, its equivalents have been sometimes translated also as ‘town’, such as chorion,121 municipium, or Benjamin’s kerakh. Safrai claims that the Talmudic ʿîr is everything between kefar and polis.122 Another equivalent in the table is oppidum which is sometimes translated as ‘fortifed town’.123 Even in Arabic, Khalidi reads qarya in the Quran as ‘city’ and as a synonym to madīna.124 Translating qarya as ‘town’ generates a more ‘city-like’ perception. Table 7.3 demonstrated the emergence of the terms balda and bulayda in the 12th or 13th century, which I suggest fall below the category of the qarya. The few documents that mention balda in the Geniza have been translated diversely as city, village, or town.125 The 13th-century text by al-Nābulusī completes this pattern when the terms balda and bulayda are used much more frequently than qarya. Ropoport translates both as ‘village’. Accordingly, they had several structures and trees and were surrounded by their lands.126 In theory, these two terms either replaced the term qarya also in Palestine, or had different function/s. A comparison of random bulaydas and qaryas by Yāqūt shows that the bulayda had 55% of the places with a market (33% markets in plural), no mosques, no artifcial water sources, and very little of agriculture, textile industry, or fortifcations.127 In strong contrast, the qarya was big (64%), had a mosque (50%) (and once a church), and agriculture (50%) but no fortifcations. In addition, only very few of the settlements are mentioned to have water sources (14%), a market (14%), or an industry (7%). When al-Maqdisī notes qaryas in Palestine, such as Bayt Laḥm, ʿĀqir or Ludd, the only characteristics which repeat in them is a mosque or a church. The qaryas Ḥabrā and ʿAmwās have water sources, but no qarya is mentioned with a market.128 The most popular term in this research, in all languages and at all times, is madīna. Its unique characteristics, however, are diffcult to detect and defne. In al-Maqdisī’s introduction to Egypt, he writes that “there is no madīna without a minbar”.129 A minbar is commonly interpreted in the context of mosques as a physical platform for the leader to give the Friday sermon,130 yet also that set of terminology should be re-examined afresh in future studies. Madīnas in Palestine which are noted by al-Maqdisī can be big or small and comprise mosques (75–77% of the places), water sources (50–54%), and fortifcations (46–50%).131 Comparing qaryas with madīnas provides little correlation. Exceptions are the markets according to al-Maqdisī, which are exclusive to madīnas, and the churches, which are exclusive to qaryas. The most signifcant difference between the terms is the concentration of features in the madīna. No correlation was found with mosques (or with a specifc term for mosques). The fortifcations are attributed to madīna more often though not exclusively: the qarya of Ḥabrā has a ḥiṣn.132 Another difference between the types is the regional superiority of madīna. Al-Maqdisī writes regarding Kafr Salām

256

Settlement patterns through texts

that it is one of the qaryas of Qaysariyya,133 and that ʿAmmān has qaryas and felds.134 The papyri contribute a similar interpretation of Nessana, which is described as a chorion under the jurisdiction of Elusa135 and the Geniza documents similarly note Jerusalem and Ṣefat’s control over ʿîrs.136 Another meaning of madīna comes to light with three inscriptions outside Palestine, implying the conception of the term as an architectural element. The frst text, from Bawār in Lebanon (100/718), reads “ʿAbd Allah al-Walīd commanded the construction of this city”.137 The next text, from Qaṣr alḤayr al-Sharqī in Syria (110/729) literally reads “he commanded the making of this city”.138 A later text, from Evora in Portugal (302/915), reports on the restoration of the city (hādhihi-l-madīna juddidat).139 Since all other examples of direct reference in foundation inscriptions of that period refer to architectural elements within sites or structures (e.g. a bridge, a mosque, a cistern), the ‘cities’ on such inscriptions should answer similar functions. From all the terms analyzed and discussed, the ones for fortifed settlements and fortifcation elements are the most varied in language, geography, and chronology. When looking at Palestine, most fortifcation terms do not represent settlement types. In the geographies and the Geniza in Arabic, the term ḥiṣn is utilized and translated as ‘fortress’ and the root ḥṣn as ‘fortify’. Only during the 12th century does it refect (in Palestine) settlements independent of others. In Hebrew, the term mivṣār and its root bṣr are translated similarly. The earliest dated evidence for the use of mivṣār – already as a settlement type – is earlier than in Arabic, in the early 11th century.140 Mazzoli-Guintard analyses the terminology of fortifcations for al-Andalus by al-Idrīsī and translates ḥiṣn, his most common term, as a ‘fortifed place’ (lieu fortifé).141 Inscriptions in Arabic present the use of the term burj, which has been translated as ‘tower’142 and perhaps corresponds with the Hebrew and Aramaic migdāl. Based on their replacement of former terms, the comparison to the terms of William of Tyre and a single translation by Adler,143 these terms should be translated as ‘fortress’ or ‘citadel’. Thaghr, which is used as an incorporated toponym for ʿAsqalān, might mean either (fortress or tower) or ‘a fortifed town’, as suggested by Bonner.144 Finally, it seems that kastron in the Nessana papyri should be translated as ‘fortress’ not ‘camp’. Moreover, following its chronological context, Kastron Nessana should be better read as ‘the fortress in Nessana’ which means an element within the settlement. The very limited references to fortifcations in all sources – local and foreign – suggest they were not common in Palestine. The meaning and translation of one term depend on the unique characteristics which differentiate it from the other terms. Madīna was the most central entity in the region which had markets and most of the available services. This term can easily and consistently be translated as ‘city’. The qarya had some of a city’s services, such as mosques or fortifcations, but was less related to trade, and was linked to a regional madīna. The term is commonly translated as ‘village’ which is associated today with agriculture and

Settlement patterns through texts

257

insignifcance. In order to break these associations and to attach qarya more to its equivalents (ʿîr, municipium), I suggest translating it as ‘town’. In the 12th century, the new form of settlement, the bulayda, was related mainly to trade and not so much to agriculture. That term should best be translated as ‘market-town’. Another term in the set is kafr and its equivalents, which is a small entity with lands and could be privately owned. I would translate it as ‘village’. In short, besides the monastery and the fortress, we have city, town/ market-town, and village. Their defnition is based on the scope of their services, their relation to trade, their relative centralism, and to some degree their relative size. Since most settlement types had agriculture, this is not an essential characteristic. The metropolis does not make another category of settlement types. It is frst and foremost a city. However, it is a ‘mega-city’: it is the most central in its region, it has more services and trade networks, and it is usually big.

Settlement patterns through terminology One of the purposes of the previous examination, detecting settlement types through terminology, was to enable an analysis of settlement patterns by texts alone. In this section, I will present the hidden and sometimes misunderstood information the sources present about toponyms: the terms they use to defne them. Moreover, I will offer a method to interpret the role different settlements took in a region and changes in these relations over time. This examination analyses the relative dynamics of settlements only through the terminology that was assigned to them, not through the narratives. It also disregards any physical evidence of later sites (and modern municipalities) which answer the same names. The relevant terminology for each toponym is detected in texts from the 4th century to the 13th. In addition to the sources above, I used a list by the Roman administration, the Onomasticon of Eusebius, and the Madaba Map, as well as Arabic chronicles and a few additional geographies in Arabic. The terminology in texts which were not analyzed earlier is treated in accordance with the previous results. I will briefy explain the terminology in texts from the Roman period since it is sometimes different than the former one. Then, I will solve the identifcation problem of the two ‘Ashdods’. Last, I will compare all the research area’s toponyms across the centuries and will analyze the status, relations, and changes in the settlements they represent. The Onomasticon in the 4th century uses a number of terms to defne settlement types. The corpus includes the polis (city), the polichne (πολίχνη, town), and the kome which can also be large (megale, μεγάλε) or very large (megisti, μεγίστη).145 The translators of the Onomasticon translate kome as ‘village’ but I suggest translating it as ‘town’, which means either that it is a synonym to polichne, or that there are several levels or types of towns.

258  Settlement patterns through texts The next source, the administrative list of Hierocles Synecdemus from the 6th century assembles the cities of Palestine and thus indicates which of the settlements was considered to be a ‘city’ by the authorities.146 In the Madaba mosaic map from the 7th century, settlements are depicted in their contemporary state including their name/s and sometimes a biblical citation. Avi-Yona divides the images into five types of settlements: cities, small cities, big villages, smaller places, and single structures/ churches. Cities have a detailed portrait of a ‘cardo’ (or a covered market), public structures, and ponds (e.g. Ascalon, Lod, Iamnia, and Azotus Paralios). The small cities consist of a wall, four to five towers, and one roof (e.g. Ashdod), whereas the big villages consist of a wall and three to four towers (e.g. Akkaron).147 I suggest a slightly different typology which accords with the terminological examination. The alternative interpretation involves big settlements with a detailed three-dimensional depiction (city and metropolis), a detailed independent three-dimensional structure (monastery), a ­two-dimensional structure (village), and two-dimensional illustrations of walls and towers in various sizes and lengths (town). The dual toponym of Ashdod raises problems of identification. The next two charts present two optional orders of the two toponyms according to name and historical identification. Following Table 7.4, the inland Azotus has become Yazdūd while Azotus Paralios became Māḥūz Azdūd and then disappeared.148 In this case, it can be suggested that the Madaba Map has confused the two toponyms, nominating one a city and the other a town. The chart in Table 7.5 is more consistent with the definition of Azotus Paralios as a city and suggests this is the toponym which became Yazdūd. Clearly, the two settlements existed in parallel until the 9th century. The toponym that has disappeared might have merged with the other or the place acquired

Table 7.4  The history and identification of the two Azotus: scenario 1 Source

Coastal

Inland

Onomasticon

Ashdod (Azotus) Town

Azotus (Ashdod)

Hierocles Georgii Madaba Taktikon

Azotus Paralios City Azotus Paralios Azotus Paral[ios] City Azotus Paralios

al-Maqdisī Māḥūz Azdūd Rabbi Benjamin William of Tyre Yāqūt

(Port)

City (originally Philistine) Azotus Mesogeios City Azotus Hippenos Ashdod Town Azotus Hipposhunes Azdūd Palmîd (Ashdôd) (Originally Philistine) Azotu (Originally Philistine) Yazdūd City

Settlement patterns through texts

259

Table 7.5 The history and identifcation of the two Azotus: scenario 2 Source

Coastal

Inland

Azotus (Ashdod) City (originally Ashdod (Azotus) Town Philistine) Hierocles Azotus Paralios City Azotus City Mesogeios Georgii Azotus Paralios Azotus Hippenos Madaba Azotus Paral[ios] City Ashdod Town Taktikon Azotus Paralios Azotus Hipposhunes al-Maqdisī Azdūd Rabbi Benjamin Palmîd (Ashdôd) (Originally Philistine) William of Tyre Azotu (Originally Philistine) Yāqūt Yazdūd City Onomasticon

another name. The documentation in the sources might well be the result of confusion similar to ours. The next table (Table 7.6) compares the terminology of settlement types for the research area. An additional term to enter the table is kūra from administrative language, a term which we learned earlier only cities received. The frst comparisons operate horizontally, examining stability or changes in single settlements over time, and vertically, looking at types of settlements in each period. Later on, the results from different places and along the centuries are also compared. To most toponyms, only very scattered information pertains and could contribute only to the regional overview. The regional results are generally consistent, with two to four cities in every century. The different outcome of fve cities in the 6th century, based on the list of Hierocles, questions the reliability of this source for a typology of settlements. Settlement types other than cities, even towns, are rarely represented in the written sources. A number of settlements are defned across the centuries and often show a stable defnition. Yāfā, al-Ramla, and Azotus Paralios are cities in the whole time frame (al-Ramla from the 8th century), whereas Ludd is a city only until the early-10th century. ʿĀqir is coherently a town, Azotus is a town when ignoring its defnition by Hierocles, and Dājūn is usually a town. The common defnition of Dājūn as a town points to an inconsistency in the 10th century, when al-Maqdisī calls it a city. Yubnā is the only toponym to show shifts between a town and a city and fnally a village. This implies either a fast decline of the settlement or the parallel existence of two or more places by the same name. At least three towns from the 4th century (Gittham, Gallaya, and Barka) vanish in later sources, whereas several towns in the 13th century are new (Kafr Rinnis, Maghār, Bashīt, and Yāzūr). Despite the change in toponyms, the maximum number

Dayr Bawlus Gallaya Enetaba Yubnā

al-Ramla

polichne, biblical polis

kome

civitasb

kome

kome

Town

Village

7

Village City

City City

City

City

Yāfā St. Yona Gittham Ônô al-Sāf riyya Dājūn Yāzūr Kafr Rinnis Ludd

polis

6

Toponym/source 4 From kūras

9–10

kūra, ancient madīna

madīna, kūra, (madīnat Filasṭīn) madīna madīna, madīnat Filasṭīn

kūra

8

Table 7.6 Settlement terminology along the 4th–13th centuries 12

Early 13

qarya qarya bulayda qarya qarya

qarya

balad c, municipum

bulayd

medînâ, qaṣaba urbs, madīnat al-Shām madīna with Jerusalem [dayr]

From qaryas

madīna

[qirya]a

From madīnas urbs, oppidum, madīna madīna

10–11

260 Settlement patterns through texts

3 8

kome kome polichne polis

kome

5

3 3 2

City Town City City

Town

1/2

3/4

4 3/4

medînâ

qarya

2 1

3 8 2

madīna

qarya From qaryas From qaryas

Sources: 4th century: Onomasticon; 6: Hierocles; 7: the Madaba Map; 8: seals; 9–10: al-Balādhurī, Ibn al-Faqīh (d. after 903); al-Yaʿqūbī; 10–11: al-Maqdisī (d. after 990), Jewish Geniza; 12: al-Idr īsī, William of Tyre; Early 13th century: Yāqūt Signs: () an historical def nition; [] settlement type according to the incorporated toponym a Friedman (1983). b Expositio totius mundi et gentium: 164, XXXI. c Al-Harawī: 33, cited at Le Strange (1890: 553).

Maghār ʿĀqir Bashīt Ḥaṣôr Barka Azotus Azotus Paralios/ Azdūd Cities Towns Other

Settlement patterns through texts 261

262

Settlement patterns through texts

of towns (eight) is repeated in the 4th century in the Onomasticon and in the 13th century by Yāqūt, suggesting a regional balance. These results imply a city-centric perception in the sources, especially geographies, from the 9th to 12th centuries. Likewise, toponyms such as Ḥaṣôr and Ônô, apparently Jewish, were disregarded by the geographers, as well as settlement types such as monasteries and villages. On the other hand, the results might represent a situation where smaller places were overshadowed by a larger entity. The latter interpretation is supported by the correlated changes that al-Ramla, Ludd, and Yāfā went through. Importantly, both interpretations indicate that the disappearance of toponyms of the Roman period does not necessarily refect an actual decline or abandonment of settlements. The terminological evidence presents a transformation of defnitions for three toponyms in parallel before the end of the 10th century. Ludd was defned as a city until the 8th century,149 then enjoyed the administrative status of a kūra, and from the mid-10th century was recognized as a town. During the 9th century, al-Ramla shifted from city to metropolis. In the 9th–11th centuries, Yāfā was considered one of the cities or kūras of Palestine but was not labeled a city in its own entries. In fact, it is described as a port of the metropolis.150 One can assume that the emergence of al-Ramla as a city infuenced the status of Ludd, and that its transformation into a metropolis resulted in overshadowing both Ludd and Yāfā. By the early 13th century, when the regional capital was Bayt al-Maqdis and al-Ramla was defned again ‘city’, Yāfā returned to the status of a city but Ludd did not.

