The Road Inns (Khans) in Bilad al-Sham 9781407306711, 9781407336718

Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Table of Contents
List of Maps and Plates
List of Figures
Acknowledgments
Notes on Usage
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Terminology: From Khan to Caravansarai
Chapter 3: The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns
Chapter 4: The Architecture of Rural Khans in Bilad al-Sham during the Mamluk Period
Chapter 5: Gazetteer
Chapter 6: Conclusion
Bibliography
Maps
Plates
Figures
Index

Citation preview

BAR S2130 2010

The Road Inns (KhƗns) in BilƗd al-ShƗm

CYTRYN-SILVERMAN

Katia Cytryn-Silverman

THE ROAD INNS (KHƖNS) IN BILƖD AL-SHƖM

B A R

BAR International Series 2130 2010

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām Katia Cytryn-Silverman

BAR International Series 2130 2010

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 2130 The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām © K Cytryn-Silverman and the Publisher 2010 The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781407306711 paperback ISBN 9781407336718 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407306711 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2010. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK EMAIL [email protected] P HONE +44 (0)1865 310431 F AX

+44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

In the memory of my father

Table of Contents

List of Maps and Plates........................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................................... v  Notes on Usage ....................................................................................................................................................... vi  Chapter 1  Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 1  Chapter 2 Terminology: From Khān to Caravansarai 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 5  2.1. Corpus of Inscriptions ........................................................................................................................... 6  2.1.a Inscriptions from Bilād al-Shām ................................................................................................. 6  The Ayyubid Period .................................................................................................................. 6  The Mamluk Period ................................................................................................................ 10  The Ottoman Period ................................................................................................................ 16  Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 16  2.1.b. Inscriptions from Iran............................................................................................................... 18  The Ilkh«nid Period (656–756AH/AD1258–1355) ................................................................ 19  The Timurid Period (771–913AH/AD1370–1507)................................................................. 19  The Safavid Period (907–1135AH/AD1501–1722)................................................................ 19  Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 19  2.1.c. Inscriptions from Anatolia........................................................................................................ 19  The Saljuq Period (ca. 463–707AH/AD1071–1307) .............................................................. 19  The Ottoman Period ................................................................................................................ 23  Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 23  3. The Written Sources .......................................................................................................................................... 24  3.1. The Arabic Sources ............................................................................................................................. 24  3.1.a. Geographical and Historical Treatises...................................................................................... 24  3.1.b. Waqfiyyāt ................................................................................................................................. 32  3.2. The Western Sources ........................................................................................................................... 36  4. Previous Research and Problems in Interpretation ............................................................................................ 39  Chapter 3  The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns  1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 43  2. The Patronage of Rural Inns under the Ayyubids and the Saljuqs of R−m........................................................ 45  2.1 The Evidence ........................................................................................................................................ 45  2.1.a. The Ayyubid Period ................................................................................................................. 45  2.1.b. The Saljuqs of Anatolia............................................................................................................ 46  2.2. Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 48  3. The Patronage of Rural Inns during the Mamluk Period ................................................................................... 48  3.1 The Patrons ........................................................................................................................................... 51  3.2 The Religious Background—Generosity and Charity .......................................................................... 55  3.3. The Financial Background................................................................................................................... 56  a. Protecting the assets ....................................................................................................................... 56  b. Promoting Commerce .................................................................................................................... 57  3.4. The Institutional Background—The Royal Mail (Bar»d)..................................................................... 59  4. Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 61  Chapter 4  The Architecture of Rural Khāns in Bilād al-Shām during the Mamluk Period  1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................... 63  2. The Architectural Remains ................................................................................................................................ 63  2.1. Layout.................................................................................................................................................. 63 

i

2.1.a. Water Supply ............................................................................................................................ 66  2.1.b. Additional functions ................................................................................................................. 66  2.2. Masonry ............................................................................................................................................... 67  2.3. Structure .............................................................................................................................................. 68  2.4. Fortification ......................................................................................................................................... 69  2.5. Architectural Decoration ..................................................................................................................... 70  2.5.a. The façade ................................................................................................................................ 70  2.5.b. The passageway ....................................................................................................................... 71  2.5.c. The courtyard enclosure ........................................................................................................... 71  2.5.d. The prayer room ....................................................................................................................... 72  2.5.e. The decorative aspect of the foundation inscriptions ............................................................... 73  3. Architectural Sources......................................................................................................................................... 74  3.1. From Rib«³ to Kh«n? ........................................................................................................................... 74  3.2. The Ayyubid Inns of Syria .................................................................................................................. 76  4. Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 78  Chapter 5  Gazetteer  1. Kh«n al-A¯mar .................................................................. ‫ اﻟﺨﺎن اﻻﺣﻤﺮ‬............................................................... 85 2. Kh«n al-A¯mar/ Kh«n ®athr−ra ........................................ ‫ ﺧﺎن ﺣﺜﺮورة‬/ ‫ ﺧﺎن اﻻﺣﻤﺮ‬.............................................. 88 3. Kh«n al-As«wir .................................................................. ‫ﺧﺎن اﻻﺳﺎور‬................................................................ 95 4. Bayt Dar«s ......................................................................... ‫ ﺑﻴﺖ دراس‬.................................................................. 96 5. ®aw± al-‘Azariya............................................................... ‫ ﺣﻮض اﻟﻌﺰرﻳﺔ‬............................................................. 96 6. Jalj−liya ............................................................................. ‫ ﺟﻠﺠﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬..................................................................... 99 7. J»n»n ................................................................................... ‫ ﺟﻴﻨﻴﻦ‬...................................................................... 102 8. Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b ..................................................... ‫ ﺧﺎن ﺟﺴﺮ ﺑﻨﺎت ﻳﻌﻘﻮب‬................................................. 104 9. Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ ......................................................... ‫ﺧﺎن ﺟﺴﺮ اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻣﻊ‬....................................................... 108 10. Kh«n Jubb Y−suf ............................................................. ‫ ﺧﺎن ﺟﺐ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬......................................................... 112 11. Kh«n J−khad«r (®anot Or¯a) ........................................... ‫ ﺧﺎن ﺟﻮﺧﺪار‬............................................................. 121 12. Khisf»n ............................................................................. ‫ ﺧﺴﻔﻴﻦ‬..................................................................... 123 13. Kh«n al-Lajj−n ................................................................. ‫ ﺧﺎن اﻟﻠﺠﻮن‬............................................................... 125 14. Kh«n al-Lubban ............................................................... ‫ ﺧﺎن اﻟﻠﺒﻦ‬.................................................................. 127 15. L−biy«, al-Kh«n ............................................................... ‫ اﻟﺨﺎن‬,‫ ﻟﻮﺑﻴﺎ‬............................................................... 130 16. Kh«n Minya .................................................................... ‫ ﺧﺎن ﻣﻨﻴﺔ‬.................................................................. 132 17. Q«q−n ............................................................................. ‫ﻗﺎﻗﻮن‬....................................................................... 135 18. Qaryat al-‘Inab, Ab− Gh−sh............................................ ‫ ﻗﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﻌﻨﺐ‬,‫ أﺑﻮ ﻏﻮش‬.................................................. 137 19. al-Sukkariya, Khirbat ...................................................... ‫ ﺧﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ‬............................................................ 142 20. ²»ra ................................................................................. ‫ ﻃﻴﺮة‬....................................................................... 143 21. Kh«n al-Tujj«r ............................................................... ‫ ﺧﺎن اﻟﺘﺠّﺎر‬.............................................................. 144 22. Y«s−r............................................................................... ‫ ﻳﺎﺳﻮر‬...................................................................... 153 23. Kh«n Y−nus .................................................................... ‫ ﺧﺎن ﻳﻮﻧﺲ‬................................................................ 153 Chapter 6  Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 161  Bibliography ........................................................................................................................................................ 163  Maps .................................................................................................................................................................... 179 Plates.................................................................................................................................................................... 182 Figures ................................................................................................................................................................. 197 Index .................................................................................................................................................................... 283

ii

List of Maps and Plates

Map 1.

The road inns of Bil«d al-Sh«m.

Map 2.

The Saljuq road inns of Anatolia.

Map 3.

Gazetteer Map

Pls. I–III.

Mamluk kh«ns of Bil«d al-Sh«m.

Pl. IV.

Ayyubid kh«ns of Bil«d al-Sh«m.

Pl. V.

Masonry.

Pl. VI.

Construction techniques.

Pl. VII.

Fortification elements.

Pl. VIII.

Decorative elements.

Pl. IX.

Decorative elements, continued.

Pl. X.

Epigraphy, stabling facilities and water provision.

Pl. XI.

Parallels: Mamluk architecture in Jerusalem.

Pl. XII.

Parallels: Saljuq Architecture in Anatolia.

Pl. XIII.

Early Islamic rib«³«t (1–2) and rural inns of Iran.

Pl. XIV.

Early Islamic rural inns of Syria (1–4) and bar»d relay stations (5–6).

Pl. XV.

Ayyubid rural inns.

iii

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1-1.6

Kh«n al-A¯mar (Beth She’an)

Fig. 2.1-2.4

Kh«n al-A¯mar/ Kh«n ®athr−ra

Fig. 2.5

Kh«n al-A¯mar/ Euthymius

Fig. 3.1

Kh«n al-As«wir

Fig. 4.1

Bar»d stations in southwestern Palestine.

Fig. 5.1

Kh«n ®aw± al-‘Azariya

Fig. 6.1

Roads in the Sharon Plain during the Roman-Byzantine periods.

Fig. 6.2-6.7

Kh«n Jalj−liya

Fig. 7.1

The route from J»n»n to Damascus.

Fig. 8.1-8.5

Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya'q−b

Fig. 9.1-9.4

Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘

Fig. 10.1-10.9

Kh«n Jubb Y−suf

Fig. 11.1-11.4

Kh«n J−khad«r (®anot Or¯a)

Fig. 12.1

Khisf»n

Fig. 13.1- 13.2

Kh«n al-Lajj−n

Fig. 14.1-14.3

Kh«n al-Lubb«n

Fig. 15.1-15.2

L−biy«, al-Kh«n

Fig. 16.1-16.6

Kh«n Minya

Fig. 17.1-17.2

Qāq−n

Fig. 18.1-18.8

Qariyat al-‘Inab, Ab− Gh−sh

Fig. 19.1

Maqām al-Shaykh AΉmad al-‘Urayn» near Qiryat Gat and inscription from Kh. Al-Sukkariya

Fig. 20.1

²»ra

Fig. 21.1-21.6

Khān al-Tujjār

Fig. 21.7-21.8

Qal‘at ΜAyn al-T−jjār

Fig. 22.1

Yāsūr

Fig. 23.1-23.5

Khān Yūnus

iv

Acknowledgments This research on Mamluk road-stations (kh«ns) in southern Bil«d al-Sh«m attempts to integrate Islamic archaeology and history, bringing together data from field-work, archives, as well as scholarly studies, from the Mamluk period to the present. It was submitted as a doctoral thesis at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2004, and was supervised by Reuven Amitai and Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, both devoted and inspiring teachers. A number of grants and awards made this project possible by supporting fieldwork, academic study and international travel. These include the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Humanities, the Gilad Bartov Fund of the Institute of Asian and African Studies, the Robert H. and Clarice Smith Fund of the Institute of Arts & Letters that enabled me to visit the Saljuq inns of central Anatolia, and the Rachel Yanait Ben Zvi Award from the Institute Izhaq Ben-Zvi (Yad Ben Zvi) in Jerusalem that supported me during my year abroad at Oxford (1999–2000). I am grateful to the staff of the Israel Antiquities Authority and Staff Officer of Archaeology (SAO), who kindly escorted me while visiting sites under their supervision. I owe special thanks to Zvi Gal and his staff, as well as Moshe Hartal, Yossi Stepansky and Eliezer Stern. Many others are mentioned in the text. Julian Raby and Ruba Kana‘an at the Oriental Institute of the Oxford University gave invaluable support to my research while I was there from 1999 to 2000. At that time, I was affiliated with Wolfson College. It would be impossible to thank all the librarians and staff who helped me, both in Israel and in England, but I am especially grateful to those working at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University, at the Oriental Reading Room at the National Library in Jerusalem, at the Rockefeller Museum of Archaeology, as well as at the Rare Books and Manuscripts Reading Room and the Map Room at the Bodleian Library in Oxford. The latter’s librarian, Nigel James, not only helped with the cartographic material, but also tutored me on their mapping program MapInfo, which I used throughout this research to prepare the maps. Of the archives and collections consulted, I should thank those of the Israel Antiquities Authority—directed by Nurit Feig and managed by Arieh Rochman-Alperin; the Aerial Photography Collection of the Department of Geography of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, then directed by Dov Gavish; the Palestine Exploration Fund in London, directed by Rupert Chapman and assisted by Felicity Cobbing; and the Middle East Centre at St. Antony’s College in Oxford, whose photograph collection was directed by Clare Brown. To my teachers and mentors Rachel Milstein, and Amikam Elad, to Yitzhaq Hasson, Chaim Gerber, James Allan, Donald Richards, Marcus Milwright, Yaakov Sheffer, E. Ginio, Sergio La Porta, Nathan Ford, Yehoshua Frenkel, Daphna Sharef, and to many others, I am grateful for their help. Some commented and suggested, others helped in translating. Needless to say that any errors are my own. I would also like to thank H. Barbé, M. Hawari, R. Hillenbrand, G. Kahaner, D. Nahlieli and A. Petersen for allowing me to use images from their respective publications. Special thanks for Idan Shaked, Yuval Nadel and Ilan Arad for kindly providing me with their aerials photographs. The support of all my colleagues and friends doubtlessly made this journey less arduous and quite enjoyable. Yet, my home was my only true kh«n, where I always found encouragement and recharged energies. Our daughter Maya spent many weekends of her first years wandering from site to site, playing while we worked. Those memories are forever imprinted in my mind. Amit was born during the last year of my writing, and I am grateful for him being a perfect partner of my late sleepless hours. My husband David not only continuously expressed his support, but also photographed, edited, helped with the field measurements and proofed the text. This work is no less his.

v

Notes on Usage

Arabic names and terms are transliterated according to the Encyclopaedia of Islam system, except for dj (‫)ج‬, ª (‫)ق‬, dh (‫)ذ‬, kh (‫ )خ‬and sh (‫)ش‬, which are transliterated as j, q, dh, kh and sh respectively. Arabic terms are usually given in transliteration, apart from those which have been incorporated into English. Isl«m, for example, is written Islam, Sul³«n—Sultan, etc. The term maml−k appears either in transliterated form or in the modernized spelling Mamluk, according to the context. The first stands for the original meaning of the term, referring to military slaves imported into Islam as early as the ninth century (see D. Ayalon, ‘Maml−k’, EI2, vi, pp. 314–321). The second refers specifically to the regime and period in which the maml−ks ruled, from 648/1250 to 922/1517 in Egypt, and from 658/1260 to 922/1516 in Syria (see P.M. Holt, ‘Maml−ks’, EI2, vi, pp. 321–331). Similarly, also ‘Abbasid, Saljuq, Ayyubid, Ottoman and Safavid. Most of the sources, either in Arabic or in Western languages, are translated into English by the author, unless otherwise noted.1 The translation of Qur’«nic passages refer to Y−suf ‘Al»’s The Meaning of The Holy Qur’«n, 9th ed., Amana, 1997. Bil«d al-Sh«m (Greater Syria) is the historical term for the region roughly encompassing modern Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank and the Golan Heights (see C.E. Bosworth, Al-Shām, EI2, ix, pp. 261ff.). The term Palestine is used in its historical sense, referring to the region bounded by the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean coast to the west, running from the modern Lebanese frontier to the Israeli-Egyptian border in the south. Geographical terms such as the Golan Heights, Galilee, Jordan Valley and others are used in the current senses. Wellknown place names usually appear as in current usage in English (Cairo, Damascus, Jerusalem, Gaza, Baghdad, etc.), unless the context demands the use of the historical name (Bays«n instead of Beth She’an, for example).

1

Turkish and Russian texts have been quoted from the respective English translations.

vi

Chapter 1 Introduction The first comprehensive study on Near Eastern inns (Die Karawanserai im vorderen Orient) was published by K. Müller in 1920. Since then relatively few works have been dedicated to the subject of en route architecture in the Islamic lands and the road inns in particular. Among such studies are four articles by J. Sauvaget on inns in Greater Syria from the Ayyubid through the Ottoman periods, published between 1937 and 1941; M. Siroux’s 1949 monograph on late Iranian inns and K. Erdmann’s Das anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts, published in 1961. The First Encyclopaedia of Islam did not deal with the subject, apart from a short reference to caravansarais found in the entry ‘k«rw«n’ (Cl. Huart, EI, iv, p. 781). With the publication of the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam N. Elisséeff contributed the entry ‘kh«n’ (EI2, iv, pp. 1010–1017), gathering information collected from the various surveys, from general works on Islamic architecture and from site reports and topical articles.

This is surprising, since in Palestine and the Golan Heights, there were about a hundred and twenty rural and urban inns dating from the early Islamic period through late Ottoman times. Some of them are no longer extant; many are in a poor state of preservation, but a few still bear witness to their heyday.

Since the publication of EI2, iv, in 1978, Elisséeff’s entry has been the main source of information on the concept of the kh«ns in Islam, and is quoted without reservation. Apart from issues of terminology, his discussion deals mainly with the architectural aspects of the subject.

In 1997 a popular book appeared on the kh«ns of Palestine, titled Caravansaries, Roads & Inns in Israel. The author, Eliahu Stern of the Department of Geography and Environmental Development at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, attempted to expose the remains of the Islamic inns to local tourism. His book thus joined the corpus of brief articles published in Qardom by the Arabist and historian Moshe Sharon (1982, pp. 109–116), and the geographer Shimon Stern (1982, pp. 117–123) (both in Hebrew).

Disregard for these sites is also noticeable in the main archaeological publication for the region, The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land (1993). Apart from M. Avi-Yonah’s entry ‘Abu Ghosh, Later Periods’ (NEAEH, i, pp. 5–7), with reference to R. De Vaux and A.M. Stève’s excavations in the vicinity of the Crusader church and Benedictine monastery (De Vaux and Stève 1950), the recording of Islamic inns are rare (NEAEH, ii, pp. 521, 546, 586),2 despite the fact that in the forty-three years between the two publications, new data had come to light following excavations and surveys.3

Together with Elisséeff, a few other entries in the Encyclopaedia of Islam and the Encyclopaedia Iranica contribute to the study of the architecture and traditions of the rural inns in the Islamic lands such as funduª (R. Le Tourneau, EI2, ii, p. 945), manzil (N. Elisséef and P.A. Andrews, EI2, vi, pp. 455–457), rib«³ (J. Chabby and N. Rabbat, EI2, viii, pp. 493–506) and caravansary (from the Persian k«rv«nsar«y; M.Y. K»«n» and W. Kleiss, EIr, iv, pp. 798–802). There are a few studies on the subject by art historians, such as the chapter “The Caravanserai” by R. Hillenbrand in his book Islamic Architecture—Form, Function and Meaning (Hillenbrand 1994, pp. 331–376); E. Sims’ article “Trade and Travel: Markets and Caravanserais” in G. Michell’s Architecture of the Islamic World (Sims 1978, pp. 97–111), as well as some studies on the term funduq (Gazagnadou 1986; Ahrweiler 1994; Constable 2001; Constable 2003, pp. 40ff.), and recently also on the term rib«³ (Khalilieh 1999, 2008, 2009; Masarwa 2006, pp. 54ff.). To those we may add some brief discussions in articles and monographs dealing with architecture and/or epigraphy, as well as encyclopaedic and dictionary entries.

Stern’s Caravansaries is arranged as a guidebook, with a short history and description of every site, together with road directions and tips. Unfortunately the work, by its very nature, is somewhat superficial, lacks historical and archaeological foundations and, most of all, perpetuates errors of identification and interpretation. The present research4 commenced shortly before Stern’s guide came to my attention. By then I had collected the basic information on the sites known as Islamic kh«ns from archaeological archives in Israel, examined the main published studies, and set my primary goals as a historical and architectural survey of the courtyard buildings known as kh«ns found in the boundaries of historical Palestine and the Golan Heights, and their 2 See entries ‘Giv‘at Or¯a’ (NEAEH, ii, pp. 521–523), ‘Golan’ (NEAEH, ii, pp. 534–546) and ‘®aspin’ (NEAEH, ii, pp. 586–588), all by Z.U. Ma‘oz. 3 On the early Islamic inns of Tell Qasila and Yotvata, see Ayalon et al. 1986–7 and 1987–9; Meshel 1990 respectively. For the Mamluk inns at Kh«n al-Tujj«r, Jubb Y−suf, Kh«n Minya see Gazetteer. In addition to those, we should note the publication of Mamluk Jerusalem by M. Burgoyne of the British School of Archaeology, in which two urban inns, Kh«n Tankiz (in the Cotton Merchant’s Market) and Kh«n alSul³«n (al-Wak«la), were thoroughly surveyed (Burgoyne 1987, pp. 280–282; 479–484). 4 A preliminary and popular publication of the research results appeared in Cytryn-Silverman 2006 (in Hebrew).

Among the works mentioned above, Hillenbrand’s clearly stands out; it presents the broadest architectural corpus, dating from the eleventh through the eighteenth centuries. The discussion is divided into two sections—rural and urban inns—organized geographically and chronologically. Southern Bil«d al-Sh«m, and particularly Palestine, however, plays a small role in Hillenbrand’s discussion.

1

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m relation to those beyond these borders. Stern’s Caravansaries immediately presented a further scholarly purpose: my research would necessarily have to deal with some traditional misconceptions in the local geographical terminology, and gather the available information into a meaningful corpus of buildings.

This study does not intend to cover all the fields listed above—it would be much beyond the scope of this monograph—but focuses mainly on an integrated survey of historical and archaeological evidence. This will be presented in three chapters, dealing respectively with issues of terminology, patronage, and architecture. These discussions relate to the gazetteer of surveyed buildings, presented in chapter 5.

At a later stage, I decided to focus on the Mamluk period (1260–1516), for the following reasons. First, apart from J. Sauvaget’s article on the kh«ns of Syria during the Mamluk period (Ars Islamica 7, 1940, following the first of his series, focusing on the Zankid-Ayyubid period, in Ars Islamica 6, 1939), as well as his study on the kh«ns serving the bar»d published as Les Postes aux chevaux (Sauvaget 1941), there had been no further attempt to understand—both architecturally and historically—this manifestation of Mamluk material culture. Secondly, many examples of inns in varying states of preservation dated between 1260 and 1516 exist in situ spread over the lands once ruled by the Mamluk regime. This is true for my findings in the course of a field survey undertaken from summer 1998 to summer 2002 (with some further visits during the last few years), in the area corresponding to Mandatory Palestine and also in the Golan Heights, where archaeological remains from the Mamluk period are plentiful.

The proposal of this monograph in a way meets the plea of M. Lee, C. Raso and R. Hillenbrand, discussing the results of their architectural survey of Kh«n al-Tujj«r and Jubb Y−suf in the Galilee: “Not enough survey or research work has been done to reconstruct in full the way in which these kh«ns functioned in the Levant, although of course parallels can be drawn with caravansarais elsewhere in the Islamic world. Nevertheless, no clear picture has yet emerged about the nature and size of caravan traffic in the Levant in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. No serious attempt has been made to coordinate the data on medieval trade in the area with the facilities available at surviving kh«ns, or the location of kh«ns with the major trade routes as known from literary sources. The interdependence of a series of caravansarais servicing a given route remains to be investigated, along with related questions as to their frequency along the routes, how travelers coped in areas where there were not enough caravansarais, what the typical distance was between these buildings when they were deliberately erected as part of a chain, and so on. The relative boom in the construction of such monuments in Maml−k times may suggest increased trade or inadequate earlier provision; but these questions have not been investigated in depth. Finally, little research has been directed at the problem of why Maml−k caravansarais were of such varying scale and complexity.” (Lee et al. 1992, pp. 55–56)

The twenty-three Mamluk rural kh«ns of Palestine surveyed (see Chapter 5, Gazetteer) add information to the structures briefly studied by Sauvaget in Syrian and Lebanese territory.5 Together they amount to almost fifty inns, whose degree of conservation varies greatly, as well as the degree of available architectural information. Sauvaget’s research on the kh«ns of Greater Syria was unfortunately cut short, leaving only partial information on the structures surveyed. Ground plans, sections, photographs and detailed written descriptions are available for only a few inns. This present study proposes to partially compensate for this gap by providing a detailed survey and analysis of the contemporary rural inns found to the southwest of Sauvaget’s main area of research.

These authors suggest an integrated work that would imply research on the architectural elements of the Mamluk inns, the local trade and its impact on road development. While the first two are addressed in the present discussion, the third calls for a separate and indepth research, exploring the topographical elements of the region and their influence on road planning and the corresponding architecture.

In his doctoral thesis on the structures erected by Sultan Q«n·−¯ al-Gh−r» and his waqf arrangements, K.A. Alhamzeh expresses his ideas on some methodological issues in the study of Mamluk architecture, to which I subscribe:

Many wayside buildings have been denoted kh«n, (pl. kh«n«t) the common term applied to road inns during the Mamluk period, that it became necessary to examine the information for each, as well as to understand the applications of the additional terms in use (Chapter 2).

As applied to Mamluk architecture, such a cultural approach would involve a study of the whole range of factors—stylistic, iconographic, social, economic, intellectual—that went into the shaping a specific building or group of buildings at any one place or time. Thus, the social and political context in which a specific monument was produced, including its religious, economic, and intellectual environment, can serve as vital supplements to the formal approach for an understanding of matters such as the attitude of the patron or changes in style. (Alhamzeh 1993, p. 10)

The term kh«n can refer to urban and rural hostelries, relay stations of the Mamluk royal mail (bar»d), fortresses, farmhouses, warehouses, and others. This multiplicity of meanings naturally complicates a study that aims at analysing only one of these functions—in this case the rural hostelries. The danger lies in the inclusion of invalid samples in the research environment. The aim of Chapter 2 is to avoid taking misinterpreted structures into consideration by establishing clear parameters before commencing the proper sorting.

5

Among the structures studied by Sauvaget there is only one Palestinian kh«n, Kh«n al-A¯mar of Bays«n .

2

Introduction Chapter 3 deals with the period and region under discussion. Against the background of patronage, this chapter treats the probable reasons, as well as patterns, for the “relative boom in the construction of such monuments,” as Lee et al., makes clear.

The Gazetteer in chapter 5 approaches the same issues, i.e., architecture, history and patronage, but treats each site separately. It combines field, library and archival work, and aims at a comprehensive corpus of Mamluk kh«ns in the southwest of Greater Syria.

Chapter 4 summarises the main architectural issues of the kh«ns of Syria, both in the course of the archaeological survey undertaken between 1998 and 2002, and in the reading of previous publications, mainly those by Sauvaget.

This work is intended to be part of a long-term study of the inns of Greater Syria, encompassing sites dating from early Islamic to Ottoman times and dealing, among others, with their architectural and functional transformations.

3

4

Chapter 2 Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai significance, at least among the authors of the sources if not in general.” (Rabbat 1998, p. 31)

1. Introduction

‫ أﻧﺸﺄ]ء[ هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻟﻮﺟﻪ اﷲ‬.‫ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬ ‫( اﻟﻌﻤﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﻘ ّﺮ اﻟﻌﺎ ﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮى اﻷﻣﻴﺮى‬sic) ‫اﻟﻜﺮﻳﻢ ورﻇﺎﺋﻪ‬ ‫اﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮى اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﻌﺎدل اﻟﺠﺎهﺪ اﻟﻤﺮاﺑﻂ ﺣﺴﺎم اﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻻﺟﻴﻦ‬ ‫اﻻﺷﺮﻓﻰ اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮرى آﺎﻓﻞ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﻈﱠﻤﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺎم اﻟﻤﺤﺮوس‬ ...‫ﺗﻘﺒﱠﻞ اﷲ ﻣﻨﻪ‬

The terms associated with rural lodging during the Islamic period do not constitute a different case. Notwithstanding these difficulties, research on the terminology of road inns in Islamic lands has made an effort to define the relevant terms. Exceptions have been considered against their chronological and/or regional backgrounds; however, the social aspects of linguistics have usually been disregarded. The assumption that “it cannot be assumed that the choice of descriptive term is necessarily significant” or “[i]t is worth emphasising once more that the use of these various terms may imply no more than differences in regional vocabulary rather than connoting distinctive functions or types” (Hillenbrand 1994, pp. 331–332) is probably simplistic and even misleading. The present discussion will therefore address the different meanings and uses of these terms.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Erected this blessed kh«n, for the sake of the generous God and His general satisfaction, his high excellency, the lord, the great am»r, the scholar, the just, the holy warrior, the warrior in the frontier fort, ®us«m al-D»n L«j»n al-Ashraf» al-Man·−r», Sultanic viceroy of alSh«m—the well defended—may God accept it from him.

The above passage is a transcription of the first two lines of the inscription over the entrance to Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh, a road inn on the way from Damascus to Baghdad.6 The inscription, in five lines, not only names the patron of the building and the man who erected it, but gives the date— 5 ¶afar 690 AH/14 April 1291 AD (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 1–2). Its importance is twofold: it is the earliest dated inscription in situ of a Mamluk inn in Greater Syria and, being fully preserved, provides one of the formulaic variations found in foundation inscriptions of contemporary rural inns.

It is necessary to begin by reviewing works that contain examples of relevant terminology and to present the main problems in their interpretation. This examination will be based on primary sources such as foundation inscriptions and official documents, and compared to references found in the various written sources. Those, composed in different languages, originating in different cultural backgrounds and serving different purposes, exemplify the scope and context of terminology usage.

Together with the foundation inscription from Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh there are additional inscriptions from rural inns in Greater Syria dating to the Mamluk period referring either to erection or to renovation work.

The difficulties of carrying out such a review are great, partly accounting for the tendency of many art historians and archaeologists to avoid the subject. The epigraphic evidence is abundant, the literary sources seemingly endless and the documentation difficult to access. It is a job more suited to historians, who unfortunately rarely turn their attention to architectural issues.

In this chapter, the meaning, or meanings, of the term kh«n, which is of Persian origin, will be examined in the architectural lexicon. Is it a generic term for buildings that serve a similar function, or a denomination for a specific architectural form? When did this term become popular? What are the regional differences in its use? What other terms are associated with the subject of rural lodging and how do they relate to each other? These are a few of the many questions that can be asked when approaching terminology, a perpetual challenge for those studying Islamic architecture. This field contains a wide range of terms to identify similar kinds of buildings, while each of these terms in itself usually also has further meanings.

These rather apologetic words are intended to warn the reader that what is presented here is only a suggestion of what there is to do. However, even if the body of evidence consulted is only a small fraction of the material available, it suffices to show the potential of such an integrated study. It reveals patterns and tendencies, as well as new directions of understanding. The successful categorization of the structures according to their original and official denomination, as well as the recognition, whenever possible, of contemporary differences between the various terms in use, can only add to an efficacious architectural study, as well as to the historical analysis of the institutions concerned.

Nasser Rabbat, for example, experienced this problem when tackling the terminology for craftsmen and artists working in building construction. He wrote: “... the apparent interchangeability of some of these terms betrays a certain flexibility, or even confusion, about their

With such a goal in mind, the following discussion will try to clarify the conceptual boundaries of the various terms in use for rural and urban inns—funduq, kh«n, rib«³, caravansarai, and sometimes even qal‘a, in their geographical and chronological contexts. It will also

6

On the route between Damascus and ®im·/Homs (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 1–3), mentioned by al-Qalqashand» (¶ub¯, vol. 14, p. 426) as Kh«n L«j»n (Dussaud 1927, p. 277). Lat 36º40’N/Long 37º31’E; 532 m above sea level.

5

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m show the prevalence of the term kh«n for a very specific architectural type of rural inns erected during the Mamluk period, better defining the scope of this present research. At the same time, it will deal with some extensions in definition, as well as misconceptions, of this very term, especially in Ottoman and modern contexts. The discussion will finally show that, despite the common translation of kh«n as caravansarai, a Persian term long adopted in various Western languages, the two are not literally interchangeable.

Ottoman (922–1337 AH/AD1516–1918). The earliest inscription is dated to 577 AH/AD1181–2 and is associated with ¶al«¯ al-D»n. The latest, referring to renovation work at a station in northern Syria, is dated to 1242 AH/AD 1826–1827. This chronological range does not include evidence from the early Islamic period, although rural inns are known to have been part of the Syrian landscape already by the time of the Umayyads. Excavations have revealed a few Early Islamic rural inns (see chapter on Architecture), but so far only one site (the ‘inn’ at Qa·r al-®ayr al-Gharb») has yielded a foundation inscription, dated 109 AH/AD 727.10 Unfortunately this inscription does not specifically name its respective structure, placing it outside the present discussion.

2. The Epigraphic Evidence The material evidence presented by Sauvaget in his publications from 1939 to 1941 includes information relevant to the study of terminology. His entries usually report the epigraphic evidence found in the sites, which he used as the main basis for his chronological arrangement.

Our corpus contains foundation inscriptions from road inns, all carved in naskhī script into stone slabs of different shapes and sizes. These inscriptions were originally set into the building façades, either over the entrance or flanking one (or both) of its sides. The formula differs, ranging from short informative texts— usually containing the name of the ruler, the year and sometimes the builder—to more detailed ones, also referring at times to the purpose and means of funding.

In this section I will use the inscriptions from Greater Syria, supplemented by a few others not included in Sauvaget.7 The discussion will examine the differences between the Mamluk inscriptions and those of earlier and later date, as well as those found at Iranian and Anatolian inns.

The data collected from the following inscriptions, used here as evidence for terminology, is also useful in the study of patronage.

There are variations in content and scope among the inscriptions. Some are brief and barely give the name of the patron and/or the date, others specify the architect in charge, the means of financial support (e.g. Kh«n alA¯mar in Bays«n, see below) and sometimes the object of such funding—supply of food, money, personnel payments and others (e.g. Kh«n al-§«hir outside Jerusalem). Of these, I have selected only the inscriptions that specifically refer to their respective buildings by means of architectural or functional terms. They form the basis for our discussion on the official terminology customary in the lands of Islam.

The Ayyubid Period 1. Kh«n al-‘Ar−s, Syria, between Homs and Damascus,11 577AH/AD1181–2 (RCEA, ix, p. 115, no. 3368; Sauvaget 1939, fig. 19)

‫( اﻟﺴﻴّﺪ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ‬2) ‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﻔﻨﺪق‬1) ‫(ﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﻠﻄﺎن اﻹﺳﻼم واﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ أﺑﻮ‬3)‫اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﺻﻼح اﻟﺪ‬ ‫(ﻣﻨﻴﻦ وذﻟﻚ ﺳﻨﺔ‬5)‫( اﻟﻤﻈ ّﻔﺮ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺑﻦ أﻳّﻮب ﻣﺤﻴﻰ دوﻟﺔ أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆ‬4) ‫ﺳﺒﻊ وﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ وﺧﻤﺲ ﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬

2.1. Corpus of Inscriptions This section will survey foundation and renovation inscriptions on rural inns in which the building referred to is clearly defined. Starting with Greater Syria, the inscriptions are presented chronologically, as are those from Anatolia and Iran. The presentation of each geographical unit is followed by a brief discussion, stressing the main terms in use and their development. 2.1.a Inscriptions from Bil«d al-Sh«m The epigraphic evidence from Greater Syria8 is divided into three periods—Ayyubid (569–658AH/AD1174– 1260),9 Mamluk (658–922 AH/AD1260–1516) and 7 Unless otherwise stated, the inscriptions below are translated into English by the author. They are based on available transcriptions (different editions are noted), and in a way also offer a review of previous available translations, usually in French or German. 8 The inscription from al-Kh«n in northwestern modern Iraq, the only example of relevance to this chapter coming from historical al-Jazīra, was also included in this section. 9 The de facto rise of the Ayyubid dynasty took place in 566AH/AD1171, when ¶al«¯ al-D»n b. Ayy−b overcame the Fatimids in Cairo. In Syria we can consider the death of N−r al-D»n al-Zank» (d.

569AH/AD1174) as the starting point of the Ayyubid rule. See Cl. Cahen, ‘Ayy−bids’, EI2, i, pp. 796–807. 10 See Schlumberger 1986, p. 1 and RCEA, i, no. 27, p. 23 for this inscription. The translation reads: “la confection de cette œuvre avait été ordonnée par l’esclave de Dieu Hishâm, emir des croyants, … en radjab de l’an 109 (novembre 727).” 11 Kh«n al-‘Ar−s is located 841 m above sea level, Lat 33º49’60”N/Long 36º43’E.

6

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai (1) In the name of God. Ordered the [re?] construction12 of this funduq (2) our Master, our Lord, al-Malik alN«·ir ¶al«¯ al-D (3) uny« wa’l-D»n, Sultan of Islam and the Muslims, Ab− (4) al-Muμaffar Y−suf b. Ayy−b, renewer of the dynasty of the Commander of the Faith (5) ful, and that [was achieved] in the year 577 (began in May 1181).

II. Right rhombus

‫( ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ‬2) ‫( ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ‬1) III. Left rhombus

‫ﻰ‬ ّ ‫( اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻤ‬2) ّ‫( اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻰ‬1) IVa. Right square, first line

2. Kh«n al-‘Aqaba (‘Aqabat F»q),13 Golan Heights, 610AH/AD1213 (van Berchem 1893, pp. 84–105; RCEA, x, pp. 84–85, no. 3720; CIAP, iii, pp. 234–238; translation into Hebrew in Vilnay 1970, p. 125)14

‫( وذﻟﻚ‬1) Va. Left square, first line

‫( ﻓﻰ ﺷﻬﻮر‬1) IVb. Right square, second line

‫( ﺳﻨﺔ ﻋﺸﺮة‬2) Vb. Left square, second line

‫( وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬2) (I. 1) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Ordered the [re ?] construction (I. 2) of this blessed kh«n, the great am»r, the great Isf«hsal«r [cavalry commander]16 (I. 3) the holy warrior, the warrior of the border, the heavenly assisted, the triumphant, the raider, the warrior on the frontiers, (I. 4– 5) glory of the faith, pillar of Islam, the best of human kind, the choice of kings and Sultans, the helper of the armies and the holy warriors, (I. 6) the close assistant of the Commander of the Faithful, Ab− al-Man·−r Aybak,17 the majordomo (I. 7) al-Malik» al-Mu‘aμμam», under the administration of Shuj«‘ al-D»n (II. 1) ‘Abd al-Ra¯man (II. 2) b. ‘Abd All«h (III. 1) al-Malik» (III. 2) al-Mu‘aμμam» (IVa) and that (Va) during the months (IV-Vb) of the year 610 (began in May 1213).