Settlement patterns according to the narratives The literary sources – chronicles, geographies, and itineraries – as well as correspondences from the Geniza, contain information on settlement patterns. Most clearly, they provide details on the role of al-Ramla in the region and on its relations with Ludd. The frst set of narratives demonstrates how a new city was built. In the same texts, from the 10th century onward, the establishment of al-Ramla comes at the expense of the veteran neighbor. The following group of texts emphasizes the centrality of al-Ramla and the last texts suggest that Ludd constituted a part of the capital al-Ramla but also kept an independent identity. The sources do not provide suffcient information on other toponyms in the research area. In the frst version we have, from the late 9th century, al-Balādhurī contributes a detailed report which mentions Ludd but not its destruction. As the story goes, after becoming governor, Sulaymān Ibn ʿAbd al-Malik settled in (nazala) Ludd and then established (aḥdatha) al-Ramla. He erected his palace and ‘the house of dyers’ and planned a mosque and built it but was called for the caliphate ( fa-walā al-khilāfa) before completing it. He encouraged the people (adhana li-l-nās) to build, so they did, he constructed an aqueduct for the people of al-Ramla, and he dug sweet water wells. For

Settlement patterns through texts

263

the construction of the mosque, he appointed a Christian clerk from Ludd, Baṭrīq Ibn al-Nakā (or Bakā). Most of the text is repeated in the same words by Ibn al-Faqīh, except that the part where Sulaymān did not complete the mosque gets omitted. A shorter version is provided by Yāqūt.151 The text by al-Yaʿqūbī (d. after 905) is the frst to present the destruction of Ludd. According to the author, when Sulaymān has built (ibtanā) al-Ramla, he destroyed (kharraba) Ludd the former capital, so the people of Ludd moved (naqala) to al-Ramla the present capital.152 Later narratives from the mid/late 10th century demonstrate the diffculties of fnding building materials for al-Ramla and the negotiation with the local population. This is illustrated in two variations by al-Jahshiyārī (d. 942) and one by al-Maqdisī and is repeated by Yāqūt. In one of al-Jahshiyārī’s narratives, Ludd and its church are demolished, while in another version and in al-Maqdisī’s text, the city is not mentioned, and the church is saved. The name Baṭrīq (Patriarch?) Ibn al-Nakā splits into two directions. In the frst story, a man from the people of Filasṭīn, known as Ibn Baṭrīq, was appointed to build al-Ramla, so he asked the people of Ludd to use some of their building materials, but they refused. He thus told them that “the church will be destroyed by God” and later on, “he built madīnat alRamla and its mosque and that was the reason (sabab) for ruining Ludd”. In the second narrative, when Sulaymān decided to build the mosque of al-Ramla, he intended that the columns from Jūrjīs church would be brought to him. However, the Patriarch (al-baṭrik) asked him to postpone (istamhaluhu) and wrote to Byzantium (Bilād al-Rūm). Their answer was: ‘show him (Sulaymān) the cave close to al-Dārūm (an area between Bayt Jibrīn and Ascalan), where columns which were used to build the church are left’. Accordingly, he (the Patriarch) showed him (Sulaymān) the columns, Sulaymān took out the columns and built with it the mosque and the Jūrjīs church remained (in place).153 A comparable story was narrated half a century later by al-Maqdisī’s ‘uncle’, this time about Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik and not his brother Sulaymān. When he planned to build the minaret of al-Ramla, he was told that the Christians had stored marble columns under the sand for the church of Bāliʾa (or Bāligha). He told them that either they reveal it or he would demolish (nahdimu) the church of Ludd and build the mosque with its columns, so they revealed it ( fa-aẓharuhā).154 It can be summarized that the destruction narrative was formed in the time between al-Balādhurī and al-Yaʿqūbī, between the late 9th and the early 10th century. The fact that Ibn al-Faqīh (d. after 903) still copied the earlier version of the narrative suggests that the change in the story is indeed relatively

264

Settlement patterns through texts

late, from al-Yaʿqūbī’s time. Still, the different versions in the 10th century demonstrate how the destruction narrative did not win a consensus. It can be suggested that the church of Ludd became famous so that authors found it necessary to explain its existence. Three pieces of evidence imply that al-Ramla absorbed Ludd in the 9th– 12th centuries. The frst is a report of “Bernard and his companions” from 870 (or 970). The delegation is said to go to the monastery and tomb of Saint George from al-Ramla, whereas Ludd is not mentioned.155 The second piece of evidence is the narrative of ibn al-Athīr about the year 587 AH/AD 1191. Therein, Saladin ruined the fortress of al-Ramla and the church of Ludd and then left “after the demolition (takhrīb) of al-Ramla”.156 The phrase implies that Ludd was part of al-Ramla. The third piece is the alleged mistake made by al-Ṭabarī (d. 923) regarding al-Ramla during the conquests. The historian provides the conquests traditions of the 630s (year 15 AH), where al-Ramla, Īliyāʾ, and their domains (ḥayz) are noted. In particular, he reports on a division of Filasṭīn into two ( fa-ṣārat Filasṭīn niṣfayn): half with the people of Īliyāʾ and half with the people of al-Ramla.157 Since it is accepted in modern literature that al-Ramla did not exist during the conquests, Luz explains this text as a confusion of toponyms with Ludd, and maybe as anachronistic naming of the capital.158 Narrating about al-Ramla instead of Ludd makes sense if Ludd constitutes part of it. If we are to accept the reading that Ludd was absorbed by al-Ramla, then the location of ‘the house of the dyers’ in al-Ramla which al-Balādhurī describes in the late 9th century may be in Ludd, a dyeing center in the Roman Period.159 The stories above, together with the names of the settlement which revolve around St. George, suggest that Ludd retained an individual ‘sense of place’ around its church even if al-Ramla overshadowed it. The earliest link between Ludd with the saint can be found in Theodosius’s writing in the early 6th century.160 Correspondingly, Ludd was named Georgioupolis in the administrative list of Georgi Cyprii (the second half of the 6th century).161 The fact that Muslim and Crusader authors provide scarce details on Ludd, and chiefy on the church alone, supports that assumption. Al-Maqdisī frst describes the mosque ( jāmiʿ) of Ludd “whereupon many people gather from the capital and the towns around”.162 He then continues with its “wonderful church where, on its door, Jesus will kill the Antichrist (al-dajjāl)”.163 The latter narrative echoes a tradition by al-Ṭabarī, where one Jew answers ʿUmar’s interrogations and says that the Antichrist will be killed near Ludd’s Gate.164 With even scarcer details, al-Jahshiyārī only notes Jūrjīs church.165 Last, when William of Tyre mentions Lydda, he discusses once “the glorious tomb” of the martyr George and in another instance refers to an attack by Turks and the feeing of the population to St. George church.166 In addition to the Taktikon in the 9th century,167 the ‘Georgian’ name of Ludd is refected in Benjamin of Tudela’s writing in the 12th century (e.g. Shergôrsh).168

Settlement patterns through texts

265

Last, the messages about the centrality of al-Ramla and its relation to trade are clear in a number of texts. According to al-Maqdisī, for instance, al-Ramla is located between rasātīq (lands), cities, and ribāṭs.169 An undated Christian tradition which might refect the place’s importance and centrality narrates about the monk ʿAbd al-Masīḥ al-Najrānī who declared his faith in al-Ramla (supposedly in the 8th century).170 One letter by a Maghrebi Jewish merchant (1066?) presents both the administrative role of al-Ramla and its relation to Yāfā. The text describes his sail to Yāfā “the port of Ramla”, in which the ship was hit by a storm and was carried to Caesarea and the goods were damaged. “When I arrived in Ramla, I had to pay custom duties to a degree I am unable to describe”. Then he waits for an answer regarding selling the Cypriot silk in al-Ramla.171 In the 12th century, al-Idrīsī describes al-Ramla’s trade in terms of markets, commerce, and export-import (dukhūl wa-khurūj).172 These descriptions, absent for any other toponym, support the defnition of al-Ramla as the capital of the region or a metropolis. Still, the entity might comprise a number of settlements. Uniquely, a formula in Jewish legal documents from the 11th century situates medînat al-Ramla as “adjacent to Ludd”. This suggests that Ludd was more important to the local Jewish community, at least historically.173 The sentence might also conceal information about the contemporary situation of the two settlements as being part of a single entity, but that is more speculative. My interpretation of the narratives correlates with the analysis of the terminology. During the 9th century, al-Ramla shifted from city to metropolis. This shift is not refected in the literary sources directly, but the centrality of al-Ramla for economy and administration is clear. In addition, both analyses of terminology and narratives suggest that the metropolis al-Ramla absorbed Ludd from the mid-9th or 10th century: the literary sources ignored its existence or mixed it with al-Ramla, and it is no longer defned ‘city’ but ‘town’. However, the sources mention the church of Ludd and a Christian tradition about it so that the identity of Ludd might have remained around that location. The narratives from the 10th century refect the way al-Ramla dominated Ludd. On the one hand, the regional status of Ludd was substantially reduced as it was no longer a capital, but on the other hand, it kept thriving. A similar interpretation is possible according to the terminological analysis, when, from the mid-10th century, Ludd stopped being perceived as a city or a kūra.

Settlement types in archaeology and terminology The typology of archaeological sites and of settlements mentioned in the texts mostly correlate with one another. Site type 1 resembles the characteristics of a ‘city’, site type 2 resembles a ‘town’, site type 3 resembles a ‘market-town’, and type 4 resembles a ‘village’. After matching the types of settlements and sites, the physical aspects of each type shed light on the

266

Settlement patterns through texts

textual descriptions and vice versa. However, two settlement types which were recognized in the terminology are absent from the archaeological record: monasteries and fortresses. The reasons are, frst, that there is a limited number of these settlement types in Palestine; they might have not been part of the occupation map of the research area during the early Islamic period. Second, both types yielded sparse information on their unique characteristics (or indeed any other of their characteristics) and may thus have operated just like any other town or village. In that case, the site typology is not nuanced enough to identify them. These explanations can only be tested in the future with the assistance of other regions. Site type 1 includes Mazliah, Lod, Bet Dagan, Azor, Jaffa, and Tell Qasile. The six sites sit on the ‘northern’ coast or on a route which leads to Ramla, they all have a market, and could have offered other available services such as water and a bathhouse. The rarest artefacts in the research area could also be found in them. While these sites show some evidence for crafts, it is relatively scarce, and evidence of mass production in agriculture or industries is absent. The site of Mazliah is exceptional in that regard since it was distinctly industrial. Except for Bet Dagan, which has architectural evidence from the late 9th to 10th centuries alone, these sites existed from the 7th or 8th century onward. In accordance with their lack of production, they often enjoyed the support of productive sites of type 3 or 4. The madīna similarly comprises a concentration of all available services, such as agriculture, markets, a mosque, and fortifcations. Its economy is related to trade more than other settlement types. The correlation with the physical evidence, if valid, demonstrates that cities are not always geographically central to many other sites and the distance between them or from them to other sites is not relevant. Also, cities in this context were occupied with trade or distribution, not so much with production. Fortifcations and mosques, which are expected in some madīnas, could not be traced in any site of type 1. Site type 2 includes Ramla’s center and stadium and ten more sites from Kafr Jinnis to Ashdod-Yam. These sites consist of most of the elements which are found in type 1, but at a much smaller level. Unlike sites of type 1, they are very productive, including the major regional industries and largescale agriculture. Similar to the former, rare artefacts such as objects made of bone and stamped jar handles were unearthed in some of them and imply their relation to trade. Based on dating by architecture, this type of sites is ‘fragile’, with different establishment dates. These sites were rarely occupied the whole period. Two of the newer sites, however, became relatively big soon after their establishment: Ashdod-Yam and Tel Yavne. Fortifcations and a mosque were also detected in the latter. Moreover, central Ramla became extremely big. All these characteristics seem to ft with the qarya in the sources, which is very similar to the ‘city’ but never has all the services the city offers. If this correlation is valid, then towns were the main production settlements in the region. These settlements were self-suffcient and were remarkably absent around cities.

Settlement patterns through texts

267

Site type 3 comprises six sites, three around Azor (Or Yehuda, Ramat Gan, and Hadar Yosef) and three in the Rehovot cluster (Yad Eli’ezer, Weizmann Institute, and Kefar Gabirol). All six sites had big fre installations, and most were related to pottery production. This site type is the only one without channels and other water installations, suggesting it was not involved in any agriculture. Its spatial dispersion shows its relation to sites of type 1 or 2, presumably as a production center. Most importantly, they are a later invention than other types, starting in the 8th century or later. The best terminological match for type 3 is the balda or bulayda which I interpret as market-towns, but that correlation is weak. According to the random characterization from Yāqūt, these settlements had no artifcial water sources (but some agriculture), some industry, and markets. This is different than al-Nābulusī’s descriptions from Egypt, where these settlements were surrounded by their lands.174 Bulayda is mentioned only by Yāqūt and balda becomes popular in Palestine as elsewhere only in his book, thus these terms refect a later type of settlement. If we are to accept the correlation with site type 3, then we can defne an ‘Islamic’ settlement type. The gap between the emergence of the site type earlier than the 9th century and its earliest documentation in the 12th century highlights one of the advantages of archaeology and the challenge in working with texts. The sixteen sites of type 4 are characterized by water installations which represent agriculture. They have no fagstone pavement which would refect a market, nor the industrial fre installations. A few of them had craft waste (Ramla, Horvat Zerifn, Ramat Hahayal, and Khirbat al-ʿAṣfūra) or an oil or winepress (Ben-Gurion Airport, Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya, and Rishon Leziyyon). Copper coins were found on ten of the sites, indicating some level of exchange, perhaps related to their production. A number of sites existed in the 7th century, but most of them emerged in the late 9th century. They were often located adjacent to sites of type 2, the towns, or around Ramla. Of this group, the site Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya shows a clear foor plan of a courtyard house (approximately 30 × 30 m).175 Yavne-Yam has also a square structure (size unknown) which includes a wall, a tower, and an extramural staircase.176 The settlement type that can be associated with these sites is the village (kafr, ḍayʿa, bulayd) of local texts. This type of settlement is characterized by agriculture and can be privately owned. However, it could also mean monasteries, to which the information in texts is likewise scarce. One site in this group, Yavne-Yam, is not a perfect ft. Like other sites of type 4, it possesses a complex of wells, channels, and pools, and excludes fagstone pavements and fre installations. However, unlike the other sites but with resemblance to type 1, it is located on the coast, has a bathhouse, and lies adjacent to a relatively big Roman site.177 I suggest that it was a city at the beginning of our time frame but did not get updated with the trends which made cities central and important later. Based also on its fortifcation elements, it is possible that it became a fortress (ḥiṣn) and not a regular village. Its interpretation as a fortress agrees with the one offered by the excavators.178

268 Settlement patterns through texts The metropolis is not a settlement type, but the most central city in a region, a big entity, and one which administratively controlled towns and villages in its surroundings. Unlike any other site in the region, all of which answer the defnition of one site type, Ramla was composed of one city, two towns, and several villages. This means that the term ‘metropolis’ can denote, physically, a cluster of sites. The correlation of the cluster of Ramla and the metropolis al-Ramla will be discussed shortly.

The identifcation of toponyms in the research area In the introduction to this book, I argued that identifying toponyms in archaeological or contemporary sites is highly speculative. The two main uncertainties with that method are the exact location of toponyms and the borders of settlements. I did agree, however, that most settlements, even when get expended or migrated, should be expected to stay in one region. In the following paragraphs, I will suggest the identifcation of toponyms based on the settlement type assigned to them in the texts, on the typology of sites, on the size of sites, and on the temporal development of sites. Special attention is given to al-Ramla and Ludd, for which suffcient information is contributed from narratives. The frst method of identifcation is a comparison of complete groups. Toponyms that were described as cities include al-Ramla, Ludd, Yāfā, Dājūn (by al-Maqdisī), Yubnā, and Azdūd. All six sites of type 1 sit in one area which can be assigned to the frst four toponyms and thus, two sites are redundant. Relying on a description by al-Maqdisī, in which Yāfā has “fne anchorages”,179 in the plural, the toponym could be regarded as both sites Jaffa and Tell Qasile (6.5 km away). In the southern part of the research area, where the cities Yubnā and Azdūd are expected to be situated, there are no sites of type 1. In short, the correlation between ‘cities’ and site type 1 in the research area is not perfect. The Onomasticon of Eusebius in the 4th century, as well as Yāqūt in the 13th century, mention eight ‘towns’ in the research area. This number is similar to the number of sites type 2 (ten excluding Ramla). A chronological line cannot be sketched between the two sources at face value but places which are mentioned by both might have existed the whole period. The only towns which appear on both lists are ʿĀqir and Dājūn. In case these settlements stayed in the same location, sites of type 2 which would ft them must have existed the whole period, such as Na’an south or Gan Yavne. The change in the names of most other toponyms correlates with the short lives of most sites of this type. Importantly, the exclusion of towns from the writing of geographers and Jewish merchants does not correlate with the reality and indicates the authors’ city-centric perspective. In contrast to the frst two types, there is a huge gap between the representations of smaller settlements in the written sources and their physical presence. Yāqūt mentions only one toponym in the research area which is a

Settlement patterns through texts

269

bulayda, Yāzūr. The toponym can be identifed with any of the type 3 sites around Azor, such as Or Yehuda or Ramat Gan. Five out of six sites are remarkably absent from the written sources. Similarly, the only settlement to be defned as a ‘village’ in the research area is Yubnā, a bulayd. Excluding sites in the Ramla cluster, at least eleven villages are absent from the written sources. The identifcation of Yubnā or Iamnia should be discussed. The toponym was illustrated as a city in the Madaba Map, was identifed by al-Yaʿqūbī in the 9th century as an ancient city, and was indeed an administrative center (kūra) which minted coins and seals in the 8th century. The term kūra was exclusively used for madīnas. In the 10th and 12th century, it is defned as a qarya and a municipum – hence, a town. In the 13th century, Yāqūt describes it as a village. In the same period, the toponym was related to a shrine which can be safely located. The site of Tel Yavne, 500 m from the shrine, is commonly identifed with the toponym.180 According to its architectural evidence, however, Tel Yavne was erected only in the 9th century and is categorized as site type 2, a town. Thus, it can be identifed with the toponym of the 10th–12th centuries but not with the earlier city. Another candidate is the site Yavne-Yam, 8 km from the shrine, on the coast. The site is identifed as site type 4, a village, which can ft the defnition by Yāqūt. Nonetheless, up to the 8th century, it plausibly ftted the defnition of a city. A problem remains with the location of the toponym inland on the Madaba Map that does not accord with Yavne-Yam. It can be suggested that at least two settlements shared the same name or were identifed as one place. In any case, no other site in the research area has yet provided a more suitable candidate according to our chronology and typology. Much more distinct is the identifcation of al-Ramla and Ludd. Various methods and sources indicate that al-Ramla can be identifed in the Ramla cluster and that the toponym Ludd is the site of Lod. The frst argument to support this identifcation is the centralism of the Ramla cluster. First, Ramla had almost every type of material culture that existed in the region, indicating its importance in the region as a distributor and perhaps as a cultural leader. Second, unlike any other site in the region which was one type, Ramla was composed of one city (Mazliah), two towns, and several villages. Mazliah was a distinct center of production and central Ramla was mainly a center of distribution. This correlates with the terminology of al-Ramla as a capital and with its descriptions as a center of trade. There is a clear correlation between the terminological changes in the defnitions of Ludd from ‘city’ to ‘town’ before the mid-10th century, the takeover of al-Ramla as the new capital in the narratives of the 10th century, and the gradual replacement of Lod by Ramla as the region’s biggest site from the 9th century. The explanation for these patterns could be that the city of al-Ramla became a metropolis and overshadowed its surrounding settlements, and so only the identity around St. George in Ludd survived. According to the typology of sites and to the nature of the portable artefacts

270

Settlement patterns through texts

in Lod, the site continued to be a city which provided the essential services to its locals and visitors, along with a market. Another source supporting this interpretation is Tulunid coins (late 9th century), which specify no toponym but the land name: Filasṭīn.181 This change might refect the growing importance of the metropolis in that Filasṭīn is not a synonym for al-Ramla per se but to ‘Greater al-Ramla’ of which the borders are unknown. Two pieces of physical evidence relate ‘central Ramla’ with pre-10th-century al-Ramla. The site and settlement in the written sources are linked by the evidence of the Tulunid offcer Ṭabārjī written on the inscription at the Pool of the Arches in 272/886. Evidently, the cistern is physically central on the site. The offcer is said to be sent from al-Ramla to Dimashq by Khumārawayh after 273/887.182 The second evidence is the spatial distribution of coins from the mint of al-Ramla in the region between Caesarea, Ascalon, and Amman (Figure 7.1) and within modern Ramla (Figure 7.2). These maps point to Ramla as a hub for the distance of 39 km and to central Ramla as its production area. This reconstruction differs from the identifcations of ‘Umayyad al-Ramla’ around the White Mosque.183 The White Mosque was erected only in the late 9th century. Its location might not be arbitrary – between the sites of Ramla which were united during the same period.

Figure 7.1 Spatial distribution of al-Ramla coins from excavations in Israel/Palestine and Jordan

Settlement patterns through texts  271

Figure 7.2  Spatial distribution of al-Ramla coins within the Ramla cluster

Notes 1 E.g. Abrams (1978); Horden and Purcell (2000: 92, 101); Smith (2016). 2 Wickham (2005: 592–593). 3 Glick (1995); Hirschfeld (1997: 36–39); Haase (2006). 4 Florentin (1999: 3–20). An early edition of a later manuscript is found in Neubauer (1873). 5 Florentin (1999: 96–97, 100–102). 6 Ibid: e.g. 87, 91, 96. 7 Florentin (1999: 93, note 147a10.2). 8 Neubauer (1873: 59). 9 Florentin (1999: 77, note 40b6.3). 10 Ibid: 88–89, note 122a9.3. The editor kept the term qiryâ as is. 11 Willelmus Tyrensis: 780, 937; Babcock and Krey (1943 II: 207, 373). 12 Strongholds/fortresses: Willelmus Tyrensis: 529, 986; Babcock and Krey (1943 I: 500, II: 425). Translated also as a ‘fortified town’: De Vaan (2008: 430). 13 Willelmus Tyrensis: 936. Translated as ‘citadel’ by De Vaan (2008: 57). 14 Willelmus Tyrensis: 952. 15 Ibid: 514; Babcock and Krey (1943 I: 483, II: 163). 16 Willelmus Tyrensis: 115. The two terms are together also in p. 529. 17 Ibid: 360; Babcock and Krey (1943 I: 317). 18 Willelmus Tyrensis: 739; Babcock and Krey (1943 II: 163). 19 Timotheous (1939); Levy-Rubin (2003: 201). 20 Once written kasteli (καστελι) at Timotheous (1939: 80). 21 Timotheous (1939: 81–82); Levy-Rubin (2003: 208, 211). 22 Timotheous (1939: 81); Levy-Rubin (2003: 210).

272

Settlement patterns through texts

23 Timotheous (1939: 79). 24 Levy-Rubin (2003: 210, 212). Grohmann translates perichoria to Nachbargebiet (lit. neighboring area), at Grohmann (1959: 33). 25 Based on Bar-Ilan University’s search engine Online Responsa Project, at: http:// www.responsa.co.il/ last accessed March 16th, 2019. 26 Neubauer (1887: 6–42). 27 Ibid: 50–83. 28 Mann (1920–1922); Friedman (1981); Gil (1983); https://geniza.princeton.edu/ pgp/pgpsearch/, last accessed July 19th, 2019. 29 Friedman (1981: 170–171, note 3) for ‘town’. 30 Friedman (1981: 213, doc. 20 (mid-11th century?), 157, doc. 13 (year 1052)), and similar sentences with medînâ in 130, doc. 11 (year 1079); Gil (1983 II: 476, doc. 268 (year 1011), 480, doc. 271 (year 1019)). For sentences with ʿîr, see for example Friedman (1981: 107–109, doc. 9 (ʿîr pelônīt), 181–182, doc. 16 (year 1083, Damsīs)). 31 Neubauer (1887: 29, 40, 75–77), with other Andalusian toponyms; Gil (1983 II: 80, doc. 47, 234, doc. 129). 32 Gil (1983 II: 121, doc. 70) (T-S 13J14.23, year 1030?); Bodl. MS Heb. b 11/9. Similar examples in Gil (1983 II: 177–178, doc. 93) (year 1030?); T-S 13J5.5 (Bilbays, year 1204); T-S 13J4.1 (Minyat Ghamr, year 1226); BL Or. 5544.1 (Rhodez, 11th century?); T-S 8.180 (year 1250). 33 Gil (1983 II: 204, doc. 111, 239, doc. 132). Using medînâ: 506, doc. 285, 508, doc. 286. 34 Gil (1983 II: 84, doc. 49: ha-ʿônesh ha-mûṭal ʿal ha-medînâ). 35 Neubauer (1887: 80). 36 T-S 18J4.26 (year 1024). 37 Neubauer (1887: 72, 74); Gil (1983 II: 382, doc. 209, 262, doc. 468). 38 E.g. ENA 4009.2 (late 10th century); T-S Misc. 35.10 (circa year 1015); CUL Or. 1080 J265 (year 1025?); CUL Add. 3430 (year 1028); T-S Misc. 35.15 (year 1029?); T-S 10J10.9 (year 1034/5); T-S 16.261 (year 1039); T-S 13J23.19 (year 1042); T-S 13J27.3 (year 1070?); T-S 13J5.2 (year 1085). 39 Gil (1983 II: 382, doc. 209) (the earthquake report, T-S 18J3.9) (year 1033). 40 Gil (1983 II: 181). 41 Mann (1920–1922 II: 204, doc. 17): bā-ʿîr Bîriyâ ha-semûkhâ li-medînāt Ṣefat […], bā-ʿîr ʿAqāl Zêtûn ha-semûkhâ li-medînāt Ṣefat […], bā-ʿîr ʿAlmâ […]. 42 Incorporated toponyms of kefar can be found in: Moss. VII, 4.1 (year 1030); T-S 10J25.3 (year 1216); T-S 10J8.13 (undated). 43 Sokoloff (2002: 267). 44 Teshûvôt ha-Geʾônîm – Geʾônê Mizrāḥ w-Maʿarāv, simān q.s.h.: w-nikhlelû beʿālê ha-kefarîm lehakhlîl ha-prîʿâ she-ʿal ha-kefarîm kûlām w-lehaṭîl ʿal kŏl kefar w-kefar lefî midat qarqāʿôtav ken lehishtāvôt bā-hashḥādâ she-mashḥîdîn lesaleq hā-ônes. 45 Gil (1983 II: 382, doc. 209) (T-S 18J3.9, year 1033). 46 Friedman (1983). 47 Gil (1983 II: 382, doc. 209) (the earthquake report, T-S 18J3.9) (year 1033). Other toponyms in Gil (1983 II: 81–82, doc. 48 (ENA 4101.17b), 538–540, doc. 610 (Bodl. MS Heb. d 75/13)); Neubauer (1887: 79). 48 Mann (1920–1922 II: 34). 49 Mann (1920–1922 I: 32). 50 Gil (1983 III: 431–432, doc. 571) (T-S 10J30.5) (late 10th or early 11th century). 51 Judeo-Arabic is Arabic language with Jewish jargon in Hebrew script. 52 Braslavi (1964); Gil (1983 II: 6–7, doc. 2). The document (T-S Ar. 53.2) is not yet updated on the Princeton’s site.

Settlement patterns through texts

273

53 Gil (1983 III: 81, doc. 453); Gil (1994: 54–55, doc. 502a) (ENA NS 1, F.37) (circa year 1065). 54 T-S 13J8.25v. 55 Town: Gil (1983 III: 437, doc. 574) (year 1100). City: ENA 2922.30. Village: T-S 13J9.10 (addressed to Avraham Maimonides [d. 1237], Goitein unpublished). 56 Friedman (1986: 279–283 (T-S 10J9.16) (circa 1070), 326–330 (CUL Or. 1080 J281) (circa 1230)); T-S 13J9.4 (undated). 57 T-S 12.694. 58 Gil (1983 III: 197, doc. 490) (year 1059): al-balad akhadhahu maṭar ʿaẓīm wa-thalj. 59 E.g. fī madīnat al-Ramla in Gil (1983 II: 533, doc. 298); T-S 18J4.14), al-Iskandariyya in Gil (1983 III: 332, doc. 531), Siqilya (Palermo) in T-S 10J10.14; T-S 12.389. 60 Gil (1983 II: 577, doc. 316): ana dakhaltu ilā al-madīna. 61 Gil (1983 II: 601, doc. 517). 62 Benjamin of Tudela: k.g. and 21, m.d. and 44. 63 Ibid: s.ṭ. and 77 (Ṭūr Sīnay). 64 Benjamin of Tudela: m.g. and 43, n.v. and 61 (tower), y. and 6 (castle). 65 Ibid: k.g. and 22. 66 Ibid: y.b. and 10. 67 Benjamin of Tudela: m.b. See also ibid: v. for Pisa. 68 Ibid: k.z. 69 Ibid: s.h. and 73. 70 http://www.epigraphie-islamique.uliege.be, last accessed March 20th, 2019. 71 Yadin (1964: 106): nāḥlâ in Modern Hebrew. 72 Translation based on Sharon (1999: 275). 73 Caesarea, TEI 28342: amara bi-ʿimārat hadha burj al-mubārak. 74 Brauer (1995: 14); Bosworth (2000); Antrim (2012: 39). 75 Bonner (1994). 76 Yadin (1964: 106). 77 Amitai-Preiss (2007, 2015). 78 Amitai-Preiss (2007: 152). 79 Amitai-Preiss (2007: 157, 159, 2015: 78); Amitai-Preiss and Tal (2015: 26). 80 Amitai-Preiss (2007: 26, 162). 81 Amitai-Preiss and Tal (2015). 82 For a comprehensive survey of such stamps, see Taxel and Amitai-Preiss (2016). 83 Sharon (2004: 122–124) (TEI 28352); Amitai-Preiss (2013); Amitai-Preiss, Cohen-Weinberger and Har-Even (2017). 84 Kraemer (1958: 172–174, doc. 59) (year 684) (P. Ness. 3.59): kome Photis, 151– 152, doc. 54 (late 6th-early 7th century): kome Chaprea; P. Ness. 3.166 (501–700): kome Onaleso. 85 Kraemer (1958: 168–171, doc. 58) (late 7th century) (P. Ness. 3.58). Also P. Ness. 3.145 (501–700). The term is translated in Egyptian papyri as ‘village’, see Grohmann (1959: 34, 40). 86 Kraemer (1958: 136–138, doc. 46 (year 605), 153–155, doc. 55 (year 682?)). 87 κώμῃ Νεσσάνοις ὁρίου πόλεως Ἐλούσης: P. Ness. 3.16 (year 512); P. Ness. 3.17; P. Ness. 3.18 (year 537); P. Ness. 3.21 (year 562). 88 P. Ness. 3.46: Νεσά [̣ νοις] τοῦ κάστρο̣ ̣υ ὁ [̣ ρίο]υ ̣ πόλεως Ἐλ ̣ού[̣ σης]; P. Ness. 3.58. 89 P. Ness. 3.60 (year 674). 90 Grohmann (1963: 19–20, doc.19). 91 See for example Grohmann (1959: 34). 92 Translations follow Le Strange (1890). 93 Al-Maqdisī: 172–174. 94 Ibid: 174. 95 Yāqūt I: 867, III: 534, IV: 18.

274

Settlement patterns through texts

96 Al-Idrīsī: 356, 365. 97 Al-Yaʿqūbī: 329. 98 Ibid: 334, 347. 99 Al-Yaʿqūbī: 325–327. 100 Al-Iṣṭakhrī: 56–59. 101 Ibid: 41, 46 (Qurṭuba), 39 (Fās). 102 Ibid: 56, 58. 103 Al-Maqdisī: 47. 104 Al-Idrīsī: 356. 105 Bosworth (1992: 9). See also Chabbi (1994); Bonner (2006: 2); Masarwa (2011); Pradines (2020). 106 Nol (2020). 107 Al-Maqdisī: 174. 108 Nol (2020: Table 5). 109 Translated as ‘estate’ by Levy-Rubin (2003: 212). 110 Brandes and Haldon (2000: 149). 111 Safrai (1994: 17). 112 Gil (1983 II: 6–7, doc. 2); Braslavi (1964). 113 Kefar: Benjamin of Tudela: l.d. and 21; Florentin (1999: 88–89, note 122a9.3). Kafr: Amitai-Preiss (2015: 78); Amitai-Preiss and Tal (2015: 26). Ḍayʿa: Goitein (1967: 117–118 and footnotes 10–12); Friedman (1986: 280–282). 114 Kafr: Grohmann (1952: 214–218, doc. 275) (P.Cair.Arab. 275); Björnesjö (1996: 29); Rapoport (2018: 174). 115 Ḍayʿa: Goitein (1967: 117–118 and footnotes 10–12). 116 Ḍayʿa: e.g. Yadin (1964: 106); Khan (1992: 121–125) (P.Khalili I 14). 117 Teshûvôt ha-Geʾônîm – Geʾônê Mizrāḥ w-Maʿarāv, simān q.s.h. 118 Sāwīrūs ibn al-Muqaffaʿ: 97. 119 Safrai (1994: 19). 120 E.g. Le Strange (1890); Grohmann (1963: 20); Khan (1992: 121–125); Sharon (1997: 107); Legendre (2018). 121 Kraemer (1958: 168–171). In contrast, the term is translated as ‘village’ by Grohmann (1959: 33, 40). 122 Safrai (1994: 17). See also Friedman (1983: 81). 123 De Vaan (2008: 430). 124 Khalidi (1981: 266). See recently also Courtieu and Segovia (2021: 211-212). 125 Town: Gil (1983 III: 437, doc. 574); ENA 2922.30; T-S 13J9.10 (Goitein unpublished). 126 Rapoport (2018: 175). 127 Nol (2020: Table 7). 128 Ibid: Table 8. 129 Al-Maqdisī: 193. 130 E.g. Kuban (1974: 3). 131 Nol (2020: Table 9). 132 Jewish texts suggest different quality of fortifcations in different medînâs, see: Mann (1920–1922 I: 170, II: 200), and fortifcations also in ʿayārôt of the frontier, see Sēfer Halākhôt G edôlôt, sīmān m.w. – Hilkhôt Bāvâ Batrâ. 133 Al-Maqdisī: 176. 134 Ibid: 175. 135 Kraemer (1958: 168–171). 136 Gil (1983 II: 382, doc. 209); Mann (1920–1922 II: 204, doc. 17). 137 TEI 37: amara bi-binyān hādhihi-l-madīna ʿAbd Allah al-Walīd. 138 Clermont-Ganneau (1900: 287–288and plate): amara bi-ṣināʿat hādhihi-l-madīna. The inscription has been discussed recently by Genequand (2009: 270–273) and Ritter (2016: 78).