The inscription covers five fields; a central one consisting of seven lines, two small rhombi to the right and left of the fourth and fifth lines, and two small squares to the right and left of the sixth and seventh lines. Of those, only the last three lines of the main field, together with most of the inscriptions to the right remain, in a fragment stored at the Golan Archaeological Museum in Qatzrin (CIAP, iii, Fig. 77).15 I. Main section

‫( هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن‬2) ‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﻣﻤّﺎ أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة‬1) ‫( اﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺠﺎهﺪ اﻟﻤﺮاﺑﻂ‬3) ‫ﻞ اﻻﺳﻔﻬﺴﻼر‬ ّ ‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻷﻣﻴﺮ اﻷﺟ‬ ‫( ﻋ ّﺰ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ رآﻦ اﻹﺳﻼم‬4) ‫اﻟﻤﺆﻳّﺪ اﻟﻤﻈﻔّﺮ اﻟﻐﺎزى اﻟﻤﺜﺎﻏﺮ‬ ‫( ﻧﺼﺮة‬sic) ‫( اﻟﻤﻠﻮك واﻟﺴﻼﻃﻦ‬5) ‫ﺻﻔﻮة اﻷﻧﺎم اﺧﺘﻴﺎر‬ ‫ص أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ أﺑﻮ اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮر‬ ّ ‫( ﺧﺎ‬6) ‫اﻟﺠﻴﻮش واﻟﻤﺠﺎهﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﻰ ﺑﺘﻮﻟّﻰ ﺷﺠﺎع اﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬ ّ ‫( اﻟﺪار اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻰّ اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻤ‬7) ‫أﻳﺒﻚ أﺳﺘﺎذ‬

3. Bayt Jibr»n (Bayt Jubr»n), Israel, ca. 12 km east of Qiryat Gat,18 between 604–624AH/AD1208–1227 (CIAP, iii, pp. xxv-xxxvi)

12

The term ‘im«ra is perhaps the most problematic translation issue here. Despite the common translation as “reconstruction,” it seems that in the present context it should be understood as “construction” or “building,” as, for example, M. Sharon translated the foundation inscription of the northwestern tower at B«niy«s, dated 627AH/AD1230 (CIAP, ii, p. 70; see also his entry ‘Bayt J»z’, CIAP, ii, p. 146). As will be noted below, most of the foundation inscriptions from both Syrian and Anatolian rural inns use the terms ‘im«ra or insh«’ (i.e., erected), and it does not seem feasible, following the archaeological data, that the structures referred to by ‘im«ra were all reconstructions rather than new buildings. See also Van Berchem’s translation as “construction,” as in CIA, Égypte, p. 494, for example, while Amitai prefers “rebuilding” or “reconstruction” (Amitai 2001, pp. 118–119). 13 On the steep ascent from the Sea of Galilee to the Golan Heights (UTM 74735/62190, Israel grid 21020/23435; Lat 32º42’10“N/Long 35º38’50“E). For the location, see CIAP, i, pp. 102–103; Le Strange 1890, p. 385; Marmardji 1951, pp. 10, 163; also discussion in Gazetteer, “Khisf»n.” On Dayr F»q, a certain convent situated on the pass and “cut out of the rock,” see Le Strange 1890, p. 429 (who mistakenly refers to Schumacher 1888, p. 180, there dealing with the kh«n); Marmardji 1951, 78; Y«q−t, Mu‘j«m, ii, p. 595. 14 This inscription has only partly been preserved. 15 I would like to thank the museum's staff for making this fragment available for study.

16 This title was bestowed by the ‘Abbasid caliph of Baghdad upon am»rs who had defended Sunni Islam against the Infidels. It seems to have been used in inscriptions for the first time in the mid-twelfth century, in order to glorify N−r al-D»n al-Zank»’s role as a leader of the Holy War (Elisséeff 1993, p. 168). 17 On Aybak’s patronage of kh«ns (including ¶alkhad and Zur«‘ below) see chapter on Patronage. 18 Also Beth Guvrin, UTM 6790/4978, Israel grid 1390/1112; Lat 31º36’N/Long 34º54’ E. No clear structure has been identified as the Ayyubid inn of Bayt Jibr»n. The post-Crusader 60 by 60 m’ courtyard building designated ‘Kh«n Bayt Guvrin’ by Stern (1997, p. 99) has no resemblance to contemporary inns and solely functioned as a fortress. On the identification, history and archaeology of the site of Bayt Jibr»n, see M. Sharon’s entry in his CIAP, ii, pp. 109–130; Kloner and Assaf 1994 and NEAEH, i, pp. 195–201.

7

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m

‫( اُﻧﺸِﻲ هﺬا اﻟﻔﻨﺪق ﻓ ]ﻲ اﻳّﺎم‬2) [... ‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮ]ﺣﻴﻢ‬1) [‫( اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻢ ﺷﺮف ا]ﻟﺪّﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻴﺴﻰ اﺑﻦ‬3) [‫ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴّﻠﻄﺎن‬ ‫( اﺑﻲ ﺑﻜﺮ ﺑﻦ‬5) ‫( اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن )؟( ]اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻌﺎدل ﺳﻴﻒ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬4) [(‫ )؟‬...... ‫اﻳﱡﻮب ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ‬

builder of this blessed place [read maw±i‘ instead). (14) There is no God but All«h!

5. ¶alkhad (¶arkhad), Syria, in the ®awr«n ca. 100 km south-east of Damascus,22 Syria, 634AH/AD1237 (?) (RCEA, xi, p. 75, no. 4112)

(1) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate … (2) This funduq was established [in the time of our lord the Sultan] (3) al-Malik alMu‘aμμam Sharaf [al-Duny« wa’l-D»n ‘ºs«, the son of] (4) the Sultan (?) [al-Malik al-‘ªdil Sayf al-Duny« wa’lD»n (5) Ab− Bakr b. Ayy−b in the year (?) …

4. al-‘A³ni (I³na), Syria, ca. 60 km northeast of Damascus,19 before 631AH/AD1233 (RCEA, xi, pp. 45– 46, no. 4066; Sauvaget 1939, pp. 54–55)

‫( أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك‬2) ‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬1) ‫( اﻳﺒﻚ اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻤﻰ أﺛﺎﺑﻪ اﷲ‬4) ‫( اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ اﷲ ﻋ ّﺰ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬3) (?) ‫( ﺳﻨﺔ أرﺑﻊ‬6) ‫( ﻓﻰ وﻻﻳﺔ ﻣﻤﻠﻮآﻪ ﻋﻠﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻗﻴﺼﺮ‬5) ‫وﺛﻠﺜﻴﻦ وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬ (1) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. (2) Has ordered the [re ?] construction of this blessed kh«n (3) the poor servant in need of God, ‘Izz al-D»n (4) Aybak al-Mu‘aμμam»—may God reward him—(5) under the command23 of his maml−k ‘Alam al-D»n Qay·ar (6) in the year 634? (began in September1236AD).

‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ وﻗﻒ هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن )?( اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﺳﻔﻠﻪ‬1) ‫ﻞ اﻻ]ﺳﻒ[هﺴﻼر‬ ّ ‫( اﻷﻣﻴﺮ اﻷﺟ‬2) ‫وﻋﻠﻮﻩ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ رﺣﻤﺔ رﺑّﻪ‬ ‫( اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ اﻟﺤ ّﺮ‬3) ‫ال]ﻣﺠﺎ[هﺪ اﻟﻤﺮاﺑﻆ رآﻦ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻜﻮرش‬ (‫( وﺣﺒّﺴﻪ )ﻋﻠﻰ‬4) ‫اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻰ اﻟﻌﺎدﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻤﻰ ﺗﻘﺒّﻞ اﷲ ﻣﻨﻪ‬ (5) ‫اﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ وﻏﻴﺮهﻢ ﻣﺎ ﺧﻄﺮ اﻟﺨﺎﻃﺮون ﻓﻴﻪ وأوﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺤﻪ اﻟﺤﺎﻧﻮﺗﻴﻦ اﻟﻠﺘﻴﻦ داﺧﻞ ﺑﺎﺑﻪ ﺑﺮﺳﻢ ﻋﻤﺎرة وﻣﺎ ﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫( ﺣﺎﻓﻆ‬9) ‫( اﷲ ﺧﻴﺮ‬8) ...... (7) ‫ ﺳﻼم‬... (6) – ... – ‫اﺟﺮﺗﻪ‬ (12) ‫ﻰ ﺑﻦ‬ ّ ‫( ﻋﻠﻰ اﻷﺳﺘﺎذ ﻋﻠ‬11) ‫( رﺣﻢ اﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﺮﺣّﻢ‬10) ‫ﻻ اﷲ‬ ّ ‫( ﻻ إ‬14) ‫( اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك‬sic) ‫( ذا اﻟﻤﻮﻇﻊ‬13) ‫ﺧﻠﻴﻔﺔ ﺻﺎﻧﻊ‬

6. Zur«‘ (Ezra‘), Syria, in the ®awr«n,24 636AH/AD1239 (RCEA, xi, p. 101, no. 4154)

(1) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Has endowed this blessed kh«n (?), its lower and upper levels, the poor seeking for the mercy of his Lord, (2) the Greater Am»r, the Isfahsal«r, the holy warrior, the fighter in the border fortress, Rukn alD»n Mankuwirish20 (3), son of ‘Abd All«h, al-®urr (the freedman), al-Malik», al-‘ªdil» al-Mu‘aμμam», may All«h accept (this) from him, (4) and he had it assigned inalienably for (the benefit) of the Muslims and others, whatever they believe in. He assigned for that (5) matter the shops inside its gate, (intended) for maintenance and whatever remains from their rental … (6) … Peace … (7) … (8) good deed [in the eyes of ? ] All«h, (9) Guardian… (10) May God have mercy of those who ask for His mercy (11) the master ‘Al» b. (12) Khal»fa,21 the

[‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ أﻣﺮ ﺑﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ هﺬ]ا[ اﻟﺨﺎن ]اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك‬1) ‫( اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ إﻟﻰ رﺣﻤﻪ اﻷﻣﻴﺮ ﻋ ّﺰ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﻳﺒﻚ وهﻮ ﻳﻮﻣﺌﺬ‬2) ‫( ﺻﺮﺧﺪ وزراع أﻳّﺪ اﷲ وﻟﻴﻪ ﻓﻰ ﻋﺸﺮ ﺟﻤﺎدى اﻷﻟﻰ‬3) ‫ﺻﺎﺣﺐ‬ ‫( اﻷﻣﻴﺮ اﻷﻋ ّﺰ ﻋ ّﺰ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﻳﺒﻚ‬4) [‫ﺖ وﺛﻠﺜﻴﻦ ]وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬ ّ ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳ‬ ‫ﻰ‬ ّ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻤ‬ (1) In the name of God. Has ordered the renovation of this [blessed] kh«n (2) the servant of God in need of His mercy, the am»r ‘Izz al-D»n Aybak, at this time lord

19

Also al-‘A³anah, Lat 33º51’N/Long 36º46’E, 785 m above sea level. In Turkish “Mengüverish,” which means “The Eternal [God]'s giving”. I am grateful to R. Amitai for bringing my attention to the meaning of this name, as discussed in Sauvaget 1950, p. 56. Note that in CIAP, i, p. 84 (entry '‘Amawās'), M. Sharon transcribed the name as Mankuwirs or Mankuwars. 21 On the “master” as applied to architects—ust«dh, mu‘allim and ·«¯ib—see discussion in Mayer 1956, p. 27. According to his interpretation, the terms were also relative to geographical location, ust«dh being used mainly in Persia, Iraq, Asia Minor and northern Syria. See also discussion in Amitai 2001, p. 116, note 21. For further 20

discussion on the terminology for architects, see Behrens-Abouseif 1995 and Rabbat 1998. 22 Also ¶al¯ad, Salka, Sal«khed, Salkhade, Salakhad, Salakhed, Salkas, ¶al«khad; Lat 32º29’N/Long 36º43’E; 1280 m above sea level. 23 For the use of the expression f» wil«ya, and its association with the commander in charge of the construction or the local governor, see Amitai 2001, p. 116. See also the use of bi-tawall» in the inscription from Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh below, footnote 41. 24 Also Izra‘a, Zorava, Ezrra, Zoraia, Lorava, Ezraa, Izra‘, Ezra, Izra‘a; Lat 32º51’28”N/Long 36º15’16”E; 599 m above sea-level.

8

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai ‘Aqaba, has been also attributed by M. Sharon as originating from this kh«n. It reads:

of (3) ¶arkhad and of Zur«‘—may God support his friend, [and that took place] during the 10th of Jum«da’ I, in the year 636? (19 of December 1238?) (4) The mightiest am»r ‘Izz al-D»n Aybak al-Mu‘aμμam».

‫( ]ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎ[ر ]ة[ هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك‬1) [at least seven words] ‫اﻟﻌﺪ)!( اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ ا‬

25

7. al-Kh«n, northwestern modern Iraq, ca. 30 km east of Sinjar, ca. 657AH/AD1258–1259 (RCEA, xii, pp. 31–32, no. 4446)

... ‫( أﻋﺰ اﷲ ﻧﺼﺮﻩ ﺗﺎرﻳﺨﻪ ﺳﻨﺔ‬2) [In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Has ordered the construction of] this [blessed] kh«n the needy servant … may Allah strengthen his victory. Its date is …

Based on the script's style, Sharon has found this inscription contemporary with the foundation inscription from Kh«n al-‘Aqaba, i.e., he dates it to 610AH/AD1213–14 and also attributes it to Aybak. 9. Af»q (or F»q), Golan Heights,28 first half of the thirteenth century (Israel Antiquities Authority Archive, inventory no. 87–6179; CIAP, iii, pp. 238–241)

‫ﻞ‬ ّ ‫ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن ]اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك[ ﻟﻜ‬ ‫[ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬...] (‫ل وﺷﺎرد وﻣﻘﻴﻢ وراﺣﻞ ﻃﻠﺒﺎ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ )؟‬ ّ ‫وارد وﺣﺎ‬ ‫واﺑﺘﻐﺎء ﻣﺮﺿﺎة اﷲ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﻌﺎدل‬ ‫اﻤﻟ]ؤﻳّﺪ[ اﻟﻤﻈﻔّﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮر اﻟﻤﺠﺎهﺪ اﻟﻤﺮاﺑﻂ اﻟﻤﺜﺎﻏﺮ اﻟﻐﺎزى ﺑﺪر‬ ‫ﻖ ﺑﺎﻟﺒﺮاهﻴﻦ‬ ّ ‫اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ رآﻦ اﻻﺳﻼم واﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ ﻧﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺤ‬ ‫ﻣﻨﺼﻒ اﻟﻤﻈﻠﻮﻣﻴﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻈﺎﻟﻤﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﻴﻰ اﻟﻌﺪل ﻓﻰ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﻦ‬ ‫]ﻗﺎ[ﺗﻞ اﻟﻜﻔﺮة واﻟﻤﺸﺮآﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻧ]ى[ اﻟﺸﺄم ﺷﻬﺮﻳﺎر اﻟﻌﺮاﻗﻴﻦ رﺳﺘﻢ‬ ‫زال اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ﻣﻠﻚ أﻣﺮاء اﻟﺸﺮق واﻟﻐﺮب اﺗﺎﺑﻚ اﻷﻋﻈﻢ أ]ﺑﻮ‬ ... ‫اﻟﻔﻀﺎﺋﻞ ﻟﺆﻟﺆ‬ In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Has ordered the construction of this [blessed] kh«n for all those coming, staying, taking refuge, residing and traveling, by the wish of al-Malik (?) … al-D»n, seeking for the satisfaction of All«h, our lord the Sultan al-Malik al-Ra¯»m, the learned, the righteous, the supported [by God], the triumphant, the victorious, the fighter for the faith, fighter in the border fortress, the defender of the frontier, the raider, Badr al-Duny« wa'l-D»n, the pillar of Islam and the Muslims ,the protector of the truth by proofs, the just man for the ill-treated by the oppressors, the renewer of the justice in the worlds, slayer of the sinners and polytheists, builder of Syria26 and king (shahriy«r) of the two ‘Ir«qs, Rustam Z«l27 of his times, king of the am»rs of the orient and occident, the august Atabeg A[b− al-Fa±«’il Lu’lu’ …

... (1)

... ‫ اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻻﻣﻴﺮ‬... (2) ... ‫ )؟( اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻤﻲ ﻓﻲ ص‬...‫ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺠﺮ ال‬... (3) ... ‫اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬﻮر ﺳﻨﺔ‬

... ‫ ط‬... (4)

(1) …. (2) This blessed kh«n the am»r … (3) … [‘Alam]29 al-D»n Sanjar al-…. al-Mu‘aμμam» in … (4) …³… al-Malik» during the months of year …

This second fragmentary inscription (first line missing, fourth line damaged), also found at Af»q, refers to a kh«n erected (or renewed) by a certain ‘Alam al-D»n Sanjar, the maml−k of al-Malik al-Mu‘aμμam [‘ºsā]. The original location of the inscription is uncertain, as no kh«n has been identified at Af»q (site of provenance of this inscription, according to the IAA archives).30 Not far north-east from Af»q and on the main route connecting the southwestern Golan with Syria, are the remains at Khisf»n (see entry in Gazetteer], an undated kh«n surveyed by Schumacher, of either the Ayyubid or Mamluk period. M. Sharon, nevertheless, has also

8. Af»q (or F»q), Golan Heights, early thirteenth century (CIAP, iii, pp. 233–234) A fragmentary inscription recovered in 1967 at Af»q or at the village of Upper Taw«f»q near Kh«n al25

According to the Karte von Mesopotamien und Syrien (vorläufige Ausgabe) Sheet 3b. M«rdîn (Bearbeitet in der Kartogr. Abteilung der Kgl. Preuß. Landesaufnahme, Mayi 1918), Chân Bedr ed-Dîn Lûl− (Chân el-Har«rât), Lat 36º17’3“N/Long 42º10’56“E. The inscription from al-Kh«n was included with the Ayyubid inscriptions from Bil«d alSh«m, even though provenient from the region of Mosul in the Jazīra under Badr al-D»n Lu’lu’ (r. 629–657AH/AD1232–1259; on him, see Cl. Cahen, EI2, v, p. 820). Badr al-D»n Lu’lu’ ruled an independent regime beyond Ayyubid control, whilst enjoying their support. 26 Wiet translated “… le prince de la Syrie, le potentat des deux ‘Ir«þs, …” (RCEA , xii, p. 32). 27 Main epical Iranian hero, especially in Firdaws»’s Sh«h-n«ma. See B.W. Robinson’s entry ‘Rustam’ in EI2, viii, pp. 636–638.

28 The ruined village of Af»q/F»q is located at Lat 32º46’27“N/Long 35º42’8“E, 349 m above sea level. 29 ‘Alam al-D»n is the typical title (laqab, pl. alq«b) for maml−ks named Sanjar (Ayalon 1975, pp. 191–192). See, for example, the renovation inscription of the mosque at ‘Akk«r by Sul³«n Qal«w−n (686AH/AD1288), CIA, II, Syrie du Nord, pp. 9–10. 30 M. Hartal of the Israel Antiquities Authority, former district archaeologist of the Golan, surveyed the area and identified Mamluk remains. Personal communication, May 2004.

9

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m attributed this inscription to Kh«n al-‘Aqaba (see above, no. 2), believing that its construction “was a long process”. He reconstructed the inscription as follows (note that he reads the end of the fourth line as “fī shahr dh[ū]…”):31

as an Islamic inn, but rather as a sugar manufacturing complex dating to the twelfth or thirteenth century (Shaked 1998, pp. 81–82). The Mamluk Period

[‫ هﺬا‬32‫( ]ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ أﻣﺮ ﺑﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ ﻋﻤﺎرة‬1)

1. Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh, Syria, ca. 20 km northeast of Damascus, 690AH/AD1291 (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 1–2; RCEA, xiii, pp. 98–99, no. 4946)36

[‫ ﻋﻠﻢ‬... ‫( اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻻﻣﻴﺮ]اﻷﺟﻞ اﻹﺳﻔﻬﺴﻼر اﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ‬2) ‫ﻓﻲ أﻳﺎم ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ‬

33

‫( اﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﻨﺠﺮ اﻟﺒﻬﻴﺲ اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻤﻲ وذﻟﻚ‬3) ... ‫اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬

‫اﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺳﻨﺔ‬/‫( اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻢ ﺧﻠّﺪ اﷲ ﻣﻠﻜﻪ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬﺮ ذ]ي اﻟﻘﻌﺪة‬4) [‫ وﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ وﺳﺘﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬... Accordingly, Sharon translates: Basmalah. Has ordered the renovations of this blessed khān the most illustrious am»r the great commander, the… (three or four words of glorification), ‘Alam adD»n Sanjar “The Lion,” the maml−k of al-Malik alMu‘aμμam, and this (took place) during the time of our master the sultan al-Malik al- Mu‘aμμam, may Allah perpetuate his reign in the month of Dh− al-Qa‘da (or Dh− ’l-®ijja) of the year 620–624 (1224–27).

‫ أﻧﺸﺄ]ء[ هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻟﻮﺟﻪ‬.‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬1) ‫ رﺿﺎﺋﻪ ( اﻟﻌﻤﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﻘ ّﺮ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮى‬sic) ‫اﷲ اﻟﻜﺮﻳﻢ ورﻇﺎﺋﻪ‬ ‫اﻷﻣﻴﺮى اﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮى اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﻌﺎدل اﻟﻤﺠﺎهﺪ اﻟﻤﺮاﺑﻂ ﺣﺴﺎم اﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫( ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺎم‬2) ‫ﻻﺟﻴﻦ اﻻﺷﺮﻓﻰ اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮرى آﺎﻓﻞ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﻌﻈﱠﻤﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺤﺮوس ﺗﻘﺒﱠﻞ اﷲ ﻣﻨﻪ وذﻟﻚ ﻓﻰ أﻳﱠﺎم ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬ ‫اﻷﺷﺮف اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ اﻟﻌﺎدل اﻟﻤ َﺆﻳﱠﺪ اﻟﻤﻈﻔﱠﺮ اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮر ﺻﻼح اﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﻠﻄﺎن اﻻﺳﻼم واﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ أﺑﻰ اﻟﻤﻈﻔﱠﺮ ﺧﻠﻴﻞ )ﻗﺴﻴﻢ( أﻣﻴﺮ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﺸﻬﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮر ﺳﻴﻒ اﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬ (‫( ﺧﻠﱠﺪ اﷲ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻪ وﺟﻌﻠﻪ وﻗﻔًﺎ ﻣ َﺆ ﱠﺑ ًﺪ)ا‬3) ‫ﻗﻼوون اﻟﺼﺎﻟﺤﻰ‬ ‫وﺧﻴﺮًا ﻋﻠﻰ آﺎﻓﱠﺔ اﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﺘﺮدّدﻳﻦ ﺳﺮﻣﺪًا ﻻ ﻳُﺒﺎع وﻻ ﻳُﻤﻠﻚ‬ ‫ووﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺤﻪ وﻋﻤﺎرﺗﻪ وﻋﻤﺎرة اﻟﻤﺴﺠﺪ ﻓﻴﻪ وﻣﺼﻨﻊ‬ ‫( ﻓﻴﻪ وﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺜﻤْﻦ ﻣﻦ‬sic) ‫ﻦ اﻟﺬى‬ ٍ ‫اﻟﻤﺎء ﻓﻴﻪ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺤﺎﻧﻮ َﺗ ْﻴ‬ (?) ‫اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ ﺧﺎرج ﺑﺎب اﻟﺠﺎﺑﻴﺔ وﻣﻦ اﻟﺤﻮاﻧﻴﺖ اﻟﺪاﺋﺮة‬ ‫( ﻟﻤﺴﻠﺦ اﻟﺠﺎور ﻟﻪ ﺑﺮﺳﻢ ﻋﻤﺎرة اﻟﺨﺎن واﻟﻤﺴﺠﺪ‬4) ‫ﺑﺎﻟﺨﺎن وا‬ ‫ ﺑﺮﺳﻢ‬37‫وﻣﺎ ﻳُﺤﺘﺎج اﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺰﻳﺖ واﻟﺤﺼﺮ واﻟﺤﺒﺎل واﻟﺪﻻء‬ ‫ﻞ ﺷﻬﺮ أرﺑﻌﻮن درهﻤًﺎ‬ ّ ‫اﻟﻤﺼﻨﻊ وﻋﻠﻰ اﻣﺎم ﻳُﺼﺮف اﻟﻴﻪ آ‬ ‫وﻣﺆذّن ﺑﺜﻼﺛﻴﻦ درهﻤًﺎ وﺑﻮﱠاب ﺑﻌﺸﺮﻳﻦ درهﻤًﺎ وﻣﺎ ﻓﻀﻞ‬ ‫( ﻓﺮﻳﻦ ﻳﻤّﺮ‬5) ‫ﻳُﺼﺮف اﻟﻰ اﻟﻔﻘﺮﺁء اﻟﻮاردﻳﻦ واﻟﻤﻀﻄﺮّﻳﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺎ‬ ‫( أَﺑﺪًا ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺎ ﻳُﻌﻴﱠﻦ ﻓﻰ آﺘﺎب وﻗﻔﻪ وذﻟﻚ ﺑﺘﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬sic) ‫ذﻟﻚ ذﻟﻚ‬ ‫اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺑﻜﺘﺎش ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ أُﺳﺘﺎذ اﻟﺪار اﻟﺤﺴﺎﻣﻰ ﺷﺮع ﻓﻰ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﻠﻪ ﺛﻮﱠﺑﻪ اﷲ ﻓﻰ ﺧﺎﻣﺲ ﺻﻔﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ وﺳﺘﱠﻤﺎﺋﺔ ورُﻓﻌﺖ هﺬﻩ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﺘﺒﺔ اﻟﻤﺒﺎرآﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺛﺎﻧﻰ ﻋﺸﺮ رﺑﻴﻊ اﻵﺧﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺴﻨﺔ اﻟﻤﺬآﻮرة‬ .‫وﺻﻠﱠﻰ اﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺤﻤﱠﺪ‬

10. An inscription originally found in the dense vegetation near the river B«niy«s34 should be noted, even though the reading is dubious. It is dated 623AH/AD1226, and refers to a work by al-Malik al‘Az»z ‘Uthm«n, al-Mu‘aμμam ‘ºsa’s brother, ruler of B«niy«s between 608AH/AD1211 and 627AH/AD1230 and builder of the fortress of al-¶ubayba, 2 km northeast of B«niy«s (R. Amitai-Preiss, ‘al-¶ubayba’, EI2, ix, p. 739; Hartal 2001). The inscription was only once fully documented, in 1885 by the geologist F. Noetling, who due to his lack of knowledge of Arabic, made some transcription errors. Today only one third of the inscription is available for reading. The latest (partial) transcription is that by M. Sharon (CIAP, ii, p. 57), who calls the building erected by al-Malik al-‘Az»z ‘Uthm«n a thaghr, i.e., a border-outpost. Sharon’s reading notably departs from previous suggestions, mainly from Clermont-Ganneau’s reading as kh«n or jisr (ClermontGanneau 1887, pp. 508–509), kh«n also having been suggested by Wiet in RCEA (x, p. 235, no. 3947). Notwithstanding Clermont-Ganneau’s and Wiet’s readings, no archaeological evidence relating to an Ayyubid kh«n at the surroundings of B«niy«s has yet been found. Kh«n al-Dwayr nearby (ca. 2 km to the southwest),35 despite the toponym, has not been identified

main buildings: a rectangular vaulted one ca. 30×10 m, and a small installation 8×6 m (Shaked 1998, pp. 81–82, ills. 3–4). In the late nineteenth century the remains in situ were not different: “Two stone houses here contain about twenty Moslems; situated on slope of hill near the stream of water, with olives and arable cultivation around.” (SWP, i, p. 88) 36 Sauvaget wrote: “Dans un cadre ménagé en creux. Dimensions approximatives: 2m.80×0m.55. Cinq lignes en neskhi mamelouk assez negligée, en caractères très petits et très enchevêtrés, ce qui rend difficile la lecture du texte, malgré son parfait état de conservation. Quelques points et signes. Déchiffré à la lorgnette. Copie 1929, controlée en 1930.” (Sauvaget 1940, footnote 5) 37 In the RCEA this passage reads: ‫وﻣﺎ ﻳﺤﺘﺎج اﻟﻴﻪ اﻟﺰﻳﺖ واﻟﺤﺼﺮ واﻟﻘﻨﺎدﻳﻞ‬... ,....‫واﻟﺤﺒﺎل واﻟﺪﻻء‬, thus adding "lamps" as part of the material maintained by the endowment.

31

In my PhD dissertation I mistakenly transcribed this line as “fī shahr Mu¯arram” (Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 1, p. 42). 32 As it will be noticed below, the combination “bi-tajd»d ‘imāra” is not a common formula used in inscriptions referring to the renovation of a khān. 33 I could not identify “wa dh«lika,” but I have not seen the slab itself, only its photograph. In any event, the rest of the sentence should be in brackets, as it is missing. 34 B«niy«s is located to the southeast of Mount Hermon (Lat33º14’44“N/Long35º41’34“E; 366 m above sea-level). On the geography and history of the town, especially during the Islamic period, see CIAP, ii, pp. 22–46. 35 The archaeological remains at Kh«n al-Dwayr (Lat35º40N/Long33º14’1“E; Israel grid 21305.29390) consist of two

10

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai are in the side “handles” and were not included in Jaussen’s transcription. Today the inscription is missing, but M. Sharon published a full transcription based on A. Rowe’s photograph (Fig. 1.6: 1) in The Topography and History of Beth-Shan (Rowe 1930, pl. 10.2).

(1) In the name of God. Erected this blessed kh«n, for the sake of the generous God and His general satisfaction, his high excellency, the lord, the great am»r, the scholar, the just, the holy warrior, the warrior in the frontier fort, ®us«m al-D»n L«j»n al-Ashraf» al-Man·−r», magnificent Sultanic viceroy (k«fil)38 (2) of al-Sh«m39— the well defended, may God accept it from him! And that in the days of our master, the Sultan al-Malik alAshraf (689–693AH/AD1290–1293), the scholar, the just, the heavenly assisted, the triumphant, the victorious, ¶al«¯ al-D»n, Sultan of Islam and the Muslims, Ab− al-Muμaffar Khal»l, [associate] of the Commandant of the Faithful, son of our Lord the martyred Sultan al-Malik al-Man·−r Sayf al-D»n Qal«w−n al-¶«li¯», (3) may God perpetuate his Sultanate. He made it a perpetual charitable endowment (waqf), to [the profit] of all Muslims that come and go, for eternity, and it can not be sold and can not be taken into private possession. He constituted as waqf for its [the kh«n’s] benefit and upkeep and for the upkeep of the mosque and water installation inside [its premises], the totality of two shops that are inside [the kh«n], the totality of an eighth from the great kh«n located outside the J«biya Gate [in Damascus] and the shops around this kh«n and (4) its neighbouring abattoir. [All that] intended for the upkeep of the kh«n and the mosque and for what is in need [in terms of] oil, mats, ropes and buckets for the [water] installation. For the im«m to whom forty dirham will be paid monthly, to the muezzin thirty dirham and to the gate-keeper twenty dirham, the remainder to be distributed to the poor arriving,40 and to the needy travelers. (5) May this last forever, according to what has been specified in the endowment deed. And that under the command41 of that who is in need of God’s [mercy], Baktash b. ‘Abd All«h ust«dh al-d«r (majordomo) al-®us«m», and he started the work on it may God recompense him, on the fifth [day] of ¶afar, year 690 (7 of February 1291), and this lintel was put into place on the twelfth of Rab»‘ II, in the abovementioned year (14 of April 1291), may God bless Mu¯ammad!

‫( اﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻧﺸﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﺮاﺟﻲ‬1) ‫( اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮي اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮري‬2) ‫ﻋﻔﻮ رﺑﻪ ﺳﻼر اﺑﻦ )!( ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ‬ ‫آﺎﻓﻞ اﻟﻤﻤﺎﻟﻚ اﻻﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ آﺎﻓّﺔ اﻋﺰ اﷲ اﻧﺼﺎرﻩ واوﻗﻔﻪ وﺣﺒّﺴﻪ وﺳﺒّﻠﻪ‬ ‫( ﻟﻮﺟﻪ اﷲ‬3) ‫ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺎدرﻳﻦ واﻟﻮاردﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺎس اﺟﻤﻌﻴﻦ اﺑﺘﻐﺎء‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ وﻃﻠﺒﺎ ﻟﺮﺿﻮاﻧﻪ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﻪ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺤﺴﻨﺔ وذﻟﻚ ﻓﻰ‬ .‫ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﺟﻤﺎدى اﻻوّل )!( ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎن وﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺎﻳﺔ‬ ‫ وذﻟﻚ ﺑﺘﻮﻟﻰ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺑﻜﺘﻤﺮ اﻟﺴﻴﻔﻲ ﻧﺎﺋﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺎم‬A (!) ‫اﻟﻤﺤﺮوﺳﺔ‬ ‫ وذﻟﻚ هﻨﺪزة )!( اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻧﺎﺻﺮ اﺑﻦ )!( ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬B (1) Has ordered the construction of this blessed [kh«n] the slave (who is) in need of Allah, the Exalted, who hopes for the mercy of his Lord, Sal«r b. ‘Abdallah (2) al-Malik» al-N«·ir» al-Man·−r», the governor general of all the honourable Islamic provinces, may Allah strengthen his victories. And he made it a religious endowment (waqf), and consecrated it and dedicated it for the benefit of the people who come and go. (He did this) seeking the face of Allah, the Exalted, and (wishing) to please Him. May Allah, the Exalted, accept this benevolent deed from him. It took place on 1 Jum«d« I 708 (17 October 1308) (A) And this (was accomplished) under the supervision of the needy for Allah, the Exalted, Baktamur al-Sayf», his lieutenant in Damascus, the (divinely) protected. [(B)] And this was the architectural work (handazah!) 42 of the needy for Allah, the Exalted, N«·ir b. Y−suf.

Among the important functions fulfilled by the kh«n at Bays«n, but not mentioned in the inscription, was its role as a bar»d relay-station (markaz). According to the administrative manual by al-‘Umar» (al-Ta‘r»f) and alQalqashand»’s encyclopaedia (¶ub¯ al-A‘sh«), this inn served as a relay for changing horses, and also as a station serving the transportation of snow from Syria to Egypt. See discussion in Gazetteer.

2. Kh«n al-A¯mar (Bays«n), Israel, see Gazetteer (entry no. 1), 708AH/AD1308 (Jaussen 1923, p. 100; Sauvaget 1940, pp. 3–4; RCEA, xiv, pp. 22-3, no. 5235; CIAP, ii, pp. 232–233):

3. Shaq¯ab (Marj al-¶uffar), Syria, ca. 45 km northnorthwest of Zur«‘, 716/1316–1317 (Sauvaget 1940, p. 4; RCEA, xiv, no. 5368, p. 108; Meinecke 1992, vol. 2, p. 119, Nr. 9C/61)

Three-line inscription, contained in a limestone block carved in the shape of a tabula ansata. Lines A and B 38

This term is the equivalent of the more usual term n«’ib. It is also found in the foundation inscription of Kh«n al-A¯mar in Palestine, below. 39 The Province of Dimashq; see N. Elisséeff, ‘Damascus’, EI2, ii, pp. 284–286 for Damascus during the Mamuk period. 40 Probably referring to the Sufi dervishes. 41 On the term bi tawalliya, see footnote 23.

42

11

On the spelling of the word handasah with a “‫” ز‬, see below, note 53.

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m The inscription is accompanied by the blazon of Tankiz, a simple cup, engraved on the doorway lintel (Mayer 1933, p. 220).

of the am»rs in the province of Egypt. (6) This was done in the year 717 (began in March1317)…

5. Kh«n al-‘Asal, Syria, southwest of Aleppo,44 744AH/AD1343 (Mayer 1933, p. 169; Sauvaget 1940, p. 6; RCEA, xv, p. 236, no. 5971; RCEA, xvii, p. 198, no. 774 010; CIA, Alep, I-2, pp. 346–347, no. 194, pl. CXLVII a)

‫]هﺬ[ا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻟﻠﺴﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ رﺑّﻪ اﻟﻘﺪﻳﺮ ﺗﻨﻜﺰ‬... ...[‫ﺖ ﻋﺸﺮ وﺑﺳ]ﻌﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬ ّ ‫ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮى ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳ‬ … [this] blessed public charitable kh«n (kh«n li’l-sab»l), the servant in need of his Lord’s [mercy], Tankiz b. ‘Abd All«h al-N«·ir», year 716 (began in March 1316) …

The main issue raised by this inscription is the appearance of the term kh«n li’l-sab»l. This is a variation of the more common kh«n al-sab»l (see below), here translated as a public charitable kh«n. Literally speaking, the word sab»l means “a way, road, or path,” “a means of access,” “a way to safety,” and by usage also “a public drinking-fountain.” The expression ibn al-sab»l (“the son of the road”) is applied to “travelers,” “wayfarers.” However, when used in expressions such as kh«n al-sab»l, or kh«n li’l-sab»l, the translation is not necessarily literal. It results from the contraction of f» sab»l All«h, i.e., “for the cause of God,” or “on behalf of God and his religion.” (Lane I/4, p. 1302) Li`l-sab»l is translated as “gratis,” (Dozy, i, p. 630) but can also be understood as an abbreviation of li’l-sab»l All«h. Perhaps the best explanation of such contexts is given by Dozy, who wrote: “…Enfin le mot s’emploie par catachrèse dans le sens de fondation pieuse, objet qui, en vue de Dieu, est livré sans frais à l’usage du public …”

There are two inscriptions at the entrance to the kh«n. The first dates to the Mamluk period and is flanked by two heraldic blazons depicting a horse and rider (Pl. X: 1–2). The second dates to the Ottoman period and will be discussed in the following section. There appears to be some confusion regarding the transcription of the Mamluk inscription. Mayer, apparently the first to publish it, transcribed and translated it as follows:

‫( ﺟﺪّد هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﺑﺘﺪﺑﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻘ ّﺮ اﻷﺷﺮف اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻰ‬1) ‫( ﺣﺎﺟﺐ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﺤﻠﺒﻴّﺔ ﻋ ّﺰ ﻧﺼﺮﻩ‬2) ‫اﻟﺸﺮﻓﻰ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ أﻣﻴﺮ‬ ‫وآﺎن اﻟﻔﺮاغ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻓﻰ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺟﻤﺎدى اﻵﺧﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ارﺑﻌﺔ وارﺑﻌﻴﻦ‬ ‫وﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬

4. Unidentified, Israel, 717AH/AD1317–1318 (Mayer 1932, pp. 42–43, fig. 4; Drory 2005, pp. 72–75) Inscription not at its original site, found on the ruined maq«m of al-Shaykh A¯mad al-‘Urayn» at ‘Ar«q alManshiya (Qiryat Gat, Israel). Mayer identified its place of origin as Umm L«kis,43 not far from ‘Ar«q alManshiya, one of the horse relay stations of the Mamluk bar»d. Unfortunately, no architectural remains of a kh«n or related structure have ever been identified at that site. On the other hand, Mayer was not aware of the archaeological finds at Khirbat al-Sukkariya, also not far away, where the Antiquities Department of Palestine identified the remains of a kh«n in 1930. See Gazetteer, entry no. 19, ‘Khirbat al-Sukkariya’.