Settlement patterns through texts 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183

275

TEI 27967. Gil (1983 III: 431–432, doc. 571) (T-S 10J30.5). Mazzoli-Guintard (1998: 97–106). Mazzoli-Guintard (1998: 97–98); Sharon (1999: 275). Benjamin of Tudela: y. and 6. Bonner (1994). Eusebius of Caesarea, translated by Notley and Safrai (2005). Hierocles Synecdemus: 41. Avi-Yonah (1954: 21–23), followed by Piccirillo (1992: 28). For Māḥūz Azdūd, see for example Masarwa (2006: 18–19). E.g. Al-Balādhurī: 138; al-Yaʿqūbī: 328. Al-Maqdisī: 174; Goitein (1973: 46, 95). Al-Balādhurī: 143; Ibn al-Faqīh: 102; Yāqūt I: 818. Al-Yaʿqūbī: 328. Al-Jahshiyārī: 48–49; Yāqūt I: 818. Al-Maqdisī: 165. See also De Goeje’s comment in footnote k; Le Strange (1890: 306). Wilkinson (1977: 141–142). The manuscripts duplicated the year 970, but different evidence support the earlier date. Ibn al-Athīr XI: 442, 546, XII: 72–74; Richards (2007: 253, 390–394). Al-Ṭabarī I: 2403. Luz (1997: 30, 2017: 28–29). Expositio totius mundi et gentium: 164, XXXI; Avi-Yonah (1966: 196). Wilkinson (1977: 65). Georgi Cyprii: 51. Al-Maqdisī: 176: yajmiʿu bihi khalq kathīr min ahl al-qaṣaba wa-mā ḥawluhu min al-qurā. Luz (2017) translated it as “in it gather more people than there are at the capital and in all the villages around it” (in Hebrew). Al-Maqdisī: 176. Al-Ṭabarī I: 2403. Al-Jahshiyārī: 48. Babcock and Krey (1943 I: 332, II: 428). Levy-Rubin (2003: 210). Benjamin of Tudela: k.a. Al-Maqdisī: 164–165; Le Strange (1890: 304). Le Strange translates rasātīq as hamlets and ribāṭs as holy places. Griffth (1985: 41), after Avni (2014: 179). Goitein (1973: 46–47). Al-Idrīsī: 356. As argued by Assaf (1941). Texts in: Gil (1983 I: 24–25, doc. 224–225, 428, doc. 568); Mann (1920–1922 II: 25, 49, 201, doc. 16); Friedmann (1981: 144, 157, with a particular discussion in 147: note 3). Rapoport (2018: 175). Kogan-Zehavi and Hadad (2013). Fischer and Taxel (2014: 215, footnote 1). Vitto (1998); Fischer and Taxel (2014: Area B). Who wrongly title the fortress a ribāṭ, e.g. Fischer and Taxel (2014). Al-Maqdisī: 174. Fischer and Taxel (2007). E.g. Nicol (2009: Pl. 4), coins from 278/892 and 281/895. Ibn ʿAsākir: 408. E.g. Whitcomb (1995: 492); Avni (2014: 170, 176, 2021); Shmueli and Goldfus (2015: 270, 297, Fig. 11.11).

276

Settlement patterns through texts

References Abbreviations for archival materials BL Or. London, British Library, Asian and African collections. Bodl. Oxford, Bodleian Library. CUL Or. Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, oriental manuscripts. ENA New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, Elkan Nathan Adler collection, 2922.30. Moss. Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Jacques Mosseri Genizah Collection. T-S Cambridge, Cambridge University Library, Taylor-Schechter Genizah Research Unit. Additional abbreviations TEI Thesaurus d’Epigraphie Islamique, http://www.epigraphie-islamique.uliege.be. Primary sources Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā (d. 892). Kitāb Futūh al-buldān, Michael Jan de Goeje (ed.), 1866, Leiden: Brill. Benjamin of Tudela (d. after 1173). The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, Marcus Nathan Adler (trans. and ed.), 1907, London: Oxford University Press. Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius, Onomasticon, Steven R. Notley and Ze’ev Safrai (trans. and eds.), 2005, Leiden and Boston: Brill. Expositio totius mundi et gentium, Jean Rougé (ed.), 1966, Paris: du Cerf. Georgi Cyprii. Descriptio orbis romani, Henricus Gelzer (ed.), 1890, Lipsiae: Teubneri. Al-Harawī (d. 1215). Kitāb al-Ishārāt ilā maʿrifat al-ziyārāt, Janine Sourdel-Thomine (ed.), 1953, Guide des Lieux de pèlerinage, Damas: Institute français de Damas. Hierocles Synecdemus, Augustos Burckhardt (ed.), 1893, Teubneri: Lipsiae. Ibn ʿAsākir (d. 1176). Taʾrīkh Madīnat Dimashq, vol. XX, ʿUmar ibn Ghrama alʿAmarwī (ed.), 1995, Bayrūt: Dār al-Fikr. Ibn al-Athīr (d. 1233). Ibn-el-Athiri Chronicon quad perfectissimum inscibitur, Vol. 11, Annos H. 527–583 contines, Vol. 12, Annos H. 584– 628 contines, Carolus Johannes Tornberg (ed.), 1851, Leiden: Brill. Richards, Donald S. (trans.), 2007. The chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fīl ̕-tar̕ īkh, Part 2, Aldershot: Ashgate. Ibn al-Faqīh, ibn Bakr Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad al-Hamdhānī (d. after 903). Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, Michael Jan de Goeje (ed.), 1885, Leiden: Brill. Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, Sāwīrūs (Severus) (d. 987). Kitāb Siyar al-ābāʾ al-baṭārika, Christian Friedrich Seybold (ed.), Historia patriarcharum Alexandrinorum 1, 1904, Parisis: Carolus Poussielgue. Al-Idrīsī, Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbdallāh ibn Idrīs alḤamūdī al-Ḥasanī (d. 1165). Kitāb Nuzhat al-mushtāq fī ikhtirāq al-āfāq. Enrico Cerulli, Francisco Gabrieli, Giorgio Levi Della Vida, Luciano Petech, and Giorgio Tucci (eds.), 1970–1984. Opus Geographorum, Neapoli and Roma: Brill. Al-Iṣṭakhrī, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad (d. after 950). Kitāb al-Masālik wal-mamālik, Michael Jan De Goeje (ed.), 1870. Viae Regnorum, Descriptio Ditionis Moslemicae, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum I, reprint 1967, Leiden: Brill.

Settlement patterns through texts

277

Al-Jahshiyārī (d. 942). Kitāb al-Wuzarāʾ wa-l-kuttāb, Muṣṭafā al-Saqqā, Ibrāhīm al-Ibyārī, and ʿAbd al-Ḥafīẓ Shalabī (eds.), 1938, al-Qāhira: Maṭbaʿat Muṣṭafā alBābī al-Ḥalabī. Al-Maqdisī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-aqālīm, Michael Jan De Goeje (ed.), Description Imperii Moslemici, second ed., 1906, Leiden: Brill. Al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad ibn Jarīr (d. 923). Ta’rīkh al-Rusul wa-l-mulūk, Michael Jan De Goeje (ed.), 1879–1901, 15 vols., Leiden: Brill. [William of Tyre] Willelmus Tyrensis Archiepiscopus. Chronicon, Robert Burchard Constantijn Huygens (ed.), 1986, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis 63, 63A, Turnhout: Brepols. Emily Atwater Babcock and August Charles Krey (trans.), 1943. A History of the Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, by William, Archbishop of Tyre, 2 vols., New York: Columbia University Press. Al-Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad b. Abī Yaʿqūb. Kitāb al-Buldān, ed. by M. J. de Goeje, Kitâb al-Aʿlâq an-nafîsa VII, Auctore Ibn Rosteh, et Kitâb al-Boldân, Auctore al-Jaqûbî, Bibliotheca Geographorum Arabicorum VII, 231-373, second ed. 1892, reprint 2014, Leiden: Brill, 231–373. Yāqūt, Ya ͑ qūb ibn Abd ͑ Allāh (d. 1229). Muʿjam al-buldān, Ferdinand Wüstenfeld (ed.), 1866–1870, Jacut‘s geographisches Wörterbuch aus den Handschriften aus Berlin, St. Petersburg und Paris, 6 vols., Leipzig: Brockhaus. Secondary literature Abrams, Philip, 1978. “Towns and Economic Growth: Some Theories and Problems”, in: Philip Abrams and Edward Anthony Wrigley (eds.), Towns in Societies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 9–33. Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, 2007. “The Administration of Jund Al-Urdunn and Jund Filastīn during the Umayyad and Early Abbasid Periods According to Seals and Other Small Finds”, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Beer Sheva: Ben Gurion University (in Hebrew. English summary). Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, 2013. “Handles with Arabic Inscriptions”, in: Ron Toueg, “Ramla”, Hadashot Arkheologiyot – Excavations and Surveys in Israel 125, http:// www.hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=5439&mag_id=120. Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, 2015. “What Happened in 155/771–72? The Testimony of Lead Seals”, in: Daniella Talmon-Heller and Katia Cytryn-Silverman (eds.), Material Evidence and Narrative Sources, Leiden: Brill, 71–86. Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, Cohen-Weinberger, Anat, and Beni Har-Even, 2017. “Stamped Jar Handles and Their Contribution to Understanding the Administrative System of Jerusalem’s Rural Hinterland in the Early Islamic Period”, in: Yuval Gadot, Yehiel Zelinger, Katia Cytryn-Silverman, and Joseph (Joe) Uziel (eds.), New Studies in the Archaeology of Jerusalem and Its Region 11: 74–90 (in Hebrew). Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, and Tal, Oren, 2015. “A Lead Bulla from Apollonia-Arsūf with the Place Name Arsūf”, Israel Numismatic Research 10: 191–205. Antrim, Zayde, 2012. Routes and Realms: The Power of Place in the Early Islamic World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Assaf, Simha, 1941. “Documentary Regarding the Jewish Settlement in Ramla and the Shefela”, Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 8: 61–66 (in Hebrew). Avi-Yonah, Michael, 1954. The Madaba Mosaic Map, Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.

278

Settlement patterns through texts

Avi-Yonah, Michael, 1966. The Holy Land: From the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C to A.D. 640), a Historical Geography, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Avni, Gideon, 2014. The Byzantine-Islamic Transition in Palestine: An Archaeological Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Avni, Gideon, 2021. “Excavations in Ramla, 1990–2018: Reconstructing the Early Islamic City”, in: Andrew Petersen and Denys Pringle (eds.), Ramla: City of Muslim Palestine, 715–1917. Studies in History, Archaeology and Architecture, Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 31–63. Björnesjö, Sophia, 1996. “Quelques réfexions sur l’apport de l’arabe dans la toponymie égyptienne”, Annales islamologiques 30: 21–40. Bonner, Michael, 1994. “The Naming of the Frontier: ʿAwasim, Thughur, and the Arab Geographers”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 57(1): 17–24. Bonner, Michael, 2006. Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Bosworth, Clifford Edmund, 1992. “Byzantium and the Arabs: War and Peace between Two World Civilizations”, Journal of Oriental and African Studies 3–4: 1–23. Bosworth, Clifford Edmund, 2000. “al-Thughūr”, in: Peri Bearman, Thierri Bianquis, Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Emery van Donzel and Wolfhart Peter Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, second ed., vol. X, Leiden: Brill, 446–447. Brandes, Wolfram, and Haldon, John, 2000. “Towns, Tax and Transformation: State, Cities and Their Hinterlands in the East Roman World, c. 500–800”, in: Gian Pietro Brogiolo, Nanacy Gauthier, and Neil Christie (eds.), Towns and Their Territories between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Leiden: Brill, 141–172. Braslavi (Braslavsky), Josef, 1964. “A Topography of Jerusalem from the Cairo Genizah”, Eretz-Israel 7: 69–80 (in Hebrew). Brauer, Ralph W., 1995. “Boundaries and Frontiers in Medieval Muslim Geography”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 85(6): 1–73. Chabbi, Jacqueline, 1994. “Ribāṭ”, in: Peri Bearman, Thierri Bianquis, Clifford Edmund Bosworth, Emery van Donzel and Wolfhart Peter Heinrichs (eds.), Encyclopaedia of Islam, second ed., vol. VIII, Leiden: Brill, 493–506. Clermont-Ganneau, Charles, 1900. Recueil d’archéologie orientale, vol. III, Paris: Ernest Leroux. Courtieu, Gilles, and Segovia, Carlos A., 2021. “Q 2:102, 43:31, and CtesiphonSeleucia: New Insights into the Mesopotamian Setting of the Earliest Qur’anic Milieu”, in: Mette Bjerregaard Mortensen, Guillaume Dye, Isaac W. Oliver, and Tommaso Tesei (eds.), The Study of Islamic Origins: New Perspectives and Contexts, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – Tension, Transmission, Transformation 15, Berlin: De Gruyter, 203–230. Fischer, Moshe, and Taxel, Itamar, 2007. “Ancient Yavneh: Its History and Archaeology”, Tel Aviv 34(2): 204–284. Fischer, Moshe, and Taxel, Itamar, 2014. “Yavne-Yam in the Byzantine-Early Islamic Transition: The Archaeological Remains and Their Socio-Political Implications”, Israel Exploration Journal 64(2): 212–242. Florentin, Moshe (ed.), 1999. The Tulida. A Samaritan Chronicle, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben Zvi (in Hebrew). Friedman, Mordechai Akiva, 1981. Jewish Marriage in Palestine: A Cairo Geniza Study, Vol. II: The Ketubba Texts, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Settlement patterns through texts

279

Friedman, Mordechai Akiva, 1983. “New Information from the Cairo Geniza”, in: David Grossman (ed.), Between Yarkon and Ayalon: Studies on the Tel-Aviv Metropolitan Area and the Lod Valley, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 73–85 (in Hebrew). Friedman, Mordechai Akiva, 1986. Jewish Polygyny in the Middle Ages. New Documents from the Cairo Geniza, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute. Genequand, Denis, 2009. “The New Urban Settlement at Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi: Components and Development in the Early Islamic Period”, in: Karin Bartl and Abd al-Razzaq Moaz (eds.), Residences, Castles, Settlements, Orient-Archäologie 24, Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 261–285. Gil, Moshe, 1983. Palestine during the First Muslim Period, Parts II-III: Cairo Geniza Documents, Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press and Ministry of Defense Press (in Hebrew). Gil, Moshe, 1994. “More about Palestine during the First Muslim Period”, Cathedra 70: 29–58 (in Hebrew). Glick, Thomas F., 1995. From Muslim Fortress to Christian Castle. Social and Cultural Change in Medieval Spain, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 13–37. Goitein, Shlomo Dov, 1967. A Mediterranean Society. Vol. 1: Economic Foundations, Berkeley: University of California Press. Goitein, Shlomo Dov, 1973. Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Griffth, Sydney H., 1985. “Stephen of Ramlah and the Christian Kerygma in Arabic in Ninth-Century Palestine”, The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 36(1): 23–45. Grohmann, Adolf, 1952. Arabic Papyri in the Egyptian Library, vol. IV, Cairo: Egyptian Library Press. Grohmann, Adolf, 1959. Studien zur historischen Geographie und Verwaltung des Frühmittelalterlichen Ägypten, Wien: Rudolf M. Rohrer. Grohmann, Adolf, 1963. Arabic Papyri from Ḥirbet El-Mird, Bibliothéque du Muséon 52, Louvain: Publications universitaires. Haase, Claus-Peter, 2006. “The Excavations at Madīnat al-Fār/Ḥiṣn Maslama on the Balikh Road”, in: Hugh Kennedy (ed.), Muslim Military Architecture in Greater Syria, Leiden: Brill, 3–25. Hirschfeld, Yizhar, 1997. “Farms and Villages in Byzantine Palestine”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 51: 33–71. Horden, Peregrine, and Purcell, Nicholas, 2000. The Corrupting Sea, twelfth ed. 2010, Malden: Blackwell. Khalidi, Tarif, 1981. “Some Classical Islamic Views of the City”, in: Wadād al-Qāḍī (ed.), Studia Arabica et Islamica festschrift for Iḥsān ʿAbbās, Beirut: American University of Beirut, 265–276. Khan, Geoffrey, 1992. Arabic Papyri: Selected Material from the Khalili Collection, Studies in the Khalili Collection 1, Oxford: Azimuth. Kogan-Zehavi, Elena, and Hadad, Shulamit, 2013. “A Building and an Olive Press from the Byzantine-Abbasid Periods at Khirbat el-Thahiriya”, ʿAtiqot 71: 84–112 (in Hebrew). Kraemer, Casper J. Jr., 1958. Excavations at Nessana, Vol. 3: Non-literary Papyri, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Kuban, Doğan, 1974. Muslim Religious Architecture. Part I: The Mosque and Its Early Development, Leiden: Brill.

280

Settlement patterns through texts

Legendre, Marie, 2018. “Landowners, Caliphs and State Policy over Landholdings in the Egyptian Countryside: Theory and Practice”, in: Alain Delattre, Marie Legendre, and Petra Sijpesteijn (eds.), Authority and Control in the Countryside: From Antiquity to Islam in the Mediterranean and Near East (6th-10th Century), Leiden: Brill, 392–419. Levy-Rubin, Milka, 2003. “The Reorganisation of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim Period”, ARAM 15: 197–226. Luz, Nimrod, 1997. “The Construction of an Islamic City in Palestine: The Case of Umayyad al-Ramla,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 7: 27–54. Luz, Nimrod, 2017. “Lod and Ramla and not Ramlod: On a Geographic Anomaly and the Longue Dureé of Urban History”, in: Alon Shavit, Tawfq Daʿadli, and Yuval Gadot (eds.), Lod “Diospolis – City of God”: Collected Papers on the History and Archaeology of Lod, vol. III, Lod: Tagliyot, 21–41 (in Hebrew). Mazzoli-Guintard, Christine, 1998. “Ḥiṣn, Qalʿa, Qaṣaba… chez al-Idrīsī”, Qurṭuba. Estudios Andalusíes 3: 95–111. Mann, Jacob, 1920–1922. The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fātimid Caliphs, 2 vols., 1970 ed., New York: Ktav Publishing House. Masarwa, Yumna, 2006. “From a Word of God to Archaeological Monuments: A Historical-Archaeological Study of the Umayyad Ribāṭs of Palestine”, unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Princeton: Princeton University. Masarwa, Yumna, 2011. “The Mediterranean as a Frontier: The Umayyad Ribāṭs of Palestine”, in: Hendrik Dey and Elizabeth Fentress (eds.), Western Monasticism Ante Litteram: The Spaces of Monastic Observance in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 177–199. Neubauer, Adolf (ed.), 1873. Chronique Samaritaine, Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. Neubauer, Adolf, 1887. Medieval Jewish Chronicles and Chronological Notes, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Nicol, Norman D., 2007. Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean. Vol. 6: The Egyptian Dynasties, Oxford: Ashmolean Museum. Nol, Hagit, 2020. “Cities, Ribāṭs and Other Settlement Types in Palestine from the Seventh to the Early Thirteenth Century: An Exercise in Terminology”, AlMasāq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean 32(3): 243–274. Piccirillo, Michele, 1992. The Mosaics of Jordan, Amman: American Center of Oriental Research. Pradines, Stéphane, 2020. “Coastal Fortifcations in the 9th Century Tunisia and Egypt”, in: idem (ed.), Ports and Fortifcations in the Muslim World: Coastal Military Architecture from the Arab Conquest to the Ottoman Period, Fouilles de l’Ifao 85, Le Caire: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, 53–77. Rapoport, Yossef, 2018. Rural Economy and Tribal Society in Islamic Egypt. A Study of al-Nābulusī’s Villages of the Fayyum, Turnhout: Brepols. Ritter, Marcus, 2016. “Umayyad Foundation Inscriptions and the Inscription of al-Walīd from Khirbat al-Minya: Text, Usage, Visual Form”, in: Hans-Peter Kuhnen (ed.), Khirbat al-Minya: Der Umayyadenpalast am See Genezareth, OrientArchäologie 36, Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf, 59–83. Safrai, Ze’ev, 1994. The Economy of Roman Palestine, London: Routledge. Sharon, Moshe, 1997. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, vol. I, Leiden: Brill. Sharon, Moshe, 1999. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, vol. II, Leiden: Brill.

Settlement patterns through texts

281

Sharon, Moshe, 2004. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, vol. III, Leiden: Brill. Shmueli, Oren, and Goldfus, Haim, 2015. “The Early Islamic City of Ramla in Light of New Archaeological Discoveries, G.I.S. Applications and a Re-examination of the Literary Sources”, in: Daniella Talmon-Heller and Katia Cytryn-Silverman (eds.), Material Evidence and Narrative Sources, Leiden: Brill, 267–300. Smith, Michael E., 2016. “How can Archaeologists Identify Early Cities? Defnitions, Types, and Attributes”, in: Manuel Fernández-Götz and Dirk Krausse (eds.), Eurasia at the Dawn of History: Urbanization & Social Change, New York: Cambridge University Press, 153–168. Sokoloff, Michael, 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period, second ed., Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan University Press. Le Strange, Guy, 1890. Palestine under the Moslems. A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500, London: Alexander P. Watt. Taxel, Itamar, 2014. “Luxury and Common Wares: Socio-Economic Aspects of the Distribution of Glazed Pottery in Early Islamic Palestine”, Levant 46(1): 118–139. Taxel, Itamar, and Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, 2016. “Marked and Inscribed Pottery Vessels of the Late Byzantine and Early Islamic Periods”, in: Oded Lipschits, Yuval Gadot, and Liora Freud (eds.), Ramat Raḥel III: Final Publication of Yohanan Aharoni’s Excavations (1954, 1959–1962), vol. II, Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 553–566. Timotheous, Ierosholumon, 1939. “Ta Taktika ton Patriarcheion”, Nea Sion 34: 65–85 (in Greek). De Vaan, Michiel, 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages, Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 7, Leiden. Vitto, Fanny, 1998. “Maḥoza D-Yamnin: A Mosaic Floor from the Time of Eudocia?”, ʿAtiqot 35: 117–134. Whitcomb, Donald, 1995. “Islam and Socio-Cultural Transition of Palestine – Early Islamic Period (638–1099 CE)”, in: Thomas E. Levy (ed.), The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land, London: Leicester University, 488–501. Wickham, Chris, 2005. Framing the Early Middle Ages, Norfolk: Oxford University Press. Wickham, Chris, 2019. “The Power of Property: Land Tenure in Fāṭimid Egypt”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 62: 67–107. Wilkinson, John, 1977. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Warminster: Aris and Philips. Yadin, Yigael, 1964. “Arabic Inscriptions in Palestine”, Eretz-Israel 7: 102–116 (in Hebrew).

8

Conclusions

Historians conduct research in a manner rather similar to other scientists. We identify a problem, gather secondary information about it, refne our questions, conduct primary research, interpret the results, and present relevant conclusions in light of existing studies. Some generations of scholars feel more comfortable with leaving questions unanswered, but the goal is still the same: to identify patterns and to explain them. Our interpretation involves a selection process at different points in time, as well as the judicious use of ‘common sense’. Applying the Big Data method to the Humanities (and accepting Ian Hodder’s additional approach to a contextual interpretation) affects this basic historical method. The main aim of Big Data is to detect patterns, not to explain them. In fact, the scholar should avoid categorization as much as possible during the data gathering and delay any typology or interpretation. Instead of following ‘common sense’ and excluding questionable sources and irrelevant details, the Big-Data historian seeks a broad context while gathering data. Still, the data should relate to similar themes in a consistent manner, and thus a toponym with only abstract characteristics cannot stand side by side with the physical existence of an archaeological site. Finally, it is not enough to suggest one explanation for one pattern. Instead, any direction of interpretation should be pursued, and the explanation should be consistent with the various patterns. A large amount of data leads, however, to redundancy which can be exhausting even for the most persistent reader. Moreover, the inclusion of any specifc piece of information and the consideration of multiple explanations can contradict our – or the reader’s – ‘common sense’. In short, the Big Data approach is perhaps a game changer in historical research, bringing it slightly closer to objectivity. On the other hand, executing it poses several challenges, especially with its presentation. The research on settlement patterns in Israel/Palestine which this book investigates and which follows the Big Data approach has thus been a long journey. The central method of analysis involved cross-referencing various elements at the node and site levels. The study began by introducing sites, toponyms, and the landscape which were followed by artefacts and architectural features according to a very rough typology. The next data sets

DOI: 10.4324/9781003176169-8

Conclusions 283 already involved an analysis and included architectural elements that could be dated, elements which could be assigned to specifc activity areas, and installations and activities which have a relatively clear function. Answering the research question could only happen at that point and comprised two main aspects. These are a visual one, through the archaeological record, and a verbal one, through the texts. Throughout this research, I have tried to avoid the integration of texts and archaeology until each one of these sources was understood in its own context. I believe that their integration should be conducted through the comparison of results. Also here, the coherent explanation must ft the various patterns. In the attempt to provide a single comprehensive explanation, the interpretation of the relevant narratives in the written sources (or the terminology) sometimes diverges from their straightforward reading, resulting in a more creative solution. This suggests that the literary sources should not be read at face value even if we believe they refect reality, and that terms cannot be translated simply through the eyes of later variants of Arabic. One example of the practice of the Big Data approach is the identifcation of wells in Ramla. Initially, there were two problems. First, the geographer al-Maqdisī discusses, in the 10th century, the deep wells in al-Ramla that contain brackish water (ʿamīqa al-ābār māliḥa).1 Other texts also mention wells, while only one such physical well has been discovered over the years in Ramla municipality or its vicinity. Second, a number of features in the research area were identifed diversely as ‘cesspits’ or as ‘silos’, installations which would operate in completely different ways. The frst steps were, on the one hand, listing all the facilities for water storage and drainage that are mentioned in the written sources of that period, along with facilities for ‘dry storage’, and then interpreting their function and characteristics based on descriptions and terminological differentiation. On the other hand, installations from the archaeological record in the research area that might relate to liquids or storage were classifed, the characteristics which differentiate them (including their date) were detected, and their function was suggested based on ethno-archaeology and on spatial context. The next step consisted in comparing the complete lists of terms and installations, to detect, for example, which of the functions were present or absent. It became clear that water pits had a designated terminology in Arabic (e.g. ṣahrīj) but that cesspits did not (and the term for them in Hebrew in earlier sources, bîv, was no longer in use). The fnal step lay in suggesting interpretations for each of the physically attested installations. One of the early solutions to the wells puzzle was that one or more of the three pit types in Ramla was regarded as ‘wells’ by the ancient authors. However, the chronology of these pits and their spatial distribution outside Ramla/Mazliah, together with their clear function as water collectors (based inter alia on their hydraulic plaster), suggested an evolutionary development of a single function. The variety of terms for pits in the sources correlated with their varied typology. Therefore, the wells

284 Conclusions still needed their installation counterpart. The distribution of cesspits/silos within Ramla in different activity areas implied that (a) they are not silos, and that (b) they might be wells. That they were lined with stones agreed with that interpretation. Their shallow depth of 1 m was the main pitfall of that explanation, in particular as al-Maqdisī reported on deep wells. Nevertheless, the high groundwater level which was suggested on the basis of other evidence, and the similar records of shallow wells from Caesarea and Ascalon, made this explanation highly reasonable. Based mainly on terminology, one can assume that if there were cesspits in that period, their design was not standardized enough to enable their physical identifcation and classifcation.

Landscaping early Islam: the macro and micro contexts Two processes covering fve centuries are observed in the research area: the colonization of the landscape and urbanization. Central Israel/Palestine is not necessarily representative of the whole Islamicate world, or even of the Levant. However, it does provide a rare opportunity to study a region thoroughly through archaeology and texts. The intensive archaeological research in Israel through surveys and salvage excavations allows for a high resolution of investigation. This includes documentation, throughout a period of human history, of a variety of site types and a variety of activities within those sites. Another unusual advantage of Israel and Palestine is the existence of epigraphic and documentary evidence along with local written chronicles and with Christian administrative data. These circumstances make possible, frst, a regional overview, the study of small settlements and agriculture, and the comparison between settlements. Second, they enable the historian to test the reliability of ancient geographical and historical works for understanding settlements and occupation. The Arab geographers – up until Yāqūt in the 13th century – mention a very limited number of toponyms that we can identify in the research area. This comprises frst and foremost al-Ramla, a city (madīna) and the capital of Palestine. It also includes the former capital, Ludd, which was transformed into a town (qarya), the town and ancient city of Yubnā, the city or port of Yāfā, the possible city of Dājūn, and the town of ʿĀqir. In total, we get to know six toponyms of which at least four are, or were, cities. The terms for village (ḍayʿa) and for monastery (dayr), while they seldom appear in the geographies, are absent from their descriptions of our region. Comparing this situation with local sources of the same period, with sources from earlier and later times, and with the archaeological evidence, presents a very different reality. The Jewish Geniza provides two additional toponyms for the research area, the city of Ḥaṣôr and the possible town of Ônô. In addition, both the Geniza and the Samaritan chronicle list the term village (kafr) regarding neighboring areas in Palestine, such as Nābulus. The seals refect the administration below the city level for some cities

Conclusions 285 which acted as a kūra, including settlements with the name ‘village X’ (e.g. Kafr Lidā). The contrast to the geographies sharpens in comparison to the 4th-century Onomasticon of Eusebius and the geographical encyclopedia of Yāqūt (d. 1229). These two sources discuss a similar number of cities in the research area (three) and many more towns (eight). The most striking gap becomes clear with the comparison of the texts – including even Yāqūt’s text – with archaeology. Regarding cities and towns, there are indeed more archaeological sites than toponyms, but the difference is slight. Much more signifcant is the count of six market-town sites in the research area as compared to only one that is mentioned by Yāqūt, and at least eleven village sites (excluding the ones around Ramla), with only one mentioned by Yāqūt. To conclude, the geographies from the 9th to the 12th centuries portrayed the region with a capital and a number of additional cities and towns. Therefore, an area with sixteen towns (and market-towns) and at least eleven villages shrank to a count of three towns and zero villages. One explanation for the exclusion of smaller settlements is an authentic description of reality in which these places were assimilated into bigger entities. Another explanation is that this is part of a city-centric perception by the early geographers. The same bias can in fact be detected in most of the correspondences in the Geniza. Regardless of the reason, the outcome is the same: illustrating settlement systems or demographic distributions solely on the basis of the early geographies or other city-based literary sources would result in a gravely distorted picture. The problem does not end here. Briefy, modern historians tend to lower the status of settlements by translations not nuanced enough, until small settlements vanish. Capitals are defned variously in texts, from miṣr and qaṣaba to the madīna of the region. However, al-Maqdisī clarifes that only administrative centers such as Dimashq, the capital of Greater Syria, ft the title miṣr.2 Next in the administrative hierarchy would be the city, under its jurisdiction lie towns and villages. In a seminal article from 1981, Baber Johansen examined the differentiation that the Hanaf jurists made between rural and urban spaces. For ‘urban’ he looked for the term miṣr and translated it as ‘town’.3 Accordingly, the capital of the whole country was demoted to a status at least two levels below its actual one. Most particularly, al-Ramla is considered by some scholars as a ‘town’.4 If al-Ramla the metropolis is a town, then a city such as Yāfā is equally a town, the qarya of ʿĀqir is a village, and it comes with no surprise that no other qaryas and no ḍayʿas are discussed. In short, modern scholars do not recognize the strong difference between al-Ramla and Yāfā as a metropolis and a city and disregard the richness of settlement types under the madīna. The occupation of lands during the Arab conquests, and the colonization of those lands that followed, are themes that engage many historians. The main challenge falls on the absence of contemporary sources. Relevant literature, mainly chronicles and legal texts, was written, according to Noth, half a century after the events that they describe, if not much later. These

286 Conclusions texts refect the political motivations of landowners, descendants of the conquerors, and the Umayyad government.5 One example is the division jurists made between land taxes which were to be paid by Muslims (ʿushr) and by non-Muslims (kharāj). The contemporary evidence that tests this instruction is found in the papyri. The Egyptian papyri demonstrate how the alleged division and terminology surely did not exist in the 7th century, and not even in the next century.6 In other words, the reliability of the legal and historical texts as truthful reports of land distribution or acquisition in the 7th and 8th centuries is questionable at best. One topos in this literature is the establishment of a miṣr after a region was conquered. The most elaborated source is the history by al-Balādhurī (d. 892), in which many amṣār were established, or places became a miṣr. One of these places is al-Ramla: we are told that the governor Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik founded al-Ramla and its mi ṣr (mi ṣruhā, ‫)مصره ا‬. In an alternative reading, Sulaymān founded al-Ramla and made it a miṣr (maṣṣarahā).7 This can be dated to the early 8th century. Whereas the common translation to miṣr is a garrison town, and various interpretations were supplemented to that defnition, the 9th-century texts provide no details on its relation to the military or to towns. The legal sources imply that it is a cultural territory which is bound to the Muslim law – where, for example, people are not allowed to sell pork or to produce alcoholic beverages. Namely, the interpretation of army camps which were transformed into cities, similar to what we know of the Roman castra,8 has in fact no grounds in Muslim written sources. The story of al-Ramla’s establishment repeats in the different sources. The ancient historians make it very clear that it did not exist before Sulaymān and only contained sand, raml. Modern historians often repeat this truth, glorifying the only new Muslim/Arab city in Palestine.9 Archaeologists likewise insist on Ramla being planned, based on its possible gridiron layout which represents for them a ‘good’ city.10 Following that line of argument, scholars explain the main reason for founding a new city and a new capital, in particular, adjacent to the former capital Ludd, as a political one: it was a deliberate occupation, using a miṣr, that aimed to suppress the local elite.11 Looking at the early literature shows how some authors from the 10th century indeed reported – explicitly or not – the deliberate destruction of Ludd or of its church. However, al-Balādhurī in the late 9th century does not express such a message and some later authors do not agree with it: in some versions, Ludd’s church is saved. The settlement patterns show that the site of Lod has not changed its size much over the centuries and retained a regional importance. It also minted coins under its toponym as late as the early 9th century and was labeled ‘city’ and kūra until the early 10th century. To conclude, the story about Ludd has legendary elements which clearly served agendas of their own time, the 10th century. The relation of a city named al-Ramla to Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik gets strong support from a seal from Ashdod-Yam with both name and