(1) This blessed caravanserai [kh«n, KCS] was renewed owing to the care of his most noble and high excellency, Sharaf al-D»n M−s«, am»r (2) ¯ājib (chamberlain) in the province of Aleppo, may his victory be glorious. Completed in the month of Jum«d« II 744 (began in October 1343).

Sauvaget translated this inscription into French, correcting Mayer’s transcription of the month of completion to Rab»‘ II 744.45 Curious, however, is the appearance of a further version, quoted in RCEA, vol. xvii, following Herzfeld’s transcription in CIA. According to this version, the reading of the first line differs from the above,46 and the date appears as Rab»‘ II 774 (October 1372).

‫( ِاﻧْﺸﺂء ﺟﻌﻞ ﻟﻚ ﺧﻴﺮا‬2) ‫( ﺑﺴﻢ ]اﷲ[ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ﺗﺒﺎرك اﻟﺬى‬1) (4) ‫( ﺗﺠﺮى ﻣﻦ ﺗﺤﺘﻬﺎ اﻻﻧﻬﺎر وﻳﺠﻌﻞ ﻟﻚ ﻗﺼﻮرا‬3) ‫ﻣﻦ ذﻟﻚ ﺟﻨﺎت‬ ‫( اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﺤﺎج‬5) ‫اﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻧﺸﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ‬ ‫( وذﻟﻚ ﻓﻰ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻌﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ‬6) ‫ال ﻣﻠﻚ أﺣﺪ اﻷﻣﺮاء ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻳﺎر اﻟﻤﺼﺮﻳﺔ‬ ‫وﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﻳﺔ وﺻﻠّﻰ اﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻴّﺪﻧﺎ ﻣﺤﻤّﺪ وﺳﻠّﻢ‬ (1) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. (2) “Blessed is He who, if that were His will, could give thee better (things) than those— Gardens (3) beneath which rivers flow; and He could give thee palaces (secure to dwell in)” (Qur’«n 25: 10) (4) Ordered to build this blessed kh«n the servant (5) yearning for God, the Exalted, the pilgrim Almalik, one

44

Kh«n al-‘Asal is located at the village of this name, on the road to Aleppo (Lat36º10N/Long37º1’60“E). 45 Sauvaget had already given the date as Rab»‘ II 744 in his article “L’armorial sarrazin” (1932, p. 277), together with the transcription of the first line as ... ‫ ﺟﺪّد هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﺑﻌﺪ دﺛﻮرﻩ اﻟﻤﻘ ّﺮ اﻻﺷﺮف‬while the title ‫ اﻣﻴﺮ‬is missing. This reading was confirmed by Wiet (RCEA ,xv, p. 236, no. 5971), who also corrected Mayer’s reading at the beginning of the second line from ‫ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ ﺣﺎﺟﺐ‬to ‫ ﺣﺎﺟﺐ اﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ‬. 46 ‫ ﺟﺪّد هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﺴﻌﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﻘ ّﺮ اﻷﺷﺮف اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﺸﺮﻓﻰ ﻣﻮﺳﻰ‬.

43 The site identified with Umm L«kis is located on the road between Bayt Jibr»n/Beth Guvrin and Gaza. Israel grid 1203.1092; Lat31º34’30“N/Long34º4’10“E; 106 m above sea level.

12

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai 6. Kh«n al-Sab»l (Inqir«t«), Syria, on the route between Homs and Aleppo,47 773AH/AD1371–72 (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 11–12; RCEA, xvii, pp. 179–181, no. 773 005)

agricultural field of al- …next to … for the upkeep of the kh«n and the mats for the westerners in this … (5) … (6) and this … al-Sayf», the auspicious sh«dd (7) al-am«’ir.50 (8) Cursed be those who make alterations to it (the endowment) or (9) … 7. Kh«n Dann−n, Syria, Damascus-Dar‘at route,51 778AH/AD1376 (Sauvaget 1940, p. 13; Sauvaget 1935, p. 45; RCEA, xvii, no. 778 010, p. 269):

‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ أﻣﺮ ﺑﺈﻧﺸﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﺴﺒﻴﻞ‬1) ‫ ورﺳﻢ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرﺗﻪ‬... (‫ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻜﺎن )؟‬... ‫وﻋﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟ ِﺒ ّﺮ اﻟﺠﺰﻳﻞ‬ ‫( ﻧﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺷﻌﺒﺎن‬2) ‫ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻷﺷﺮف‬ ‫ﺑﻦ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﺴﻌﻴﺪ ﺣﺴﺎم اﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺣﺴﻴﻦ اﺑﻦ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﺴﻌﻴﺪ‬ ‫)؟( اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮ ﻧﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﻴّﺪ )؟( اﻟﻤﻠﻮك‬ ‫واﻟﺴﻼﻃﻴﻦ ﻣﺤﻤﱠﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﺸﻬﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮر‬ (‫ اﻟﺴﻌﻰ ﻋﻠﻰ )؟‬... (3) ‫ﻗﻼوون اﻟﺼﺎﻟﺤﻲ ﺧﻠﱠﺪ اﷲ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻪ‬ ‫اﻟﻌﻤﺎرة وﺗﺄﺳﻴﺴﻬﺎ وﺗﻤﺎﻣﻬﺎ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ ﻣﻠﻚ اﻷُﻣﺮﺁء اﻟﻤﻘ ّﺮ اﻷﺷﺮف‬ ‫اﻟﺴﻴﻔﻲ أﺑﻲ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﻣﻨﺠﻚ اﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ اﻷﺷﺮﻓﻲ أﻋ ّﺰ اﷲ‬ ‫ﻧﺼﺮﻩ وﺷﻜﺮ ﺳﻌﻴﻪ اﻟﻤﺒﺮور وﺿﺎﻋﻒ َأﺟْﺮﻩ وﺑﺪﱠل ﻧﻌﻤ ًﺔ ﺟﻬﺪﻩ‬ ‫ﺖ ﻓﻲ ﺷﻬﻮر ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ْ ‫( ﺣﺘﱠﻰ آﻤﻠﺖ اﻟﻌﻤﺎرة وﺗ ﱠﻤ‬4) ‫ﻟﻪ أهﻠَﻪ‬......‫و‬ ‫ ﻣﺰرﻋﺔ‬... ‫ﺛﻼث وﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ وﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﺋﺔ واﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ هﺬ )!( اﻟﺨﺎن‬ ‫ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﻟﺨﺎن واﻟﺤُﺼﺮ ﻟﻠﻐﺮﺑﻲ‬... ‫اﻟﺒﻠﯩﻚ )؟( اﻟﻤﺘﱠﺼﻠﺔ‬ (7) ‫ اﻟﺴﻴﻔﻲ ﺷﺎ ّد‬... ‫( وذﻟﻚ‬6) ... (5) ... (!) ‫( ﻓﻲ هﺬ‬sic) ... (9) ‫( أو‬sic) ‫( وﻣﻠﻌﻮن ﻣﻦ ﻳﻐﻴﺮوﻩ‬8) ‫اﻟﻌﻤﺎﺋﺮ اﻟﺴﻌﻴﺪة‬

Inscription in three sections:

‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ أﻧﺸﻰء هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻓﻰ أﻳّﺎم‬A) ‫ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬52‫ ]زﻳﻦ‬... [‫ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴ]ﻟﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻷﺷﺮف‬ ‫( اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ‬sic) ‫[ ﺑﺬﻟﻚ وﺟﻬﻪ‬one word] ‫ﻌرى‬... [‫ﺷﻌﺒﺎن‬ ‫وآﺎن اﻟﻔﺮاغ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻓﻰ ﺟﻤﺎدى اﻷوّل ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎن وﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ وﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬ ‫( اﻟﺬﻳﻦ ﻳُﻨﻔﻘﻮن أﻣﻮاﻟﻬﻢ ﻓﻰ ﺳﺒﻴﻞ اﷲ ﺛ ّﻢ ﻻ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻮن ﻣﺎ أﻧﻔﻘﻮا‬B) ‫ﻣ ّﻨًﺎ وﻻ أذًى ﻟﻬﻢ أﺟﺮهﻢ ﻋﻨﺪ رﺑّﻬﻢ وﻻ ﺧﻮف ﻋﻠﻴﻬﻢ وﻻ هﻢ‬ ‫ﻳﺤﺰﻧﻮن‬ ‫ى واﷲ ﻏﻨﻰ‬ ً ‫( ﻗﻮل ﻣﻌﺮوف وﻣﻐﻔﺮة ﺧﻴﺮ ﻣﻦ ﺻﺪﻗﺔ ﻳﺘﺒﻌﻬﺎ أذ‬C) ‫ﺣﻠﻴﻢ ﺻﺪق اﷲ اﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ وآﺎن ﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺒﺪرى ﻣﻬﻨﺪز‬ ‫اﻟﺸﺄم‬ (A) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. This blessed kh«n was erected during the days of our master, the Su[ltan al-Malik al-Ashraf] … [Zayn al-Duny« wa’l-D»n Sha‘b«n] … seeking to please All«h the exalted, and it was finished in Jum«da’ I in the year 778 (September-October 1376).

(1) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Has ordered the erection of this charitable public kh«n (kh«n al-sab»l) 48 and the construction of this much pious … in the place … and put in writing the order for its construction, our master the Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf (2) N«·ir alDuny« wa’l-D»n Sha‘b«n b. al-Malik al-Sa‘»d ®us«m al-D»n ®usayn, son of our master, the auspicious Sultan al-Malik al-N«·ir N«·ir al-Duny« wa’l-D»n, lord of the kings and the Sultans, Mu¯ammad, son of our master, the martyred Sultan, al-Malik al-Man·−r Qal«w−n al-¶«la¯»—may All«h perpetuate his Sultanate! (3) … the effort for the construction, its foundation and its completion, our master, king of the am»rs,49 His Highness, the sublime al-Sayf alD»n Ab− Sa‘»d Manjak ibn ‘Abd All«h al-Malik» alAshraf»—may All«h invigorate his triumph, praise his blessed effort, double his recompense, and give in exchange for his effort His grace and … for him and for his family (4) until the construction was completed and it was completed during the months of the year 773 (began in July 1371). The endowment mobilized for this kh«n [included] … the

(B) Those who spend their substance in the cause of All«h, and follow not up their gifts with reminders of their generosity—or with injury—for them, their reward is with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve (Qur’«n 2: 262). (C) Kind words and covering of faults are better than charity followed by injury. All«h is Free of all wants, and He is most Forbearing (Qur’«n 2: 263). The Glorious All«h speaketh the Truth! ‘Al» b. al-Badr al50 In her article dealing with three terms related to the building craft in the Mamluk period, D. Behrens-Abouseif writes on the title sh«dd alam«’ir among the Ba¯r» maml−ks: “[He] was a Mamluk amir responsible for the royal building and for the supervision of the architects and craftsmen involved in royal constructions.” (BehrensAbouseif 1995, p. 295) “The sh«d’s office was not a career, it was a temporary work, the position having been held usually by minor amirs.” (ibid., p. 306) Behrens-Abouseif also comments that individual construction works, and not only royal projects, could have had their own superintendents (ibid., pp. 303–304). See also discussion in Rabbat 1998, p. 32. 51 Kh«n Dann−n (Lat33º19’60“N/Long36º13’60“E) is located south of Kiswa, on the route to Damascus. 52 In the previous inscription it reads al-Malik al-Ashraf N«·ir al-Duny« wa’l-D»n Sha‘b«n instead.

47

Kh«n al-Sab»l, near Inqir«³« (Lat35º45N/Long36º45E), ca. 15 km northeast of Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘m«n. 48 See above, p. 39. 49 A term applied to the governor of Syria.

13

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m D»n, the “architect” (muhandiz) of Syria (or Damascus),53 was in charge (of the construction).

excellency our lord, the am»r, the commander, the envoy, Sharaf al-D»n, helper of kings and Sultans, known for his love for the poor and destitute, (B.2) the [pious] Commander of the Faithful, Y−nus al-Nawr−z», the Daw«d«r of our Lord the Sultan al-Malik al-§«hir, may God the exalted make his victories glorious and multiply his reward

The inscription is not entirely clear with regard to the project’s patron. It says the kh«n was built during the days of the Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf Sha‘b«n (765– 778AH/AD1364–1377), but that does not mean he was the actual patron of the construction.

The second inscription is on a rectangular plaque inlaid in the tympanum over the entrance gate (Fig. 23.2: 5). The Arabic transcription is based on Abu Khalaf 1983, p. 185. The first two lines of my English translation follow his reading.

The inclusion of two Qur’«nic quotations to characterize the charitable nature of the kh«n instead of the common formula kh«n li’l-sab»l is rare, and therefore of great interest.

‫( أﻗﻮل واﻟﺤﻖ ﻟﻪ روﻧﻖ ﻳﻘﻮم ﻓﻲ اﻟﻨﻔﺲ ﻣﻘﺎم اﻟﺪﻟﻴﻞ أن ﻟﻪ‬1) ‫( ﻓﺎﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻈﺎهﺮ‬2) ‫اﻟﻌﺮش ﺳﺒﺤﺎﻧﻪ ﻗﺪ ﻋﻀﺪ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ﺑﺄآﻔﻰ آﻔﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﺑﺤﺮاﻟﻨﺪى أﺑﻲ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ذو اﻟﻌﻄﺎء اﻟﺠﺰﻳﻞ ﻓﺄﺻﺤﺖ ﻣﺼﺮ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻨﺔ‬ ‫( واﻟﻬﻢ اﷲ دوادارﻩ ﻳﻮﻧﺲ ﻟﻠﺨﻴﺮ‬3) ‫وأهﻠﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻟﻬﻮﻇﻞ ﻇﻠﻴﻞ‬ (4) ‫وﻓﻀﻞ ﺟﻤﻴﻞ أﻧﻔﻖ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻠﺠﺄﻩ ﻣﻦ ﻣﺎﻟﻪ ﺧﺎﻧﺔ اﷲ ﺑﺨﺎن اﻟﺴﺒﻴﻞ‬ ‫ﻞ ﺟﻴﻞ ﻻ‬ ّ ‫ﻳﺒﻐﻰ ﺑﻪ اﻻﺟﺮ وﺣﺴﻦ اﻟﺜﻨﺎء ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻃﻮل اﻟﺪهﺮ ﻓﻲ آ‬ ‫( وﺗﻢ اﻟﺨﺎن‬5) ‫أﻣﺮ اﷲ ﺑﻬﺎ دوﻟﺔ وﻻ ﺣﻠﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺑﺮآﺎت اﻟﺠﻠﻴﻞ‬ 56 ‫ﻟﺘﺴﻊ ﻣﻀﺖ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ ﺑﻌﻮن اﻟﺠﻠﻴﻞ وﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺌﻴﻦ ﻟﺬا أرﺧﻮا‬ ‫وﺣﺴﺒﻨﺎ اﷲ وﻧﻌﻢ اﻟﻮآﻴﻞ‬

8. Kh«n Y−nus, Palestine, south of Gaza, 789AH/AD1387 (Mayer 1933, pp. 256–257; RCEA, xviii, no. 791 005–006, pp. 114–116; Abu Khalaf 1983, pp. 184–186)

(1) I chant the truth which has splendour and stands as a proof to the soul. That he, praise be to him, the possessor of the throne, has supported kingship as a most capable protector. (2) The generous sea, al-Malik al-§«hir Ab− Sa‘»d, possessor of plentiful bounty. Thus, Egypt has become, through him, a paradise, while its people enjoy their umbrageous shade. (3) All«h has inspired the Daw«d«r Y−nus to good deeds and he excelled in his service. He spent from his own house and wealth in the house of All«h, in [the form of] a public charitable kh«n, (4) aiming with it for a reward from God and to be praised all the time by all generations. All«h neither ordered for His house alteration nor embellishment, but glorious blessings. (5) And the kh«n was completed in 789 (began in 22 of January 1387). May All«h credit us and may his agent live in comfort.57

Two of the four inscriptions found at the kh«n are relevant to our discussion on terminology. The first is written in two sections, one (A) to the right of the gate and the other (B) to its left. Each of these sections is surmounted by three heraldic blazons (Fig. 23.3: 6–7).

‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ ذﻟﻚ ﻓﻀﻞ اﷲ ﻳﺆﺗﻴﻪ ﻣﻦ ﻳﺸﺎء‬A.1) ‫( اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﺴﺒﻴﻞ ﻓﻲ أﻳﺎم‬sic) ‫واﷲ ذو اﻟﻔﻀﻞ اﻟﻌﻈﻴﻢ أﻧﺸﺄ هﺬﻩ‬ ‫( وﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻈﺎهﺮ ﺳﻴﻒ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬B.1) ‫ﺳﻴﺪﻧﺎ‬ .‫اﺑﻰ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﺮﻗﻮق ﺧﻠﺪ اﷲ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻪ وﺷ ّﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﺎﺣﺎت أرآﺎﻧﻪ‬ ‫( أوﻗﻔﻪ اﻟﻤﻘ ّﺮ اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻒ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮى اﻻﻣﻴﺮى اﻟﺰﻋﻴﻤﻰ‬A.2) 54 ّ ‫اﻟﺴﻔﻴﺮى اﻟﺸﺮﻓﻰ ﻇﻬﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﻠﻮك واﻟﺴﻼﻃﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﺮوف ﺑﺤﺐ‬ ‫ ﻳﻮﻧﺲ‬55‫( أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ اﻟﺘﻘﻲ‬B.2) ‫اﻟﻔﻘﺮاء واﻟﻤﺴﺎآﻴﻦ‬ ‫[ أﻋ ّﺰ‬sic] ‫اﻟﻨﻮروزى اﻟﺪوادار ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻈﺎهﺮى‬ .‫اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ أﻧﺼﺎرﻩ وﺿﺎﻋﻒ ﺟﺰاﻩ‬ (A.1) In the name of the most merciful God. “Such is the Bounty of All«h, which He bestows on whom He wills. And All«h is the Lord of the highest bounty.” (Qur’«n, 62: 4) This charitable public inn (al-kh«n alsab»l) was founded in the days of our Lord (B.1) and Master the Sultan al-Malik al-§«hir Sayf al-Duny« wa ’l-D»n Ab− Sa‘»d Barq−q, may God make his Sultanate eternal and keep him firmly established in good works. (A.2) And this was made a waqf by his noble and high 53

On the terms used to designate architects during the Mamluk period, the most common being mi‘m«r, bann«’, muhandis, see Mayer 1956, pp. 25–27; Behrens-Abouseif 1995; Rabbat 1998, pp. 31–34, Amitai 2001, pp. 116–117. See also Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1923, p. 168. On the use of muhandiz, see Rabbat 1998, p. 32 and CIAP, ii, pp. 82–83, where both Rabbat and Sharon argue that the term is derived from the Persian hundaz (i.e., measurement), and corrupted to muhandis in Arabic. See also inscription from Kh«n al-A¯mar above. 54 Abu Khalaf omitted these two words (Abu Khalaf 1983, p. 184). 55 In Mayer ‫ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬is missing (Mayer 1933, p. 257) while the reading suggested by the RCEA is ‫( ]ﺳﻴﻒ ؟[ أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬RCEA ,xviii, p. 115).

56

Note the unusual way of writing the year of completion. I would like to thank Ofer Efrati of the Dept. of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for helping in the revision of this and other translations. 57

14

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai 9. Jabala, Syria, south of Latakiya,58 798AH/AD1395 (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 13–14; RCEA, xviii, no. 798 008, p. 220; Meinecke 1992, vol. 2, p. 287, Nr. 25B/44)

10. Kh«n ²−m«n, Syria, Damascus-Aleppo road,61 883AH/AD1478 (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 14–15)

The following inscription was not found in situ, but inserted upside down into the façade of the Ayyubid kh«n (Sauvaget 1939, pp. 52–53) erected by the am»r ²−m«n al-N−r» b. Mul«‘ib b. ‘Abd All«h al-An·«r» (d. 585AH/AD1189; on him, see al-¶afad», al-W«f», vol. 16, p. 285; al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 1, p. 543).62 Opinions differ over the inscription’s original placing, either on the Ayyubid kh«n itself, or on the adjacent later inn, to commemorate its erection as a “renovation” of the older inn.

‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ أﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻧﺸﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك‬1) ‫اﻟﻤﻘ ّﺮ اﻷﺷﺮف اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮى اﻟﻤﺎﻟﻜﻰ اﻟﻤﺨﺪوﻣﻰ اﻟﻜﺎﻓﻠﻰ‬ ‫( اﻟﺴﻴﻔﻰ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ ﻣﻠﻚ اﻷُﻣﺮاء أرﻏﻮن ﺷﺎﻩ ﺧﺰﻧﺪار‬2) ‫ اﻟﻈﺎهﺮى آﺎﻓﻞ اﻟﻤﻤﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻔﺔ اﻟﻄﺮاﺑﻠﺴﻴﺔ‬59‫اﻟﻤﺎﻟﻤﻜﻰ‬ ‫( وﻗﻔًﺎ ﻻﺑﻨﺎء‬3) ‫أَﻋ ّﺰ اﷲ أﻧﺼﺎرﻩ ﺗﺒ ﱡﺮﻋًﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﻨﺎ و ﺟﻌﻠﻪ‬ (?) ‫اﻟﺴﺒﻴﻞ أﺛﺎﺑﻪ اﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ذﻟﻚ اﻟﺜﻮاب اﻟﺠﺰﻳﻞ ﻣﻤﱠﺎ ﺗﻮﻟَﻰ‬ ‫ﻋﻤﺎرﺗﻪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﺠﻨﺎب اﻟﻔﺨﺮى ﻋﺜﻤﺎن‬ ‫ﻞ ﺻﻔﺮ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎن وﺗﺴﻌﻴﻦ وﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬ ّ ‫اﻟﻈﺎهﺮى ﻓﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻬ‬

(2) ‫ﺟﺪّد هﺬا اﻟﻤﻜﺎن ﻓﻰ أَﻳَﱠﺎم ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ ا‬ ُ (1 ) ‫ﻷﺷﺮف أﺑﻰ اﻟﻨﺼﺮ ﻗﺎﻳﺘﺒﺎى ﻋ ّﺰ ﻧﺼﺮﻩ ﻓﻰ اﻟﻤﺤﺮﱠم ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼث‬ ‫وﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ وﺛﻤﺎن ﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬

(1) In the name of God. Has ordered the erection of this blessed kh«n, his most noble and high excellency, the reigning lord and master, the governor (2) al-Sayf»,60 our lord, the king of the am»rs, Argh−n Sh«h, treasurer of al-M«lik al-§«hir [Barq−q], chief-governor of the royal province (mamlaka) of Tripoli, shall God glorify his victories. And he had it established as (3) waqf to the passers-by (abn«’ ’l-sab»l), may All«h reward him for this [good action] with much recompense. This is among the things whose erection was entrusted to the needy of the exalted God, his Excellence al-Fakhr» [Fakhr al-D»n] ‘Uthm«n al§«hir», in the first of ¶afar 798 (15 November 1395).

(1) This place (mak«n) was renovated during the reign of our master, the Sultan al-Malik al-(2) Ashraf Ab» ’lNa·ir Q«ytb«y, may his victory be glorified, in Mu¯arram of the year 883 (April 1478).

Q«ytb«y’s renovation followed his visit to Kh«n ²−m«n in 28th Rajab 882, where he attended a party organized by the governor of Aleppo, Qan·−h al-Ya¯y«w»,63 and also stayed overnight in the company of the governor of the Aleppo Citadel, the am»rs of that town, and all the royal retinue (Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 73; Devonshire 1922, p. 20). It seems clear that Q«ytb«y could only have stayed at the old Ayyubid hostel, and that the inscription refers to its renovation, which apparently included the erection of a new “wing” in 1478. This view, proposed by Sauvaget (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 14–15),64 contradicts that of Creswell, who believed that the later addition to the kh«n was erected during the seventeenth century. Creswell’s argument was based on an inscription on the back of the later kh«n’s fountain, dated 1062AH/AD1652, and on the style of the colonettes of this fountain. Sauvaget, on the other hand, saw this seventeenth century inscription as evidence of repair work undertaken at the inn by the

58 Jabala (Jeblé) is a small port on the Mediterranean coast, 30 km south of Latakiya/L«dhiqiya (Lat35º21N/Long35º55E). This settlement, dating back to the Phoenicians (F. Buhl [R.L. Headley], ‘Djabala’, EI2, ii, pp. 353–354), was captured from Frankish settlers by ¶ala¯ al-D»n in 584AH/AD1188, but returned to Crusader hands between 1192 and 1285, until Sultan Qal«w−n took possession of it. During the Mamluk period it mainly benefited from the pilgrimage to the tomb of the ¶−f» Ibr«h»m b. Adham. 59 Sic! In Sauvaget 1940, p. 13 it reads ‫اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻰ‬ 60 For al-Sayf», see Barq−q’s denomination in the Kh«n Y−nus inscription above.

61

The village of Kh«n ²−m«n, near which are the remains of two road inns, is ca. 16 km southwest of Aleppo, Lat36º6N/Long37º1’60“E, 301 m above sea level. 62 No inscription relating to the foundation of the Ayyubid structure has so far come to light. Its identification with the amīr ²−m«n al-N−r» is solely based on the written sources. 63 Died in 902AH/AD1497 as viceroy of Damascus. On his career, see Mayer 1933, p. 180. 64 On renovation work on various institutions undertaken by Q«ytb«y during his Sultanate, see Newhall 1987, pp. 92–127.

15

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Ottoman governor of Aleppo, ¼p¹ir Mu·³af«-Pasha, recorded elsewhere and confirmed by his endowment deed dated 1064AH/AD1654 (Sauvaget 1940, p. 14).

3. Jisr al-Shugh−r, northern Syria, on the left bank of the Orontes, between Latakiya and Antioch, ca. 1071– 1087AH/AD1660–1676, renewed 1242AH/AD1826–27 (Sauvaget 1937, pp. 108–109)

The Ottoman Period 1. Bayl«n, northern Syria, between Alexandretta (Iskanderun) and Aleppo,65 957AH/AD1550 (Sauvaget 1937, pp. 101–104)

‫[ هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬-] [‫( ]ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ[ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮ]ﺣﻴﻢ‬1) [‫اﻻﻋﻈﻢ اﻟﺨﺎﻗﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ ﻇﻞ اﷲ ]ﻓﻲ اﻻرض ﺴﻠ[ﻃﺎ]ن‬ ‫ﺴ]ﻻ[ﻃﻴﻦ اﻻﻣﻢ ﺳﻴﺪ ﺳﻼﻃﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺮب واﻟﻌﺠﻢ ﻧﺎﺻﺮ اﻟﺤﺮﻣﻴﻦ‬ ‫( ﺳﻠﻄﺎن ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎن ﺧﺎن اﺑﻦ ﺳﻠﻄﺎن ﺳﻠﻴﻢ ﺷﺎﻩ ﺧﻠﺪ اﷲ‬2) ‫اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻔﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻣﻠﻜﻪ وﺳﻠﻄﻨﺘﻪ ﺑﺘﺄرﻳﺞ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺷﻌﺒﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ‬ ‫وﺟﻤﺴﻴﻦ وﺗﺴﻌﻤﺌﺎة ﻣﻦ اﻟﻬﺠﺮة اﻟﻨﺒﻮﻳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻬﺎ أﻓﻀﻞ‬ .‫اﻟﺼﻼة واﻟﺴﻼم‬

‫( اﻟﺤﺎج‬2) ‫( ﺟﺪد هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن ﺑﺎﻻﻣﺮ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ ﺳ ِﺮ ﺑﻮاﺑﻴﻦ‬1) ١٢٤٢ ‫اﺳﻤﺎﻋﻴﻞ اﻏﺎ ﺷﺮﻳﻒ زادﻩ ﺳﻨﺔ‬

(1) [In the name of God], the Merciful, the Compassionate. [built or erected] this exalted kh«n the supreme Sultan, the august supreme ruler (kh«q«n), shadow of God [on the Earth, Sultan] of the Sultans of the nations, lord of the Sultans of the Arabs and the nonArabs, protector of the two Noble Sanctuaries, (2) Sultan Sulaym«n Kh«n, son of Sultan Sal»m Sh«h, May God extend his reign and his Sultanate, during the glorified month of Sha‘b«n, during the year 957 (August-September 1550) of the Prophet’s Hijra. The most superior prayer and peace upon him (i.e., the one who made the hijra).

[(1) Renewed this kh«n, by the order of the sublime porte, the chief usher, (2) the ¯ajj (pilgrim to Mecca) Ism«‘»l-Agh«, Shar»f-z«dah, in the year 1242 (1826– 27)].69

Discussion The inscriptions presented above leads us to one immediate conclusion: by the Mamluk period the term khan was the sole official denomination in use for rural inns in Greater Syria. This trend was perhaps established during the Ayyubid period, when kh«n gradually superseded the term funduq, found in two of the earliest of the surviving inscriptions, that of Kh«n al-‘Ar−s and of Bayt Jibr»n. The lack of inscriptions pre-dating the Ayyubids, however, prevents taking Kh«n al-‘Ar−s and Bayt Jibr»n as transitional examples. Other terms might also have been used for the rural inns of the early Islamic period, including kh«n itself.

2. Kh«n al-‘Asal, Syria,66 971AH/AD1563–64 (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 6–7; CIA, Alep, I-1, p. 347, pl. CXLVII a; RCEA, xvii, no. 774 010, p. 198). The Ottoman inscription was carved into the gate’s central voussoirs, immediately below the Mamluk. It reads:

‫( ﻓﻲ أﻳّﺎم اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﻌﺎدﻟﺔ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ‬2) ‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ‬1) ‫( ﺳﻠﻄﺎن ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎن‬3) ‫اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ اﻟﺒﺮّﻳﻦ واﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﻦ‬ (4) .....‫ ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻌﺑ‬68‫ اﷲ ﺳﻠﻄﻨﺘﻪ ﺟﺪّد‬67‫ﺧﺎن ﺧﻠّﺪ‬ ‫ آﺎن ﻻزم اﻟﺘﻌﻤﻴﺮ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ ﺷﻴﺦ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﻦ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ ﺷﻴﺦ‬...‫ﺣﺻ‬ ‫( ﻓﻲ ﺳﻨﺔ اﺣﺪى وﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ وﺗﺴﻌﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬5) ‫اﻻﺳﻼم ﻋﻤﺮ اﻟﻤﺮﻋﺸﻰ‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺒّﻠﻪ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ‬

In any event, at the time the foundation inscription at Kh«n al-‘Ar−s was using the term funduq, an inscription in the Mosque of Jarr«¯ in Damascus, dated to 578AH/AD1182 (RCEA, xi, pp. 117–118, no. 4177), referred to a local inn (kh«n) immobilized as waqf for the upkeep of the mosque. In this case, however, kh«n is evidently used in an urban context.

(1) In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. (2) During the days of the righteous reign of our master, the supreme Sultan, master of the two continents and the two seas, (3) Sultan Sulaym«n Kh«n, may All«h perpetuate his Sultanate. Renovated at this blessed kh«n … (4) … the restoration has become necessary … the servant in need [of All«h’s mercy], Shaykh Mu¯ammad, son of our master, Shaykh of Islam, ‘Umar al-Mar‘ash» (5) in the year 971 (began in August 1563), may All«h the exalted accept this from him!

An inscription published by Wiet celebrating the act of waqf in favour of the Mosque of Damascus (615AH/AD1218), lists “an eighth of a funduq and the ten shops of …” a certain location, not stating if this is an urban or rural property (RCEA, x, pp. 154–155, no. 3821). The existence of ten endowed shops, however, indicates an urban structure. At all events, the contemporaneity of this inscription and that at F»q, in which kh«n is the term applied to that rural inn, should be noted. This indicates that sometime during the early thirteenth century the use of the two terms—funduq and kh«n—was

65

Bayl«n is located at Lat36º6N/Long37º57E, 370 m above sea-level. See Mamluk Period, no. 5 and note 44. 67 Hertzfeld transcribes ‫ أدام‬instead of ‫ ﺧﻠّﺪ‬in the second line. 68 This verb is absent in the Hertzfeld transcription. 66

69 I would like to thank E. Ginio, of the Dept. of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for his assistance in the transcription and translation of the inscription.

16

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai modified in Syria. While funduq appears to have lost its rural application, the term kh«n was broadened in connotation and could be applied to both rural and urban structures. There were probably various reasons. The change in the official terminology may reflect a natural linguistic transformation, with no far-reaching conceptual changes regarding the institutions themselves. But the preference for the term kh«n might have corresponded to a material change in the customs of accommodation, and perhaps even the standardization of an architectural model (see infra).

the polytheists] renewer of justice in the whole world … the Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf Ab− ’l-Na·r Q«n·−h alGh−r» (906–922AH/AD1500–1516), may God glorify his victories through Mu¯ammad and his house! This blessed qal‘a was the work of the am»r Kh«yir Bak al‘Al«[’]» the builder … on the date …

Qal‘at al-‘Aqaba fulfilled a military rather than a commercial role, catering to the ¯ajj caravans and defending the gulf from potential attacks. Despite its function and the official designation in the foundation inscription, the contemporary Egyptian historian Ibn Iy«s (d. ca. 930AH/AD1524) still referred to this building as a kh«n “…with towers flanking its gate and installed in its repositories (¯aw«·il) for the goods of the pilgrims…” (Ibn Iy«s, Bad«'i‘ al-Zuh−r, vol. 4, pp. 133, 144)

The use of architectural rather than functional terms to refer to structures is well known from other inscriptions, indicating the writer’s wish to convey the form of the building erected. A good example is the inscription on the maq«m at Yubn« (modern Yavneh in Israel) dated 673AH/AD1274. It reads: “… amara bi insh«’ hadh« alriw«q al-mub«rak …” (RCEA, xii, p. 191, no. 4686; Taragan 2000, pp. 119–121), and refers to the open portico attached to the domed mausoleum. This inscription is especially noteworthy when compared to a later one (692AH/AD1293) found at the same site in which the term used is mashhad (shrine) (RCEA, xiii, pp. 115–116, no. 4965; Taragan 2000, p. 136). A further example can be seen in the foundation inscription of the Great Mosque of Khirkan in Iran (ca. 15 km from Bist«m) dated to ca. 736AH/AD1335–1336 (RCEA, xv, pp. 66–67, no. 5698). There one reads “wa qad amara bin«’ al-qubba al-mub«raka,” again showing the use of an architectural (qubba, for a domed funerary building) rather than a functional term (qabr, turba...) to commemorate the foundation of the building.

How can this deliberate interchange of terms be explained? Could Ibn Iy«s have implied the use of the structure as a regular stop over in addition to its defensive function and service for the ¯ajj caravans?71 Was he referring to the building’s architectural type? Or was he simply conveying the popular denomination of the structure? While the two latter options are viable, the first one is less probable. Even though recent excavations (De Meulemeester 2008, pp. 74-75; De Meulemeester and Pringle 2009, pp. 151-155) have proved that the Mamluk qal‘a to was preceded by earlier buildings—called “khans”(!) by the excavators—these all seem to have served as fortifications catering to the ¯ajj route, rather than as public road-inns. One of the main reasons for the interchangeability of the two terms qal‘a and khān from the sixteenth century onwards can be explained against the historical background of the Ottoman period, when a number of Mamluk (and perhaps earlier) rural inns were fortified to ensure security within and without their premises. The case of ®isy« in northern Syria72 is a good example (Fig. 21.6). A kh«n is known to have existed on the road passing through ®isy« at least since the Mamluk period. The patron was probably the viceroy of Syria and Egypt, Manjak al-Yūsufī (d. 776AH/AD1375; see chapter on Patronage), since the village adjoining the kh«n was part of his waqf. Q«ytb«y’s entourage visited ®isy« in the late fifteenth century and reported that it had a kh«n (Ibn alJ»‘«n, pp. 78–79; Devonshire 1922, pp. 22–23). Much literary evidence refers to this kh«n,73 showing that its

The choice between architectural or functional terms to designate a building may also explain the interchangeability of the terms kh«n and qal‘a for buildings evidently used as fortresses from the sixteenth century onwards. Qal‘at al-‘Aqaba, for example, is sometimes also called Kh«n al-‘Aqaba. This structure, located in the modern town of ‘Aqaba in Jordan and originally built in the vicinity of the Islamic city of Ayla, is dated 920AH/AD1514–15 by the in situ foundation inscription (Glidden 1952, pp. 117–118). It reads:

‫ ]ﻗﻟأ[ﻟﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﺒﺎرآﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻴﺪة ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﺎﻟﻚ اﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬... ‫اﻻﺷﺮف اﺑﻮ اﻟﻨﺼﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﺼﻮﻩ اﻟﻐﻮرى ﺳﻠﻄﺎن اﻻﺳﻼم واﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ‬ ... ... ... ‫ ﻣﺤﻲ اﻟﻌﺪل ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﻦ‬70[‫ﻗﺎﺗﻞ ]اﻟﻜﻔﺮة واﻟﻤﺸﺮآﻴﻦ‬ ‫ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻻﺷﺮف اﺑﻮ اﻟﻨﺼﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﺼﻮﻩ اﻟﻐﻮرى اﻋﺰ اﷲ‬... ‫[ هﺬﻩ اﻟﻘﻠﻌﺔ اﻟﻤﺒﺎرآﺔ ذات اﻻﻣﻴﺮ‬sic] ‫اﻧﺼﺎرﻩ ﺑﻤﺤﻤﺪ وﺁﻟﻪ وآﺎن‬ [‫ ﺑﺘﺄرﻳﺦ ]ﺳﻨﺔ‬... ‫[ اﻟﻤﻌﻤﺎرى‬for ‫ﺧﺎﻳﺮ ﺑﻚ اﻟﻌﻼى ]اﻟﻌﻼﺋﻲ‬ [...]‫ﺸﻋ‬

71 ®ajj forts should not be taken as regular rural inns. They protected water sources, lodged small garrisons and provided warehouses, but did not necessarily offer accommodation to pilgrims. See Sauvaget 1937, passim, for the Ottoman inns of the Syrian Pilgrimage route (Darb al®ajj al-Sh«m»). On some of the structures catering to the Darb al-®ajj al-Mi·r», see Tamari 1982, passim. However, in A.D. Petersen’s discussion of the early Ottoman forts catering to the Darb al-®ajj alSh«m» (1989, 1995), a few kh«ns of commercial and military functions such as Kh«n al-Tujj«r in the Galilee, for example, are misclassified as also serving the ¯ajj, even though this and other sites were detached from the official pilgrimage route. 72 ®isy« or ®asy«, on the road between Nabk and Homs, Lat34º23’60“N/Long36º45E, 803 m above sea level. 73 Among the western sources which describe the kh«n at ®isy«, the Italian pilgrims Paolo Pesenti (1615, p. 28), Aquilante Rocchetta (1630, p. 80) and the French traveler Jean de Thevenot (1687, p. 27) stand out. Thevenot provides the most detailed account:

…blessed and auspicious fort our lord the ruling Sultan al-Malik al-Ashraf Ab− ’l-Na·r Q«n·−h al-Gh−r», Sultan of Islam and the Muslims, slayer [of the unbelievers and 70 R. Amitai proposes a different reading for this missing portion, according to the wording of the inscription from al-¶ubayba in the Golan Heights (Amitai 2001, pp. 110–111): ‫ ﺳﻠﻄﺎن اﻻﺳﻼم واﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ ﻗﺎﺗﻞ اﻟﺨﻮارج اﻟﻤﺘﻤﺮدﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻴﻰ اﻟﻌﺪل ﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﻦ‬, i.e., “killer of rebellious deviators.”