Conclusions 287 12

toponym. Nevertheless, this is not yet proof of al-Ramla’s foundation in the 8th century or for its being founded as a city. One papyrus from Khirbat al-Mird, which has been dated to the 7th century, clearly mentions al-Ramla and Ramadan.13 This suggests that (a) the settlement already existed before Sulaymān, and (b) that Muslims already lived in it. An analysis of the distribution of sites in the research area through the centuries indicates that one or two sites already existed in the 7th century, about 500 m away from the place we identify as al-Ramla. The distribution map of that period implies that Lod was a central site with very little industry of its own. It seems to have collaborated with a number of smaller surrounding sites, one of them Ramla. It can therefore be surmised that al-Ramla was established for economic reasons. It may have begun as an estate of sorts, but no evidence supports that speculation as yet. Going back to Sulaymān, he defnitely did not establish the settlement from scratch, but it is still possible that he contributed to its status, for example by allowing it to mint coins. Moreover, he was the one to determine it as the capital. A process of occupation can be observed in each of the phases of the research area. Sites emerged and disappeared and only a few of them had characteristics which connected them to the whole period. Some sites re-appeared, but we cannot know if they were indeed reoccupied or were occupied across the whole period without showing distinguishable characteristics. Still, a number of spatial trends were observed. In the 8th century, as an example, settlements emerged along the northern side of the Ayalon stream (e.g. Or Yehuda, Ramat Gan), while the coastal sites of Jaffa and Yavne-Yam disappeared. For the 9th century, some activity can be noticed on the coast and around the Soreq stream. In the late 9th century, at least ten new sites emerged in Rehovot and northward (e.g. Khirbat Dayrān, Horvat Zerifn). I also suggest that many sites were reduced or deserted in the mid-10th century, but that phase is more tentative. I would explain a number of these trends with changes in the groundwater level. A hypothetical rising level in the 8th–9th centuries would have enabled settling on sites with no visible water sources, but it would also have isolated the harbor of YavneYam and would have necessitated new harbors south and north from it. The comparison of toponyms shows that even though most towns of the 4th century had disappeared by the 13th century (except for ʿĀqir and Dājūn), new towns emerged up to a same number. These two observations demonstrate how the settlement pattern obviously changed, but with no possibility to argue for ‘decline’ or ‘zenith’. Moreover, one can only speculate at this stage about villages which were in fact estates of nobles. The cluster of sites in Ramla physically united in the late 9th century, plausibly under the Tulunid regime. This entity had several markets and/or industrial areas where pottery and perhaps mercury were produced, along with other products. It also had a number of dwelling areas with water pits and sunken jars. These areas yielded olive oil and some pottery in household production. One of the market areas was adjacent to the Pool of the Arches

288

Conclusions

and can be identifed as the area of early al-Ramla. The White Mosque of Ramla, erected around the 10th century, is located between the clusters. These sites were not necessarily operating as one body. One of our analyses suggests that the big site was divided into a number of settlements with different characters, including one city, two towns, and at least four villages on the edges. The unifcation of the sites in Ramla into one physical unit correlates with the transformation of al-Ramla from a city into a metropolis in the 9th century, according to terminology. The term ‘urbanization’ refers in modern literature to the planned foundation of cities, their enlargement, and population growth within. Scholars defne two waves to this process, the frst in the 7th century (with the amṣār), the second in the 9th–11th centuries. Bulliet relates the process to migration in the 9th century and attributes it mainly to conversion to Islam.14 The settlement patterns in the research area point to three processes which I see as aspects of urbanization, all dated to the 9th–10th centuries. The frst one is the transformation of al-Ramla from a city into a metropolis in the 9th century. This was also observed in the visibility of Ramla in the late 9th century, growing and becoming a unifed cluster. Another aspect is the centrality of Ramla for other sites from the late 9th century. This is also noticeable with the change in the defnition of Yāfā and Ludd from cities into a port and a town, indicating their being overshadowed by al-Ramla the metropolis. A third aspect is the relatively quick rise of two town sites, Ashdod-Yam and Tel Yavne. They emerged in the 9th century, were enlarged in the late 9th century, and then also increased their economic centrality. A similar case is Bet Dagan, a city which appeared in the late 9th century. These sites perhaps did not appear at once, but they quickly provided important services and acquired a regional status. The settlement patterns in the research area provide a refned defnition for ‘Islamic cities’. In modern research, cities are usually frst defned, rather ambiguously, as central to their surroundings.15 Then, they are recognized through a combination of a mosque, palace, market, and bathhouse.16 Finally, archaeologists often argue for the cities’ exclusive involvement in industries such as pottery, glass, and textiles.17 Some of these assumptions proved to differ from our results. Cities in contemporary texts are characterized not so much by specifc features or even size but by a concentration of all available services. Accordingly, cities in the research area were recognized through their multiple activities, including those of a market and a bathhouse, of agriculture, and of industry. Other characteristics of the cities are their location on a central route, the existence of most of them over the whole period, and the presence of rare objects in their fnd spectrum (i.e. bone fgurines and soapstone bowls). Save for Mazliah, they lack rotary querns and iron objects which might represent big-scale agriculture. Mazliah, the city site in Ramla, is different from other cities also in regard to its industry. The site is highly productive, manufacturing pottery, glass, iron, and a grape-juice product,

Conclusions 289 whereas production in the other cities was very limited. Additional industry and agriculture were provided to some of them by designated sites in their neighborhood. Whereas the metropolis of Ramla became a center for other sites in the late 9th century, cities are not spatially central and are situated not very far from each other. Mosques were detected only in Ramla, the metropolis, and in Ashdod-Yam, a town, and thus do not characterize cities in the region. The difference between cities and towns was not the presence of specifc characteristics but their concentration in the city. A paved market and fre installations are ‘Islamic’ or post 7th-century features. A market does not necessarily have the form of booths and is not even built. In the research area, I suggest identifying it by fagstones pavement and craft waste. Both markets and fre installations characterize the market-town sites, a creation of the 8th or 9th century, and they characterize cities. The site Yavne-Yam was not identifed as a city but as a village because it lacked both features. Still, its location on the coast, its bathhouse, and its rather rare material culture suggested that it used to be a city before the 8th century. All the same, the research of central Israel and historical Palestine is not only a case study to answer questions about settlement patterns in the Islamicate world. First and foremost, it composes a story about one region. It tells about the crops that grew in that landscape, including vine, olive, pomegranate, fg, date-palm, and citron. It illustrates the industries that its inhabitants developed, such as the production of wine and grape syrup, the manufacture of glass and pottery, or the minting of coins. It presents the economic networks between settlers of the region and between them and other areas. The research could not answer what was the religion of all dwellers, or their spoken language. It shows, however, their cultural solidarity, sharing one world of vessels, architecture, and technologies.

Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Al-Maqdisī, 164. Al-Maqdisī, 47. Johansen (1981: 145). E.g. Luz (1997); Kennedy (2010: 55–56). Noth (1973). E.g. Frantz-Murphy (1986: 87); Sijpesteijn (2007). Al-Balādhurī: 143. For the latter, see e.g. Hoyland (2021). A good example is Ayla in Aqaba, e.g. Whitcomb (1994). Luz (1997). Shmueli and Goldfus (2015), with references. Walmsley (2007: 104–105). Amitay-Preiss (2014). Grohmann (1963: 49–51, Text 42, Plate 18). Bulliet (1994: 76). E.g. Hourani (1970: 16). See Falahat (2014: 10). Walmsley (2007: 348–349).

290 Conclusions

References Primary sources Al-Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā (d. 892). Kitāb Futūh al-buldān, Michael Jan de Goeje (ed.), 1866, Leiden: Brill. Al-Maqdisī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad (d. after 990). Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat alaqālīm, Michael Jan De Goeje (ed.), Description Imperii Moslemici, second ed. 1906, Leiden: Brill. Secondary literature Amitai-Preiss, Nitzan, 2014. “Two Glass Weights from the Ribat at Ashdod-Yam”, in: Sarah Kate Raphael, Azdud (Ashdod-Yam): An Early Islamic Fortress on the Mediterranean Coast, BAR International Series 2673, Oxford: Archaeopress, 63, 104. Bulliet, Richard W., 1994. Islam: The View from the Edge, New York: Columbia University Press. Falahat, Somaiyeh, 2014. Re-imaging the City: A New Conceptualisation of the Urban Logic of the “Islamic City”, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-04596-8. Frantz-Murphy, Gladys, 1986. The Agrarian Administration of Egypt from the Arabs to the Ottomans, Supplément Aux Annales Islamologiques, Cahier 9, Le Caire: Institut Franc̦ais d’archéologie Orientale. Grohmann, Adolf, 1963. Arabic Papyri from Ḥirbet El-Mird, Bibliothéque du Muséon 52, Louvain: Publications universitaires. Hourani, Albert H., 1970. “Introduction: The Islamic City in the Light of Recent Research”, in: Albert H. Hourani and Samuel M. Stern (eds.), The Islamic City, Glasgow: University of Pennsylvania Press, 9–24. Hoyland, Robert, 2021. “Early Islamic Ramla (715–1099)”, in: Andrew Petersen and Denys Pringle (eds.), Ramla: City of Muslim Palestine, 715–1917. Studies in History, Archaeology and Architecture, Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology, 1–6. Johansen, Baber, 1981. “The All-Embracing Town and Its Mosques al-Miṣr alĞāmiʿ”, Revue de l’occident Musulman et de la Méditerranée 32: 139–161. Kennedy, Hugh, 2010. “How to Found an Islamic City”, in: Caroline Goodson, Anne Elisabeth Lester, and Carol Symes (eds.), Cities, Texts, and Social Networks, 400–1500: Experiences and Perceptions of Medieval Urban Space, Farnham: Ashgate, 45–63. Luz, Nimrod, 1997. “The Construction of an Islamic City in Palestine: The Case of Umayyad al-Ramla”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 7: 27–54. Noth, Albrecht, 1973. “Zum Verhältnis von kalifaler Zentralgewalt und Provinzen in umayyadischer Zeit: Die ‘Ṣulḥ’-‘ʿAnwa’-Traditionen für Ägypten und den Iraq”, Die Welt des Islams 14: 150–162. Shmueli, Oren, and Goldfus, Haim, 2015. “The Early Islamic City of Ramla in Light of New Archaeological Discoveries, G.I.S. Applications and a Re-examination of the Literary Sources”, in: Daniella Talmon-Heller and Katia Cytryn-Silverman (eds.), Material Evidence and Narrative Sources, Leiden: Brill, 267–300. Sijpesteijn, Petra M., 2007. “The Archival Mind in Early Islamic Egypt: Two Arabic Papyri”, in: Petra M. Sijpesteijn, Lennart Sundelin, Sofa Torallas Tovar, and Amalia Zomeño (eds.), From al-Andalus to Khurasan: Documents from the Medieval Muslim World, Leiden: Brill, 163–186. Walmsley, Alan G., 2007. Early Islamic Syria: An Archaeological Assessment, Bath: Duckworth. Whitcomb, Donald, 1994. “Amṣār in Syria? Syrian Cities after the Conquest”, ARAM 6: 13–33.

Index

Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables; italic page numbers refer to fgures and page numbers followed by “n” denote endnotes. Abbasid: and dating challenges 20; dynasty 1, 21; coins 61–62, 71, 96; fnds 61; fortifed sites 22–23; golden age 17; and landscape’s history 5; pottery 212, 217; see also Hārūn al-Rashīd; Pool of the Arches Abī Fuṭrus see Yarqon River activity areas 98, 117, 120, 171, 202; analysis of 108; and specifc elements 143, 168, 283–284; see also dwelling areas; industrial areas agricultural revolution see Watson, Andrew agriculture: areas 58; absence of 200–201, 255, 266; contemporary 68, 70, 185, 186; decline 29; estates 23; experiments 186, 237; investment 30; installations 54; knowledge 26; large-scale 27, 29, 282, 288; mawāsī 68; production 183, 200; projects 27, 29; as ‘service’ 200; settlement-type, in relation to 4, 18, 233, 236–237, 254–257, 266–267, 288–289; as source of income 201; technology 30; unfit for 66; water 26–28, 183; writing against 29; see also irrigation; qaṭīʿa Agronomos see ḥisba Aḥmad ibn Ṭūlūn 72, 115, 117, 152; see also Tulunid ʿĀqir or Akkaron 63, 284–285; bread 73, 237; continuity 268, 287, on the Madaba Map 258; as a town 255, 259, 260 alchemy 134, 136, 137, 138–139, 149, 210; see also al-Rāzī

alcohol 22, 25, 151–153, 159, 286; see also khamr; nabīdh; wine almonds 69, 70, 184–185, 186, 187, 189 amīr al-muʾminīn 22, 115–116 amṣār see miṣr ʿanwatan 20, 22 architecture: Ayyubid 214; Christian 54; for dating purposes 3, 57, 61, 111–113, 114, 117, 211, 214, 218, 231, 266, 283; for dating purposes and mapping 118, 190, 212, 216–217, 216, 219, 224, 230; for dating purposes in comparison to pottery 217–218, 226–229, 228–230; for dating purposes, index fossils 112, 114–115, 117, 214, 217, 228; for defning sites 8, 190; for identifying marketplace 202; Pool of the Arches 115; and site types 17, 23–24; solutions 187; stone 90; in terminology 244, 248, 256; typology 89, 96, 218, 282; unclassifed 218 Ascalon 2, 73, 104, 270; agriculture of 66, 70; inscriptions 248; on the Madaba Map 258; Philistine 10; wells 50, 160, 168, 237, 284; by William of Tyre 66, 160; see also ʿAsqalān Ashdod, Tel 53, 55, 57, 190; coin hoard 96; distant from natural water source 219; installations 101, 107, 148, 169; and less-common fnds 90; as a town 196, 227, 233; see also Azdūd; Azotus Ashdod-Yam 53, 55, 57, 190, 222, 224, 230; as a fortifed harbor 23, 209; installations 101, 103, 106–107, 111, 149; and less-common fnds 90, 93, 204; mosque 289; seal 286; in spatial

292

Index

patterns 224, 226, 235–237, 266; and its surroundings 229, 233; as a town 196, 227, 288; see also Azdūd; Azotus ʿAsqalān: for defning Palestine 65; and export 69, 70, 134; as kūra 248; as madīna 248, 252; and road maps 67, 68; as thaghr 11, 248, 256; see also Ascalon atūn 136, 137, 139–140, 139, 171 Ayalon stream: and foods 50; and Ludd 50, 232, 287; and other sites 57, 195, 220, 224, 226, 287; and winepresses 187 Ayyubids 1, 152, 214, 217 Azdūd or Yazdūd: and the identifcation challenge 72–73, 258, 258, 259; Māḥūz 73, 258, 258; in the research area 63, 70, 260, 268; and road maps 67, 68; see also Azotus Azor 53, 57–58; bone fgurine 94; chronology 112, 227; as a city 194, 195, 236, 266; fre installations 101, 103, 142–143, 145, 148–149; hypocaust 111; and less-common fnds 90; and occupation trends 224, 235, 267; winepresses 156 Azotus: fortress 246; and the identifcation challenge 72–73, 258, 258, 259; as a landmark 73; on the Madaba Map 258; and site types 259, 260; stream 66; see also Azdūd Baghdad or Baghdād 1, 10, 26 baking see bread balad 247, 249, 250–252, 250, 253, 260, 273n58 al-Balādhurī 9; about amṣār 286; about the destruction of Ludd’s church 262–263; about the house of dyers 134, 160, 168, 264; about wells in Ramla 168 balda 249, 250, 250, 252; in temporal patterns 253, 254–255; in translation 247, 255, 267 basalt 90, 100; bowls 58; grinding stones 60; pavement 111; querns 91, 117, 119, 204 bathhouses: and cities 2, 190, 194, 195, 266–267, 288–289; and Desert Castles 28; and fre devices 136, 137, 139–140, 139, 149, 171, 190; as installation 6, 98, 109–111, 164; and the Islamic City 25, 288; and mayāzir 134; in the

research area 57, 61, 63; in texts 71, 139, 162; and towns 196, 200; and water installations 162, 164, 166, 169, 169; and water lifting devices 93, 106, 160, 165, 169, 169, 170 Bayt al-Maqdis 65, 72; as the capital 251, 262; and export 68, 69, 134; and road maps 67; see also Īliyāʾ beachrock 47, 55, 60, 90–91, 107 Benjamin of Tudela 9, 246–247; about Ibelin 72; about Ludd 71, 264; and road maps 67; and settlement-type terminology 252, 254; about water distribution in Antioch 161, 166 Berchem, Max van 53, 115–116; see also epigraphy; inscriptions; Pool of the Arches Big Data 7, 89, 282–283 bone: artefacts 93, 100, 103, 200, 201, 266; fgurines or Coptic dolls 93, 94, 202, 204–205, 206, 210, 288; and fre 137, 139, 139, 169; and mercury 139; as raw material 60, 90, 98 braziers: of soapstone 91, 202, 203, 204, 208, 209–210; for cooking 99, 139, 140, 141, 150 bread: Syrian 137; of ʿĀqir 73, 237; baking 149; baking in specifc devices 136, 138–139, 141, 171; communal baking 136, 140–141, 150 bulayd 249, 250, 250; of Bayt Laḥm 252; as ḍayʿa 253–254, 253, 267; of Yubnā 260, 269 bulayda 249, 250, 253; by Yāqūt 250, 252, 255, 257, 267; of Yazūr 260, 269 burial 56–58, 61: cave 57; female 93; with fgurines 93; in jars 63; Muslim 6–7; non-Muslim 6; as space without architecture 8, 190 Byzantine boom 19, 53 Caesarea 2, 66, 73, 265, 270; channels 107; gardens 18; and less-common fnds 90, 92–93, 208, 209; producing marble bowls 91; storage installations 108, 167; wells 168, 284; see also Qaysariyya caliphs 22–23, 27, 114, 262 capital 23; Bayt al-Maqdis 262; Damascus 1, 285; in geographies 251, 285; Ludd, former 71, 263, 265, 284, 286; Ramla 65, 70–71, 263–265, 269, 284, 286–287; regional 4, 25, 65; in