17

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m function as a caravan stop over, i.e., a caravansarai, continued well into the Ottoman period, even after it had been renovated as a qal‘a under Sulaym«n (Sauvaget 1937, pp. 111–117).

towering minaret (see Gazetteer), the memory of the eponymous building has faded in the city. In summary, when dealing with the Mamluk period in Bil«d al-Sh«m the right term to designate the rural inns is no other than kh«n. This term seems to have been intrinsically connected to an architectural type, to be discussed later, so even after certain kh«ns in Palestine were transformed during the Ottoman period into fortifications (sing. qal‘a, pl. qal‘«t), they were still often identified as kh«ns. Funduq was in use only in urban contexts; caravansarai, literally a “house for the caravans,” referred to only one of the roles played by such buildings. Kh«ns, as already mentioned and to be further explored in this study, sometimes also served the Mamluk royal mail (bar»d) , in addition to its charitable hospitability to pilgrims and poor travelers, hence their common denomination as kh«n«t li’l-sab»l.

Under Sulaym«n a qal‘a was added to the earlier building (Sauvaget 1937, pp. 111–117), while a new and extensive kh«n was added later. The works at this kh«n are associated with parallel processes in some kh«n«t of Palestine (at Kh«n al-Tujj«r near Mt. Tabor, for example) which according to U. Heyd, answered the need to provide security for both traders and pilgrims (Heyd 1960, p. 102). The term qal‘a, in this context, conveys a function, rather than an architectural form. Kh«n Y−nus seems to confirm this trend in terminology. Even today, if a resident is asked where the old kh«n is to be found, he will take you to the market street. The Mamluk kh«n, on the other hand, is known as al-Qal‘a.74 The confusion is not coincidental. An Ottoman firm«n dated 1012AH/AD1603 states that the old and ruinous kh«n was renovated at that time as a qal‘a (Heyd 1960, pp. 185–186).75 Despite the monumental remains dating back to the Mamluk period—chiefly the façade with carved inscriptions and blazons, the defensive gate and

2.1.b. Inscriptions from Iran The earliest published but indirect reference to a rural inn in a foundation inscription is that at the mosque of Qazw»n and dated ca. 509AH/AD1115–1116 (RCEA, viii, pp. 108–112, no. 2967). It is a surviving illustration for the use of the term kh«n in an earlier period. It refers to the act of foundation by Khum«rt«sh b. ‘Abd All«h, al‘Im«di, governor of Qazw»n at the time of Sultan Mu¯ammad b. Malik-Sh«h (r. 498–511AH/AD1105– 1118), whose waqf benefits, among others, a rural kh«n built at a village called ¶«magh«n (Blair 1998, p. 44).76

We encamped close by Assia, which is a little very weak Castle, but it joins to a goodly Han of Free-stone, under the Gate whereof there is a Market kept, as at Cteifa. Along one of the sides thereof, to wit the West-side, there reaches a half pace vaulted and arched over for the Lodging of Travellers; it is so likewise in one half of the two sides that lie to the North and East: The other two half sides are employed for Doors, Shops and Cellars; In the middle of the fourth and East-side; there is a Gate, by which one enters into a Court, where there are several appartments more, two of three Foot raised from the ground, that so the Men may be separated from the Beasts, and each of them has its Chimney; you have the like behind the Arches of the first Court, in a word, it is almost like to that of Cteifa, but not so handsome. In the middle of the Court there is a square Mosque covered with a Dome rough cast, and close by, a little watering place with three little Channels continually fill with fair water that runs pretty near that Han. From the second Court we enter into a place, which, (they say) is the Castle, built of rough Stone, but it hath no figure of a Castle, and is a bare enclosure of low Walls: Nevertheless several Families for most part Greeks have their abode there…

Few foundation inscriptions from Iranian rural inns themselves have surfaced in western publications. A foundation inscription at the station at S»n (RCEA, xv, p. 11, no. 5616)77 gives only the name of the founder, the constructor and the year (731AH/AD1331), making it of no relevance for the present discussion. Practically no epigraphic data is found in the various journals and corpuses. Even Kiani and Kleiss’s comprehensive catalogue of Iranian Caravansarais does not deal with the inscriptions found on the buildings surveyed. They provide some pictures and some poor translations into English (Kiani and Kleiss 1995, p. 720). But the Arabic texts are not transcribed, and the blurred photographs can not supply the missing data.

74 Personal communication by D. Silverman, October 1999. See also the internet site http://www.khany.8m.com/tour/tour.htm, where the kh«n is named Qal‘at Barq−q. 75 The document (petition no. 478, Ibnül-Emin, Dahiliye) reads: …The section [of the Damascus-Cairo road] from Gaza to Qa³ya, which is [covered in] six or seven days, is situated in the desert. Between [these towns] there is no inhabited place except the fortress of ‘Ar»sh. The Bedouin evil-doers always and incessantly molest and vex the travellers who pass along the road to Egypt on this side of the fortress of ‘Ar»sh, near the ruins named Kh«n Y−nis in the desert. Solely in order [to ensure] that in the[se] days of the imperial [reign of] felicity the wayfarers may pass by in tranquility, and since the imperial Treasury is in straits, I have therefore volunteered to restore the said caravanserai in the form of a fortress at my own expense, and forty horsemen and twenty foot-soldiers were enlisted from Egypt the Well-Protected and stationed at the said fortress. But since the Bedouins are very numerous and the said fortress is situated on the border of the desert, forty horsemen are [too] small a number and consequently they (the Bedouins) again do not cease to cause disorder and trouble…

This leaves a substantial gap of information, where no development of terminology can be followed. This gap contrasts with the large number of modern studies dealing with the architectural aspects of Iranian inns, from Müller in 1920 to Kiani and Kleiss in 1995.78

76

Better known as D«mgh«n, Lat36º10’N/Long54º20’38“E, 1184 m above sea level. 77 S»n is 24 km north of I·fah«n, Lat32º51’15“N/Long51º39’26“E, 1582 m above sea level. 78 In a personal communication in 2000, Hillenbrand remarked that he has collected considerable data dealing with Iranian inns, to be published in the future.

18

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai The Ilkh«nid Period (656–756AH/AD1258–1355)

Azarbaijan, on the Teheran-Tabriz road; Siroux 1949, p. 73, note 5), and occurs in two of the translations by Kiani and Kleiss (1995, p. 720).

79

Sarcham, southeast of Maragha, 733AH/AD1332–1333 (Siroux 1949, pp. 53–57; Godard 1936, pp. 151–152; RCEA, xv, pp. 27–28, no. 5642)

The inscription at Jamalabad dates the building to the reign of Sh«h ‘Abb«s II (1065AH/AD1654). It was translated into English in the 1930s by the English traveler H. Filmer (1937, pp. 215–216), who saw the building and described it as “tumbling into ruin.” According to Filmer, the text of the inscription was written as a poem. His translation reads:85

‫( ﻣﻦ ﻓﻮاﺿﻞ ﺻﺪﻗﺎت اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻋﻼ ِء اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬1) ‫ﻞ ﺷﺎﻧﻪ ﻓﻲ هﺬا اﻟﺮﺑﺎط‬ ّ ‫أﺑﻮ ﺳﻌﻴﺪ ﺑﻬﺎدر ﺧﺎن ﺧﻠّﺪ اﷲ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻪ وأﺟ‬ ‫ﻖ‬ ّ ‫( اﻟﻤﺨﺪوم اﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﺳﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻮزراءِ ﻓﻰ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻏﻴﺎث اﻟﺤ‬2) ‫واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﺤﻤّﺪ أﻋ ّﺰ اﷲ أﻧﺼﺎر دوﻟﺘﻪ ﻓﻰ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻼث وﺛﻼﺛﻴﻦ و‬ ‫ﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬

In the reign of Abbas, Shah-in-shah of the world, Oglu (Oghlu, i.e., “son”, KCS), the Emir of his court, Who is second to Abbas in equity and justice, Built the inn on the edge of the desert at Jamalabad. May the structure of his fortune remain perpetually firm, Since he laid the foundation of this house of prayer for the Shah! When this inn was completed as a result of the muscular strength And efforts exerted by the best master of masonry, By chance, O Fayes! the following chronogram was revealed: Robat-i-Janeb-i-Dasht (Rib«³-i-J«nib-i-Dasht, KCS) at Jamalabad. Cut by Ism«’il (in the Moslem lunar year) 1065 (A.D. 1654).

(1) Among the good deeds of the supreme Sultan ‘Al«’ al-Dawla wa’l-D»n, Ab− Sa‘»d Bah«dur Kh«n, may All«h perpetuate his Sultanate and exalt his prestige in this rib«³. (2) The supreme master, the Sultan of the vizirs in this world, Ghiy«th al-®aqq wa’l-D»n Mu¯ammad,80 may All«h invigorate the supporters of his reign,81 in the year 733 (1332–1333).

The Timurid Period (771–913AH/AD1370–1507) Pasargad, northeast of Sh»r«z,82 786AH/AD1384–1385 (RCEA, xviii, pp. 32–33, no. 786 009). Inscription in two sections, the first above the gate (1), the second to the left of the gate (2).

‫( ﺗﻘﺒّﻞ اﷲ ﻣﻨﻪ وﻋﻔﺎ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻓﻰ ﺷﻬﻮر ﺳﻨﺔ‬2) ... 83‫ ﺣﻀﺮﻩ‬... (1) ‫ﺳﺘّﺔ وﺛﻤﺎﻧﻴﻦ وﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﺷﻴﺮازى‬

Discussion In this fragmentary corpus of epigraphic evidence from Iranian rural inns, there is little solid evidence. Apart from recording the use of the term rib«³, also used for the inns’ popular names, there is no possibility of establishing any chronological development in the local terminology.

(1) … in his building … (2) May All«h accept (this) from him and forgive him. During the months of the year 786 (began in February 1384).84 Work of Sh»r«z».

The Safavid Period (907–1135AH/AD1501–1722)

The term rib«³, derived from the Arabic root r-b-³ (J. Chabbi and N. Rabbat, ‘Rib«³’ , EI2, viii, p. 493), became absorbed into Persian language and tradition, while the indigenous Persian term kh«n (N. Elisséeff, ‘kh«n’, EI2, iv, p. 1010) seems to have been less frequent, although in use.86

Due to poor translations and low-quality photographs, the few inscriptions dating to the sixteenth through the eighteenth century published in Kiani and Kleiss’ survey (Kiani and Kleiss 1995, pp. 56–58, 720) can not be used for analysis. Yet, notwithstanding the general lack of information regarding terminology, rib«³ seems to be the dominant designation. It is known to have been used in the foundation inscription of the inn at Jamalabad (east

2.1.c. Inscriptions from Anatolia The Saljuq Period (ca. 463–707AH/AD1071–1307)

79

Sarcham is located at Lat37º3’58“N/Long47º56’42“E, 1213 m above sea level. 80 Son of the famous statesman and historian Rash»d al-D»n (d. 718AH/AD1318). On Ghiy«th al-D»n (d. 736AH/AD1336), see P. Jackson and C. Melville, EIr, x, pp. 598–599. Also C.P. Melville, The fall of Amir Chupan and the decline of the Ilkhanate, 1327–37: a decade of discord in Mongol Iran, Papers on Inner Asia 30, Bloomington, Indiana, 1999, pp. 60ff. 81 R. Amitai has noted that dawla in this context might mean reign, dynasty, power, or even good luck. 82 Pasargad is located at Lat30º12’7“N/Long53º10’48“E, 1844 m above sea level. 83 Perhaps should read ‫ ﺣﺼﺮة‬instead, as “the building.” The use of ‫ﺣﺼﺮة‬ is not exceptional, as in the foundation inscription from Qal‘at Ajr−d in central Sinai: ... ‫( اﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻧﺸﺎء اﻟﺤﺼﺮة اﻟﻤﺒﺎرآﺔ‬Moritz 1910, pp. 100–101). 84 F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, who first published this inscription in 1910 (Iranische Felsreliefs, Berlin, 1910), suggested, with some reservation, the year as 736 (RCEA, xviii, p. 33, note 2).

The three main sources for epigraphic evidence concerning the Anatolian Saljuq inns are the late 85

Unfortunately the author did not publish its Arabic transcription or transliteration. Nasser Rabbat, as well as other scholars, tried to explain how the term rib«³, originally employed in connection with frontier watchtowers and fortresses used by the mur«bi³un to defend and to launch offensives beyond the borders of Islamic lands, came to identify caravansarais, therefore paralleling the Persian term kh«n in application. According to his conclusions, the kh«n adopted “the same basic scheme as the one encountered in authentic rib«³s,” and adapted the military building type to serve as a caravansarai. Rabbat explains that the caravansarais in Persia were known as rib«³s as late as the Saljuq period, after which the term came to designate houses for ¶−f»s (J. Chabbi and N. Rabbat, ‘Rib«³’, EI2, viii, p. 506). 86

19

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m nineteenth century corpus by C. Huart (1895), the RCEA, and the Erdmann corpus of Anatolian kh«ns (1961). Among the many foundation and renovation inscriptions presented by these scholars, only those from thirteen sites are of relevance to this chapter in specifically classifying the buildings, in addition to the typical glorification of the patrons, the reigning Sultans and the dating of their deeds. 1. Kuruçe¹me Han,87 Konya-Bey¹ehir road, between 601–608AH/AD1205–1211 (Erdmann 1961, p. 36, no. 3)

The first line reads “’t¯tm pwtq’ hn’ btšryn qd(ym)”, i.e., “’et¯tem putqō hōnō btešr»n qd»m,”89 thus referring to a putqō, a term most probably derived from the Arabic funduq, but perhaps directly from the Greek pandocheion or similar.90

‫( دوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬3) ‫( اﻟﺮﺑﺎط ﻓﻰ اﻳﺎم‬2) ‫( هﺬ)ﻩ( اﻟﻌﻤﺎرة‬1) ‫( اﻟﺒﺤﺮ اﺑﻮ‬5) ‫( واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﺳﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﺒﺮ و‬4) ‫اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ ﻏﻴﺎث اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ‬ (7) ‫( ﻗﻠﺞ ارﺳﻼن ﻧﺎﺻﺮ اﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬6) ‫اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﻦ‬ ‫ ﻏﺮﻩ‬... ‫ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ‬... (10) ... ‫( ﻋﻤﺮ هﺬ اﻟﺮﺑﺎط‬9) [...] (8) [...] ... [? ‫]ﻋﺰﻩ‬

The Arabic text is in the middle and reads:

‫( ﻓﻰ اﻻﻳﺎم اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻐﺎﻟﺐ اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ ﺷﺎهﻨﺸﺎﻩ اﻻﻋﻈﻢ‬1) ‫( ﻣﺎﻟﻚ اﻟﺮﻗﺎب اﻻﻣﻢ ﺳﻴﺪ اﻟﺴﻼﻃﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻣﺸﺮف )؟( اﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬2) ‫( اﻟﻌﺰﻳﺰ )؟( ﻣﻠﻚ اﻟﺒﺮ واﻟﺒﺤﺮ ﻋﺰ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻧﺼﺮ‬3) (‫)؟‬ ‫( ﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ ﺗﺎج اﻟﻤﻠﻮك واﻟﺴﻼﻃﻴﻦ ﺷﺄن ﺁل ﺳﻠﺠﻮق‬4) ‫اﻻﺳﻼم وا‬ (6) ‫( اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﻜﺎوس ﺑﻦ ﻗﻠﺞ ارﺳﻼن ﺑﺮهﺎن اﻣﻴﺮ‬5) ‫اﺑﻮ‬ ‫( اﻟﺨﺎن‬7) ‫اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ أﻋﺰ}ﻩ{ اﷲ أﻧﺼﺎرﻩ اﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا‬ ‫( ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﺑﻮ‬8) ‫اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﺎج اﻟﻰ رﺣﻤﺔ اﷲ‬ ‫ﺳﺎﻟﻢ ﺑﻦ اﺑﻰ اﻟﺤﺴﻦ اﻟﺸﻤﺎس )؟( اﻟﺤﻜﻴﻢ )؟( ﻓﻰ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﻣﻦ‬ ‫ﺷﻬﻮر ﺳﻨﺔ ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ وﺳﺘﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬

(1) This building (2) of the rib«³, (took place) in the days (3) of the reign of the august Sultan Ghiy«th alDuny« (4) wa’l-D»n, Sultan of the land and (5) sea, Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kaykhusraw b. (6) Qilij Arsl«n, protector of the Commander of the Faithful (7) … (8) … (9) built this rib«³ … (10) … in (date)… His Highness (?) …

2. Dokuzun Derbent Han (Duquz-Kh«né Dervendi), Konya-Ak¹ehir road, 607AH/AD1210 (Huart 1894, pp. 240–241, no. 22; RCEA, x, pp. 49–50, no. 3668; Erdmann 1961, pp. 38–39, no. 4)

(1) During the days of the reign of the triumphant and august Sultan, the supreme king of the kings, (2) possessor of the peoples’ necks, lord of the Sultans of the Arabs and the non-Arabs Musharraf (?) al-D»n (?) (3) the glorious, king of the continent and the sea, glory of the worldly existence and of the faith, triumph of Islam and the (4) Muslims, crown of the kings and the Sultans, notable (sh«n) of the Salj−q family, Ab− (5) ’lFat¯ Kayk«wus b. Qilij Arlsl«n, proof of the Commander of (6) the Faithful—may All«h invigorate his supporters! Ordered the construction91 of this (7) blessed kh«n the weak servant, in need of the mercy of All«h (8) the exalted, Ab− S«lim b. Ab» al-®asan, the Sham«s, the physician, during the months of the year 615 (began March 1218).

‫( ﻋﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺮﺑﺎط ﻓﻲ اﻳَﺎم دوﻟﺔ‬3) ‫( اﷲ‬1) ‫( ﺗﻮآَﻠﺖ ﻋﻠﻰ‬2) ‫( اﻟﻤﻌﻈَﻢ ﻏﻴﺎث اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﻦ‬4) ‫اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬ ‫( ﻧﺎﺻﺮ اﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺻﺎﺣﺒﻪ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ‬5) ‫ﻗﻠﺞ ارﺳﻼن‬ ‫( اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺣﺎﺟﻰ اﺑﺮهﻴﻢ وﺑﺪأ‬6) ‫اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ ]اﻟﻤﺤﺘﺎج[ اﻟﻰ رﺣﻤﺔ‬ ‫( رﻳﺦ ﻣﺤﺮَم ﺳﺒﻊ وﺳﺘَﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻋﺜﻤﺎن‬7) ‫هﺬا اﻟﺒﻨﻴﺎن )?( ﻓﻲ ﺗﺎ‬ ‫اﺑﻮ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ‬ (1–2) I have put myself in God’s hands! (3) The construction of this rib«³ [took place] in the days of the reign of the supreme Sultan (4) Ghiy«th al-Duny« wa ’lD»n Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kaykhusraw b. Qilij Arsl«n, (5) protector of the Commander of the Faithful, [by] his ·«¯ib—the weak servant, in need of the mercy (6) of All«h the Exalted—H«jj» Ibrah»m. This construction was commenced in [7] Mu¯arram 607 (June-July 1210). Work by ‘Uthm«n Ab− ‘Abd al-Ra¯man.

The third section, in Armenian, is on the left. The third line reads, “I built the inn…” The term used for inn is ՀՈԳՈՑՏՈԻՆՍ (hogotunes), which means “a place for pilgrims.”92

3. Hekim Han, Malatya-Sivas road,88 615AH/AD1218 (Erdmann 1961, pp. 65–66, no. 18, Abb. 82).

A second inscription, written in naskh» script in four lines, is embedded over the gate to the kh«n. Although it is missing the first word (or words), which would

The foundation inscription of this kh«n is of special interest. Placed inside the building, over the entrance to the covered hall, it is carved on a large stone slab, 115×60 cm, and written in three languages: Syriac, Arabic and Armenian. It is divided into three sections. On the right side is the Syriac text, transcribed as follows:

89 I would like to thank James Nathan Ford of the Department of Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for transliterating the first line of the Syrian text. It means: “This inn was erected in first Tishrin...” 90 For another example of use of this Syriac term, see Constable 2003, p. 72, note 13, quoting Gregory Ab− 'l-Faraj (Bar Hebraeus, d. 1286). See also ibid., pp. 27 and 37 for examples pre-dating the Islamic period. 91 On the translation of ‘im«ra in the present context as “building,” “construction” instead of “reconstruction,” see above, footnote 12. 92 I would like to thank Sergio La Porta of the Armenian Studies Program at the Institute of Asian and African Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for helping me to transcribe and translate the line.

87

Site names follow Erdmann’s Gazetteer. For location, see Map 2. Hekim, after hakim, i.e., physician. Located at Lat 38º48’52“N/Long 37º55’59“E, 1204 m above sea-level. 88

20

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai designate the building type (rib«³ or kh«n), it provides a date to Kayqub«d b. Kaykhusraw's reign (r. 618– 634AH/AD1220–1237) and most certainly refers to renovation works.

All«h al-Shih«b» (7) in the month of the glorified Rama±«n in the year 627 (July-August 1230).

6. Hatun Han (Pazar), Tokat-Zile road, 636AH/AD1238– 39 (RCEA, xi, pp. 103–105, nos. 4157–8; Erdmann 1961, pp. 138–39, no. 36)

A third inscription is located over an Ottoman archway leading to the covered hall and will be presented in the next section.

Two inscriptions, the first over the gate, the second over the entrance to the covered hall. The following transcription from Arabic follows A. Dietrich’s reading of the first inscription, published in Erdmann 1961, p. 139. It supplements the sections left out (or misinterpreted) by Wiet in RCEA, no. 4157.

4. Sultan Han near Aksaray, Konya-Aksaray road, 626AH/AD1229 (RCEA, xi, pp. 3–5, nos. 4006–7; Erdmann 1961, p. 89, no. 25) Two inscriptions are found, the first over the gate, the second over the entrance to the covered hall. This arrangement is observed in many of the surviving inns. The first inscription reads:

‫( اﻣﺮت ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻓﻰ اﻳﺎم دوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬1) ‫( ﻓﻰ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻏﻴﺎث اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﺑﻰ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ‬2) ‫ﻞ اﷲ‬ ّ ‫اﻻﻋﻈﻢ ﻇ‬ ‫( آﻴﻘﺒﺎد ﻗﺴﻴﻢ أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬3) ‫آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﻦ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﺴﻌﻴﺪ‬ (4) ‫اﻟﻤﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮة اﻟﻌﺎدﻟﺔ ﺻﻔﻮة اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻠﻜﺔ اﻟﺨﻮاﺗﻴﻦ‬ ‫واﻟﺪة اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﺴﻼﻃﻴﻦ ﻣﺎهﺒﺮى ﺧﺎﺗﻮن اﻟﻤﺤﺘﺎج )!( اﻟﻰ رﺣﻤﺔ‬ ‫اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻓﻰ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺖ وﺛﻠﺜﻴﻦ وﺳﺘﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬

‫( أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻢ‬1) ‫(هﻨﺸﺎﻩ اﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ رﻗﺎب اﻷﻣﻢ ﺳﻴّﺪ ﺳﻼﻃﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺮب‬2)‫ﺷﺎ‬ (3) ‫واﻟﻌﺠﻢ ﺳﻠﻄﺎن ﺑﻼد اﷲ ﺣﺎﻓﻆ ﻋﺒﺎد اﷲ ﻋﻼء اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫أﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﻘﺒﺎد ﺑﻦ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﺮهﺎ]ن[ أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺷﻬﺮ رﺟﺐ‬ ‫ﺖ وﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬ ّ ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳ‬

(1) Has ordered the construction of this blessed kh«n during the reign of the supreme Sultan, the shadow of God (2) in the world, Ghiy«th al-Duny« wa’l-D»n Ab» ’l-Fat¯ Kaykhusraw, son of the auspicious Sultan (3) Kayqub«d, the partner of the Commander of the Faithful, (4) the great righteous queen, ¶afwat al-Duny« wa’l-D»n, queen of the noble ladies (4), mother of the Sultan of Sultans, M«hbar» Kh«t−n, in need of the mercy of the most glorified All«h, in the year 636 (began in August 1238).

(1) Has ordered the construction of this blessed kh«n the august Sultan, the supreme king of the (2) kings, possessor of the peoples’ necks, the lord of the Sultans of the Arabs and non-Arabs, the Sultan of the countries of God, the guardian of the subjects of God, ‘Al«’ alDuny« wa ’l-D»n (3) Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kayqub«d b. Kaykhusraw, the proof of the Commander of the Faithful, during the month of Rajab in the year 626 (May-June 1229).

The second inscription follows Wiet’s transcription (RCEA, no. 4158)

The second inscription reads:

‫( أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬﻩ اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻓﻰ أﻳّﺎم دوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬1) ‫( ﻓﻰ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻏﻴﺎث اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ‬2) ‫ﻞ اﷲ‬ ّ ‫اﻷﻋﻈﻢ واﻟﺨﺎﻗﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻢ ﻇ‬ ‫( آﻴﻘﺒﺎد‬3) ... ‫واﻟﺪﻳﻦ أﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﻦ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﺴﻌﻴﺪ‬ ‫( واﻟﺪة اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﺴﻼﻃﻴﻦ ﺻﻔﻮة‬4) ... ‫ﻗﺴﻴﻢ أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺖ وﺛﻠﺜﻴﻦ وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬ ّ ‫ ﻓﻰ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳ‬... ‫اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻣﻠﻜﺔ‬

‫( اﻷﻋﻈﻢ‬2) ‫( أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬1) ‫( اﻟﻌﺮب واﻟﻌﺠﻢ ﻋﻼء‬sic) ‫ﺷﺎهﻨﺸﺎﻩ اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻢ ﺳﻴّﺪ اﻟﺴﻼﻃﻴﻦ‬ ‫( أﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﻘﺒﺎد ﺑﻦ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﻗﺴﻴﻢ أﻣﻴﺮ‬3) ‫اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬ ‫ﺖ وﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬ ّ ‫اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳ‬ (1) Has ordered the construction of this blessed kh«n the supreme Sultan, (2) the august king of kings, the lord of the Sultans of the Arabs and non-Arabs, ‘Al«’ al-Duny« wa’l-D»n (3) Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kayqub«d b. Kaykhusraw, partner of the Commander of the Faithful, in the year 626 (began in November 1228).

(1) Has ordered the construction of this blessed kh«n during the days of rule of the supreme Sultan and august supreme ruler, the shadow of God (2) in the world, Ghiy«th al-Duny« wa’l-D»n Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kaykhusraw, son of the auspicious Sultan… (3) Kayqub«d, the partner of the Commander of the Faithful … (4) mother of the Sultan of the Sultans, ¶afwat al-Duny« wa’l-D»n … queen … in the year 636 (began in August 1238).

5. Çardak Han, Denizli-Dinar road, 627AH/AD1230 (RCEA, xi, no. 4021 Han Abat, pp. 12–13; Erdmann 1961, p. 61, no. 15)

7. ¼ncir Han, Anatolia (Antalya-Burdur road), 636AH/AD1239 (RCEA, xi, pp. 106–107, no. 4162; Erdmann 1961, p. 110, no. 29)

‫( أﻣﺮ ﺑﺒﻨﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺮﺑﺎط ﻓﻰ أﻳّﺎم دوﻟﺔ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ‬2) ‫( اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻧﻰ‬1) ‫( أﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ‬4) ‫( وﺳﻴّﺪﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻌﺎدل ﻋﻼء اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬3) ‫ﻞ‬ ّ ‫ﻞ ﻋﺒﻴﺪﻩ اﻷﺟ‬ ّ ‫( أﻗ‬5) ‫آﻴﻘﺒﺎد ﺑﻦ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﻧﺎﺻﺮ أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬ ‫اﻷﺷﺮف ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ رﺷﻴﺪ اﻟﻤﻠﺔ واﻟﺪوﻟﺔ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ إﻳﺎز ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ‬ ‫( ﻓﻰ ﺷﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ رﻣﻀﺎن ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ وﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ وﺳﺘّﺔ‬7) ‫اﻟﺸﻬﺎﺑﻰ‬ ‫ﻣﺎﺋﺔ‬

‫( اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﺷﺎهﻨﺸﺎﻩ‬2) ‫( أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك‬1) ‫( ﺳﻴّﺪ ﺳﻼﻃﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺮب واﻟﻌﺠﻢ ﺳﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﺒ ّﺮ‬3) ‫اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻢ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ رﻗﺎب اﻷﻣﻢ‬ ‫( ﺁل ﺳﻠﺠﻮق ﻏﻴﺎث‬4) ‫واﻟﺒﺤﺮﻳﻦ ذو اﻟﻘﺮﻧﻴﻦ اﻟﺰﻣﺎن إﺳﻜﻨﺪر اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻰ ﺗﺎج‬ ‫اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ أﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﻦ آﻴﻘﺒﺎد ﺑﻦ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﻗﺴﻴﻢ أﻣﻴﺮ‬ ‫ﺖ وﺛﻼﺛﻴﻦ وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬ ّ ‫اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﻰ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳ‬

(1) Sultanic. (2) Has ordered the erection of this rib«³ during the reign of our master, (3) our lord, the righteous Sultan ‘Al«’ al-Duny« wa’l-D»n (4) Ab− ’lFat¯ Kayqub«d b. Kaykhusraw, protector of the Commander of the Faithful (5), by the lesser among his servants, the greatest and most noble, our master, Rash»d al-milla wa’l-Dawla wa’l-D»n Iy«z b. ‘Abd

(1) Has ordered the construction of this blessed kh«n (2) the supreme Sultan, the august king of the kings, possessor of the people’s necks, (3) the lord of the Sultans of the Arabs and non-Arabs, Sultan of the land and the two seas, the Two-Horned (Alexander the Great) of the [present] time, the second Alexander, crown of (4) the Saljuq Family, Ghiy«th al-Duny« wa’l-

21

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m

‫( ﻋﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻓﻰ اﻳﺎم اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬2) ‫( اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻧﻰ‬1) ‫( ﺑﻦ‬4) ‫( اﻻﻋﻈﻢ ﻋﺰ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﻜﺎوس‬3) (5) ‫آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﻗﺴﻴﻢ اﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﻰ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﺁﺧﺮ رﺟﺐ ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫اﺣﺪى وﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ وﺳﺘﻤﺎﺋﺔ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﺎج اﻟﻰ رﺣﻤﺔ اﷲ‬ ‫ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻗﺮاﺳﻨﻘﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ‬

D»n, Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kaykhusraw b. Kayqub«d b. Kaykhusraw, the partner of the Commander of the Faithful, in the year 636 (began in August 1239).

8. K½rkgöz Han, Anatolia (Antalya-Burdur road), between 634–643AH/AD1237–1245/6 (RCEA, xi, pp. 174–175, no. 4263; Erdmann 1961, p. 181, no. 56)

(1) Sultanic. (2) The erection of this blessed kh«n [took place] during the days of the supreme Sultan (3), ‘Izz alDuny« wa’l-D»n, Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kayk«wus (4) b. Kaykhusraw, partner of the Commander of the Faithful, at the end of Rajab in the year (5) 651 (September 1253), [by] the weak servant, in need of the mercy of All«h the exalted, Qar«sunqur b. ‘Abd All«h.

‫ اﻟﻤﺆﻳّﺪة ﻋﻠﻰ‬... ‫أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬﻩ ]![ اﻟﺮﺑﺎط اﻟﻤﻴﻤﻮﻧﺔ ]![ أوﻗﻒ‬ ‫ ﺑﺎﻗﺼﺎر )؟( ﻣﻦ دوﻟﺔ‬... ‫ واﻟﻤﺴﺎﻓﺮ‬... ‫ﺳﺎﺋﺮ اﻟﺨﻼﺋﻖ اﻟﺒﻼد‬ ‫ﻞ اﷲ ﻓﻰ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﺳﻠﻄﺎن ﺳﻼﻃﻴﻦ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‬ ّ ‫اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻇ‬ ‫ﻏﻴﺎث اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻷﻋﻈﻢ‬... ‫وﺻﺎﺣﺐ اﻟﺘﺎج واﻟﻠﻮاء‬ ‫ اﷲ‬... ‫ إﻟﻴﻪ ﻣﻠﻜﻪ أﻗﺎﻟﻴﻢ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ‬... ‫ آﻴﻘﺒﺎد ﺧﻠّﺪ اﷲ ﺳﻠﻄﺎﻧﻪ‬... ... ‫ ﻳﻮم ﺷﻔﺎﻋﺔ واﻟﺘﺄرﻳﺦ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻋﺸﺮ‬... ‫ وﺗﻘﺒّﻞ ﻣﻦ‬... ‫اﻷﻋﻈﻢ‬

‫( اﷲ ﻓﻲ‬2) ‫( ﻋﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن ﻓﻰ اﻳﺎم اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻻﻋﻈﻢ ﻇﻞ‬1) ‫( ﻗﺴﻴﻢ‬3) ‫اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ ﻋﺰ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ اﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﻜﺎوس ﺑﻦ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو‬ ‫أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻓﻰ ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﻏﺰة ﺟﻤﺎدى اﻵﺧﺮة ﺳﻨﺔ اﺛﻨﻰ ﺧﻤﺴﻴﻦ‬ ‫( وﺳﺘﻤﺎﺋﺔ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﺎج اﻟﻰ رﺣﻤﺔ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ‬4) ‫ﻗﺮاﺳﻨﻘﺮ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ‬

Has ordered the construction of this felicitous rib«³ [and] endowed … the supported (by God) for all the creatures of the country … and the travelers … of the reign of the supreme Sultan, shadow of All«h in this world, Sultan of the Sultans of the world, prince of the crown and of the banner … Ghiy«th al-Duny« wa’lD»n—the supreme Sultan…Kayqub«d, may All«h preserve his Sultanate!—his reign over the regions of the world … the sublime All«h … and receive this from … in the day of the intercession … in 13 of …]

(1) The erection of this kh«n [took place] during the days of the sublime Sultan, the shadow (2) of All«h in this world, ‘Izz al-Duny« wa’l-D»n, Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kayk«wus b. Kaykhusraw, (3) partner of the Commander of the Faithful, at the beginning of Jum«da’ II, in the year 652 (July 1254), (4) the weak servant, in need of the mercy of All«h the exalted, Qar«sunqur b. ‘Abd All«h.

9. ¼s¯aql½ Han, Anatolia (Ak¹ehir-Afyon road), 647AH/AD1249 (RCEA, xi, pp. 205–207; nos. 4311, 4313; Erdmann 1961, p. 146, no. 38)

11. Durak Han, Anatolia (Boyabat-Vezirköprü road), 664AH/AD1266 (Erdmann 1961, pp. 73–74, no. 20)

Two inscriptions, as in previous examples:

‫( ﻋﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻓﻰ أﻳّﺎم دوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﻈّﻢ‬1) ‫( اﻟﻌﺮب‬2) ‫ﺷﺎهﻨﺸﺎﻩ اﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻣﺎﻟﻚ رﻗﺎب اﻷﻣﻢ ﺳﻴّﺪ ﺳﻼﻃﻴﻦ‬ ‫واﻟﻌﺠﻢ ﻋ ّﺰ اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻏﻴﺎث اﻹﺳﻼم واﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ أﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ‬ ‫آﻴﻜﺎوس ﺑﻦ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﻦ آﻴﻘﺒﺎد ﻗﺴﻴﻢ أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﺧﻠّﺪ اﷲ‬ ‫( اﻟﻤﺬﻧﺐ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﺎج إﻟﻰ رﺣﻤﺔ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ‬3) ‫دوﻟﺘﻪ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ‬ ّ ‫ﻋﻠ‬ ‫ﻰ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ أﺣﺴﻦ اﷲ ﻋﺎﻗﺒﺘﻪ ﻓﻰ ﺟﻤﺎدى اﻵﺧﺮة ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ‬ ‫وأرﺑﻌﻴﻦ وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬

‫ ﻓﻰ أﻳﺎم دوﻟﺔ‬93[!] ‫( اﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬﻩ ]![ اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺮورة‬1) ‫( اﻻﻋﻈﻢ ﺷﻬﻨﺸﺎﻩ اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ اﻋﺘﺒﺎر اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ أﺑﻮ‬2) ‫اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬ ‫( اﻻﺳﻔﻬﺴﺎﻻر اﻟﻤﻌﻈﻢ ﻣﻠﻚ ﻣﻠﻮك اﻻﻣﺮاء‬3) ‫اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو‬ (4) ‫واﻟﻮزراء اﻣﻴﻦ اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ ﻋﻮن اﻻﺳﻼم واﻟﻤﺴﻠﻤﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﻞ اﻟﻌﺎﺑﺪﻳﻦ‬ ُ ‫ﭘرواﻧﻪ اﻋﻈﻢ ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎن ﺑﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻋﻠﻰ اﷲ ﺷﺄﻧﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ اﻗ‬ (!) ‫وأﺣﻘﺮهﻢ آﻮهﺮﺑﺎش ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ ﻓﻰ ذى اﻟﺤﺠﺔ ﺳﻨﺔ ارﺑﻌﻮن‬ ‫وﺳﺘﻴﻦ وﺳﺘﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬

(1) The construction of this blessed kh«n during the reign of the august Sultan, the supreme king of the kings, possessor of the people’s necks, the lord of the Sultans of the (2) Arabs and non-Arabs, ‘Izz al-Duny« wa’l-D»n, aid of Islam and the Muslims, Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kayk«wus b. Kaykhusraw b. Kayqub«d, partner of the Commander of the Faithful—may All«h preserve his reign—(by) the weak servant, (3) the sinner needy of the mercy of All«h the exalted, ’Al» b. al-®usayn, may All«h grant him with a good end, in Jum«da’ II, in the year 647 (September 1249).

(1) Has ordered the construction of this felicitous kh«n during the reign of the supreme Sultan (2) the glorified king of the kings, I‘tib«r al-Duny« wa’l-D»n, Ab− ’lFat¯ Kaykhusraw (3) the august Isf«hsal«r, king of kings, commanders and vizirs, guardian of the nation and the faith, succour of Islam and the Muslims, (4) the glorified Parw«nah, Sulaym«n b. ‘Al»94—may All«h increase his prestige—[under] the supervision of the most modest and humble of his servants, Kawharb«sh b. All«h ‘Abd All«h, during Dh− ’l-®ijja in the year 664 (September 1266).

‫( ﻋ ّﺰ‬2) ‫( ﻋﻤﺮ هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻓﻰ أﻳّﺎم اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻷﻋﻈﻢ‬1) ‫( ﺑﻦ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﻦ آﻴﻘﺒﺎد ﻗﺴﻴﻢ‬3) ‫اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ أﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﻜﺎوس‬ ‫ﻰ ﺑﻦ اﻟﺤﺴﻴﻦ ﻓﻰ‬ ّ ‫( واﻧﺎ)?( اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﻋﻠ‬4) ‫أﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ‬ ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ وأرﺑﻌﻴﻦ وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬

12. Kesik Köprü Han, Anatolia (south of Kir¹ehir), 667AH/AD1268 (Erdmann 1961, p. 77, no. 21)

‫( رﺳﻢ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك ﻓﻰ اﻳﺎم دوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬1) ‫( اﺑﻮ اﻟﻔﺘﺢ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﻦ ﻗﻠﺞ‬2) ‫اﻻﻋﻈﻢ ﻏﻴﺎث اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ واﻟﺪﻳﻦ‬

(1) This blessed kh«n was built during the days of the supreme Sultan (2) ‘Izz al-Duny« wa’l-D»n, Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kayk«wus (3) b. Kaykhusraw b. Kayqub«d, partner of the Commander of the Faithful (4) … [by] the weak slave … ‘Al» b. al-®usayn, in the year 647 (began in April 1249).

93

This transcription is attributed by Erdmann to A. Dietrich, on whose photographic collection most of the epigraphic entries in Erdmann catalogue are based on. Unfortunately neither is there a reproduction of Durak Han's inscription to verify this exceptional reading, nor is it included in the RCEA. 94 Mu‘»n al-D»n Sulaym«n (d. 676AH/AD1277), the strongman of the Saljuq regime in Anatolia, which was subservient to the Mongols. On him, see C. Hillenbrand, EI2, vii, pp. 479–480. See also Cahen 2001, p. 138, and pp. 196–207.

10. Ak Han, Anatolia (near Goncal½, Denizli-Çivril road), 651–52AH/AD1253–54 (Erdmann 1961, p. 71, no. 19)

22

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai

‫ارﺳﻼن ﻧﺼﻴﺮ اﻣﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﻣﻨﻴﻦ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻳﺪ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ اﻟﻤﺤﺘﺎج‬ ‫( رﺣﻤﺔ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺟﺒﺮاﺋﻴﻞ ﺑﻦ ﺟﺎﺟﺎ اﺣﺴﻦ اﷲ ﻋﺎﻗﺒﺘﻪ ﻓﻰ‬3) ‫اﻟﻰ‬ ‫( ﻓﻰ اﻟﺘﺎرﻳﺦ ﺷﻬﺮ اﻟﻤﺤﺮم اﻟﻤﻔﺘﺘﺢ‬4) ‫اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ ورﺣﻤﻪ ﻓﻰ اﻵﺧﺮة‬ ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ وﺳﺘﻴﻦ وﺳﺘﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬

Although their popular names invariably include the term Han, a few of the Anatolian Saljuq inns are defined as rib«³«t by their respective foundation inscriptions. Perhaps this designation reflects an archaism inherited from Saljuq Iran,96 whose foundation inscriptions unfortunately give no indication of the official usage. The Iranian popular names, however, unlike those in Anatolia, always contain the term Robat.

(1) Has prescribed the construction of this blessed kh«n during the reign of the supreme Sultan Ghiy«th alDuny« wa ’l-D»n (2) Ab− ’l-Fat¯ Kaykhusraw b. Qilij Arsl«n, protector of the Commander of the Faithful, [carried out] at the hands of the weak servant, in need of (3) the mercy of the exalted All«h, Jibr«’»l b. J«j«95—may All«h make his end in this worldly life good and have mercy on him in the hereafter. (4) During the beginning of the month Mu¯arram in the year 667 (September 1268).

The following table shows the incidence of rib«³ and kh«n during the Saljuq period in Anatolia, and the greater frequency of the term kh«n in the official vocabulary. Notwithstanding the lack of epigraphic evidence predating the thirteenth century, the gradual replacement of rib«³ by kh«n for rural inns in Anatolia seems to parallel the replacement of funduq by kh«n under the Ayyubids.

13. Çay Han, Anatolia (Ak¹ehir-Afyon road), 677AH/AD1278–1279 (RCEA, xii, p. 244, no. 4765; Erdmann 1961, p. 149, no. 39)

The renovation inscription from Hekim Han, dated 1660, reads “This old rib«³ named Kh«n ®akim…” (see above) This inn, erected in 1218, considerably elucidates the terminology current during the early thirteenth century. The inscriptions, one of them trilingual, display no less than four terms to define the building. The use of putqō in the Syriac section of the inscription, and hogotunes in the Armenian, seems to reflect the traditional terminologies of the region. While hogotunes refers to a place for pilgrims, in the thirteenth century application at Hekim Han it could be generally refer to a hostelry. Putqō, as already mentioned, seems to derive from funduq, and thus preserves a Levantine tradition.

‫( اﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن ﻓﻰ اﻳّﺎم اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻷﻋﻈﻢ ﻏﻴﺎث اﻟﺪﻧﻴﺎ‬1) ‫( دوﻟﺘﻪ اﻟﻌﺒﺪ‬2) ‫واﻟﺪﻳﻦ آﻴﺨﺴﺮو ﺑﻦ ﻗﻠﻴﺞ أرﺳﻼن ﺧﻠّﺪ اﷲ‬ ‫اﻟﻀﻌﻴﻒ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ ﺑﻦ ﻳﻌﻘﻮب ﻏﻔﺮ اﷲ ذﻧﻮﺑﻪ ﺑﺘﺄرﻳﺦ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻊ‬ ‫وﺳﺒﻌﻴﻦ وﺳﺘّﻤﺎﺋﺔ‬ (1) Has ordered the construction of this kh«n during the days of the supreme Sultan Ghiy«th al-Duny« wa’l-D»n Kaykhusraw b. Qilij Arsl«n, may God preserve (2) his reign, the weak servant (of God), [carried out by] Y−suf b. Ya‘q−b, may God forgive his sins, during the year 677 (began in May 1278).

The Ottoman Period

The meeting of the three concepts funduq, rib«³ and kh«n at Hekim Han may be explained on the basis of its geographical situation. The easternmost of the examples presented, it sits at the intersection of the north-south and east-west routes connecting Syria, Anatolia and Iran.

1. Hekim Han, Anatolia (Malatya-Sivas road), 615AH/AD1218 (see above), renovation in 1071AH/AD1660 (Erdmann 1961, p. 66, no. 18)

‫( هﺎ)ذا( رﺑﺎط ﻋﺘﻴﻖ ﻳﺴﻤﻰ ﺑﺨﺎن اﻟﺤﻜﻴﻢ اﻟﻤﻌﻤّﺮ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺑﺎﺷﺎ‬1) ‫( اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬3) ‫( اﻟﻮزﻳﺮ ﻓﻰ أﻳﺎم اﻟﺪوﻟﺔ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﺑﻦ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن‬2) ‫ اﻟﻤﻌﺘﻤﻞ‬١٠٧١ ‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ ﺧﺎن اﺑﻦ )اﺑﺮ(اهﻴﻢ ﺧﺎن ﻓﻰ ﻣﺤﺮم ﺳﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﺣﺴﻦ اﻏﺎ‬ (1) The rebuilder of this old rib«³, called “Kh«n al®ak»m,” [is] Mu¯ammad B«sh«, (2) the vizir during the reign of the Sultan, son of the Sultan, (3) Sultan Mu¯ammad [=Mehmet] Kh«n b. (Ibr)«h»m Kh«n. (And that) during Mu¯arram in the year 1071 (September 1660). (Vertical row) The executer is ®asan Agha.

Discussion While the meagre corpus of Iranian inscriptions does not yield any objective indication regarding the incidence of the terms rib«³ and kh«n in Iran, the epigraphic evidence from Anatolia is extensive enough to document its occurrence in the local official language during the thirteenth century.

95 Nūr al-D»n Jibr«’»l b. Bahā’ al-D»n J«j«, am»r of Kir¹ehir. On him, see A. Temir, Kirşehir Emiri Caca Oğlu Nur el-Din'in 1272 Tarihli ArapçaMoğolca Vakfiyesi, Ankara, 1989.

96

Persian was used in Saljuq Anatolia as language of culture and to a certain degree also of administration, well into the Ottoman period. See Cahen 2001, pp. 157–169.

23

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Table 2.1. Dates for use of different terms Rib«³ Kuruçe¹me Han Dokuzun Derbent Han Hekim Han Sultan Han, Aksaray Çardak Han Hatun Han ¼ncir Han K½rkgöz Han

Kh«n

urban kh«ns, urban kh«ns and funduqs, as well as further terms to identify stop-overs on the roads and in the cities.

Others

3.1.a. Geographical and Historical Treatises

1205– 1211 1210 1218

The proper starting point for this research on terminology among the early geographical treatises, is the well-known account by the Jerusalem geographer al-Muqaddas» (A. Miquel, ‘al-Muªaddas»’, EI2, vii, pp. 492–493). Not only is al-Muqaddas» considered “the best representative of Arabic geography in the second half of the fourth/tenth century” (EI2, vii, p. 492), but his personal acquaintance with Bil«d al-Sh«m, both geographically and culturally, gives his account an advantage over those of his predecessors such as the ninth century al-Balkh» (D.M. Dunlop, ‘al-Balkh»’, EI2, i, p. 1003) and al-I·³akhr» (A. Miquel, ‘al-I·³akhr»’, EI2, iv, pp. 222–223). AlMuqaddas» traveled throughout the provinces of the mamlakat al-Islam (The Domain of Islam) and when he quotes from earlier sources, his testimony on terminology is of great relevance, even though it is not abundant.

– Putqō, Syriac –hogotunes, Armenian

1229 1230 1238– 1239 1239 1237– 1245/6

Is¯aql½ Han Ak Han Durak Han Kesik Köprü Han Çay Han

1249 1253– 1254 1266 1268

The term funduq appears solely in urban settings, and is limited to the regions of Syria and the Jaz»ra. It is used to describe the inns of Mosul,97 Ramla,98 and Jerusalem.99 Al-Muqaddas» does not deal directly with the rural inns of these two regions, but is very clear in his reference to the rib«³«t belonging to Ramla (Filast»n):

1278– 1279

3. The Written Sources

And this capital [Ramla] has rib«³«t on the sea [coast] in which there are people prepared to fight the enemy. Byzantine warships and galleys sail to them (to the rib«³«t) with the Muslim captives for sale, every three [captives] for one hundred d»n«r. And in every rib«³ there are people who know their language and go to them on missions. And various kinds of food are brought to them. And whenever their ships are sighted, those prepared to fight the enemy are alerted. If it is night, fire is kindled in the minaret of the rib«³, and if by day, [they make] smoke. And from each rib«³ [there are] a number of high towers [in the direction of] the capital, in which people are stationed. Fire is kindled in the tower of the rib«³, then in the tower that follows, and then in the other, and hardly does an hour pass until there is an alert [calling people] to assemble against the enemy in the capital. Drums are beaten on the tower [=the minaret of the Great Mosque?] and [people] are summoned to [their respective] rib«³«t. [Then] the people go out with arms and force and the young men of the villages assemble. Then the ransoming begins. [Sometimes] one person [can] buy one person while another throws [down] a dirham or a ring until all [the captives held by the Byzantines] are purchased. And the

In contrast to the standardized and technical formulae of the surviving inscriptions, the written sources whether in Arabic, Turkish and Hebrew, or in various Western languages breathe life into the archaeological remains. Architecture has always figured in literature reflecting daily life and historical events. It has been systematically used as a topographical reference and been employed in the social and political propaganda emanating from rulers and other patrons. Among monuments occasionally mentioned are urban and rural inns. Whether they are referred to as funduq, kh«n, rib«³ or something else, depends on the writer’s contemporary knowledge, as well as his experiences when visiting new places. Thus, the written sources may help clarify some of the issues raised by the study of the inscriptions. 3.1. The Arabic Sources The inscriptions discussed in the previous section show that the terminology changed with time, but in a regional rather than universal pattern. Three terms were used to denote Islamic rural inns—funduq, kh«n and rib«³—each bearing further functional connotations that were not always interchangeable.

97 “Al-Maw·il is the metropolis of this region. It is a splendid city, beautifully built; the climate is pleasant, the water healthy. Highly renowned, and of great antiquity, it is possessed of excellent markets and inns [fan«diq]…” (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 138; Regions, p. 125) 98 “… It is situated in a productive countryside, with walled towns and pleasant suburbs. It possesses elegant hostelries [fan«diq rash»qa] and pleasant baths…” (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 164; Regions, p. 150) 99 “… Few are the learned there [Jerusalem] , many are the Christians, and these make themselves distasteful in the public places. In the hostelries [fan«diq] taxes are heavy on anything that is sold, for there are guards at every gate, so it is not possible for anyone to sell anything on which one might make a profit, except in these places, and then with little gain.” (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 167; Regions, p. 152)

The different terms in the epigraphic evidence find some elucidation in the written Arabic sources. A number of chronicles ranging from the tenth through the early fifteenth century that refer to the various Islamic territories were examined for their terminology usage. A thirteenth century rib«³ in Anatolia, for example, had an altogether different meaning from a contemporary rib«³ in the Levant. These are far from the eighth-ninth century buildings denoted rib«³«t in both western and eastern Islamic lands. Differences emerge between rural and

24

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai ’l-Q«sim al-M»k«l»103 built two rib«³«t on which he spent much money. He brought thither equipment, and many machines. He endowed the two establishments with considerable bequests, tapped many sweet water wells in them, and established there a number of landed estates (±iy«‘); his grave is there. Between Nays«b−r and Quhist«n is Rib«³ Suhayl, extensively appointed. A hot spring is here: some have said that the cold grew severe on the Companions of the Prophet—God’s peace and blessing be upon him—and they prayed to God— may He be exalted—so that this spring emerged for them for their ablutions. A number of graves of the Companions are there. In Baykand is a mosque, well appointed. Rib«³ al-N−r is beyond Bukh«r«; it has a festival (mawsim) every year; also Dast Qataw«n. (alMuqaddas», Aq«l»m, pp. 333–334; translation adapted from Regions, p. 295)

rib«³«t of this district where the ransoming takes place are: Gaza, M»m«s [Maiuma of Gaza], Ascalon, M«¯−z [=port] Azd−d, M«¯−z Yubn«, Jaffa, and Ars−f [Appollonia Sozuso].” (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 177; translation adapted from El‘ad 1982, p. 156 and Regions, p. 161)100

The above description is fundamental in understanding the term rib«³ in Palestine during the early Islamic period, because it clearly defines its military connotation on the Syrian coastline. The function is thus similar to that of the rib«³«t of North Africa (EI2, viii, p. 502), but so far archaeology has shown that the sites listed by alMuqaddas» belong to an heterogeneous group of architectural forms, different from that seen at both S−sa and Monastir in Tunisia (see Chapter 4, p. 75). In addition, the rib«³«t of Palestine definitely differed from those in the Mashriq, whose function was by then undergoing change.101 Some were still standing when he wrote, but their military function belonged to the past. They were gradually starting to have new and diversified functions.102

From this passage it is difficult to define the exact function of each of the rib«³«t mentioned. Did alMuqaddas» recommend Rib«³ Suhayl because it was a good inn to take shelter in, or because it was a place worth visiting, like the mosque at Baykand? It would seem that the latter is the case, mainly because of the miraculous hot spring found there. But the rib«³ayn built by Ab− ’l-Q«sim al-M»k«l», provided with much “equipment and many machines,” are clearly military installations. Rib«³ al-N−r, on the other hand, held a festival every year, a practice better suited to a shrine than a road inn. As for Rib«³ Afr«wa, a further passage sheds some light on its contemporary function:

In his section on religious shrines (mash«hid) in the Mashriq, al-Muqaddas» refers to a small burial place, which was believed to contain the head of Husayn b. ‘Al». It was housed in a rib«³, two farsakh distant from Merv. He also referred to the rib«³ of Dh− ’l-Qarnayn (Alexander the Great) and that of Dh− ’l-Kifl (believed to have housed the tomb of the prophet Ezekiel) on the bank of the river Jay¯−n (Amu Darya/Oxus River), saying that “… a chain used to be drawn across between the two.” (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 333, Regions, p. 294) If it “used to,” it was already part of the past.

There are two markets [in the city of Damgh«n], a lower and an upper; and a small building as a waqf for the benefit of Rib«³ Afr«wa and Dihist«n, and for wayfarers (abn«’ al-sab»l). Not much return is derived from it, as those in charge do not increase the rental, as it was bequeathed to them… (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 356; English translation adapted from Regions, p. 313)

Among other references to rib«³«t, al-Muqaddas» mentions a military nature of some buildings, and the religious and secular purposes of others. He wrote:

Dihist«n was mentioned elsewhere as a rib«³ providing shelter for the abn«’ al-sab»l and a point of pilgrimage for the pious (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 367; Regions, p. 323). The reference to Rib«³ Afr«wa in conjunction with Dihist«n probably suggests a similar religious purpose, that would include providing accommodation for wayfarers as part of its charitable nature. In view of this double role, the term rib«t, even if already partly functioning to denominate a road inn in some contexts, still can not be altogether equated with the terms kh«n and funduq.

At the edge of Nas« is Rib«³ Afr«wa [Far«wa], and opposite Ab»ward is the Rib«³ K−fan. Behind those Ab−

100

See El‘ad 1982, p. 156 and footnotes 53 and 54 for a discussion of previous translations and interpretations of this passage, as well as the term rib«³. 101 Despite the use of the term rib«³ to denominate road inns as early as the tenth century (J. Chabbi and N. Rabbat, ‘Rib«³’, EI2, viii, pp. 499ff.), it is hard to understand why the English editor B.A. Collins chose the term caranvaserai to translate rib«³ in the opening description of the region of al-Sh«m (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 151; Regions, p. 138). Later in that section al-Muqaddas» gives a detailed explanation of the rib«³’s function in the Syrian context, as quoted above. 102 For an in-depth analysis of the descriptions of the rib«³«t of the Mashriq by the tenth century geographers al-I·³akhr», Ibn ®awqal and al-Muqaddas», see Masarwa 2006, pp. 72–83. Masarwa has grouped the rib«³s according to their proposed function: military establishments, post-stations, stopping and restin places for travelers, hostels for travellers and caravans, blessed places or venerated shrines (Masarwa 2006, pp. 73–78, 79, 79–80, 80–82, 82–83 respectively), even though I argue that some of these functions were not always clear cut, while in some instances they were integrated in the same structure (see below). Her grouping, on the one hand, is sensitive to the gradual change of the term's significance. On the other hand, Khalilieh discerned the three main physical types of rib«³«t (rib«³ towns, military forts and lookouts — sing. mi¯r«s), where the various functions mentioned above are combined in the buildings’ primarily military role (Khalilieh 2008, pp. 163–166; developed in Khalilieh 2009).

In al-Muqaddas»’s treatise the term kh«n figures solely in the regions east of al-Jaz»ra. Al-Muqaddas» uses it in similar contexts as his funduq in al-Sh«m and the Jaz»ra, i.e., in urban settings.104 In the “large town” of K»rank, 103 D. 376AH/AD986–7. On M»k«l»s and his patronage of rib«³«t in the Central Asian desert fringe, see C.E. Bosworth, ‘M»k«l»s’, EI2, vii, p. 26. 104 Notwithstanding these findings, Chabbi noted that Qud«ma b. Ja‘far (d. beginning fourthAH/AD tenth century), a secretary in the caliphate administration in Baghdad, made use of the term kh«n to denote rural inns (J. Chabbi and N. Rabbat, ‘Rib«³’, EI2, viii, pp. 499–500). Al²abar» used kh«n as a general term for hostelries when recording that ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Az»z (r. 717–720) wrote to the governor of Samarqand instructing him to “establish kh«n«t in your lands so that whenever a Muslim passes by, you will put him up for a day and a night

25

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m for example, he lists a kh«n beside the Friday mosque with a minaret between them (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 312; Regions, p. 275). He also deplores the fact that although ºr«nshahr is a metropolis and the capital of Nays«b−r/Nīshāp−r, “you do not see there a good market, [or] a handsome kh«n.” (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 316; Regions, pp. 277–278)105 He mentions Rayy’s good (³ayyib) and perfect (k«mil) kh«n«t (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, pp. 390–391; Regions, p. 347), as well as the fact that the library in Rayy is below al-R−dha, in a kh«n. (alMuqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 391; Regions, p. 348)

… At Rib«³ Kawr«n is a fortress in which is a person who takes care of it; outside is a spring, salty, but the people drink of it anyway. At Ar«z«ma are three wells, not adequate for large caravans [al-qaw«fil al-kab»r]. At al-Mahallab» is a weak spring; here is a ruined rib«³. Rib«³ ªb Shutur«n is a place to be feared … The rib«³ is quite good here, in fact I have not seen a better one in all the countries of the non-Arabs. It is built of stone and gypsum after the manner of the strongholds [¯u·−n) of Syria, and has iron gates. It is a flourishing place, people being there to take care of it. Ibn S»mj−r, commander of the army of the king of al-Mashriq built it.” (al-Muqaddas», Aq«lim, pp. 491–493; English translation adapted from Regions, pp. 434–435)107

So far, two conclusions can be drawn: (1) funduq and kh«n were widely used in urban contexts,106 their application varying geographically, roughly to the east and west of the Tigris; (2) rib«³ was a term in transience, mainly because the previously military-oriented buildings to which it was originally applied were losing their raison d’être. The same buildings were gradually being adapted to new geo-political circumstances, becoming some kind of religious or secular institution, but not necessarily turning into road inns.

Manzil can thus be added to the en route terminology as a stop-over or resting place, but not necessarily to the repertoire of architectural terms (see EI2, ‘Manzil’, vi, pp. 455–457). Among the man«zil there are villages, a dayr, rib«³«t. No formal terminology for rural hostelries appears in al-Muqaddas», even though other literary sources, and archaeology, indicate the existence of specialized inns on or near the very routes he traveled.108 The architectural terminology for the wayside inns is clearer in the accounts of Ibn Jubayr, traveling in the East almost two hundred years later. Ibn Jubayr was the secretary of the ruler of Granada during the 1180s, and his account is an important witness to changes in terminology as seen by an outsider.

Apart from his occasional use of rib«³ in the sense of a rural inn, al-Muqaddas» rarely mentioned the hostelries catering to the roads he traveled. The only clear occasion in which stop-overs are recorded appears in the description of the B«diyat al-‘Arab (Desert of the Bedouin), “from Wayla [Ayla] to ‘Abb«d«n, then to B«lis in a curve, then to al-Raqqa, thence back to Wayla.” There he referred to a certain Manzil Ibn Sadaqa on the route to Egypt (al-Muqaddas», Aq«lim, p. 249; Regions, pp. 223–225) and to the man«zil irrigated by saw«q» [water wheels] on the road between Egypt and Wayla.” (al-Muqaddas», Aq«lim, p. 253; Regions, p. 228)

From his arrival at Alexandria on the 29th of Dh− ’lQa‘da of 578 (26th March 1183AD), to his embarking for the ®ij«z, Ibn Jubayr stayed at fan«diq (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, pp. 39, 45, 65; Travels, pp. 30, 36, 57–58). In Jedda the fan«diq stood out in the landscape, because they were “built of stone and mud, on the top of which are reed structures serving as upper chambers, and having roofs where at night rest can be had from the ravages of the heat.” The houses of Jedda, on the other hand, were made of reeds (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 75; Travels, p. 70).

In the section on the desert “among the regions of the non-Arabs” (Aq«lim, p. 487ff; Regions, p. 428ff), alMuqaddas» refers to various man«zil and rib«³«t: As for a description of the man«zil of which we began to give an account: Dayr al-Ji·· is built of burnt bricks, every brick like a huge piece of adobe. It is an extensive place, with all conveniences. It has iron gates, at one of which is a greengrocer who lives there. The water cisterns are outside it; rounded, the rainwater collects in them. However, when I was there it seemed to me to be rather decayed …

In his detailed reference to the patronage of the charitable road inns in Iraq, Syria and the ®ij«z, Ibn Jubayr still uses man«zil to designate the desert stop-overs: Let it be enough to tell you that his care extended to the repair of all the roads of the Muslims in eastern parts, from Iraq to Syria and to the Hij«z, as we have said, and

… At Rib«³ ibn Rustam is running water which flows into a cistern (¯aw±) within the rib«³…

107

Dayr al-Ji·· and Rib«³ Ibn Rustam were on the route from Rayy to I·fah«n, the others on the route from Nīsh«p−r (al-Muqaddas», Regions, p 432–433). 108 The Christian pilgrim Bernard the Monk, who crossed northern Sinai in ca. 870 on his way from Egypt to Palestine, mentioned two inns, alBara and al-Bachara, where “... travellers can buy what they need in the Christian and pagan shops there, but nothing grows in the land round them...” (Wilkinson 1977, p. 142). Al-Bara is probably al-Warr«da, mentioned by Ibn Khurd«dhbih in his Kit«b al-mas«lik wa ’l-mam«lik (composed between 232–272AH/AD846–885), located 18 m»l (ca. 36 km) from al-Ar»sh. Al-Baqq«ra is mentioned by Qud«ma b. Ja‘far (writing after 316AH/AD929) as located 20 m»l (ca. 40 km) from alWarr«da (Cytryn-Silverman 2001, pp. 7–8). Archaeological finds from the site believed to have been al-Warr«da (C-121; Israel grid 99768/5454) include the remains of a rectangular building with corner towers, and pottery shards ranging roughly from the eighth through the late thirteenth century (Cytryn-Silverman 2001, pp. 17–24), but mainly representing the ‘Abbasid and Fatimid periods.

and take care of his animals; if he is sick, provide him with hospitality for two days and two nights; and if he has used up all of his provisions and is unable to continue, supply him with whatever he needs to reach his hometown.” (Constable 2001, p. 152, note 37) 105 A further term, t»m«t [?], was used with reference to the city of Isb»j«b (al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m, p. 272, Regions, p. 244). 106 Both terms were used by the tenth century Muslim traveler Ibn ®awqal to denote the inns in Nīshāp−r as sources of revenue in a charitable foundation charter. From their simultaneous appearance in the list, Constable thinks that the fan«diq and khan«t mentioned there applied to different institutions (Constable 2001, p. 146, footnote 1). Ibn ®awqal recorded fan«diq and kh«n«t as lucrative establishments providing for pious foundations before his time not only in Iran, but in all regions of the Islamic world, including Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and the Maghreb (Constable 2001, p. 147).

26

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai At ®am« Ibn Jubayr and his party stayed at one of the kh«ns, and further south at a charitable public inn (kh«n al-sab»l) outside the city of Homs (Ibn Jubayr, Travels, pp. 265, 267; Ri¯la, pp. 255, 257). After leaving Homs and passing al-Mash‘ar (?), his party arrived at al-Q«ra where there was a large kh«n “like a towering fortress.”110

that he dug wells, built cisterns, founded stop overs (man«zil) in the deserts, with orders that they be furnished as a place of rest for the sons of the road (abn«’ al-sab»l) and indeed for all travelers, built inns (fan«diq) in the cities between Iraq and Syria, and appointed them for the lodging of those poor travelers who could not pay the account, assigning to these inns and stop overs (al-fan«diq wa’l-man«zil) a staff who should administer to their needs. This he ordained in perpetuity, and these noble requests remain until this day, so that travelers upon the way speak handsomely of this man, and the horizons are filled with his praises. (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 126; translation adapted from Travels, p. 124)

Of great methodological importance is Ibn Jubayr’s description of the Kh«n al-Sultan [¶al«¯ al-D»n], correctly identified by J. Sauvaget as the newly built Kh«n al-‘Ar−s, whose foundation inscription names it funduq.111 The traveler wrote: … After seizing a little slumber, we bent our way and journeyed throughout the night, coming in the morning to the Kh«n al-Sultan, which was built by ¶al«¯ al-D»n, the lord of Syria. It is the zenith of strength and handsomeness, with iron doors after their fashion in the building of kh«n«t on this road and in accordance with the attention with which they fortify them. Inside the kh«n is running water which flows through underground conduits to a fountain in the middle. This is like a cistern, with outlets through which the water pours into a small basin that runs around it and then plunges into a conduit below the ground. The road from ®im· to Damascus is little populated, except at the three or four places where there are these kh«n«t. (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 259; translation adapted from Travels, p. 269)

But the desert inns were only part of a network of rural hostelries, which also included stations next to small villages and on the sides of routes crossing cultivated lands. Fortunately, unlike the tenth century geographer from Jerusalem al-Muqaddas», Ibn Jubayr refers to such structures. The inn at the village of al-Far«sh between al®illa and Baghdad is described as a “large kh«n surrounded by a high wall with small battlements.” (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 215; Travels, p. 224) A similar architectural description is given for the kh«n at al-‘Aqr, on the way between Takr»t and Mosul, “topped by a high hill that in the past was the site of a fort and at the bottom of which is a modern kh«n with towers and battlements, finely and strongly built…” (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 233; Travels, p. 242)

Just before leaving the Levant to return to Spain, Ibn Jubayr visited the two important Frankish cities of Acre and Tyre (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 304; Travels, p. 319). On the local inn at Acre, where customs were collected, he wrote:

Both passages deal with inns in the region of Mosul, where al-Muqaddas» also used the term kh«n on urban contexts (see above, p. 25). In Mosul itself: “the town has a large suburb with mosques, baths, kh«n«t, and markets.” (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 235; Travels, p. 243)

… and there is a kh«n prepared to accommodate the caravan (al-q«fila). Before the door are stone benches, spread with carpets, where are the Christian clerks of the Customs (kutt«b al-diw«n) with their ebony inkstands ornamented with gold. They write Arabic, which they also speak. Their chief is the chief of the [Custom] Bureau (·«¯ib al-diw«n) who holds the contract to farm the customs … The merchants deposited their baggage there and lodged in the upper storey. The baggage of any who had no merchandise was also examined in case it contained concealed (and dutiable) merchandise, after which the owner was permitted to go his way and seek lodging where he would. All this was done with civility and respect, and without harshness and unfairness … (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 302; translation adapted from Travels, pp. 317–318)

Further passages make clear that the term kh«n was common for the rural inns in the Jaz»ra. Ibn Jubayr commented that “in all stages (ma¯all«t) of the road there are kh«n«t“ and he himself took lodging at some of them, as at the new large kh«n at the village of Ra·ad (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 238; Travels, p. 247), or the kh«n outside the city of Ni·»b»n (Nusaybin). (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 240; Travels, p. 249) The same term is used to describe the lofty inns on the road between Dunaysar (Dunaysir, now Kızıltepe) and R«s al-‘Ayn (kh«n«t mushayyada), and the large new inn (kh«n kab»r jad»d) at the village of al-Bay±«’, not far from Sar−j, southwest from Urfa (al-Ruh«, Edessa) (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, pp. 242, 248; Travels, pp. 251, 257).

Ibn Jubayr’s testimony is very clear. By the late twelfth century the term kh«n, still in a “terminological transitional period” in the official texts (see previous section, p. 16), was well embedded in the popular

Ibn Jubayr makes further reference to the inns on the route south of Aleppo: …The kh«n«t on this road are like fortresses in their unassailableness and their fortifications. Their doors are of iron, and they present the utmost strength.” (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 254; Travels, p. 264)109

Ayyubid Kh«n ²−m«n, ca. 50 km east from that site, was erected before 585AH/AD1189 and was probably standing at Ibn Jubayr’s time (p. 48). 110 On the kh«n at Q«r«, see Sauvaget 1939, pp. 53–54. Ibn Jubayr also refers to the large kh«n at al-Qu·ayr on the way from Q«r« to Damascus (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 260; Travels, p. 270). The archaeological remains of this kh«n were discussed by Sauvaget (1939, p. 50), who raised the possibility that the kh«n existed at least since 529AH/AD1135, when Us«ma b. Munqidh described a station at that location (Kit«b al-I‘tib«r, p. 244; Hitti 1929, p. 180). 111 For the inscription, see above p. 25. For further references on the identification of “Khan of the Sultan” see note 5 in the French translation of Ibn Jubayr (Voyages, p. 299).

109

One of these kh«ns was located at a village called B«qid»n, and was called “Kh«n of the Turkomans.” The location of this village is unknown. Sauvaget has proposed placing it slightly east of Ma‘arrat alNu‘m«n (Ibn Jubayr, Voyages, p. 293, footnote 4). Note that the

27

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m EI2, xi, pp. 466–470; also Little 1991, p. 95); their erection in rural settings has been little noted.

language of Syria. Ibn Jubayr was most probably conveying the terms as he heard (or read) them. In the Maghrib, his homeland, the term funduq was still in use, for both rural and urban inns (see EI2, ‘Funduª’, mentioned above).112

In a recent article on the Islamization of Jerusalem and its surroundings during the Mamluk period, N. Luz discusses two such “rural” zaw«y«, the first erected by the qu³b Badr al-D»n b. Mu¯ammad Ab− al-Waf«’ (d. 650AH/AD1252) in W«d» al-Nusur, (identified as Dayr al-Shaykh, ca. 20 km west of Jerusalem), the second by his grandson ‘Abd al-®«fiμ (d. 696AH/AD1293) at the village of Sharaf«t in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem (Luz 2002, pp. 136- 139).117 On the Dayr al-Shaykh location, a priori remote and less favourable, Luz noted that “… [t]he place is served by a number of roads of both regional and local importance … Thus the z«wiyah, although built in a rural and remote environment, was highly accessible both to its immediate and distant surroundings.” (Luz 2002, p. 143)

The regional differences demonstrated by Ibn Jubayr are even more evident in the Ri¯la of the later Maghrib» traveler Ibn Ba³³−³a (d. 770AH/AD1368–9 or 779AH/AD1377), who journeyed from North Africa to China and back between 1325 and 1354.113 A passage referring to his crossing of northern Sinai in 726AH/AD1326 has been cited by scholars for its explanation of the term kh«n:114 I came next to al-¶«li¯»ya, after which we entered the sands and halted at the post-stations on the way through, such as al-Saw«da, al-Warr«da, al-Mu³aylib, al-‘Ar»sh, and al-Kharr−ba. At each of these stations there is a hostelry (funduq), which they call a kh«n, where travellers alight with their beasts, and outside each kh«n is a public watering-place and a shop at which the traveller may buy what he requires for himself and his beast. (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, p. 54; Ibn Ba³³−³a, Travels, vol. 1, p. 71)

The case of Dayr al-Shaykh could perhaps explain Ibn Ba³³−ta’s designation of the structure at Jubb Y−suf as a z«wiya. Although isolated, the site of Jubb Y−suf is not far from ¶afad, then the capital of the province, and abutted on one of the main branches of the CairoDamascus road. The establishment of a Sufi order at the site might be explained by the presence of a venerated well which had attracted pilgrims at least since the tenth century.118 But Ibn Ba³³−³a’s narrative is often problematic in terminology, and z«wiya appears on different occasions, not always in association with religious establishments. With reference to the stopping places where he found accommodation on the road, the term z«wiya appears disproportionally119 to terms such as kh«n, rib«³ and funduq. Besides, the still extant courtyard building at Jubb Y−suf (see Gazetteer) is not architecturally suited to a z«wiya.120

But despite this clear and detailed description, the term practically disappears from Ibn Ba³³−³a’s text as soon as he leaves Egypt.115 Even a well-known structure such as the inn next to Joseph’s Pit (Jubb Y−suf), northwest of the Sea of Galilee, lacks the denotation kh«n which would be expected considering the period. The passage referring to this site reads: From Tiberias we went to visit the well into which Joseph was cast—Peace be on him—in the courtyard of a small mosque, next to which is a z«wiya.116 The well is large and deep and we drank some water from it. It was rainwater, but the guardian told us that there is a spring in it as well. (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, p. 62)

Of course it is tempting to explain the more frequent appearance of z«wiya by the fact that Ibn Ba³³−³a was a religious man of some status who would prefer to find religious establishments for his lodgings. But in reading about an appeal to Sultan N−r al-D»n Ma¯m−d b. Zank»

The term z«wiya (pl. zaw«y«) used by Ibn Ba³³−³a for the courtyard structure adjacent to the mosque—I assume here that the building existed as early as the fourteenth century (see Gazetteer)—is quite surprising. Z«wiya is used for structures typically constructed in urban settings, to house Sufis coming to live in devotion near a pious shaykh leading one of the orders (N. Elisséeff, ‘Z«wiya’,

117

The Waf«’iyya order was established in Jerusalem in 782AH/AD1380, when T«j al-D»n Ab− al-Waf«’ Mu¯ammad (d. 803AH/AD1401), the son of ‘Abd al-®«fiμ’s great grandson ‘Al», erected a z«wiya abutting on the ®aram al-Shar»f (Luz 2002, p. 141). 118 The earliest reference to the site is in al-Muqaddas». See Gazetteer. 119 Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, pp. 64, 191, 192, 194, 195, 202, 217, 276, 277, 283, 285, 286, 293, 307, 358, 368, 378, 390, 391, 391, 392, 402, 570, 613, 634 (not exhaustive). 120 For some of the architectural elements expected from such a building, see Luz 2002, pp. 143–144. G. Kahaner, a member of Kibbutz Ami‘ad where Jubb Y−suf is located, has studied the site for many years and published two articles dealing with its history and architectural remains (Kahaner 1995 and 2002). He believes he has identified remains of “The House of Jacob,” a building on the hill east of the kh«n of Jubb Y−suf, near which is a domed well (carrying a later inscription dated 1900) and an ancient tree. Those elements would suit a z«wiya, were it not for the insubstantial archaeological evidence. The building remains identified by Kahaner (and also pointed out in the aerial photograph illustrating his article; see Gazetteer, Fig. 10.1: 3, nos. 1–2) are more suited to cattle pens or structures of a temporary nature. In addition, Kahaner’s note that the ceramic evidence points to a single settlement layer, dating to the second half of the thirteenth century (Kahaner 2002, p. 32) further negates the existence of a permanent z«wiya at that spot.