Index terminology 245–246, 249; see also metropolis central place theory 23–24, 231, 235 cesspits: contents 161; in Fusṭāṭ 165; modern 175n179; in Ramla excavations 60, 166; or silos, interpretation as 108–109, 167–168, 171, 283–284; in texts 161–162, 162, 166, 169, 283 Christaller, Walter see central place theory Christian: and an alleged decayed city 24; burials 6–7; in Egypt 254; empire 1; Holy Land 52; languages 65–66; and Ramla 263; ritual architecture 54; tradition 265; and wine 152; written sources 64, 71–72, 245, 254, 284; and zoomorphic objects 92 citron: excess water tolerance 188, 189, 237; in mosaics 70; in Palestine 68, 69, 184, 289; water requirements 185, 186 channels: and bathhouses 111; in grapejuice press 102, 156; in irrigation systems 62; of jars 99; with nozzles 107; in texts 161, 161 church: of Bāliʾa 263; inscriptions 19, 57; and lands 21; of Ludd/Lod 72, 108, 263–265, 286; on the Madaba Map 72, 258; and marble 20; and miṣr 22; and qaryas 255; records 244; Samaritan 54; as translation to migdāl 245 climate change 29, 49 coin hoards see hoards coins: Byzantine 19–20; copper 96, 190, 195, 230, 267; correlated with other fnds 96, 100, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 201; as dating tools 6, 218, 226, 230; of Filasṭīn 65; of Ludd 286; of al-Ramla mint 55, 96, 270, 270, 271, 287; in the research area 58, 61–62, 93, 267, 289; silver 96; as texts 64, 71; Tulunid 270; value 66; of Yubnā 269; see also Abbasid colonization 3–4, 17–18, 183, 284; along rivers 28; and Arab conquests 21–22, 285; Byzantine-period and earlier 19–20; of diffcult regions 29–30 cookbooks 134, 136, 151; see also Ibn Sayyār al-Warrāq copper-alloy 100; lollipop objects 95, 143, 149, 204; spatula 202, 203; weights 96, 230; see also coins Coptic dolls see bone

293

Crusader 1, 217; authors 264; bathhouse 110; research area 55, 57, 72 Dājūn 63, 73; as a city 268, 284; continuity 268, 287; as a town 259, 260 Dalman, Gustaf 141 Damascus 1, 160; see also Dimashq dār al-imāra 25 dār al-ṣabbāghīn or house of the dyers 134, 160, 262, 264 date palms 27, 70, 184–185, 186, 188– 189, 189, 289; and alcohol 151, 153 ḍayʿa: absent from the research area 284–285; in the Geniza 247; in geographies 249, 250, 250; on inscriptions 248, 254; as a synonym of kafr 252, 253, 254, 267 dayr 247–248, 249, 250, 253, 284; Dayr Bawlus 260; Dayr Samwīl 248 debesh 97; and clay pipes 107; as dating tool 111–112, 113, 114, 156, 218; and dome pits 108; and vaults 108; at the White Mosque 214 decline in settlement 4, 17–19, 259, 262, 287; agricultural 29; of Ludd 219; paradigm of Islamic 53 dendritic-mercantile systems 24, 231–233, 235 Desert Castles 17, 22–23, 27 dibs or grape syrup 105, 150–151, 154–155, 159, 202, 289 Dimashq 117, 270; the capital 251, 285; mint 96; see also Damascus Diospolis see Ludd disposal 98; of fre remains 98, 141; habits 18; as a post-use activity 6, 135, 228; of pottery 218; of wastewater 160, 162 distribution 2, 7, 183, 202, 233; center 209, 232, 269; and cities 266; directions 231, 235; in the Islamicate World 205, 208; land 286; local 140; 209; regional 166, 210; water 161, 166; see also production drainage 135, 159–160; in bathhouses 110–111; channels 61; facilities according to ethnography 164; in grape-juice presses 156, 156; installations in texts 161–162, 162, 283; management 162; pit 62; as related to cities 60; Roman 166; technique 105, 155

294

Index

dwelling areas 7, 167, 202; and fre installations 143, 146, 149–150, 164; and sunken jars 107, 120, 287; and zoomorphic objects 204, 209; see also activity areas dyeing 25, 135, 159, 232; interpretation in archaeology 60, 105, 155, 158; and Ludd 264; see also dār al-ṣabbāghīn elite 30, 34n129; and luxuries 29; Muslim 1, 30; non- 5; suppressing local 286; in texts 161, 246 emic or etic 11–12 epigraphy 9, 53; and caliphal investments 27; in Israel/Palestine 284; and the Pool of the Arches 115; and settlement-type terminology 244, 248, 253; and water installations 160; see also inscriptions ethno-archaeology 3, 133, 135, 140, 150, 154, 171, 283 ethno-history 133–135, 140, 149–150, 159, 171 Eusebius see Onomasticon of Eusebius experimental archaeology 5, 133 farms 18, 62, 189, 243, 253, 254 Fatimid 1, 96, 152, 217, 218; Ramla 61, 95, 112, 212 fermentation 104, 153–155, 159; gases 174n106 fgs 150; Dimashqi 72; dried 134; exported from Palestine 68; in the research area 68, 69, 70, 73, 184, 289; and salt tolerance 189; for vinegar 151; and water requirements 184 Finley, Moses 24, 29, 231 fagstone: covering channels 107; for dating purposes 97, 113, 114, 211, 218; as pavement 97, 113, 167; as representing industrial markets 117, 118, 201–202, 267, 289; for site typology 190, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 201, 267 foods 50, 66, 161; hypothetical 188–189, 236–237; and installations 167 formation processes 6; see also Schiffer fortifcation: of Ashdod-Yam 209; and the ideal city 24; inside settlements 250; vs. ribāṭ 251; terminology 245, 248, 250, 252, 254–256; of Yavne-Yam 267; see also fortress; ḥiṣn; mivṣār; thaghr

fortresses or strongholds 57, 246, 266; architecture 243; of Ashdod-Yam 209; of al-Ramla 264; terminology 245–248, 250, 253, 256–257; of Yāfô 72; of Yavne-Yam 267 furn 136–138, 137, 138, 139, 140–141, 148, 171 Fusṭāṭ: fnds 90–93; as miṣr 22; as a new site 30; in texts 160, 247, 251; water installations 165 Gan Yavne or Khirbat Burqa 55, 57; bathhouse 111; Christian ritual architecture 54; fre installations 143, 145, 150; and occupation trends 219, 224; as a town 196, 227, 268 gat 153, 154 Gaza 10, 68, 115; amphorae 19, 31n16; kome 246, 252 Geniza 9, 64, 246, 252, 253, 262; and agriculture 70; and city-centric perception 247, 254, 285; and fortifcations 256; and installations 160, 163; and metropolis 256; and al-Ramla 70–71; and the research area 66, 72–73, 254–255, 260, 284; and social history 134; and wine 152; see also Goitein, Shlomo Dov Geoponica 134, 151, 153 George see Saint George glass: blowing 96, 139; as city industry 25, 288; fasks 138; kiln 99, 171; and Ludd 232; production 62–63, 98, 100, 135, 139, 148, 202; raw material 61, 90, 146; seals 25; waste 101, 103, 108, 143, 143, 148; waste and site types 194, 196, 197, 199; weights 57, 115; see also production; waste Goitein, Shlomo Dov 152, 186; see also Geniza golden age 17, 19 grains 69, 70, 150, 184; beer 151; consumption 186; and millstones 91, 237; storage 163 grape honey see dibs grape-juice press 135, 150, 154, 156, 159; in the research area 187, 190; and site types 195; see also winepress; maʿṣara; dibs grapes or vine 154, 184–185, 186, 187, 189, 189, 288–289; in mosaics 70; natural yeast 154; for raisons 150–151; skin 155, 159; in the sun 104, 158; treading 153, 155

Index grenade or sphero-conical vessel 61, 91, 92, 204, 208, 209; and industrial areas in Ramla 117, 202, 203; and mercury 209–210; see also mercury gridiron plan 24, 243, 286 Grohmann, Adolf 115, 249; see also papyri groundwater 160, 161; around Rehovot 188, 237; brackish 27, 237; high 50, 168, 236–237, 284, 287; and wells 106 hamra or Red Sandy Clay Loam 48, 68 harbor 23, 209, 224, 236, 287 Hārūn al-Rashīd 27, 114; see also Abbasid Ḥaṣôr 73, 260, 262, 284 ḥawḍ 160, 161 ḥisba or muḥtasib: and alcohol 25, 151– 152, 159; and drainage installations 161–162, 169; and fre devices 136; responsibilities 25; as social history source 9, 134; see also al-Shayzarī Hishām ibn ʿAbd al-Malik 22, 27, 263; see also Umayyad ḥiṣn 253, 256, 267; in the Geniza 247, 254; in geographies 249–251, 249, 250; Ḥiṣn Maslama 243; and qaryas 255; of Yāfā 72 hoards 19, 95–96 Hodder, Ian 7, 282 Holot Yavne 54–55, 57, 195, 196, 220, 226, 227 Horvat Zerifn 59, 61, 103, 199, 224, 227, 237, 267, 287 household 8; archaeology 7; ‘bad year’ economy 165; contexts in the research area 120, 167; cooking 140–141, 150; industry 140–141, 209–210, 287; production 140; water installations 162, 164 Ibn Baṭrīq or Patriarch 263 Ibn al-Faqīh 9–10, 249, 260, 263 Ibn Sayyār al-Warrāq 134; and alcohol 153; and fre devices 136, 137, 138–139; and vinegar 151 Ibn Sīda 134; and dibs 151; and fre devices 136–137; and wine 152; and water installations 160 al-Idrīsī 9, 66, 72–73, 76n115, 249–250, 249, 250, 260; and commerce 265; and ḥiṣn 251, 256; and road maps 67, 68 Īliyāʾ 96, 264; see also Bayt al-Maqdis

295

index fossils 5, 18, 112, 214, 228; and debesh 97; and copper coins 230; and soapstone 91 industrial areas 117, 143, 146, 146, 210, 236, 287; and big-built fre installations 146, 148; and fagstones 97, 120, 202, 267; and iron 204; and plastered barrel-shaped vault 166–167, 167 industry 4, 143, 289; and cities or towns 25, 197, 200, 255, 266–267, 288; copper 27; in Jaffa 56; in Lod 232, 287; in Mazliah 61, 236, 266, 288; organic products 98; pottery 96; and production modes 140–141; in the Rehovot cluster 62–63; repurposing spaces for 30; reusing waste 140; in satellite sites 231; small-scale 149; textile 255; waste 99, 149; and water 160; see also production; waste ink 22, 135 innovations 6, 27, 115, 169, 226 inscription 9, 245; and cities 256; church 19, 57; on coins and seals 96, 248; of Desert Castles 22; earliest Floriated Kufc 115; formulae 115; of fortifcations 254, 256; Mamluk 214; on marble 60, 90; on mosaics 97, 112; of Pool of the Arches 114–117, 114, 270; on pottery 91, 93, 248; Samaritan 66; surveyed by modern scholars 115; of toponyms 11; waqf 168, 254; winerelated 151; see also epigraphy iqṭāʿ 21, 29 ʿîr 246–248, 252, 253, 256–257; replacing medînâ 254; Talmudic 255 irrigation 133, 160–161, 161, 185, 186, 189; in Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya 62; and malaria 50; qanāt 27; and Ramla’s aqueduct 61; near Tel Ashdod 57; and vine 187; and water wheels 106; and wells 160, 169; and wheat 186, 237 Islamic archaeology 10 al-Iṣṭakhrī 9, 66, 249, 249, 250, 251 ivory 93 Jaffa 55–56; agriculture 68, 70; bathhouse 111; as city 194, 195, 201, 227, 266; economic operation 235; fre installations 103, 143, 145, 150; grape-juice press 105, 144, 158; identifed 268; and less-common fnds 90, 93, 205, 208, 209; marshes 50; and occupation trends 219, 223–225,

296 Index 228, 230, 236, 287; in underwater archaeology 53; see also Yāfā; Shefela al-Jahshiyārī 9, 115, 263–264 Jarash 25, 30, 110–111 Jerusalem: and biblical fgures 10; as capital 260; as city 252; crops 70; as Desert Castle 22; in the Geniza 160, 246–247, 254, 256; 19th-century 164, 166, 168; as part of early Islamic Palestine 2; patriarchate 64, 245; vicinity and stamped jar handles 93, 208, 20; see also Bayt al-Maqdis; Īliyāʾ Kafr ʿĀnā see Or Yehuda Kafr Jinnis 57–58, 103, 196, 201, 220, 224, 227, 228, 266 Kaplan, Jacob 52–53, 214 kefar or kafr 52, 245, 253; in the Geniza 247, 252, 284; Kafr Ḥabrā 248; Kafr Rinnis 259; Kafr Sābā 246, 252; Kefar Mordekhay 63; and other settlement types 248, 255; ownership 247, 254; on seals 248, 285; as a synonym to ḍayʿa 252, 254; as village 257, 267; see also ḍayʿa; village Kefar Gabirol 62, 101, 198, 227, 267 kerakh 247–248, 252, 253, 254–255 khamr 151–152; see also alcohol; wine kharāj 21, 286 Khirbat al-ʿAṣfūra 62, 96, 184, 199, 227, 237, 267 Khirbat Burqa see Gan Yavne Khirbat Dayrān 62–63, 101, 184, 196, 227; Christian ritual architecture 54; glazed pottery 201; metal waste 148; and occupation trends 224, 228, 287; winepress 104, 187 Khirbat al-Mafjar 22, 25, 111 Khirbat al-Mird 248–249, 287 khizāna 171; and dry goods 163–164, 164; as supply tank in bathhouse 162, 162; as treasury 72; see also storage; warehouse Khumārawayh 117, 270; see also Tulunid kiln 98–99, 135, 140, 149; glass 148; and kiln bars 133; in the research area 57, 61, 63; Roman pottery 6; terminology in written sources 139, 171 kiln bars 60, 96, 133, 146, 147, 149 kome 73, 246, 248, 252, 257, 260 kūra 164, 245, 249, 251, 260; and city 248, 252, 259, 285; of Filasṭīn 68; of

Ludd 262, 265, 286; in papyri 249; on seals 248, 285; of Yubnā 72, 269 kurkar 48, 63, 68, 90 Lakhish stream 50, 224, 237 landscape archaeology 7, 231 Late Antiquity 19, 65, 97, 134 latrines or toilets 110–111, 161–162, 162, 166 lifecycle of archaeological fnds 6, 202, 218 limestone 90, 111 Lod, Ludd, Lydda, or Diospolis 59, 61–62, 233; and amān 20; bathhouse of 111; as a capital 269, 284; as a center 219, 232, 235; chronology 211, 216–219, 216, 217, 218, 227, 230; church of 72, 265, 286; as a city 194, 195, 227, 259, 260, 262, 266, 270; fre installations 103, 142–143, 149–150; identifed 48, 268–269; industry 232, 287; and less-common fnds 90; on the Madaba Map 71, 258; Mamluk bridge 53; in Old Testament 52; replaced by Ramla 71, 226, 236, 262–265, 286, 288; and road maps 67; size 183, 219, 221–222, 224, 286; and subterranean cistern 108; in Talmud Bavli 70, 73; as a town 255; by William of Tyre 72, 264; winepress 102, 156; see also Saint George lollipops 95, 95, 202, 204, 206, 208; and fre installations 143, 144, 149; as local product 210 luxuries 29, 90, 210 Madaba Map 65, 71, 237, 257, 260; and Azotus 73, 258; and Iamnia 72, 269 māḥūz 67, 72 Māḥūz Azdūd see Azdūd malaria 50–51 Mamluk: sites 57, 62, 218; monuments 53; bathhouses 106, 110–111; and wine 152 al-Maqdisī 9, 66, 249, 265; about Azdūd 258, 259; about Dājūn 268; and exported goods 68, 72, 134; about fre devices 136, 137, 138; about Ludd’s church 263–264; about al-Ramla’s mosque 71, 263; and ribāṭ 72, 250– 251; and road maps of 67, 67, 73; and settlement-type terminology 249, 250,