112

On his way back to Spain, for example, Ibn Jubayr lodged for nine days in a funduq in Messina in Sicily (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 327; Voyages, p. 384), and seven days in a funduq for the Muslims in Palermo (Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la, p. 333; Voyages, p. 391). 113 The authenticity of Ibn Ba³³−³a’s accounts is much questioned by scholars. After he lost all his notes of his journeys, he dictated from memory to a scholar named Ibn Juzzayy. The latter completed the redaction of the work in 756–9AH/AD1357, after being commissioned by the Mar«nid ruler of the time, Ab− In«n (A. Miquel, ‘Ibn Ba³³−³a’, EI2, iii, pp. 735–736). 114 Sims 1978, p. 101; Constable 2001, p. 155. 115 The word kh«n does appear later, but is rather rare. Ibn Ba³³−³a refers, for example, to Kh«n al-®ad»d (The Iron Inn) in Lower-‘Aqr, a town on the road between Takr»t and Mosul. According to him, this kh«n was provided with towers and was lavishly built (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, p. 234). 116 Note that the reference to the z«wiya is absent in both Gibb’s translations (Ibn Ba³³−ta, Travels, vol. 1, p. 85; Selections, pp. 58–59). It appears in Marmardji’s French translation (Marmardji 1951, p. 43).

28

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai (d. 565AH/AD1174; N. Elisséeff, EI2, viii, pp. 127–133) to erect zaw«y« on the highways of Syria (Ri¯la, p. 64; Travels, vol. 1, p. 87), or about the traveler’s crossing of Lurist«n where “at the end of each stage there was a z«wiya at which every traveler was supplied with bread, meat, and sweetmeats…” (Ri¯la, p. 191; Travels, vol. 2, p. 289), and especially about the zaw«y« built by the robber Jam«l al-L−k in the lands of Hurmuz, “with the money that he gained by robbery” (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, p. 276; Travels, vol. 2, p. 405), it is hard to imagine that all the zaw«y« mentioned by Ibn Ba³³−³a functioned as lodges for Sufi darwishes.121

... China is the safest and best country for the traveller. A man travels for nine months alone with great wealth and has nothing to fear. What is responsible for this is that in every post station in their country is a funduq which has a director living there with a company of horse and foot. After sunset or nightfall the director comes to the funduq with his secretary and writes down the names of all the travellers who will pass the night there, seals it and locks the door of the funduq. In the morning he and his secretary come and call everybody by name and write down a record. He sends someone with the travellers to conduct them to the next post station and he rings back a certificate from the director of that funduq confirming that they have all arrived. If he does not do this he is answerable for them. This is the procedure in every post station in their country from ¶»n [`ºn Kal«n, the port of Canton] to Kh«n B«liq [Beijing]. In them is everything the traveller needs by way of provisions, especially hens and geese. Sheep are rare among them (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, p. 632; Travels, vol. 4, pp. 893–894).

This indiscriminate use of the term z«wiya by Ibn Ba³³−³a has been noted elsewhere. J. Chabbi, in his entry ‘Rib«³’ for the Encyclopaedia of Islam (EI2, viii, p. 493f.), wrote: “… for his [Ibn Ba³³−³a’s] part uses z«wiya as a term of reference to denote all kinds of establishments, from institutions for mystical brotherhoods to simple wayside hostelries. This uniformity of nomenclature does not seem to correspond to reality. It could be the product of extrapolation, deriving from a typically Maghrib» usage…”

The term rib«³ rarely appears but is not “completely absent in the Ri¯la” as J. Chabbi remarks (EI2, ‘Rib«³’, viii, p. 504). On the one hand it is used in a religious sense to designate the monastery of Dayr al-T»n in Upper Egypt where the traveler stayed on his way to cross to the ®ij«z (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, p. 47; Travels, vol. 1, pp. 59– 60); on the other, it is applied to a hostelry outside Yazdukh«·, between I·fah«n and Sh»r«z, which “has an iron gate and is of the utmost strength and impregnability, and inside it there are shops where everything that travellers may need is on sale.” This rib«³ was founded by the am»r Mu¯ammad Sh«h ºnj−, father of the Sultan Ab− Is¯aq, king of Sh»r«z (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, p. 202; Travels, vol. 2, pp. 298–299).125

What should one expect, then, of Ibn Ba³³−³a’s application of the term funduq, also a typical Maghrib» usage?122 The facts are surprising since the term is barely used. It appears, for example, in the description of Mosul (Ri¯la, p. 235; Travels, vol. 2, p. 348),123 as well as in the sad story of the rich and generous merchant from Karbal«’, ‘Al» b. Man·−r (Ri¯la, p. 365; Travels, vol. 3, pp. 547–548).124 But while scarce in both urban and rural contexts, the term funduq found its way into the account of the journey in Mongol China, suggesting that at least to Ibn Ba³³−³a the word did not have a clear architectural association. When describing procedures of Muslim merchants wishing to take lodging in China he wrote:

Finally, the term manzil indicates stopping-places in general, and not necessarily enclosed structures. In this Ibn Ba³³−³a’s application of the term does not differ from the previous sources (see above, p. 26).

...When a Muhammadan merchant arrives in a Chinese town he chooses whether to stay with one of the Muslim merchants designated among those domiciled there, or in the funduq...

But if Ibn Ba³³−³a’s terminology is problematic and not representative, al-‘Umar»’s (d. 749AH/AD1349), alTa‘r»f bi’l-mu·³ala¯ al-shar»f, an almost contemporary source but in an altogether different style, should elucidate at least part of the issues.126 Shih«b al-D»n A¯mad b. Fa±l All«h al-‘Umar» held office as k«tib alsirr (head of the chancery) in Damascus and was later assistant to his father Mu¯y» al-D»n in Cairo during the third reign of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w−n (r. 709– 741AH/AD1310–1341). His writings were most probably prepared after he was dismissed from office in 1342 and replaced by his brother ‘Al«’ al-D»n ‘Al», but still reflect first-hand information and much expertise in

121

But some of his references do clearly refer to such religious establishments. See Ri¯la, pp. 217, 277, 285, 286, 293 and passim. A few are even further identified as colleges (madrasa, mad«ris). When traveling in southern Lurist«n, after leaving ºdhaj, Ibn Ba³³−³a writes that “… in every manzil among its man«zil there is a z«wiya called a madrasa… where each traveller is supplied with enough food for himself and fodder for his beast, whether he asks for it or not … All this comes out of the Sultan’s endowments for its upkeep …” (Ri¯la, p. 195; English translation adapted from Travels, vol. 2, p. 289) 122 See above, p. 85. 123 Gibb translated fan«diq as “warehouses,” whereas in his abridged version (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Selections, p. 103) he has “hostelries.” 124 Separated from his goods when reaching Almaliq on the frontiers of Turkist«n and China (his slave boy was late in transporting them), the merchant ‘Al» b. Man·−r had no choice but to ask a fellow merchant from his native town, whom he had met at the funduq in Almaliq, for a loan. The merchant not only refused to lend him some money, but also caused the price of lodging at the funduq to be raised. Hearing of that, ‘Al» b. Man·−r went to his room, cut his throat, and died that same day. In this passage Gibb translates funduq as “caravanseray” (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Travels, vol. 3, p. 548).

125

Mu¯ammad Sh«h ºnj− was the founder of the Injuid dynasty which ruled in F«rs (Shir«z) under the Mongols between ca. 703– 758AH/AD1303–1357. See J.A. Boyle, ‘ºndj−’, EI2, iii, p. 1208. 126 The section on Egypt, Syria, ®ij«z and Yam»n in al-‘Umar»’s Mas«lik al-Ab·«r f» Mam«lik al-Am·«r contains little information on road accommodation. He mentions the markaz/mar«kiz when referring to the bar»d system (al-‘Umar», Mas«lik, p. 42). In urban contexts he uses the terms fan«diq (Mas«lik, pp. 86, 88) and man«zil, though not necessarily in the sense of a inn (al-‘Umar», Mas«lik, pp. 86, 88), while kh«n is apparently absent.

29

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m administrative and political matters. This source is thus of great importance, for it clarifies the official usage of terminology during the early Mamluk period, as well as patterns of patronage (see infra, and on al-‘Umar», see K.S. Salibi, EI2, iii, p. 758).

Damascus one arrives as Jit»n—and this is a bar»d station—then arrives at Bayt Dar«s—and there, there is a kh«n built by N«·ir al-D»n al-Khaznad«r alTankiz»128—and in Y«s−r there was an older one [kh«n] but it was too distant and its removal was beneficial. Then from there to Qa³ra—and this is a renewed bar»d station [where] there is a public well (bi’r sab»l) and ruins of buildings by ²«j«r al-Daw«d«r al-N«·ir», in charge of the renewal of this station. And this [renewal of the station] is of great advantage due to the great distance between Ludd and Bayt D«ras [!] or to Y«s−r. Then from it to Ludd, from there to al-‘Awj«’—that is off the road and would be better if it was removed from there—then from there to al-²»ra—and there, there is a kh«n, started by N«·ir al-D»n al-Daw«d«r al-Tank»z» and finished by someone else—then from there to Q«q−n, then to Fa¯ma, then to J»n»n—and this (station) is on the ¶afad route, and ²«j«r al-Daw«d«r» built a kh«n there, a beautiful structure of great advantage, no other [kh«n] on the road surpasses it, is better fortified, of greater benefit or more beautiful—and whoever is on the road to ¶afad arrives at Nayin, then to ®i³³»n—and there is found the tomb of Shu‘ayb, may peace be upon him— then from there to ¶afad. On the route to Damascus one turns from there (J»n»n) to Dhir‘»n (Zar‘»n) by descending the ‘Ayn J«l−t route, passing by it (Dhir‘»n). And this is a renewed station where one finds great benefit and repose from the steep route that one takes between J»n»n and Bays«n, despite being longer. Then from Dhir‘»n to Bays«n, and from there to al-Maj«mi‘— and this is a renewed station which I [al-‘Umar»] advised [on its renewal], and this (station) is at the Us«ma Bridge, and it is of great advantage due to the great distance between Bays«n and Zu¯ar. And there was an old route from Bays«n to Arbid [Irbid] via Tayba; and this was extremely difficult and the traveler on his way between Bays«n and ²ayba had to plunge into the stream (of the Jordan) where there was a ferry (ma‘diya) for the horsemen leaving the horses aside and those had to cross (the river) by swimming. And there were difficulties in that, especially during the rising of the river and the extreme cold … (al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, pp. 246–248).129

In his al-Ta‘r»f, al-‘Umar» left a detailed account of the routes followed by the royal couriers in the early fourteenth century: … then [we turned] to al-¶«li¯iya—and this is the last of the inhabited areas of Egypt—then to Bi’r Ghaz»— and its water is brought from the well behind it; then to al-Qu·ayr—and Kar»m al-D»n, the agent of the royal fisc of al-N«·ir, had built there a kh«n, a mosque and a minaret, and made a water wheel, but all the above has been destroyed and no one is left to renew them but for the minaret which has remained and oil has been arranged for lighting it. This Qu·ayr is near an ancient centre known as al-‘Aq−la, close to al-Qan³ara al-Jisr,127 under which flows the surplus water from the Nile when it rises and runs off to the sand. Then to ®abwa—which despite having no water or building, is a stopping place (mawqif) at which the horses of the Shah«ra Bedouin stop and [they] bring there water from a well behind it. Then to al-Ghur«b», then to Qa³iy«, then to ¶ubaykha Nakhla Ma‘n ... then to al-Mu³aylib, then to alSaw«da—the latter having been shifted from its original place so that the traveler would not have to take a detour—and then to al-Warr«da—a small village where al-Malik al-Ashraf Khal»l (r. 689–693AH/AD1290– 1293)—may All«h cover him with his mercy—built his mosque in the heart of the road, and there the passers by find friendliness, and it (the mosque) is (used) a shelter for travelers spending the night. And Fakhr al-D»n, the scribe of the maml−ks, built a rib«³ on its side, which was sold after him. Then to Bi’r al-Q«±» and the distance between the two (places) is very long, a very fatiguing passage. From there to al-‘Ar»sh where Kar»m al-D»n—may All«h have mercy on him—by acting with good will, had a public water wheel erected, as well as a fortified kh«n for one to take shelter with the coming of the evening, thus sleeping safely from calamities [caused by] the Franks. Then to the abovementioned alKharr−ba where there is a water wheel and a kh«n, mentioned before, both [buildings] erected by Fakhr alD»n, the scribe of the maml−ks—may All«h have mercy on him! He ordered it [for] the defense of the travelers as the Kh«n al-Kar»m» in al-‘Ar»sh. This is the last of the postal relay stations (mar«kiz) of the Shah«ra Bedouin, after which one is close to the stables of the Sultan horses, whose headquarters have been purchased by the Sultan’s treasury, and is managed by it. [Then one] turns to al-Za‘qa, then to Rafa¯, then to al-Salqa. And beforehand the postal station (bar»d) was at Bi’r ²arant«’ by the sycamore-tree and was named Sa³r; its removal to al-Salqa was beneficial. Then from al-Salqa to Gaza, then from Gaza, on the Karak route, one arrives at Mul«qis—and this is a bar»d station (markaz)—then from Mul«qis to Bayt Jibr»l (Jibr»n), then to the city of Abraham (al-Khal»l). Blessings and Peace be upon Him—then from there to Janb« (?), then to al-¶«fiya, then to al-Karak. On the route from Gaza to

The above passage is of great value as it helps evaluate several terms—kh«n, rib«³, bar»d, markaz, mawqif—all applied to wayside structures serving as shelters for stop overs. The differences are made clear in al-‘Umar»: while mawqif is generally used for a stopping-place, a station, markaz is specifically applied to the bar»d relay stations. The term markaz, in this case, parallels bar»d when the latter is applied as a location and not as the designation of the royal postal institution or as a measuring unit. The markaz was the relay station for the couriers to change horses and be serviced, and did not necessarily imply a construction. It could be a meeting point in the open air, at an old building, and also at a kh«n. In the reference to al-Kharr−ba, for example, the last of the mar«kiz of the Shah«ra Bedouin (who most probably provided the horses for the couriers), a kh«n is mentioned as having been built for the defence of travelers. Still, even if that

127

128

In Mamluk Egypt the term qan³ara stands for a bridge over water (Lane I/7, p. 2568), while jisr is “that which one crosses over a river or the like… whether built or not built.” (Lane I/2, p. 424) See also Levanoni 1995, p. 143 for the translation of jisr as “dam.”

See Chapter 3, pp. 54f. Al-‘Umar»’s description was repeated by al-Qalqashand», who quotes him verbatim (al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯, 418f.; GaudefroyDemombynes 1923, p. 238 f.). 129

30

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai Devonshire 1922, p. 9),132 the inns of Baghr«s at the northern limits of the Mamluk territory (Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 64; Devonshire 1922, p. 14), Kh«n ²−m«n where the governor of Aleppo had a feast offered to the Sultan in the presence of other Aleppan dignitaries (Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 73; Devonshire 1922, p. 20),133 and a few others (Ibn alJ»‘«n, pp. 75, 78–79; 89; Devonshire 1922, pp. 21, 22–23, 28).134 These kh«ns were also called burud by the author, in accordance with their parallel role in the Mamluk bar»d relay-system:

station had a kh«n, the markaz of the bar»d was not necessarily stationed inside its premises. In the case of al-Maj«mi‘, al-‘Umar»’s silence on the existence of a fortified kh«n at that “renewed markaz“ is puzzling. Remarkable remains of a Mamluk kh«n have been found at the site of Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ (south of Bays«n, see Gazetteer, entry no. 9) by the Israel Antiquities Authority. Why didn’t al-‘Umar» mention the kh«n? Do the archaeological remains date to a period later than al-‘Umar»’s testimony, a time when the markaz had already been well established and the station demanded a spacious fortified enclosure—a kh«n—to serve travelers as well? But then why did al-Qalqashand», a later secretary in the Mamluk chancery (d. 821AH/AD1418; C.E. Bosworth, ‘Жalªashand»’, iv, pp. 509–511), copying while also updating al-‘Umar»’s alTa‘r»f, still not refer to a kh«n at that site, even though he mentioned al-‘Umar»’s role in advising the foundation of the markaz in 741AH/AD1340 (al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯, vol. 14, p. 425; Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1923, p. 243)?

And [the noble retinue] stopped at [Jisr Ya‘q−b], by the river bank which links to Birkat Qadas. And the am»r Bard» Bek held a great banquet. And between this station (ma¯a³³a) and Damascus are six relay stations (burud): al-Murayj (Burayj?),135 Sa‘sa‘, al-Uraynba, alQunay³ra, Na‘r«n and Jisr Ya‘q−b. (Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 91; Devonshire 1922, p. 28)

The term kh«n is not restricted to Syrian contexts, but also appears with reference to Egypt or its borders. In the desert of northern Sinai, al-Ghur«b» was among their last stops:

Al-‘Umar»’s text also contains the term rib«³: at alWarr«da a rib«³ was built by Fakhr al-D»n (q«±» Fakhr alD»n b. Fa±l All«h, the waz»r al-jaysh of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad)130 at the side of al-Malik al-Ashraf Khal»l’s mosque. Al-‘Umar» says that travelers used to spend the night at the mosque, but it is not clear if that is the only reason for the rib«³’s erection. Given the patron’s role during al-N«·ir’s reign, it seems more likely that it fulfilled a dual function, of both a kh«n and a military post. Either way, al-‘Umar»’s choice of term is exceptional.

On the Saturday evening, on the night of the 28th, they left Qa³y« and went past al-Ghur«b». They stopped by the sab»l and well and [by] the mak«n136 known as the station of the great daw«d«r al-Sayf» (Yashbak)—May the Exalted All«h strengthen his victories! And the place is not as it used to be, its advantages (ma¯«sin) having increased, a mosque, an »w«n137 and a kh«n having been erected there. And the kh«n is in addition to the one that already stood there.” (Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 100; Devonshire 1922, p. 32)138

The rich body of literature produced during the Mamluk period might provide much additional evidence. Ibn alFur«t, Ibn Taghr» Bird», al-Maqr»z», Muj»r al-D»n, and many others could add details and stories, and of course,

In the 1480’s Ab− ’l-Baq« Ibn al-J»‘«n wrote a travelogue of a special kind. It recounts the journey of the then ruler al-Ashraf Q«ytb«y (r. 872–901AH/AD1468–1496) through his vast empire, learning of its properties and problems, and also meeting with local authorities and dignitaries. In fact, the Sultan was most probably studying the territory towards a possible confrontation with the Ottomans. Ibn al-J»‘«n, one of his close officers, accompanied the party and composed a first hand testimony of Q«ytb«y’s experiences.

132

The kh«n at ‘Ar³−siya was identified as Kh«n ‘Abdah by Dussaud 1927, p. 78. It is located on the coast north of Tripoli (Lat 34º31N/Long 35º58E; 17 m above sea-level). See references to the architecture of this kh«n in Chapter 4 (Pl. I: 8). 133 According to a commemorative inscription at the site, the kh«n was expanded under the patronage of Q«ytb«y in 883AH/AD1478. See above, p. 48. 134 The respective passages refer to the following well-known kh«ns: Kh«n Manjak (Kh«n al-Sab»l, see p. 25), Kh«n Shaykh−n (Sauvaget 1940, pp.7–8); the kh«n at ®isy« (Sauvaget 1937, pp. 111–117), Kh«n al-Murayj (Burayj?) and Sa‘sa‘ (Ibn al-Ji‘«n, p. 91; Devonshire 1922, p. 28). 135 Devonshire translates “El Marbah” (Devonshire 1922, p. 28). 136 On the use of the term mak«n in epigraphic texts on both religious and secular structures, see van Berchem in CIA I, Égypte, p. 434, footnotes 1–2, p. 439, footnote 1, but mainly pp. 500–502 (no. 329), where the term is applied to Q«ytb«y’s wak«la in al-Sur−jiyya, Cairo. 137 An »w«n is a vaulted hall of relative dimensions, limited on three sides by walls, and completely open on the fourth side, which faces an open or enclosed courtyard. In the present context, the usage is not clear. 138 Devonshire’s translation is not literal and reads as follows: “Sa Majesté repartit de là [Qatîya] pendant la nuit précédant le Samedi 28 et passa par El Ghourâby; il descendit à un relai près d’une propriété appartenant à Son Excellence le Grand Daouadar, où il y avait une fontaine (sab»l) et un puits, et nous y trouvâmes de grands changements, car on y avait fait des embellissements; on avait ajouté un mosquée, un iouân et un khân à ce qui existait précédemment.” (Devonshire 1922, p. 32)

The text is short but very descriptive, mentioning, among others, wayside inns visited by or initiated by the Sultan. On Q«ytb«y’s patronage he wrote: … Afterwards at moonrise the noble retinue rode from there [Mulay¯a] and arrived by Wednesday morning at W«d» al-T»m, where our dignified and noble lord—may All«h the Exalted render him victorious—ordered a kh«n to be built,131 to the benefit of the travelers and inhabitants [of the country]... (Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 52; Devonshire 1922, p. 7)

The same terminology is used in various references to hostelries, such as the structure on the coast near Jisr ‘Ar³−siya to the north of Tripoli (Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 56;

130

On Fakhr al-D»n’s patronage, see below. Or re-built; it reads rasama bi ‘im«ra. See discussion above, footnote 12.

131

31

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m broaden the statistical validation of the incidence of certain terms.139

under Baybars from 659AH/AD1261 and wrote his biography:

3.1.b. Waqfiyy«t

…he built [inside the kh«n] an oven and a mill. He had three qir«ts of the lands of al-²urra, of the districts of Damascus, a third and a quarter of the village of alMushārifa, and half of one of the villages of the district Jerusalem, endowed as waqf for that purpose. And he stipulated that the [income] would be devoted to [the distribution of] bread, money and repair of shoes for those wayfarers spending the night at this kh«n, and this in the year 662.” (Ibn Shadd«d, al-A`l«q al-kha³»ra, 237–238)

We add the technical content of endowment charters (waqfiyy«t) to the lively accounts of chroniclers, pilgrims and officials. These have survived not only in manuscripts but also in epigraphic form. The technical texts of the waqfiyy«t typically use contemporary official terminology with some architectural references. Unfortunately only one waqfiyya of a rural inn has so far come to light, and it deals with Karatay Han, a thirteenth-century Saljuq inn in Anatolia (see infra).

In the partly extant Ta’r»kh al-malik al-μ«hir (also known as Al-Raw± al-z«hir f» s»rat al-Malik al-§«hir) Ibn Shadd«d added further data:

The only surviving portion of a deed of a Mamluk kh«n is in a carved inscription, presently at the Islamic Museum of Art on the ®aram al-Shar»f in Jerusalem. It refers to the kh«n built by Baybars on the outskirts of the city (Kh«n al-§«hir).140 The inscription reads (Man·−r 1995, pp. 72–77; CIA, Jérusalem, Haram, pp. 436–437, no. 293; RCEA, xvi, p. 84, no. 6117):

He erected a kh«n li’l-sab»l, and had the gate called B«b al-‘ºd from the dihl»z that the Egyptians had in Cairo, transferred to the kh«n. He built in its properties (f» ¯uq−qihi) a large and high building in one of its sides, and had a mosque, a mill, an oven and a garden built in its premises. We have already been reminded what has been endowed as its waqf at the beginning of the biography. He arranged for the provision of three loaves of bread (ragh»f) and paper (qir³«s) for those who frequented (w«rid wa-·«dir) the kh«n and for the poor living in Jerusalem; he placed there a cobbler (kharr«z) for repairing shoes, as well as a farrier (bay³«r), and provided for their salary (Ibn Shadd«d, Ta’r»kh, p. 351).143

‫ ه[ذا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك أرﺑﻌﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻗﺮاﻃًﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬...] (1) .‫اﻟﻀﻴﻌﺔ‬ ‫ اﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﻣﻦ ﻟﻔﺘﺎ‬:‫ ﻣ[ن أﻋﻤﺎل ﺑﺼﺮى واﻟﺤﺼﺔ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻴﺔ‬...] (2) .‫ﻣﻦ ﺿﻴﺎع اﻟﻘﺪس‬ ‫ [ ﺛﻼﺛﺔ اﺳﻬﻢ وﺛﻠﺚ ﺳﻬﻢ وﺛﻠﺚ ﻣﺛ ]ﺎ[ن ﻋﺸﺮ ﺳﻬﻤﺎ ﻣﻦ‬...] (3) .‫ارﺑﻌﺔ وﻋﺸﺮﻳﻦ ﺳﻬﻤﺎ‬

The inscription and sources referring to the kh«n erected by Baybars in Jerusalem raise issues not yet discussed here. Should this inscription be considered together with rural kh«ns?144 Or should Kh«n al-§«hir be thought of as an urban kh«n, given its immediate proximity to Jerusalem and the almost inexistent walls of that city at the time of the kh«n’s erection? How do we define “an urban” or “a rural” context?

‫ ﻻﺟ[ ل اﻃﻌﺎم اﻟﻮاردﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻔﻘﺮاء واﻟﻤﺴﺎآﻴﻦ ﺗﻘﺒﻞ اﷲ‬...] (4) .‫ﻣﻨﻪ وﺿﺎﻋﻒ ﺣﺴﻨﺎﺗﻪ‬ [(1) …this blessed kh«n, [enjoys the income of] 14 q»r«³141 of the totality of the landed estate (2) …of the districts (a‘m«l) of Bu·ra; and the second share: half of Lift«, one of Jerusalem’s villages (±ay«‘) (3) … three ashum, and a third of a sahm, and a third of the eighth of a tenth of twenty four sahm142 (4) ... in order to feed the comers—the poor and the miserable, may God accept it from him, and double his merits.

Whether urban or rural, it is certain that the features of Kh«n al-§«hir’s foundation act fit a rural kh«n al-sab»l.145 According to the written evidence, it was founded as a public charitable foundation and financed by external assets. These facts dissociate the structure from most kh«ns of the cities, which were usually institutions run for profit.

The information provided by the inscription is also confirmed by literary sources, such as ‘Izz al-D»n Mu¯ammad b. Shadd«d al-®alab» (613– 684AH/AD1217–1285), who served as administrator

Documentation on the endowment of the various charitable institutions founded during the Mamluk period and later, in which urban kh«ns, wak«las and funduqs are listed as mawq−f (goods made into waqf), indirectly also

139 See Rabbatt 2002, pp. 156–158 for the genres of Arabic literature of importance to architectural research. Some of this additional material has been included in the various entries of the Gazetteer. See, for example, al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, II/3, p. 674 and Ibn Taghr» Bird», Nuj−m, vol. 10, p. 110 on the kh«n at Bays«n; Ibn Taghr» Bird», Nuj−m, vol. 9, p. 158 on the kh«n at Jalj−liya; Mufa±±al, p. 376, al-‘Uthm«ni a, p. 483 and al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, II/2, p. 489 on the kh«n at J»n»n; Ibn al-Fur«t, vol. 9/1, pp. 180–181, Maqr»z», Sul−k, III/2, p. 289 and Ibn ®ajar, Inb«’ alghumr, vol. 1, p. 390 on Kh«n Y−nus. 140 See “Kh«n al-§«hir—bi- z«hir al-Quds!” (Cytryn-Silverman 2009). 141 Qir«t, mostly written q»r«t, was employed as a measure to weigh merchandise and as a measure for grain, as well as for surface area, and is given in 24 subdivided units. 142 Sahm is also a measure of surface area. Lane wrote: “[sahm] also signifies The measure of six cubits, [as used] in men’s sales and purchases in their measuring of land.” (Lane I/4, p. 1455)

143

Most of the services offered by Baybars’ kh«n in Jerusalem are reminiscent of Karatay Han in Anatolia, as appears from the surviving waqfiyya. 144 To the above inscription we can add a second one, recovered during restoration works at the Dome of the Rock where it had been reused on the outer face of the drum. The reading is partial, but the expression amara bi ’insh«’, the name al-§«hir, and the year 662 are clear, and allow the identification of the inscription as belonging to Baybars’ kh«n (Burgoyne and Abul-Hajj 1979, 125–127). 145 Despite its conceptual connection to the rural kh«ns, Kh«n al-§«hir is not included in the Gazetteer, and is discussed in a separate study by the author (see above, footnote 140).

32

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai provides data concerning nuances in terminology. It also clarifies the profit-seeking nature of city inns.

he shall be struck by the malediction of God, the angels, and the whole of mankind.

That is the case of one of the kh«ns of Tripoli, listed among the properties immobilized for the upkeep of the Mosque of ²ayn«l (736AH/AD1336, Bizri 1999, pp. 113–119, nos. 21–27), as listed in its waqf inscription. One of the mosque’s inscriptions reads (Bizri 1999, p. 116, no. 23, his translation):

The kh«n in question is of an altogether different nature from the kh«n li’l-sab»l built on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Its previous function is also made clear, by the designation D«r al-Wak«la al-Qad»ma. D«r al-Wak«la, literally translated, meaning “the house of the wak»l,” i.e., the professional representative of the merchants. It functioned as an “agency house,” in which merchants would find storage and marketing for their merchandise (Goitein 1983, vol. 1, pp. 186–192; vol. 4, p. 26).

‫ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ أﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻧﺸﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺠﺎﻣﻊ اﻟﻤﻌﻤﻮر‬ ‫ﺑﺬآﺮ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﻤﻘﺮ اﻻﺷﺮﻓﻲ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮي‬ ‫اﻟﻜﺎﻓﻠﻲ اﻟﺴﻴﺪي اﻟﻤﺎﻟﻜﻲ اﻟﻤﺨﺪوﻣﻲ اﻟﺴﻴﻔﻲ ﻃﻴﻨﺎل اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ‬ ‫اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮي آﺎﻓﻞ اﻟﻤﻤﺎﻟﻚ اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻔﺔ اﻟﻄﺮاﺑﻠﺴﻴّﺔ ﺑﻠﻐﻪ اﷲ اﻣﺎﻟﻪ‬ ‫وﺗﻘﺒﻞ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺼﺎﻟﺤﺎت اﻋﻤﺎﻟﻪ ووﻗﻒ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺤﻪ اﻟﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ‬ ‫ﻓﻲ آﺘﺎب وﻗﻔﻪ ﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺒﺴﺘﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﺮوف ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻤﻮي ﺑﻈﺎهﺮ‬ ‫ﻃﺮاﺑﻠﺲ وﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺤﺎﻧﻮﺗﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻼﺻﻘﻴﻦ ﻟﺒﺎﺑﻪ وﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﺒﺴﺘﺎن‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﺮوف ﻗﺪﻳﻤًﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﻨﻄﺎش ﺑﺴﻘﻲ ﻃﺮاﺑﻠﺲ وﺟﻤﻴﻊ‬ ‫اﻟﺤﺎﻧﻮﺗﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻼﺻﻘﻴﻦ ﻟﺴﻮق اﻟﺴﻼح ﺑﺠﻮار اﻟﺤﻤﺎم‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﺮوف ﺑﺎﺳﻨﺪﻣﺮ وهﻲ اﻻن ﻣﻠﻚ اﻟﻮاﻗﻒ وﺟﻤﻴﻊ ﺛﻠﺚ‬ ‫اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﻌﺮوف ﺑﺪار اﻟﻮآﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻘﺪﻳﻤﺔ وﺟﻤﻴﻊ اﻟﻘﺮﻳﺔ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﺮوﻓﺔ ﺑﺎرزوﻧﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻋﺮﻗﺎ ﺑﺠﻮن ﻃﺮاﺑﻠﺲ وﺷﺮط‬ ‫وﺷﺮط اﻧﻪ ﻣﻬﻤﺎ ﻓﻀﻞ ﻣﻦ رﻳﻊ هﺬا اﻟﻮﻗﻒ ﻋﻦ ارﺑﺎب‬ ‫وﻇﺎﺋﻔﻪ وﻣﺼﺎﻟﺤﻪ اﻟﻤﻌﻴﻨﺔ ﻓﻲ آﺘﺎﺑﻊ ﻳﺼﺮف ﻟﻠﻔﻘﺮاء‬ ‫واﻟﻤﺴﺎآﻴﻦ اﻟﻤﻘﻴﻤﻴﻦ ﺑﻄﺮاﺑﻠﺲ واﻟﻮاردﻳﻦ اﻟﻴﻬﺎ ﺣﺴﺐ ﻣﺎ‬ ‫ﻳﺮاﻩ اﻟﻨﺎﻇﺮ ﻓﻲ ذﻟﻚ ﻣﻦ ﻏﻴﺮ ان ﻳﺮﺗﺐ ﻻﺣﺪ ﻣﺮﺗﺒﺎ ﻓﻲ آﻞ‬ ‫ﺷﻬﺮ او آﻞ ﻳﻮم وﻣﻦ ﻏﻴّﺮ ذﻟﻚ او ﺑ ّﺪ ﻟﻪ او رﺗّﺐ ﺷﻴﺌًﺎ‬ “‫ﻣﺴﺘﻤﺮًا آﺎﻧﺖ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻟﻌﻨﺔ اﷲ وﻣﻼﺋﻜﺔ واﻟﻨﺎس اﺟﻤﻌﻴﻦ‬

The term wak«la appears in association with kh«n in various contexts. A well-known example is that of Kh«n al-Sultan in the old city of Jerusalem (Burgoyne 1987, pp. 479–484). While the official term applied to the structure is qay·ariyya,148 usually associated with enclosed and lockable markets for valuable goods, the late fifteenth century Jerusalem historian Muj»r al-D»n calls it a wak«la and also a kh«n: “a vast kh«n (kh«n ‘aμīm) constituted waqf for the ®aram” (Muj»r al-D»n, alUns, ii, p. 52; Histoire, pp. 176–177; Burgoyne 1987, p. 479). D.S. Richards noted that, although it is not known when the name Kh«n al-Sultan came into use, designations such as Kh«n al-Wak«la and D«r al-Wak«la were definitely current during the Ottoman period, as attested by three items from the sijill dating to 941AH/AD1534, 943AH/AD1536–37 and 945AH /AD1538–39 (Burgoyne 1987, p. 479). Perhaps the name Kh«n al-Wak«la is the most informative one, as it demonstrates that the two terms had different meanings: the second definitely referring to the function of warehouse and agency, the first referring either to the building’s parallel function of accommodating merchants (allowing the interpretation of the term as “the inn of the wak«la“) or to a specific architectural shape, i.e., that of a double-storeyed courtyard-building surrounded by cells and/or halls.149

In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate, our master His most Noble Excellency, the master, the governor, the lord, the man in power, the served one, Sayf al-D»n ²ayn«l al-Malik» al-N«·ir», governor of the royal province of Tripoli,146 has ordered the building of this mosque erected to the glory of God, may God fulfil his hopes and accept his works among the good ones. And he has constituted as waqf in favor [of the mosque] to be used for the functions specified in his written waqf: the whole of the garden known as al-®amaw», in the outskirts of Tripoli, and the whole of the two shops next to the door [of the mosque], and the whole garden formerly known as Al³un³«sh in the irrigated land of Tripoli, and the whole of the two shops next to the s−q of arms, next to the bath known as Asandamur, and these are now the private property of the founder; and the whole of the third of the kh«n known as the old D«r al-Wak«la,147 and the whole village known as Arz−niya in the dependencies of ‘Arq« in the bay of Tripoli. And he stipulated that whatever excess from the revenue of this waqf remains after proper reductions are made for those employed in its specified functions and maintenance as prescribed in the waqf is to be spent on the poor and the impoverished living in Tripoli and coming to Tripoli at the discretion of the supervisor of the mosque, but without his allocating a fixed wage to anyone, neither monthly nor daily. Should anyone change or interfere with this or assign a regular salary,

A similar circumstance can be observed with regard to the Kh«n of Qaw·−n in the Jam«liyya quarter in Cairo, built by the am»r of that name (d. 742AH/AD1341; see Levanoni 1995, pp. 34–36). As noted by van Berchem, al-Maqr»z», writing almost a hundred years later, employed the term wak«la to designate Qaw·−n’s structure, even though the foundation inscription named it a kh«n (CIA, Égypte, p. 180, no. 123):

‫[ ﻗﻮﺻﻮن‬-] ‫ أﻧﺸﺄ هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﻤﻘ ّﺮ اﻻﺷﺮف اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻰ‬... ‫اﻟﺴﺎﻗﻰ اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻰ اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮى ادام اﷲ ﻋﺰّﻩ‬ 148

M. van Berchem recorded the now-lost inscription, originally placed over an archway at the east end of the Market Street connecting ²ar»q B«b al-Silsila and the kh«n’s courtyard. It reads (CIA, Jerusalem, Ville, pp. 299–304; Burgoyne 1987, p. 479): “… this blessed qay·ariyya, a waqf of the ®aram of Jerusalem, was renewed (juddida/jaddada) by … Sultan Barq−q … during the governorship of … Baydamur, governor of the province of Damascus. It was constructed under the supervision of al-Sayf» A·bugh« b. Bal«³, Superintendent of the Two ®arams, in 788 (1386–87).” See Sadek 1991, p. 289 for a discussion on qay·ariyya. 149 On this structure and its functions during the Ottoman period solely as a market “for selling goods, fruits and vegetables,” see Salameh 2000, p. 122. See also Salameh’s understanding of the name Kh«n alWak«la in light of this late function alone.

146

Died 743AH/AD1342. See al-¶afadī, al-Wāfi, vol. 16, p. 296. My emphasis. Van Berchem translated this passage as “et tout le tiers du khân nommé Maison de l’ancien caravansérail” (CIA, Syrie du Nord, pp. 87–88), thus taking the term d«r al-wak«la as caravansarai, which is both imprecise and misleading. 147

33

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Van Berchem believed that the general substitution of the term kh«n by wak«la was gradual, and that during alMaqr»z»’s lifetime (d. 845AH/AD1442) it was still being carried out. Van Berchem quotes al-Maqr»z»’s list of commercial buildings in Cairo in which only two wak«l«t are mentioned—one of them being Qaw·−n’s kh«n, together with twenty-one qay·ariy«t, five fan«diq and four kh«n«t (CIA, Égypte, p. 180, footnote 2; al-Maqr»z», Khi³«³, vol. 2, p. 93). Some forty years later, by the time of Q«ytb«y (r. 872–901AH/AD1468–1496; M. Sobernheim [E. Ashtor], ‘Ж«’it B«y,’ EI2, iv, pp. 462– 463), the term wak«la was also being used in epigraphic texts (CIA, Égypte, p. 180, footnote 4; see also J.M. Rogers, ‘al-Ж«hira’, EI2, iv, p. 435).150

first floor and upper storage rooms. There is a fountain for ablution at its center, and a mosque, which will be mentioned in [the waqfiyya]. The second [entrance] leads to the Ma·baghat al-‘Azraq. The third leads to a house which will be mentioned in the [waqfiyya]. Their detailed description is as follows.[…] [The doorway] leads to a gallery with two platforms which face each other. There is a place for water storage jars near one of them. The gallery is covered by groin vault. The above mentioned gallery leads to square courtyard (ri¯«b) paved with red stone. Within the courtyard there is square fountain for ablution with running water, and a mosque with balustrade of stone . Its floor is paved and its ceiling, standing over six columns, is roofed with imported (wood) painted smoothly. Four of [the columns] are of marble, and two are of ornamented red flint. On the right as one proceeds to the abovementioned courtyard there is a gallery with three latrines and a stable roofed with local wood or palm branches (ghash»m) for the animals of merchants [staying in the wak«la].

Notwithstanding van Berchem’s proposed chronology for this terminological development, wak«la appears in epigraphic texts at least as early as in al-Maqr»z»’s generation. The endowment inscription of the madrasa of Barsb«y (r. 825–841AH/AD1422–1438) in Cairo, for example, refers to the various properties immobilized as waqf for its upkeep, among which is “al-wak«la bi’l-rukn al-khallaq” (the wak«la in [the street known as] Rukn alKhallaq) (CIA, Égypte, pp. 354–359, no. 247).

There are fifty-five storage rooms around the periphery of the wak«la in two stories. Twenty-six of them are ranged around (the court) on the first story and are preceded by a porch supported on horseshoe arches (qaw«sir) and [covered with] vaults. Each of [the storage rooms] has a doorway and [is covered with a] vaulted ceiling. The [storage rooms] of the upper story number twenty-nine and can be reached from two entranceways facing one another on the right and left of the mentioned courtyard. Each of the [storage rooms in the second story] has an entrance, a tiled interior, and [is covered with a] vaulted ceiling. They are preceded by a hallway with a lath balustrade [overlooking the courtyard]. Above the mentioned storage rooms there are residential spaces which will be mentioned in the [waqfiyya]. There are [also] two latrines in this mentioned story.

One question raised by this evidence concerns the reason for the change in terminology. If al-Maqr»z» himself noted that the wak«la of Qaw·−n functioned in a similar way to kh«n«t and fan«diq (CIA, Égypte, p. 180, footnote 3; alMaqr»z», Khi³«³, vol. 2, p. 93), why should he specify the commercial foundations in Cairo as separate institutions? Was he at that point disregarding function and listing solely according to formal description (i.e., according to the foundation charter)? Or did the three differ, even if only slightly, as some scholars claim (see Constable, following section)?151 The waqfiyya of the Gh−riyya complex may shed some light on this point.

This text, describing the building as a kh«n, strengthens the view that the borders between the terms wak«la and kh«n were blurred. But the detailed descriptions seem to indicate that the kh«n was in fact only one of the components of the wak«la, which also included an indigo dye house and an apartment unit. The whole tends to confirm the impression given by the term Kh«n alWak«la—the kh«n of the wak«la—and suggests that the paralleling of the two terms made by van Berchem (see above, p. 33) should be discarded.153

In addition to the description of the various structures making up the complex erected by Sultan Q«n·−h alGh−r» (d. 922AH/AD1516) in Cairo (Alhamzeh 1993, p. 29), its waqfiyya includes descriptions of structures immobilized as sources of income for the upkeep of the complex. Among the latter, the description of Wak«la alNakhla (Wak«la al-Gh−r»), located behind the kh«nq«h (residence for Sufis) and mausoleum, is noteworthy. It was translated by Alhamzeh (1993, pp. 103–105, footnote 88). This urban structure is described as follows: 152

Numerous waqf inscriptions from Iraq have also been published. A good example is that of Madrasa alMirj«niyya in Baghdad, a madrasa-mosque founded in 758AH/AD1357 by the am»r Mirj«n b. ‘Abd All«h b. ‘Abd al-Ra¯m«n al-Sult«n» al-¬ljatāī (d. 775AH/

… [The khān is located] on the right as one goes from al-Jar«bsh»n to the Azhar Mosque.This façade is built in solid, white and red ashlar stone. It has three gateways. One of them is an entrance to the new kh«n which has a 150

Two commercial structures founded by Q«ytb«y in Cairo include the term wak«la in their foundation inscriptions. The first is at al-Azhar and dates to 882AH/AD1477, the second is at B«b al-Na·r and dates to 885AH/AD1480–81. The third line of the latter, for example, reads (CIA, Égypte, pp. 495–496, no. 325): ... ‫ ﺑﺎﻧﺸﺎء هﺬﻩ اﻟﻮآﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﺒﺎرآﺔ اﻟﺴﻌﻴﺪة وﻣﺎ ﺑﺒﺎﻃﻨﻬﺎ وﻇﺎهﺮهﺎ وأﻋﻼهﺎ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻤﺴﺎآﻦ اﻟﻌﺪﻳﺪة‬... 151 It is worthwhile to note the parallel confusion of the terms kh«nq«h, rib«³ and z«wiya, as discussed by D.P. Little (1991). 152 This text is quoted verbatim from Alhamzeh, including the bracketed sections, footnote and illustration numbers, as well as the underlined text.

153

It should be kept in mind that it was also during al-Gh−r»’s reign that the famous kh«n popularly known as Kh«n al-Khal»l» in Cairo was founded, but officially called a qay·ariyya. J.M. Rogers believes that this new foundation replaced an older kh«n of the eighth/fourteenth century (J.M. Rogers, ‘al-Όāhira’, EI2, iv, p. 435). It could be assumed, according to its official title and function, that the foundation served as an enclosed market, which, as in the case of the S−q al-Qa³³«n»n in Jerusalem, also included lodging for merchants.

34

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai AD1374).154 The waqfìyya inscription, divided into six sections, is placed on the walls of the mu·alla (prayer hall). Among the properties immobilized as waqf, the inscription lists four kh«n«t and half [of another] kh«n, one of them built by Mirj«n and located at al-Badriyya (Kh«n Mirj«n); another kh«n, new and also built by the founder, located at Mashra‘a (Kh«n Urtm«, ‘the vaulted kh«n’); a kh«n at ®alba with 52 rooms (¯ujra); a kh«n called al-Jaw«r» at al-Qa·r on the west side of the Tigris and Kh«n al-Z«wiya with its surroundings [?, mad«r]155 at Khal»l«t (Massignon 1912, pp. 12–14). The properties endowed also appear in the foundation inscription over the entrance of Kh«n Urtm« (Massignon 1912, pp. 24– 26):

et les siens, les bons, les purs, et ses compagnons. Écrit par celui qui a besoin de la miséricorde de son Maître, A¯mad Sh«h al Naqq«sh, surnommé “Calame d’or”. Que Dieu lui pardonne ses péchés!

The inscription lists both urban and rural kh«ns as part of the endowed properties immobilized for the upkeep of the Madrasa al-Mirj«niyya in Baghdad. It means that at least part of the rural inns generated income, but this was most probably achieved by collecting taxes from merchants and non-Muslim guests, not necessarily compromising the charitable nature of the establishment. Further examples of waqfiyy«t in which urban kh«ns are part of the endowed properties could be adduced,157 but as they all deal with urban inns their inclusion would not be germane to this discussion.

‫ ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ ﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ اﻟﺨﻤﺪ ﷲ رب اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻤﻴﻦ وﺻﻠﻰ‬156(1–2) ‫اﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﻴﺮ ﺧﻠﻘﻪ ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﻨﺒﻰ وﺁﻟﻪ وﺻﺤﺒﻪ اﺟﻤﻌﻴﻦ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺨﺎن‬ ‫ﻣﻦ اﻧﺸﺎء ذى اﻟﻌﻤﻞ اﻟﻤﺒﺮور واﻟﺴﻌﻰ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻮر ﻣﺮﺟﺎن ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ‬ ‫اﷲ ﺑﻦ ﻋﺒﺪ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻧﻰ[ اﻻوﻟﺠﺎﻳﺘﻰ وﻗﻔﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺪرﺳﺔ‬ ‫( واﻟﻨﺼﻒ ﻟﻠﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ وﺗﻞ‬3) ‫اﻟﻤﺮﺟﺎﻧﻴﺔ ودار اﻟﺸﻔﺎء ﺑﺒﺎب اﻟﻐﺮﺑﻪ‬ ‫دﺣﻴﻢ وﻣﺰرﻋﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺼﺮاة وﺑﺴﺎﺗﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﻤﺨﺮﺑﻴﺔ وﺑﺴﺎﺗﻴﻦ ﺑﻘﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﺒﺰل‬ ‫( رﺑﺎط ﺟﻠﻮﻻ اﻟﻤﻌﺮوف ﺑﻘﺰل رﺑﺎط‬4) ‫واﻟﺮادﻣﺎز وﺧﺮم اﺑﺎد‬ ‫ورزﻳﻦ ﺣﻮى وﻧﺼﻒ دورى وﺑﺴﺎﺗﻴﻦ ﺑﺒﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎ وﺑﻮهﺮﻳﺰ‬ ‫( ﺑﺎﻟﺤﻠﺒﺔ وارﺑﻊ ﺧﺎﻧﺎت‬5) ‫وﺑﺎﻟﺒﻨﺪﻧﻴﺠﻴﻢ وﺧﺎن ودآﺎآﻴﻦ‬ ‫ودآﺎآﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﻮهﺮﻳﺔ وﺧﺎن ﺑﺎﻟﺠﺎﻧﺐ اﻟﻐﺮﺑﻰ ودآﺎن آﺎﻏﺪ ﺑﺎﻟﺤﺮﻳﻢ‬ ‫( ﻣﺤﺪود وﻣﺸﺮوح ﻓﻰ اﻟﻮﻗﻔﻴﺔ وﻗﻔًﺎ ﺻﺤﻴﺤًﺎ ﺷﺮﻋ ًﻴّﺎ‬6) ‫آﻤﺎ هﻮ‬ ‫ وآﺎن اﻟﻔﺮاغ ﻣﻨﻪ‬... ... ‫ﺗﻘﺒﻞ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﻪ اﻟﻄﺎﻋﺎت ﻓﻰ اﻟﺪارﻳﻦ‬ ‫( وﺻﻠﻰ اﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻴﺪﻧﺎ‬7) ‫ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺘﻴﻦ وﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﻳﻪ اﻟﺤﻤﺪ ﷲ وﺣﺪﻩ‬ ‫ﻷﻣّﻰ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻰ اﻟﺼﺎدق وﻋﻠﻰ ﺁﻟﻪ اﻟﻄﻴﺒﻴﻦ اﻟﻄﺎهﺮﻳﻦ‬ ُ ‫ﻣﺤﻤﺪ اﻟﻨﺒﻰ ا‬ ‫وﺻﺤﺒﻪ وﺳﻠّﻢ آﺘﺒﻪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ رﺣﻤﺔ رﺑّﻪ اﺣﻤﺪ ﺷﺎﻩ اﻟﻨﻘﺎش‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻌﺮوف ﺑﺰرﻳﻦ ﻗﻠﻢ ﻏﻔﺮ اﷲ ذﻧﻮﺑﻪ‬

Apart from common designation and similar functions as lodges for travelers, urban and rural kh«ns are conceptually different. The documents show that the urban kh«n were mostly profitable institutions,158 usually provided with shops and storage rooms, in addition to a residential area, latrines, fountain, mosque and stable, all for the use of the merchants. The documents together with the structures still standing show that in terms of architecture the city kh«ns mainly differed from the rural inns in being at least double-storeyed structures and devoid of fortifications, unnecessary in the urban context. Apart from technical differences, the services provided and the populations catered to differ considerably. While the road inn would lodge a broad social variety— merchants, regular travelers, Muslim and non-Muslim pilgrims, mystics and others—these people would all look for different kinds of accommodation once they reached town.159

(1–2) Au nom de Dieu le Clément, le Miséricordieux. Gloire à Dieu, le maître des mondes, qu’il prie sur sa meilleure créature, le Prophète Mo¯ammad, sur sa famille et sur tous ses compagnons tout ensemble. Ce kh«n a été fondé par un homme aux actions pieuses, aux efforts dignes d’être récompensés, Mirj«n ibn ‘Abd All«h ibn ‘Abd al-Ra¯m«n al-Sol³«nî al-Awljâytî [sic]. Je l’ai constitué “waqf“ de la madrasah al-Mirj«n»yah et du “D«r al-Shif«“ [hospital, KCS] sis à B«b alGharabah. En même temps que (3) La moitié d’al Qaym[»y]ah, Tall Da¯»m, une terre à céréales sur le (canal) ¶ar«t, des jardins clos à Al Makhrabîyah, et des jardins à Qaryat al Bazal, et al R«damaz, et Khorram«b«d, (4) le rib«³ de Jalo−lä connu sous le nom de “Qizil Rib«³”, et Raz»n Jo−y, et la moitié de Do−r», et des jardins clos à Ba‘qo−b« et Bo−harîz, et à Al Bandanîjîn, et un kh«n et des boutiques (5) à Al-®albah, et quatre kh«ns avec des boutiques à Al-Jawhar»yah, et un kh«n sur la rive ouest, et la fabrique de papier à Al ®arîm, ainsi qu’il est delimité et déclaré dans la waqfîyah. Par waqf authentique, légal, public. Dieu agrée du fondateur ses actes de piété en ce monde et dans l’autre! A été achevé en l’an 760. Gloire à Dieu seul! Qu’il bénisse de sa prière et de sa paix notre seigneur Mo¯ammad le prophète arabe, ommî, sincère,

157 See the waqfiyya inscription referring to the Kh«n of the Egyptians and the Engineer’s Kh«n (CIA, Syrie du Nord, pp. 109–111; Bizri 1999, pp. 147–148). For waqfiyy«t relating to kh«n«t in Jerusalem see Lufti 1985, p. 115 (with reference to documents nos. 128, 432, 464, 624, 689, 722, 737, 738, 753), Little 1984, pp. 148, 155, 159. I would like to thank Y. Frankel for checking documents nos. 624, 722 and 738 and making the copies available for reading. See reference to waqfiyy«t pertaining urban kh«ns in Syria in Lapidus 1984, pp. 195–198. 158 On the existence of charitable kh«ns within the city, see below, p. 127. 159 It seems that a similar terminological interaction is also valid for the urban and rural fan«diq. Despite the similarities, the main conceptual differences—their profitable or charitable nature—set these two institutions apart. A waqf inscription from Ramla, dating to 301AH/AD913, published by M. Sharon in 1966, is an early case for the use of a funduq as a means of income for further causes. It reads: “… (lines 1–4) This inn (funduq) with all its boundaries and rights, its land and building, its lower and upper floor, its paths and appurtenances, and everything pertaining to it and known as part of it, including what is in it or of it, is the waqf of F«’iq al-®«zim ibn ‘Abd All«h the Sicilian, the freedman of al-Mu‘tamid ‘al« All«h. He made it a waqf, put it into mortmain and [gave it as] alms desiring to attain [thereby] the reward of All«h …(lines 9–10) This inn as a whole is put into mortmain only for its beneficiaries. It is permanently allotted in accordance with its fundamental regulations and [on the basis of] the shares assigned to the beneficiaries in whose favour it has been made a waqf for ever and ever...” (Sharon 1966, pp. 78–81).

154

Mirj«n, apparently an officer of Kurdish provenance, was twice governor of Baghdad under the Jal«yirid ruler Uways (r. 757AH/AD1356 to 775–6AH/AD1374). On the Jal«yirids see J.M. Smith Jr., ‘Djal«yir, Djal«yirid’, EI2, ii, pp. 401–402. 155 Massignon (1912, p. 14) translated mad«r as “courtil.” 156 Massignon did not indicate the start of line 2.

35

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m 3.2. The Western Sources

The same circumstance was witnessed by the author in Alexandria (Frescobaldi, Viaggio, pp. 83–84; Visit, p. 42):

The previous section, on the Arabic sources, showed the use of terminology by Arabic writers, in literature and in official documentation. The works consulted, ranging from the tenth century to the late fifteenth, help to clarify the development of the terminology of urban and rural inns in Islamic lands, from early appearances in the literary language, to its use during the Mamluk period in official, popular and literary texts.

... And when they make their prayers, all the Christian Franks are locked in a building called a Cane, and the keeper of the cane locks them in, and this name comes that we are cani (Dogs)…

Bertrandon de La Broquière, counsellor and esquire of Philippe le Bon, Duke of Burgundy, journeyed in the Levant at the Duke’s request during the years 1432 and 1433.

The present section has a different purpose. It is not a systematic survey of literary passages, nor a detailed discussion of linguistic transformation. The sources referred to range from the late fourteenth century to the second half of the seventeenth and are only a small part of the works consulted in the writing of the Gazetteer (Chapter 5). They contribute to our understanding of contemporary popular usage, as well as the definition of terms as perceived by foreigners. The advantage of these being outsiders is not only that they were not biased by traditional usages of terminology as Arabic authors might have been, but that they were usually learning the terms for the first time, in their contemporary application.

On his way from Palestine to the Sinai in order to visit St. Catherine’s, La Broquière stopped at one of the kh«n«t li’l-sab»l. He wrote (La Broquière, Voyage, pp. 18–19; Travels, pp. 98–99): And from there [the valley of Hebron], we traversed a great valley, near which, as they say, is the mountain whereon St. John The Baptist performed his penitence. Thence we crossed a desert country, and lodged in one of those houses which they call Kan. This is a dwelling made through charity for lodging in shade the passersby during their journey. From that place we came to Gaza…161

Niccolò da Poggibonsi, an Italian traveler who visited the Levant between the years 1346–1350 and was thus a contemporary of Ibn Ba³³−³a and al-ΚUmar», noted the term used for inns:

La Broquière kept the designation kan for the rural inns near Damascus (La Broquière, Voyage, pp. 53–54; Travels, pp. 129, 157). As for urban contexts, the following passage referring to a commercial warehouse (a wak«la?) in Damascus is instructive:

Coming out from Rama on the way to Jerusalem, one proceeds in a south easterly direction as far as an inn, called a Khan, and then begins to ascend… (Niccolò da Poggibonsi, p. 7)

In Damascus there is a house where the merchants deposit their goods for safety, and they call it Kan Berkoc [Barq−q], which the so-called Tamburlant [Timurlang] preserved, while he set the rest [of the city] on fire, out of respect for this Berkoc ... This Berkoc was a courageous man, and is still renowned in this country. And I believe he was from the kingdom of France, because he had fleurs-de-lis carved on a stone of the abovementioned house, and it seems that they [the fleurs-de-lis] were made when the house was first built ... (La Broquière, Voyage, pp. 35–37)162

In another passage, referring to the inn at al-‘Azariya between Bethany and Jericho, da Poggibonsi did not use the term kh«n, but characterized the structure as an inn “after the Saracen fashion.”(Niccolò da Pogibonsi, p. 71). The “Saracen fashion” was definitely the main characteristic of the kh«n, in comparison to the European fondaci. Niccolò Frescobaldi, an Italian traveling in 1384, writes that the cane was found both in cities and on the roads. In writing on his approach to the Promised Land from Sinai after visiting St. Catherine’s, Frescobaldi speaks of the cane where his party stayed outside Gaza, and of that inside the town, where they were locked in for several days:

On the other hand, non-Muslim urban inns are systematically designated ostels. La Broquière refers to an “ostel dudit Jennevois” where his party took lodging; bar»d station of al-Salqa (see al-‘Umar» above), where the am»r Y−nus al-Daw«d«r had a kh«n erected a few years later? 161 La Broquière was referring either to the bar»d station at Umm L«kis, where the existence of a kh«n is not confirmed or, as suggested in the Gazetteer, to the kh«n at al-Sukkariya (Entry no. 19) not far off. Ch. Schefer, publisher of his Voyages, also believed that the traveler meant the kh«n at al-Sukkariya (La Broquière, Voyage, p. 19, n. 1). 162 Johnes’ English translation of this passage is too loose. It reads: “There is a khan in the town, appropriated as a deposit and place of safety to merchants and their goods. It is called Khan Berkot, from its having originally been the residence of a person of that name. For my part, I believe that Berkot was a Frenchman; and what inclines me to this opinion is, that on a stone of the house are carved flowers de luce, which appear as ancient as the walls” (La Broquière, Voyage, p. 113). Schefer mentioned Thevenot as an additional source for the use of the fleur-de-lis in Damascene architecture (La Broquière, p. 37, footnote 1). Thevenot, however, was referring to a pair of carved fleur-de-lis flanking one of the city gates. See Thevenot 1687, p. 21. On this motif (first used as a heraldic blazon by N−r al-Dīn al-Zankī, d. 565AH/AD1174) and its appearance in coinage and in Syrian Islamic architecture, see Mayer 1933, pp. 22–24 and Hertzfeld 1942, pp. 10–11, respectively.

We reloaded our beasts and in the evening we reached a khan, a little outside Gaza, and we had taken ten days to come from St. Catherine’s to Gaza; which city is on the confines of Egypt and the land of promise… In that city we were put in a khan (cane), at the entrance to the town, where we were shut up for several days much to our discomfiture; indeed our interpreter did say that the grand interpreter had maltreated him, and that he wished to get it out of us; so we ransomed ourselves for twelve ducats. (Frescobaldi, Viaggio, pp. 133–135; Visit, p.66)160

160

Is Frescobaldi referring to an inn immediately outside Gaza, like Kh«n al-§«hir outside Jerusalem (see above, p. 96), or to the previous

36

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai to an “ostel d’un Grec,” also in Damascus, where wine was available (La Broquière, Voyage, pp. 67, 79–80), as well as to a non-Muslim inn in Bursa (La Broquière, Voyage, p. 131).

The English traveler William Biddulph, traveling a year later, refers to the reasons for buildings these kh«ns on the route to Damascus: … all the way (until we came within ten miles of Damascus) is a Desart, un-inhabited, and a Theivish way; onely there are erected in the way certayne Canes to lodge in. But if they bring not provision with them both for man and horse, and some Quilt of Pillow to sleepe on, the hard stones must be their Bed, and the Aire their Supper: for some of their Canes are nothing but stone wals to keepe out Theeeves [sic].165 In Cities they have very stately Canes, but not for Travellers, but for themselves to dwell in; for every rich man calleth his house a Cane. But the Canes that stand in high wayes, are in Charitie erected by great men, for the protection of Travellers; but most of them are very badly kept, and are worse than Stables… (Biddulph, Letter, p. 1346)

Once north of Antioch he changed the designation of the inns to caravansarai: And from there [Antioch] we left, and took lodging at a distant place, in a small karvanssera, which are buildings in the manner of the kans in Syria.... (La Broquière, Voyage, pp. 89–90, 101)

La Broquière uses the term karvansera/carvansera/ carvassera also for Islamic inns of Anatolia, both rural (Voyage, p. 123; Travels, p. 198) and urban, such as the inn in Kütahya, where the author had the unfortunate experience of being robbed and accused of espionage (La Broquière, Voyage, 127–129; Travels, pp. 201–203).

Biddulph’s contrasting description of the rural and urban kh«ns is noteworthy. On the roads these structures were used both by “great men in their Travels” and by “ordinary Travellers and their Horses”; but the “stately Canes“ in the cities were “not for Travellers”—they were in fact “houses.”

The application of the term caravansarai to the inns of Anatolia is found again in the itinerary of Marchand Basile, a Russian pilgrim traveling in 1465–1466 (Marchand Basile, p. 244), who also used it in the Syrian context:

Apparently at some point during the Ottoman period the term kh«n went back to its Persian roots as a designation for “a house,” “a dwelling,” but now probably more specifically with reference to courtyard structures. Even now a series of Ottoman farmhouses in Palestine are called kh«n,166 even though they never functioned as inns and were, from the first, private dwellings. Biddulph is thus an important marker for this renewed application.

Three days set Damascus apart from the [Daughters of] Jacob Bridge. A very large caravansérail stands near this bridge, and that is where one rests. (Marchand Basile, p. 248).

Still, there is no doubt that the term kh«n was the common designation during the Mamluk period. Mariano da Siena, traveling some thirty years before the Russian pilgrim, adds some useful comments:

However, Biddulph’s observation on the nature of the urban kh«ns can not be taken as generic. Otherwise, how can one explain his accommodation at one of the Damascene kh«ns?

Leaving from here [from the River Jordan], we walked for nine miles in the Desert, at the foot of a high mountain called Quarantana [Qarantal, near Jericho]. At its foot there is a fortress, which is called Elcane, and it is an enclosure for beasts. Here we rested for a while…

… and [we] tooke up our Lodging in the middle of the Citie, at a Cane called in Morisco, Cane Nebbe, that is, The Cane of the Prophet; but by the Turkes; Cane Haramin, where we hired three Chambers for our money, and our Servants bought our meate, and dressed it themselves, as they did also all the rest of the way where wee could get any thing… (Bidduplh, p. 1347)167

So we climbed down from that mountain to a place called Elcane, mentioned above; and that is how all the places where the pilgrims retreat are called. (Mariano da Siena, pp. 174–176)

Aquilante Rocchetta, also from Italy, made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in 1599. His itinerary was published in Palermo in 1630 and has much information on both road and urban inns from Syria to Egypt. He visited a series of kh«ns, some still standing at the present day, and used the term can for them—Can Tuman, Can Seraclep [Sar«qib],163 Can Sciagun [Shaykh−n],164 Can Ascia [®isy«], Can Setel [al-Burayj, Sauvaget 1940, pp. 4–5, note 24] and others (Rocchetta 1630, pp. 70–71, 80–82, 94, 99–100).

From the sources so far examined, it emerges that elcane, can, or merely cane, were thus popular terms, frequently used in Western travelogues and itineraries. They mainly appear in relation to the Levant, while the various spellings for caravansarai were mostly applied to inns north of Antioch. References to funduq are rare. Did the term in fact disappear from popular usage, and is thus not reflected in the travelers’ accounts? Were the fan«diq

In the many detailed passages that refer to kh«ns, Rocchetta never uses terms such as funduq, fondaco or caravanserai. From his phonetic way of spelling proper names, it can be assumed that he made some effort to reflect the local designations.

165

See the description of the kh«n at Qtayfe, for example: “…in the middle of this Cane, there is a faire large Fountayne of water, of hewed stones foure square, wherein there is exceeding good water for Travellers to drinke, and Chambers for their Lodging: but if they will have any Beds, they must bring them with them, or sleepe on the hard ground, as most men that travell that way are wont to doe…” (Biddulph, Letter, p. 1346) 166 For a series of such “kh«ns,” see Stern 1997, pp. 155–175. 167 See above for similar development in Jerusalem’s Kh«n al-Sultan (p. 33).

163

Sar«qib (Lat 35º51’49“N,/Long 36º48’2“E) is located on the route between Homs and Aleppo. 164 Kh«n Shaykh−n (Lat 35º25’60“N/Long 36º37’60“E) is on the route between Homs and Aleppo, south of Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘m«n.

37

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m solely found in the cities, as indicated by the literary and epigraphic evidence discussed above?

every day you stay there, one two or three Aspres, according to the rate that is set; you may hire a Warehouse for goods in the same manner. These Hans are very well built, and the chief Walls are of Free-stone. The fairest in Constantinople, is that which called Valida Hhane, the Han of the Sultana Mother, because the Mother of the present Grand Signior built it: It is a very convenient place for strangers, who always find a House ready to hire, and at an easie rate, so that having a Quilt, some Coverings, Carpets and Cushions, you have a furnished House to lodge in; and these Hans yield a very considerable revenue to those to whom they belong. (Thevenot 1665, pp. 48–49; English translation after Thevenot 1686, p. 26)

Anselme [Jean] Adorno’s itinerary dated to 1470–1471, in which he refers to the inn near Jubb Y−suf, helps us reject the above possibilities. He wrote: [11 October 1470] We left the Sea of Galilee at the hour of vespers and arrived that night at a village sitting on a mountain at present called Jeheposep [Jubb Y−suf], but once, I believe, Sichen or Sychar. We were accommodated outside that village, at a stone’s throw away from it, in a very beautiful funduq, all in marble, recently built. The fountain of Jacob is found on the road, at the funduq’s gate, where a Samaritan woman gave the Lord Jesus to drink. Its water is absolutely perfect. The well is dressed or made in polished marble and the edge marvelously ornamented with carved marble. The Muslims (Les Maures) revere this well, which they consider sacred and do not allow the Christians to get near. So we went there at night, in silence, and could barely contain our thirst; for this water, which we drank out of devotion, was excellent. (Adorno, p. 323)

The road inns of Persia are also Kervanserais, described as “much finer and more commodious than those of Turkey.” (Thevenot 1687, p. 69) But the Syrian inns, urban and rural, are all called Hans (Thevenot 1687, pp. 25–32).169 In addition, when speaking of the kh«ns of Aleppo, Thevenot provides important testimony on their use by Europeans, as well as to their appearance: There are many fair Khans in Aleppo, and among others the great Khan, where the Consuls of England and France, and many merchants lodge. The Portal of it is very lovely, and hath Roses cut upon it as delicately, as can be done in any place of Christendom. It hath two great Iron-gates, covered all over with Nails, and though they be half a foot thick, yet there is a hole quite thorough, which, they say was made by a Musket-shot, fired by one of the Soldiers of Asan Basha, when he was in rebellion against the Grand Seignior. By these Gates you enter into a very large Court, in the middle whereof there is a little Mosque in figure of a Dome covered with Lead; the truth is this, the Mosque does some Injury to the beauty of the Khan. (Thevenot 1687, p. 32)170

Adorno not only refers to a funduq, but notes that it was a new one, built on the route to Damascus, next to a holy site. His spelling of the term according to Arabic phonetics (“très beau fondouk”), not in the Italianized manner fondaco, no doubt reflects what he heard. It means that in a popular context, even at the end of the fifteenth century, funduq was still being used in a rural context. Unfortunately, the foundation inscription of this construction has not been recovered, and Adorno’s reference to it as being recently built cannot be confirmed.168 The French traveler “Monsieur de Thevenot“ provides important evidence from the second half of the seventeenth century for the different uses of a few of our terms. On his journey from Bursa to Smyrna he visited various inns, and defined them as Kervanserais (Thevenot 1686, p. 90), a term in use at least since the fifteenth century (see above, p. 37). But when referring to the urban inns of Turkey, he called them Han.

Thevenot’s memoirs illustrate the architectural lexicon acquired by a westerner journeying in the East during the seventeenth century and reflect the popular speech of the time. He evidently learned the terms from common local usage rather than by examining inscriptions or endowment documents. His accounts, together with those of the authors previously quoted, put the terms into context, showing, among others, that kh«ns were found both on the routes and in the cities; that their internal arrangement could change even when presenting the basic general plan; that Muslims and Westerners usually used the same inns although they avoided close contact and were segregated in separate parts of the kh«n; that even people of some status such as European Consuls would lodge in the same places as merchants, and that these places were not built to cater to them, but were first of all Muslim institutions, usually provided with a mosque.

There are also many great buildings in the City, in form of the Cloysters of Monks, which they call Hans; they consist for the most part of a large square Court, in the middle whereof there is a Fountain with a great Bason, and Arches all round the Court, under which, all along the Walls, are the Doors of the Chambers, which are all alike, and have each of them a Chimney: these Arches support a Gallery that ranges all round the Court, as the [gallery] below; and this Gallery has also Chambers on the side, like to those that are underneath; these Hans are for lodging of Merchants. If you would have a lodging room there, you must speak to the Porter of the Han, who keeps all the Keys, and for opening it, as they call it, you give him a Piastre, or half Piastre; and for

169

Among Thevenot’s descriptions are detailed references to various kh«ns mentioned by earlier authors. He refers to Qu³ayf« (Thevenot 1687, p. 26); ®isy«—for which he gives an even more detailed account than Rocchetta’s (Thevenot 1687, p. 27); Kh«n Shaykh−n (Thevenot 1687, p. 28), Han Hherte [?]; Marrah’s kh«n, Kh«n Sar«qib, Kh«n ²−m«n, and others (Thevenot 1687, pp. 29–30). 170 On the kh«ns of Aleppo and their designation as Cani, see the account of the Italian pilgrim from Bergamo, Paolo Pesenti, who visited that city in 1612 (Pesenti, p. 19).

168

It is worth keeping in mind that the fourteenth century traveler Ibn Ba³³−³a had already referred to a structure at that site, denoting it a z«wiya (see above, p. 28). It seems, however, that the two sources refer to the same courtyard building, indicating that the inn at Jubb Y−suf was built earlier than stated by Adorno, and demonstrating once more that Ibn Ba³³−³a was not always accurate when using the term z«wiya.

38

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai 4. Previous Research and Problems in Interpretation

contributes to the series of catachreses found in scholarship regarding rural and urban inns.

After having surveyed varied primary sources, it is useful to evaluate some of the secondary sources dealing with the terminology of the Islamic inns. The studies fall into two main categories, the first found in general discussions on the inns of the Islamic lands, the second in works on terminology and etymology.

Elisséeff’s correlation of the term kh«n with funduq solely in the urban context is another illustration of oversimplification. The term funduq, whose etymology has been much discussed and attributed to various Greek words such as pandocheion (πανδοχε²om = inn) (Le Tourneau, ‘Funduª’, EI2, ii, p. 945), foundax/fundicus (φυύνδαξ = entrepôt) (Gazagnadou 1986, pp. 165–167) and pontikos (ποντικοζ= port; maritime/port installation) (Ahrweiler 1994, pp. 195–196),172 was used in Syria in both urban and rural contexts at least until the late twelfth century.173 Only later was it restricted to urban structures. In Saljuq Anatolia the use of funduq was rare, but the word appears in the Syriac portion of the foundation inscription at Hekim Han dated 615AH/AD1218 (see p. 20), simultaneously with the term kh«n in the Arabic section of the inscription.174

The picture that emerges from the various studies is not homogeneous. In fact, the first sentence of the entry ‘Kh«n’ in the Encyclopaedia of Islam predicts the many problems such studies involve. N. Elisséeff writes (EI2, iv, p. 1010): A word of Persian origin designating on the one hand a staging-post and lodging [see also MANZIL] on the main communication routes, on the other a warehouse, later a hostelry [see also FUNDUЖ] in the more important urban centres.

This opening immediately refers the reader to manzil and funduq, associating both terms with specific contexts, rural and urban respectively, thus creating a system of values that suffers from oversimplification. Understanding the term kh«n and its many aspects involves the following of changes in both the official and the popular vocabulary of the many Islamic regions, as suggested by the evidence presented in the previous sections. The same is true with regard to the term manzil, which although it is mostly used in a rural context (see above, p. 26), is also applied to urban structures.

Hautecoeur and Wiet (1932, pp. 108–109), in their Les Mosquées du Caire, commented on this gradual superimposition of terms by saying: Trois termes [funduq, kh«n and wakala] ont servi à designer le caravansérail … L’épigraphie, plus precise que les auteurs, va nous permettre d’en delimiter l’emploi dans le temps et d’en montrer l’aire d’expansion. Le plus ancien est foundouk, également emprunté au grec, qui passa dans la langue italienne du moyen âge. Les Génois et les Vénetiens possédaient à Alexandrie des fondachi … On trouve foundouk, pour la première fois, dans une inscription de Syrie, au nom de Saladin: comme kaisariya, le mot a la fortune d’aller jusqu’au Maroc, mais, de toute façon, l’épigraphie ne le connaît plus à partir du VIIIe (XIVe) siècle et nous n’en avons aucun exemple égyptien, bien que Makrizi énumere cinq établissements auxquels il donne ce nom et dont quatre datent du siècle precedent. On pourrait se demander si le mot n’est pas tombé en desuetude précisément à cause des fondachi européens. Um mot persan, khan, allait le remplacer, très frequent dans les inscriptions d’Égypte, de Syrie, d’Asie Mineure et de

The English traveler Burckhardt, in his book Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, documented such an example (1822, p. 280): There being a constant passage though Feik from the Haouran to Tabaria and Akka, more than thirty houses in the town have open Menzels for the entertainment of strangers of every description, and supply their cattle, gratis. The landlords have an allowance from the government for their expenses, which is made by a deduction from the customary taxes; and if the Menzel is much frequented, as in the case of that of the Sheikh, no Miri at all is collected from the landlord, and the Pasha makes him also an yearly allowance in money, out of the Miri of the village.171

172

In her Housing the Stranger in the Mediterranean World, O.R. Constable (2003) reconsiders the various interpretations for the term funduq and presents new data that strengthen the correlation of the Arabic term to the Greek word pandocheion. Constable inspected an early Arabic translation of the Gospel of Luke preserved at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai (Arabic Ms 72 and Ms 74), dated 284AH/AD896, in which the passage referring to the parable of the Good Samaritan translates the Greek term pandocheion as funduq. In addition, a ninth century translation of a second century Greek treatise on dream interpretations uses the term funduq to translate pandocheion, also adding that funduqs were the same as kh«ns. She also cites the fact that lexicographers from the tenth century onwards referred to this term as having originated among the people of Syria (Constable 2003, p. 40ff). 173 The earliest epigraphic evidence of the term funduq was found in Ramla and consists of a twenty-line long endowment text inscribed on a marble slab (301AH/AD913; see above, footnote 159). For the latest use for rural inns, see the inscription of Kh«n al-‘Ar−s, pp. 6-7. 174 In the Maghreb the term funduq persisted until later times. See Le Tourneau, ‘Funduª’, EI2, ii, p. 945. For a general survey on the origins and applications of the hispanized terms alhóndiga and fonda see L.T. Balbás, “Las Alhóndigas Hispanomusulmanas y el Corral del Carbón de Granada,” Al-Andalus 11 (1946), pp. 447–480.