Index 250–251, 255, 259, 260, 285; on water installations 160, 168, 237, 283–284 marble: basins 90–91; bathhouse pavements 111; columns 20, 57, 63, 100, 263; distributed from Ramla 235; geological defnition 90; and hoarding or refuse contexts 60, 98, 117, 119; and import 210; inscribed 22, 57, 60; in narrative sources 90, 263; and spatial distribution modes 202, 204, 206, 207, 208, 209 Marcus Street 60; chronology 112–113, 117, 117; and deformed grenades 92 marḥala 66–68, 67, 76n115 marshes or wetlands 48, 50, 68, 188–189, 236–237 maʿṣara 150, 152–153, 154; see also winepress metropolis 4, 12, 21, 289; as a city 257, 268; and institutions or services 23, 25; in Madaba Map 258; as miṣr 249; al-Ramla growing into 26, 71–72, 262, 265, 269–270, 288; as a synonym of ‘big city’ 71; as a town 285; by William of Tyre 245, 252; see also capital city; miṣr; qaṣaba mercury 91, 139, 209–210, 287 micro-history 3, 8 migration 18, 29, 165; after Arab conquests 17, 20; and urbanization 21, 26, 29–30, 288 millstone 90–91; see also querns miṣr or amṣār as conquests-related 20–22, 26, 30, 286, 288; as a capital 21, 249, 251, 285; as ‘free zone’ from nonMuslim features 22; and wine 152, 159 mivṣār 247, 252, 253, 254, 256; Mivṣār Ḥaṣôr 73; Mivṣār Ḥayfā 247 monks: Epiphanius 71; ʿAbd al-Masīḥ al-Najrānī 265 mosque: of ʿĀqir 73; of Ashdod-Yam 57, 266, 289; and city 2, 23, 25, 255–256, 266, 288; of Dājūn 73; and foundation inscriptions 256; and the function of miḥrābs 134; of Ludd 264; Mamluk or Ottoman 53; in old centers 30; as parallels of the Pool of the Arches 115; of al-Ramla 71, 262–263; White 53, 108, 214, 270, 288; of Yāfā 72; of Yubnā 72 muḥtasib see ḥisba municipium 245, 252, 253, 255, 257

297

Muslim: burials 6–7; city 286; colonization 4, 17; elites 1; geographers 10, 66, 71, 245, 264; judge 25; law 286; legal sources 20; monuments 53; refuge station 22; and wine 152 mustawqad 136–138, 137, 138, 139, 140, 149 Na’an south: Christian ritual architecture 54; fre installations 103; grape-juice press 105; mosaic 112; and occupation trends 219, 223; as a town 196, 227, 233, 268 nabīdh 151, 153; see also alcohol nāfkh nafsihi 136, 137, 138, 139–140, 139 Nahal Ayalon see Ayalon stream Nahal Lakhish see Lakhish stream Nahal Soreq see Soreq stream Nahr al-ʿAwja see Yarqon River Nahr Rūbīn see Soreq stream Nāṣir-i Khusraw 9, 160 Nessana: bone fgurines 93, 94; kastron 256; papyri 20, 151, 248; in text 248–249, 256 network: analysis 8, 51; economic 1, 90, 231–232, 257, 289; inquiries 96; patronage 23; political 34n129; social 90, 229 nomads 29 Ofer Park 60, 190, 199, 227 oil press 6, 61–62, 150, 154, 184, 232 olive 289; and ‘bad year’ economy 165; containers 163; oil production 287; in 19th-century Palestine 150; salt tolerance 189; stones, burnt 97; stones in sunken jar 107; water requirements 185, 186, 187; in the written sources or mosaics 69, 70, 184; see also oil press Ônô 63, 70, 73, 246–247, 252, 260, 262, 284 Onomasticon of Eusebius 9, 64, 66, 73, 257, 258–260, 262, 268, 285 Or Yehuda or Kafr ʿĀnā 57–58; glazed pottery 201; as a market town 198, 227, 233, 267; occupation trends 220, 226, 287; and Yāzūr 269 Ottoman: bathhouse 110; miniature paintings 133; monument 53; Palestine 10; pastoralism 30; site 11, 52; sources 65; taxes 68

298

Index

papyri 9, 151, 244–245; and administration in Palestine 249; and an army 20; and dibs 151; and dyeing 159; and kharāj 21, 286; and portable containers 163; al-Ramla in 287; for settlement-type terminology 248–249, 253, 256; and water installations 160; see also Grohmann, Adolf; Khirbat al-Mird; Nessana Parasite City see Finley, Moses Patriarch see Ibn Baṭrīq periodization 5–6, 55 Persian wheel see water wheel plaster 283; for chronological purposes 97; debesh used as 97; inscription on 114; as pavement 97, 101, 109, 112, 167; pinkish 61; and shells 96; sherds between two layers of 112, 113, 114, 156, 218; sherds cover on 113, 113, 114, 156; in texts 151, 153; see also plastered installations plastered installations: channels 107; in Fusṭāṭ 165; pits 108, 166, 167, 193, 218; pools 61; in texts 162; wells 107, 111 pomegranate 185, 186, 188, 189, 237, 289; in the written sources or mosaics 69, 70, 184 Pompeii premise 6 Pool of the Arches 108; inscription 114– 117, 114, 270; new date 112, 114, 117; parallels 115–116, 116; and Ramla’s development 212, 288; and sāqiya jars 169; and Tulunids 270 positivism 9 pottery production see production production 135, 183, 201; activities 133; agricultural 183, 200; of big jars 93; centers 91, 267, 269; and cities 25, 233, 236, 266, 289; coin 96, 267; contexts, identifcation of 202, 210; dibs 105, 150, 154, 289; food 25, 136; glass 25, 99–100, 148; of grenades 209; household 287; ivory 93; in Lod 232; of luxuries 29; means of 24; of mercury 210; metal 58, 63; modes of 140; pottery 60, 96, 98, 133, 143, 201, 233, 233; in Ramla 270; secondary 149; sites 231; soapstone 91; textile 61; vinegar 153; wine 19, 54, 151, 153, 159, 171; in the written sources 134; see also distribution; industry; waste

qanāt 27, 28 qarya 260; of ʿĀqir 73; as a city 255; in the Geniza 247; in geographies 73, 249, 250, 250, 255–256; on inscriptions 248; of Ludd 284; in papyri 249; services 256; as a town 252, 253, 254–255, 257, 266; as a village 243, 255–257, 285; of Yubnā 269 qaṣaba 249, 251–252, 260, 285; see also metropolis Qasile, Tell 53–55, 90; bathhouse 111; as a city 194, 195, 227, 266; and economic models 235; fre installations 103; glazed pottery 201; and the identifcation of Yāfā 268; and occupation trends 219, 222, 224, 229, 236; wells 107; winepresses 102, 104; zoomorphic objects 204, 208, 209 qaṭīʿa 21, 23 Qaysariyya see Caesarea quarry 48, 90–91, 202; near Khirbat al-Ẓāhiriyya 232 quern or rotary quern 91; as grain millstones 184, 237; and refuse areas in Ramla 117, 119, 204; in the Rehovot cluster 63, 187; and site typology 190, 197, 200–201, 200, 288; and water courses 188; see also basalt; beachrock rainfall 49, 183; and harvest 185–186, 186, 189, 237; see also irrigation Ramat Gan 57; fre installations 103; and less-common fnds 95; as a market town 198, 227, 233, 267; and occupation trends 53, 220, 224, 287; winepress 102; and Yāzūr 269 al-Ramla’s mint see coins al-Rāzī 134, 136–139, 137, 210 recipes: alchemy 139, 210; alcohol 151, 153, 159; dyeing 159; food 136, 139 recycling see secondary use Red Sea 96 refuse: areas 167, 202, 204; contexts 98; and fre installations 99, 103, 149; heaps 57; and industrial waste 100, 149; pits 61, 167; pits, artefacts from 58; pits, dug 58; pits, household 165; pits, on the site edges 117, 119 Responsa 134, 137, 246, 253, 254 ribāṭ 30, 249–251, 249, 250, 275n169; by al-Maqdisī 72–73, 265

Index Roman: administrative lists 9, 72, 257; bathhouse 110–111; castra 24; date for Greek inscriptions 65; and date palms 27; Empire 1, 140; golden age 27; graffti 161; kilns 6, 98; literature 50; miles 76n108; mosaics 70, 133; settlement-type terminology 71, 254, 262, 286; skeletal remains 51; water installations 106, 166; Yavne-Yam 267; zoomorphic objects 92 ṣahrīj 160–161, 161, 166, 171, 283 Saint George or Shergôrsh 72, 108; identity 71, 264, 269 sāqiya jars 92, 93; and bathhouses 93, 111, 165, 169, 170; and irrigation 187; as refecting water-wheel devices 93, 110, 133, 169; and wells 170; see also water wheel salvage excavations 5, 53, 57, 63, 143, 284 satellite sites 231, 235 skepticism 2, 9, 20 Schiffer, Michael 6, 140 seals 64–65; and administrative hierarchy 248, 284; from Ashdod-Yam 57; and Ludd 71; and muḥtasib 25; and al-Ramla 71, 286; for settlement-type terminology 245, 248, 260; and Yubnā 269 secondary use or recycling 18, 91, 98, 111, 135, 141, 202, 218; see also spolia al-Shayzarī 134; and drainage 162, 166; and fre devices 136–137, 137, 149; see also ḥisba Shefela 48, 66, 76n105 shells 57, 90, 96–97 sherds for construction see plaster slaves 25, 27, 29 soap 68, 134–135, 232 soapstone 90; and cities 288; as index fossil 91; for mercury production 209– 210; in Ramla 117, 202, 203; regional spatial distribution of 204–205, 208, 208, 209; source 91, 209 solar model or solar system 231, 235 Soreq stream 50, 219, 222, 236, 287 sphero-conical vessel see grenade spolia 2, 7, 89; see also secondary use stamped jar handles 57–58, 61, 92, 93; and site types 200, 201; and spatial models 202, 204–205, 204, 208, 208, 209, 266

299

steatite see soapstone storage 98, 106–107, 135, 159, 163, 164; dry goods 108, 167, 283; in 19th-century Palestine 164–165; portable devices for 164; room or cesspit 165–166; water 57, 160–161, 171, 283; wine 152–155 Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik 134, 262–263, 286–287; see also Umayyad sunken jars 60, 106, 165; content 107; for dating purposes 113, 113, 114, 156, 218; and dwelling areas 107, 117, 119, 120, 287; and hoarding 95; in Nishapur 107; and wine 153 al-Ṭabarī 9, 264 Ṭabariyya 251; see also Tiberias Ṭabārjī or Ṭatārjī 117, 270; see also Pool of the Arches; Tulunid ṭabūn: in archaeological terminology for oven 61, 63, 98–99, 133, 135, 171; as a communal bread oven 150; by al-Maqdisī 136, 137, 138, 138; in modern use for baking 141–142; translated as hearth 139, 140 Taktikon 64, 66, 71, 245, 252, 253, 258, 259, 254, 264 Talmud 70, 14, 160–161, 163, 254–255 tamṣīr 4, 17; see also miṣr tannūr 136, 137, 138, 139, 140–141 textile 115, 210; dyeing 25, 135, 232; export from al-Ramla 68, 134; industry 255, 288 Tiberias 25, 90, 92; see also Ṭabariyya thaghr 248, 253, 254, 256 trade: and the Byzantine boom 19; and cities 4, 23–24, 200, 236, 266; and Desert Castles 23; and market towns 257; networks 1, 232, 257; and al-Ramla 265; routes 202, 204, 209, 231; slave 25; and storage 163; and towns 200, 233, 236, 256 tradition-critical approach 9–10 Tūlīda, Ha- 9, 245, 252 Tulunid 1, 117, 270, 287; see also Aḥmad ibn Ṭūlūn; Khumārawayh; Ṭabārjī; Pool of the Arches Umayyad: circulation of Byzantine coins 20; coins 62, 71; construction style 23; date for Ramla’s aqueduct 61; hydraulic projects 27; inscriptions 22; and al-Ramla 71; see also Hishām ibn

300 Index ʿAbd al-Malik; Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Malik Umayyad palaces see Desert Castles urbanization 3–4, 26, 284, 288 villa 245, 253 village 3, 190, 243, 260; and balda or bulayda 255; by Benjamin of Tudela 247–248; characteristics 254, 257, 265– 267; and city-centric sources 262, 269, 284–285; as estates 287; in the Geniza 247; in geographical history 243, 258, 285; in 19th-century Palestine 19; in papyri 248–249; and qaryas 243, 255–257, 285; as part of Ramla 269, 288; in a Samaritan text 245, 284; in Syria 141–142; terminology 245–250, 253, 257; under the metropolis 268, 285; by Yāqūt 285; of Yubnā 259, 269; see also ḍayʿa; kefar vine see grapes vinegar 150–151, 153–154 Wādī Muṣrāra see Ayalon stream Wādī Sukhrīr see Lakhish stream waqf 160, 168, 248, 254 warehouse 164, 167, 171; see also khizāna; storage waste: construction 57; craft 98, 142, 190, 231; and fre installations 101, 103, 143, 146, 147, 148–150, 148; glass 61, 96, 108, 142; industrial 100; kiln 57, 148; materials 90; materials as fuel 140; metal-production 55, 58; and occupation trends 232; pottery 99, 133, 144; as refecting a market 289; as refecting production 8, 202; and site types 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200–201, 267; see also industry; production; wastewater wasters 60 wastewater 160, 166; see also drainage water wheel or Persian wheel 57, 93, 106, 110, 133, 169; also see sāqiya jars Watson, Andrew 17, 26, 28–29 Weber, Max 23–24 William of Tyre 9, 245; about Ascalon 10, 66, 160; about Azotus 258, 259; about Lydda 72, 264; about storage facilities 163; and settlement-type terminology 252, 254, 256, 260; about water installations 160

wine 150; and the Byzantine period 19, 54; fermentation 155; home making 159; modern 154; storage 163–164, 164; prohibition of consumption 151–152; vines 186; in the written sources 152–153, 171; see also alcohol; dibs; fermentation; grape-juice press; maʿṣara; production; winepress winepress 7, 101, 104, 135, 150, 155, 187, 187; excavated 54, 57–58, 61, 63; implying vine 184; or juice press 105; and occupation trends 228, 232; preIslamic date 20, 156; and site typology 190, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 201, 267; see also grape-juice press; maʿṣara; wine Yāfā 63, 70, 72, 164, 265; as a city 250, 259, 260, 268; ḥiṣn 251; overshadowed by al-Ramla 71, 262, 288; and ribāṭ 251; and road maps 66, 67; and Tell Qasile 268; as a town 285; see also Jaffa al-Yaʿqūbī 9, 249; about al-Ramla 66, 72, 160, 263–264; and road maps 67; and settlement-type terminology 249, 250, 251, 260; about Yubnā 269 Yāqūt 9, 249; and biblical fgures 10; and bulayda 255, 267; about Nahr al-ʿAwja 66; about al-Ramla and Ludd 160, 263; and ribāṭ 250; and road maps 67; and settlement-type terminology 249, 250–252, 250, 260; and small settlements 71, 73, 254, 262, 268, 284–285; about Yazdūd 258, 259; about Yubnā 269 Yarqon River 50; as Abī Fuṭrus river 66; cluster and fre installations 146; cluster and portable artefacts 204, 209; cluster and water installations 169; and occupation trends 224, 229, 236; site cluster 51, 54–55, 54; water mills 53 Yashresh 59, 61, 107, 190, 191 Yavne, Tel 18, 62; fre installations 99, 100, 101, 143, 145; glazed pottery 201; occupation trends 222, 224, 226, 228–229, 235, 266; as a town 196, 227; and urbanization 236, 288; as Yubnā 269 Yavne-Yam 53, 55–57, 267; and agriculture 68; bathhouse 111; fre installations 98, 101, 149–150; glazed

Index pottery 201; identifcation 269; juice presses 101; and occupation trends 219, 224, 226, 229, 236–237, 287; and site types 199, 201, 227, 231–232, 267, 289; wells 106–107; see also Yubnā Yazdūd see Azdūd Yubnā 63, 70; identifcation 269; on the Madaba Map 72; Māḥūz Yubnā 72;

301

mint 72; and qalʿa 251; and road maps 67; and settlement-type terminology 259, 260, 268–269, 284; see also Yavne, Tel; Yavne-Yam zoomorphic vessels 92, 92; excavated 61; produced in Ramla 235; and spatial models 202, 204, 205, 207, 208, 209