Misapplications in terminology by modern scholars are common, mainly because the differences in the official and unofficial usage of terms have passed unnoticed by most. Elisséeff’s entry in the Encyclopaedia of Islam does not speak of these difficulties, and thus indirectly 171

In his memoirs Burckhardt also mentions the term ma±«fa for the same purpose, as in the following passage (Burckhardt 1822, p. 384): “Their custom [in Kerak] of entertaining strangers is much the same as at Szaltz; they have eight Menzels, or Medhafe (in Arabic), for the reception of guests, six of which belong to the Turks, and two to the Christians; their expenses are not defrayed by a common purse: but whenever a stranger takes up his lodging at one of the Medhafes, one of the people present declares that he intends to furnish that day’s entertainment, and it is then his duty to provide a dinner or supper, which he sends to the Medhafe, and which is always in sufficient quantity for a large company.”

39

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Mésopotamie, aux VIIe (XIIIe) et VIIIe (XIVe) siècles ... Enfin, une inscription de Tripoli, datée de 736 (1336), parle d’un khan, communément appelé l’hôtel de l’ancienne wakala: c’est, cette fois, un mot d’origine arabe. L’inscription nous révèle ainsi que wakala est une métonymie pour dar el-wakala. Très employée à l’époque fatimite peut-être proscrite par leurs successeurs ayyoubides, l’expression retrouve sa faveur à partir du viiie (XIVe) siècle, et passe chez les voyageurs français sous la forme okel ou okelle.

pinpoint nuances between the two categories. O.R. Constable, on the other hand, has suggested that despite the “considerable functional overlap,” during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries “the relationship between the funduq and the kh«n began to change.” She writes (2001, p. 146): The catalyst for this shift may lie with the arrival of European merchants and Crusaders in Islamic cities along the Mediterranean, together with the subsequent introduction of another cognate hostelry, the fondaco. The presence and commercial needs of these Westerners led to a new understanding of the funduq, fondaco, and kh«n in the minds of both Christians and Muslims.

The development described by Hautecoeur and Wiet is well attested: they had in mind not only the foundation inscription from Kh«n al-‘Ar−s dated 577AH/AD1181–2 (see p. 6), a classic example of a rural inn in Syria, but also the many epigraphic examples from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries testifying to the new trend of using kh«n. On the other hand, their perception of the term wak«la as a parallel to the first two seems mistaken, especially when solely exemplified by the inscription from the mosque of ²aynāl in Tripoli, which reads “the kh«n known as the old D«r al-Wak«la.” As noted before (see above, p. 33), the expression does not necessarily show that kh«n and wak«la were parallel, but rather refers to a function that building used to fulfill, i.e., that of warehouse and house/office of the local w«kil.

Constable also noted that Muslim fan«diq became “increasingly devoted to urban commerce and manufacture … contained shops, warehouses, and workshops as well as living space for long-term residents” while kh«ns “were more often found on the outskirts of the city center.” (Constable 2001, p. 154) According to her, the funduq was the “older JudaeoMuslim version” of the urban hostelry, accommodating Muslim and Jewish traders, and providing storage facilities. It was frequently run for profit, endowing funds for pious purposes, even though it could also have functioned as a charitable institution. The Italian term fondaco (and other westernized variations of funduq), designated two different institutions, both of a lucrative nature: “the Christian version in Muslim-ruled Egypt and Syria” and “another new Christian version … in the Crusader states.” The first version, the fondaci based in the Islamic regions, targeted Christian merchants, providing for their needs in commercial centres, but they were owned and maintained by the Muslim government. They provided these merchants with safety and a familiar atmosphere, while assuring the Muslim government of total control over the foreign community by having it contained and monitored within walls, including nocturnal confinement.175 The buildings were still called funduq in Arabic speech, but they were of quite a different nature, mainly in administration and purpose. Constable thinks there is a possibility that this Christian version of the funduq was actually an importation of a style of residential and commercial enclave known from Muslim and Christian Spain (Constable 2001, pp. 148– 149).176 The second version, the fondaci established in Frankish cities, had a similar purpose of catering to the Christian merchant, but did not survive the collapse of the Crusader Kingdom in 1291. It functioned in a different way, as naturally the foreign merchants did not have to be confined within the walls, whether for safety or for government control and taxing. As Constable says, “the institution was devoted to mercantile convenience, residential needs, and commercial profit.” (Constable 2001, p. 151) Some of the buildings once used as Frankish fondaci were adapted into kh«ns, still offering

The process is thus clear; while the term kh«n kept on expanding its applications, the term funduq was gradually restricted to the city. Less clear is the degree of interchangeability between these two terms in this restricted setting. In the entry ‘funduq’ in Amin and Ibrahim’s Architectural Terms in Mamluk Documents (1990, p. 86), the term is defined by quoting an unidentified Arabic source with reference to a funduq in Mamluk Egypt: [The funduq] has three gates, one of them—the great one—is in the southern side. It has a double door from which one enters into a vestibule (dihliz) and gains access to the above-mentioned funduq’s courtyard, surrounded by storerooms, sixty six in number, each storeroom being closed by a pair of doors and provided with sanitary installations and lavatories. In front of the above-mentioned storerooms, an arcade runs around the above-mentioned funduq. A pair of doors closes the second gate on the western side, by which one enters the funduq in question. In the funduq’s courtyard are found a well of spring water, a wooden water wheel, a fountain, a basin for ritual ablutions (m»d«’a), sanitary facilities and lavatories. Outside the southern side of the funduq there are eight shops, two benches (maq‘ad«ni) and six storerooms. The upper level of this funduq has three entrances, one of them on the qibla side, from which one enters into a vestibule and obtains access to steps leading to the upper storey (tabaqa) containing thirty-nine storerooms. The second entrance (which has steps) faces the seaside and leads to the first storey with [its] fifty-five apartments (manzil), all provided with sanitary facilities and lavatories. The third entrance leads to a vestibule with steps climbing to the remaining [section] of the abovementioned first storey, containing twenty five apartments and the roofs for this [funduq?].

175

Their doors were locked from the outside at night and during times of Muslim prayer (Constable 2001, p. 150). 176 Alas residential enclaves, see Heyd 1975, pp. 113–114, Document II, for the sixteenth century kh«n in Safed, where the Jewish community lived.

The description depicts a type of building that has much in common with urban kh«ns, making it difficult to

40

Terminology: From Kh«n to Caravansarai residential and commercial facilities, but under Muslim rule. Constable refers to Kh«n al-Ifranj and Kh«n alSh−na in Acre, both most probably sited on the earlier Venetian and Pisan fondaci (Constable 2001, p. 152). But, as the author herself notes, kh«ns were already part of Acre’s urban scheme during the Crusader period. Ibn Jubayr’s testimony is witness to this (see above, p. 27).

time and where facilities were provided for the sale of their wares. (N. Elisséeff, 'khān', EI2, iv, p. 1011)

Kh«n, in the above explanation, is actually qualified as an urban institution, for the functions ascribed to it do not belong to road inns. Here Elisséeff not only restricts the meaning of caravansarai, but also somewhat contradicts the introductory lines of the same entry. Sims, in her reference to caravansarai, also referred solely to the urban kh«ns: “Within the city the caravanserai is known as a kh«n, and it required less fortification but more space for storage and commercial transactions.” (Sims 1978, p. 88) 179

The conversion of fan«diq into kh«n«t also took place in Muslim cities, such as Cairo. Constable notes that while in the late fourteenth century Ibn Duqm«q (d. 809AH/AD1406; J. Pedersen, EI2, iii, p. 756) listed fortythree fan«diq and only one kh«n in his description of Cairo (the fourth volume of his Kit«b al-Inti·«r li-w«si³at ‘iqd al-am·«r), al-Maqr»z» noted nineteen fan«diq and eleven kh«n«t only a few decades later, including Kh«n al-Masr−r which was originally founded as Funduq alMasr−r in the late twelfth century (Constable 2001, p. 154). Were these different institutions? Was the new kh«n mainly designed for accommodation while the funduq was “associated with particular trades or types of commercial goods” as Constable suggests (2001, p. 155)?

Despite their limited comparisons, there is no doubt that Elisséeff and Sims agree that kh«n and caravansarai are not interchangeable terms. However, neither notes a significant distinction, namely, that the term caravansarai does not appear in the available epigraphic evidence or in the contemporary Arabic geographical and administrative treatises of an official nature. Kiani and Kleiss’ entry ‘caravansary’ in Encyclopaedia Iranica gives a better definition:

The act of foundation of a tomb at Damascus, dated 695AH/AD1296 (RCEA, xiii, no. 5011, p. 149) weakens Constable’s theory. It mentions the immobilization of the totality of the revenues of the kh«n that specialized in cloth (“kh«n al-mu‘add li-shughl al-aqmisha”), thus showing that kh«ns could also have been dedicated to a specific trade or craft. An earlier inscription from Damascus, dated 578AH/AD1182 (at the Mosque of Jarr«¯, see above p. 16), also deals with an urban kh«n assigned to the profession of weaving.177

the

... a building that served as the inn of the Orient, providing accommodation for commercial, pilgrim, postal, and especially official travellers. (EIr, iv, p. 798)

Kiani and Kleiss also write that the term comes from the Persian and means “lodging for caravans” (k«rw«n-sar«/sar«y), sometimes also called kh«n; the Arabic term rib«³, they say, became common in the Persian context. A later development noted in this entry is the popular designation of inns built between the late tenththirteenth/sixteenth -nineteenth centuries as k«rw«nsar«y-i Sh«h-‘abb«s» (built by Shah ‘Abb«s), even when applied to structures erected after his reign (996– 1038AH/AD1588–1629).

The case of Kh«n al-Masr−r, founded as a funduq, is of great importance, as it again raises the question whether the terms kh«n and funduq were interchangeable. Unfortunately, as long as the roles played by this inn throughout the years can not be followed, it is not possible to connect the change in terms to an actual functional differentiation.178

It is noteworthy that in the few inscriptions surviving from Iran (see above, pp. 18-19), as well as in most of the popular names of Iranian road inns, the term in use is rib«³. Even under Fitzgerald’s translation of ‘Umar Khayy«m’s quatrain “Think, in this batter’d Caravanserai, Whose portals are alternate Night and Day, How Sultan after Sultan with his Pomp, Abode his destined Hour, and went his way” lies the term rib«³, of the original Persian text (Khayy«m, Rubbay«t, p. 161).

Now, turning to a seemingly less complex problem—the confusing parallel application of the terms kh«n and caravansarai—Elisséeff’s passage is only partly illuminating: The appropriate term to describe the type of building which provided lodging for caravan traffic on the main trade routes is caravanserai… kh«n, with which it is often confused, being applied rather to an establishment where commercial travellers could lodge for a period of

In fact, even though a full corpus of Iranian inscriptions is lacking, it does not seem farfetched to suggest that while the term rib«³ was the official one, used for formal documentation and inscriptions, caravansarai was preferred in popular speech.

177

The same seems to hold true for other regions of Islam. An example is the inscription at the Eski Jami‘ at Bekshehir (RCEA, xiii, pp. 166– 167, no. 5037), dealing with its act of waqf. The urban kh«n mentioned there, kh«n al-bazz«z»na (from bazz«z, “[t]he seller of the cloths or stuffs or the like called‫[ ﺑﺰ‬bazz], in Lane I/1, p. 198), most likely belonged to the cloth merchants. 178 Constable also refers to the term wak«la, which “also began to develop in this period.” She notes a passage in al-Maqr»z» which says that “merchants from Syria arrived at the Wak«la Qaw·−n with olive and sesame oil, soap, walnuts, and other goods.” (Constable 2001, p. 155) But as noted above with reference to Hautecoeur and Wiet’s definitions, the term wak«la should not be considered as in the same category of funduq and kh«n.

In summary, it is necessary to be more careful in the choice of terms used to denote urban and rural inns. Kh«n, rib«³ and funduq had come a long way since their

179

E. Sims is very categorical when defining the term kh«n as “the urban equivalent of the caravanserai.” (Sims 1978, p. 99) She returns to this definition a few times (Sims 1978, pp. 82, 90, 100), but seems not to see any difficulty in using the Turkish variation han to refer to the rural inns in Anatolia.

41

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m first applications in Islamic architectural contexts, their meanings changed over the course of time.

altogether different meaning from its application in Saljuq Anatolia and its long-standing usage in Iran.

In the specific Mamluk context dealt with in this study, kh«n is the appropriate term to be used for rural inns, even though some unofficial sources show that funduq remained in popular usage. Rib«³, on the other hand, referred to urban lodges for Sufis, thus bearing an

If “rural kh«n” is translated into a western language, “rural inn” or “road inn” should be preferred to “caravansarai,” even though the latter is a long accepted westernized word. In effect, caravansarai is a restrictive term, referring to only one of the functions a kh«n could fulfil.

42

Chapter 3 The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns

1. Introduction

147; Constable 2003, pp. 23ff.) Byzantine pandocheia sometimes also provided charitable hospitality, unlike their Roman predecessors that functioned for profit. They were built along the roads and, like the Islamic charitable kh«ns, catered to travelers and their beasts.

The Mamluk period is known for the vast building activity undertaken throughout Egypt and Syria. Religious and secular buildings sprang up, not only modifying the architectural landscape of the main administrative centers, but also of the many localities within the Sultanate, along the routes connecting them, and in the countryside.180 The architectural output was massive, sometimes in disproportion to the real social and religious needs of the population.181 Whether seeking social and political prestige, motivated by religious feelings, or prompted by financial interests, the patrons behind this architectural boom invested large sums of money in their projects, which among others also included public charitable inns (kh«n«t li’l-sab»l)182 on the main routes of the Sultanate.

Charitable inns were also found within cities, despite the general impression that urban commercial institutions were solely lucrative enterprises.184 The fifteenth century Egyptian historian al-Maqr»z», for example, reported on the twelfth-century charitable Kh«n al-Sab»l outside B«b al-Fut−¯ in Cairo, founded by Bahā' al-D»n Ab− Sa‘»d Qar«q−sh (d. Rajab 577/November 1181) to lodge “sons of the road and [other] travellers [who were] received without charge.” (Constable 2001, p. 153; 2003, pp. 83– 84; al-Maqr»z», Khi³«³, vol. 2, p. 93)

The impulse for the erection of kh«ns, unlike the obvious purposes of religious institutions such as mosques and madrasas,183 and of public utilities like roads, water installations, etc., needs elaboration. In light of the modern concept of a road inn, the rural kh«n of the Mamluk period might be expected to be a lucrative enterprise rather than a charitable institution.

184 On the profitable nature of most urban kh«ns, see above in the Chapter 2. Kh«n Mankuwirish in Cairo (built by Rukn al-D»n Mankuwirish, d. Shaww«l 577/February 1182) is a notable example predating the Mamluk period, whose profits still went for good deeds in the fifteenth century (Constable 2001, p. 153; 2003, p. 77; al-Maqr»z», Khi³«³, vol. 2, p. 93). See also the inscription at al-Jarr«¯ mosque in Damascus, where we read about the immobilization of the income from the kh«n of the weavers in its favour (RCEA, xi, pp. 117–118, no. 4177). For the Mamluk period, we find relevant information on the status of some urban kh«ns in Egypt and Syria in the contents of endowment charters, and in waqf inscriptions of the institutions benefited. See, for example, the acts of foundation for: Murshidiyya Madrasa in Damascus, dated 650/1252–3 (RCEA, xi, pp. 233–234, no. 4350); the tomb of the am»r Sur»r b. ‘Umar al-®us«m» al-Takl»t» in Damascus, dated 695AH/AD1295–6 (RCEA, xiii, p. 149, no. 5011); the ‘Izziyya Madrasa in Damascus, dated 696AH/AD1296–1297 (RCEA, xiii, pp. 164–165, no. 5034); the Great Mosque of ®i·n al-Akr«d, dated 719AH/AD1319 (CIA, Syrie du Nord, pp. 27–29, no. 12; RCEA, xiv, pp. 137–138, no. 5413); the mausoleum of am»r Kujkun in Damascus, dated 722AH/AD1322 (RCEA, xiv, pp. 181–182, no. 5473; Mayer 1933, pp. 145–146); the ²aynal Mosque in Tripoli dated 736AH/AD1336 (see above, p. 99); the Saqraqiyya Madrasa in Tripoli, dated 760AH/AD1359 (CIA, Syrie du Nord, pp. 109–112, no. 49; Bizri 1999, pp. 146–147, no. 46); the mausoleum of Sitt al-Sha’m in Damascus, outside B«b al¶agh»r (800AH/AD1397–8), in which, among other properties endowed, is the totality of the income from the kh«n at Safed (RCEA, xviii, pp. 268–269, no. 800 019); and the waqf inscription of the Ashrafiyya Madrasa (Sultan al-Ashraf Barsb«y) dated 827AH/AD1423 in Cairo, referring not only to local kh«ns, but also to a kh«n in Damascus (CIA, Égypte, pp. 353–359, no. 247). The same process is also attested in Anatolia. The abovementioned waqf inscription of Eski J«mi‘ in Bekshehir (696AH/AD1297) lists the kh«n of the cloth merchants as one of the properties endowed in its favour (see above, footnote 177); the totality of the income of the Great Kh«n (al-kh«n al-kab»ra) of Erzerum was immobilized in favor of the Yakutiyya Madrasa (RCEA, xiv, p. 49, no. 5277). Also of great interest is the foundation inscription of Kh«n Urtm« in Baghdad (760AH/AD1358; see above, p. 104) which not only specifies its status as a waqf in favor of the Mirj«niyya Madrasa and D«r al-Shif«’ at the al-Gharaba Gate, but also the status of other lucrative properties, including six other kh«ns (RCEA, xvi, pp. 221–222, no. 6329). The arrangement is confirmed by the madrasa’s foundation inscription (Massignon 1912, pp. 12–14, pl. VIII).

The concept of charitable hostelries was not a novelty in the Middle East. According to Constable (2001, pp. 146– 180 The best source for Mamluk architecture is M. Meinecke’s Die mamlukische Architektur in Ägypten and Syrien (648AH/AD1250 bis 923AH/AD1517) published in 1992 in two volumes. The first volume discusses Mamluk architecture chronologically, the second is a list of buildings, also arranged chronologically, including both surviving structures and those for which only literary evidence is available. The list provides a brief summary of the building’s nature and patron if known, as well as primary and secondary sources containing reference to it. Meinecke’s article “Mamluk Architecture: Regional Architectural Traditions: Evolution and Interrelations,” published in 1985, is also of great importance for those dealing with this field of Islamic art and archaeology. 181 This concurs with Grabar’s argument in Grabar 1984, p. 8, but is opposed by Fernandes (1997, p. 112). 182 See Chapter 2, p. 12 for this term. 183 See Humphreys 1972, especially pp. 79–80, where he wrote: “Under the Mamluks, the major effort in buildings of prestige was devoted neither to secular structures (e.g., palaces, public baths, kh«ns and caravanserais) nor even to the grand congregational mosque per se, but rather to monuments designed to serve a variety of relatively late and theoretically subsidiary institutions in Islam—specifically those of communal mystical devotion (Kh«naq«hs, rib«³s, z«wiyas), the teaching of law and theology (madrasas), and the veneration of the departed, either saints or merely those who had striven to defend and uphold the faith (turbas, mashhads).” As for the lesser interest by the Mamluks in building congregational mosques, Humphreys, quoting O. Grabar, believes it derived from the “widening of the social base of architectural patronage,” i.e., unlike in the early Islamic period in which the erection of congregational mosques was an act of state, now it could be done by “anyone who had the means to do so.” (Humphreys 1972, pp. 91–92)

43

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m An example of a quasi-urban kh«n of charitable nature is Baybars’ construction of Kh«n al-§«hir in the immediate outskirts of Jerusalem, that followed the Sultan’s visit to the city in Jum«da II 661AH/ADApril 1263 (see above, p. 31ff.). According to ‘Izz al-D»n Mu¯ammad b. Shadd«d al-®alab» (613–684AH/AD1217–1285), an administrator under Baybars from 659AH/AD1261 (and also his biographer), Baybars built a kh«n li’l-sab»l outside the city (wa-ban« bi-kh«rij al-balad), provided it with an oven and a mill, and saw to the distribution of bread, money and shoe repairs for wayfarers spending the night at the kh«n (Ibn Shadd«d, al-A‘l«q al-kha³»ra, pp. 237– 238, see also Ibn Shadd«d, Ta’r»kh, p. 351).185

al-D»n L«j»n, viceroy of Syria during the reign of alMalik al-Ashraf Khal»l (r. 689–693AH/AD1290–1293) and himself later Sultan (r. 696–698AH/AD1296–1299), “made it a perpetual charitable endowment to the profit of all Muslims that come and go.” For its upkeep, for that of the mosque and the water installation inside the premises, the provision of oil, mats, ropes and buckets, the payment of the im«m, the mu'adhin (muezzin) and gate-keeper, as well as the distribution of alms to the poor and needy, the am»r immobilized “the totality of two shops that are inside [the kh«n], the totality of an eighth from the great kh«n located outside the J«biya Gate [a profitable urban kh«n in Damascus], and the shops around this kh«n, and its neighbouring abattoir.”

Rural inns, usually providing gratuitous services for Muslim users, also seem to have generated some income. The fourteenth century Italian traveler Lionardo Frescobaldi, for example, provides clear evidence of his expenses when staying at one of the Syrian kh«ns between Jerusalem and Damascus (Frescobaldi, Viaggio, p. 166; Visit, p. 83):

The foundation inscription from Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh, together with the inscriptions from Kh«n al-‘A³ni (631AH/AD1233–4; see p. 8), from Baybars’ Kh«n al§«hir (662AH/AD1263, see p. 32) and from Kh«n alSab»l/Inqir«t« (773AH/AD1371; p. 13),188 are instructive examples for understanding the technicalities in the patronage of charitable kh«ns, supplementing the literary sources. The details found in such documents add to the growing information on Mamluk patronage in general, a topic that has aroused much interest for many years.189 However, the various inscriptions and literary sources do not lead to a clear conclusion as to the degree of Sultanic interference in the choice of institutions endowed by his am»rs and wealthy subjects, including the background for the erection of road inns. Did the situation resemble that in Iran during the Safavid and Qajarid periods, where the evidence points to the existence of a state department of architecture that, according to Kiani and Kleiss (‘Caravansary’, E.Ir, iv, p. 798), “was specifically

…And in this journey we put up one evening at a khan, where we gave the keeper a dirhem [daremo] a piece for lodging, everyone of us…186

Less clear are the circumstances of this charge. Was it instituted by the kh«n’s patron, or did the keeper impose it for his own benefit? Was it only demanded from nonMuslims, or, charged per mount, also from Muslim merchants? Even if the kh«ns did generate a profit for the patron or the management, this did not affect the charitable nature of the institution, based on endowed income to ensure upkeep and provide free services.187 A representative example of such a system is the endowment immobilized in favor of Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh in Syria, dated 690AH/AD1291. According to the foundation inscription (see Chapter 2, p. 10; Sauvaget 1940, pp. 1–2; RCEA, xiii, pp. 98–99, no. 4946), ®us«m

188

In this example we even read (line 4) that the mats—also mentioned in the inscription from Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh—were meant for westerners (li’lgharb»). It is thus useful to read the report by Mariano da Siena (1431; pp. 121–122) on his stay at a kh«n in Ramla. There he and his party stayed at an inn, whose guardian they paid for the mats—from four to six grossi each—and for the security provided. He wrote: “Come fummo a Rama (che è terra senza mura, e fa una grande gente, tutti sarraìni, sonvi molti arabi, e cristiani di cintura; sono sotto sopra tutti artefici), di subito fummo messi in un casale, Dio sa come fatto, tutti insieme. E chi non vuole star fra la terra ed altro bestiame, accatta una stuoia per due o tre dì, che vi si sta. Una stuoia costa da quattro o sei grossi l’una, e poi si rendono. A questa casa si fa continuamente, mentre che vi stiamo, la guardia, perchè non sia fatto villania a’ peregrini, e noi paghiamo le guardie. Qui c’ è arrecato d’ogni cosa da mangiare pe’ nostri denari, chè ne sono troppo ghiotti, ed anco delle mercanzie a chi ne vuole comprare, benchè non è lecito a chi va in peregrinaggio. Vino non si trova in questo paese, perchè non ne beono i sarraìni.”

185

Muj»r al-D»n (al-Uns, ii, p. 87; Histoire, pp. 238–239) added that Baybars also cared for “an im«m for the mosque in its premises.” 186 Giorgio Gucci (Frescobaldi, Visit, p. 155), who participated in the same journey, mentions, among others, three ducats and seven grossi spent for lodging in the first and second night, after they left Jerusalem, apparently referring to Kh«n Lubban (on that kh«n, see Gazetteer). 187 A testimony from March 1613 indicates that payment was confined to non-Muslims, but this does not necessarily apply to the Mamluk period. It reads (Pesenti, pp. 25–26): “... & la ſera arrivammo ad un loco chiamato Cátoman [Kh«n ²−m«n], ove trovassimo tutta la Caravana, che era gionta, & haveva preso tutti i luoghi. per la frequentia delle Caravane, che passano per questi paesi, hanno fatto fare alcuni allogiamenti lontano uno dall’altro otto overo diece hore di camino, secondo che più torna a commodo, i quali sono in forma quadra, come qui s’usano i Lazaretti, & attorno vi sono loggie, & lochi più a dentro, ove stanno i Muli, & Cavalli, & nelle loggie ove il terreno è rilevato, allogiano le persone sopra’l terreno; ne in tutta Turchia si trova alloggio di altra maniera più commoda. tutte le Caravane entrano, & albergano ove gli piace, & chi prima occupa il luogo, l’usa, & quando se ne esce pagasi un tanto per persona, ne’luoghi piu, & ne’luoghi meno. Il pagar nondimeno tocca solo a Christiani, di qualõque sorte eglino si siano, che i Turchi non pagano cosa alcuna. Queſta prima sera per esser impedite le loggie, ne convenne allogiare in mezzo al Cane all’aria, & per che il tempio era ancora freddo, havessimo incommodissima quella notte.”

189

See D. Richard’s historical entries in the architectural discussions by M. Burgoyne in Mamluk Jerusalem (Burgoyne 1987). Among the works focusing solely on patronage issues, A.W. Newhall’s (1987) and Kh.A. Alhamzeh’s (1993) doctoral studies, on the patronage of Q«ytb«y and Qan·−h al-Gh−r»’s (1993) respectively, are of great importance. The latter is of special interest, as it clearly shows the process in which alGh−ri’s wak«la, built about the same time as the madrasa, khanq«h and sab»l-kutt«b, served as an income-producing waqf for the upkeep and support of the Gh−riyya complex (Alhamzeh 1993, p. 66). Kh«n alKhal»l» (917AH/AD1511), perhaps the most famous of al-Gh−r»’s commercial buildings, was also a source of income for his architectural complex. See also the list of works on the various available waqfiyy«t in Conermann and Saghbini 2002, footnotes 39 and 40.

44

The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns concerned with the construction of caravansaries and stations on the overland routes”? Did the sh«dd al‘am«’ir (am»r in charge of construction works) control and steer the architectural style, location and functioning of the various kh«ns in Mamluk Syria? Did any of the Mamluk Sultans operate like Shah ‘Abb«s in Iran, during whose reign the road system was systematically extended and whose court at I·fah«n seems to have been in charge of the erection of many inns? Does the presence of Barq−q’s heraldic blazon and epigraphic medallions at the entrance to Y−nus al-Daw«d«r’s kh«n south of Gaza (see Gazetteer, ‘Kh«n Y−nus’) suggest direct Sultanic involvement in this amiral project?

2. The Patronage of Rural Inns under the Ayyubids and the Saljuqs of R−m To this day Anatolia bears witness to the many architectural projects undertaken in its territories during the Saljuq period (ca. 463–707AH/AD1071–1307). Mosques, palaces, shrines and tombs have survived within urban landscapes, testifying not only to the rich artistic repertoire of the period, but also to the patrons behind the constructions. Outside the cities the architectural landscape is not as abundant, but Saljuq patronage is not less felt. Monumental kh«ns suddenly emerge at the turn of a road, or stand out amidst the humble architecture of the small and poor villages that grew around their walls. The architecture and elaborated ground plans of Anatolian Saljuq kh«ns, in which a mixture of traditions and techniques developed from the encounter between the Middle East, Europe, Armenia and Asia, remained specific to Anatolia.190

Sauvaget, writing on the stations of the bar»d on his La Poste aux chevaux (see below, p. 59), assumed that the construction of inns on the main routes of the Sultanate was controlled by the Portes Augustes in Cairo (Sauvaget 1941, p. 66). It was the government, he confidently argued, that charged the provincial authorities with the building of kh«ns and those in turn carried out such orders by means of executors (muhandis, sh«dd al‘am«’ir, etc.). According to this theory, Kh«n Y−nus was an example of direct patronage by the Sultan (Sauvaget 1941, p. 66, footnote 266), despite the phrasing of the foundation inscription which indicates otherwise.

In comparison, the Syrian kh«ns of the Ayyubid period (583–658AH/AD1187–1260) are humble structures. They are usually smaller (see Chapter 4, pp. 76ff.), of simple masonry, and of little artistic ambition. Their patronage, as that of the Anatolian inns, also ranged from rulers to nobles, but this does not seem to have had a direct effect on the architectural result. The Ayyubid patrons apparently wished to express different messages of power and social duty.

L. Fernandes, in her Mamluk Architecture and the Question of Patronage (1997, pp. 113–114), has already summarized some of the questions concerning the principles of patronage, as raised above:

The great gap between the Ayyubid and Saljuq aesthetic attitudes towards road architecture is remarkable; it brings to mind T. Allen’s remark that “north Syrian architects appear to have been oblivious of this cousin tradition...” (Allen 1988, p. 96)

Indeed, how should we define patronage? On what basis do we attribute a building to a patron, especially when we are dealing with royal constructions? Is the person giving order to construct a monument and whose name figures in the inscription on the building preceded by “has ordered construction” (amara bi-insh«’) to be considered the patron or is the one who undertakes the construction at his own expense the real one? Furthermore, in cases of the reconstruction of a building in ruins, are we entitled to credit the new monument to the patron whose name is on the new inscription or the previous patron?

The following discussion will present a few issues connected to the patronage of Ayyubid and Anatolian Saljuq rural kh«ns, on which little has yet been published.191 2.1 The Evidence 2.1.a. The Ayyubid Period Rural inns under Ayyubid patronage include sultanic (Kh«n al-‘Ar−s and perhaps a kh«n near B«niy«s, see Chapter 2¸ pp. 6, 9), but mainly amiral undertakings. Only one surviving foundation inscription—the waqf inscription of Kh«n al-‘A³ni (see above, p. 8) contains clear information as to the nature and means of maintenance of the kh«n. It reads (RCEA, xi, no. 4066, pp. 45–46; Sauvaget 1939, pp. 54–55):

At least with regard to rural inns, we know that direct Sultanic patronage during the Mamluk period never reached the levels seen in Safavid Iran, or in Saljuq Anatolia, where the “Sh«h ‘Abb«s»“ caravansarais and the Sultan Hans are testimony to the rulers’ role in road architecture. During the entire reign of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad, for example, we do not learn of even a single rural inn being built on the road to Syria directly under that ruler’s sponsorship, even though he was in general a great patron of building.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Has endowed this blessed kh«n (?), its lower and upper levels, the poor seeking for the mercy of his Lord, the Greater Am»r, the Isfahsal«r, the holy warrior, the

These circumstances make the Syrian road inns an interesting topic in the study of Mamluk patronage, reflecting not only the dynamics of power, but mainly the efforts of a whole class for legitimacy and economic stability. The following discussion will address some of these issues, after a short digression on the period preceding the Maml−ks’ rise to power.

190 On the uniqueness of the Anatolian Saljuq architecture and its nonetheless relationship to Iranian Saljuq traditions, see Crane 1994. 191 I would like to thank R. Milstein, of the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, for her valuable insights in this debate. Many of the ideas here were raised during our research field trip to Anatolia in 1999, sponsored by the Robert H. and Clarice Smith Fund of the Department of History of Art of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

45

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m AD1227). ¶alkhad and Zur«‘ are both in the ®awr«n,194 where Aybak retained his control even after al-Malik alAshraf removed him from his office as regent of Damascus in 626AH/AD1228–29, a function which had been conferred to him by al-Mu‘aμμam ‘ºs«’s son, alN«·ir D«wud.

fighter in the border fortress, Rukn al-D»n Mankuwirish, son of ‘Abd All«h, al-®urr (the freedman), al-Malik», al‘ªdil» al-Mu‘aμμam», may All«h accept (this) from him. And he had it assigned inalienably for (the benefit) of the Muslims and others, whatever they believe in. He assigned for that matter the shops inside its gate, (intended) for maintenance and whatever remains from their rental … May God have mercy of those who ask for His mercy, [and] upon Ust«dh ‘Al» b. Khal»fa, the builder of this blessed place. There is no God but All«h!

This explains the context of the foundation inscription at Zur«‘ (see above, p. 8): …Has ordered the renovation (tajd»d) of this [blessed] kh«n the servant of God in need of His mercy, the am»r ‘Izz al-D»n Aybak, at this time lord of ¶arkhad and of Zur«‘…

Kh«n al-‘A³ni’s patron—the am»r Rukn al-D»n Mankuwirish b. ‘Abd All«h—served al-Malik al-‘ªdil, as governor of Egypt during his reign. He died in 631AH/AD1233 in the village of Jar−d (between Damascus and Homs), 7 km from the Kh«n al-‘A³ni, and was buried in Damascus in his madrasa (known by his name) erected in 621AH/AD1224 (Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 1, pp. 253–265, 519–522; Sauvaire 1894/II, pp. 258– 259; Sauvaget 193, pp. 98–100, no. 95).

Aybak’s control over ¶alkhad and the surroundings goes back to 608AH/AD1211–1212, when he received the town and its adjacent lands as an ‘iq³«‘.195 It is thus certain that Aybak was directly connected to the routes he was catering to, being responsible for their care, and perhaps even profiting from their use by travelers and merchants. The commercial traffic would have benefited local production and markets, and also generated taxes and tribute. As E. Littmann says in his entry ‘Aybak’ (EI2, i, p. 780):

This kh«n was founded as a typical public enterprise, whose charitable services were available not only to Muslims, but also “the others,” as in the fourth line of the inscription.192 The totality of the inn was made a waqf, the patron caring for its sustenance by immobilizing the income of its shops.

... as governor of ¶alkhad, he sought to render flourishing that part of the trade route from Northern Arabia and from Babylonia to Damascus which crossed his territories; he built the desert fortress, Жal‘at alAzraΌ [634AH/AD1236–1237], and repaired the great reservoir (matkh; elsewhere birka) at ‘In«k [636– 637AH/AD1238–1240] and had a great kh«n set up at S«la [ca. 630AH/AD1232–1233]. His zeal for building communicated itself to his subordinates, especially to 196 his maml−k ‘Alam al-D»n Жaysar.”

Nevertheless, it is difficult to discern the real motives behind Mankuwirish’s decision (or order) to erect a charitable rural inn. Unlike contemporary Saljuq Anatolia, the Ayyubid state was a somewhat fractured authority, even though ostensibly the Sultan in Egypt was the ultimate sovereign. Though it is hard to see the Ayyubid inns being erected as state houses for the court in its travels, the need to keep Egypt and Syria interconnected was inter alia no doubt behind such enterprises. Military and commercial issues were considered as major motives in road patronage during the early thirteenth century, when international trade between Egypt and Syria and the western Mediterranean—via the active Frankish settlements in Syrian harbour towns— was a prosperous venture for the Ayyubid state (Lapidus 1988, p. 354).

Littmann lists further buildings erected by Aybak, which include, apart from the kh«n at ¶alkhad (which he dates 611AH/AD1214–15), a tower in ¶alkhad’s fortress (617AH/AD1220–1221), the arcades and minaret of its mosque (630AH/AD1232–1233), the kh«n at Zur«‘ (which he dates 636AH/AD1238) and a mosque at al-‘ªyin (638AH/AD1240–1241).

This certainly explains the works undertaken by ‘Izz alD»n Ab− ’l-Man·−r Aybak al-Mu‘aμμam» (d. 646AH/AD1248–1249; E. Littmann, EI2, i, p. 780; CIAP, ii, pp. 54–55)193 in the years 634AH/AD1237 and 636AH/AD1239, in which two kh«ns were respectively renovated and erected (or perhaps renovated, for the verb used is ‘im«ra) in ¶alkhad/¶arkhad and Zur«‘. These two kh«ns were in addition to the kh«n Aybak had already erected in ‘Aqabat F»q on the Golan Heights in 610AH/AD1213 (see above, p. 7), during his service as ust«d«r (majordomo) of al-Malik al-Mu‘aμμam ‘ºs« (while the latter was governor of Damascus between 597AH/AD1200 and 615AH/AD1218, and ruler of Damascus between 615AH/AD1218 and 624AH/

2.1.b. The Saljuqs of Anatolia Erdmann’s Das anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts (1961) remains the main corpus dealing with Saljuq Anatolian inns. It is a survey of 119 structures, discussing the physical and historical evidence, and publishing related inscriptions. Erdmann’s corpus not only contributes to the architectural classification of the inns (see Chapter 2, pp. 19ff.), but also to the understanding of their historical context and the donors behind their construction.

194

A treeless but fertile plain southeast of Mount Hermon, extending into modern Jordan. 195 The erection of a kh«n at ‘Aqabat F»q two years later is an indication of the extent of his iq³«‘. For the principles of iq³«‘ during the Ayyubid period, see Humphreys 1977, pp. 371–375. 196 See, for example, the foundation inscription from ¶alkhad, where Qaysar is mentioned as the building supervisor (p. 8).

192

The extension of the charitable services of the kh«n to non-Muslims is in line with one of the religious aspects of almsgiving in Islam (EQ, i, p. 69). See below, pp. 55ff. 193 See also discussion on van Berchem 1983, pp. 87–90.

46

The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns Extant epigraphic information demonstrates the varied nature of the patrons. Apart from eight identified Sultan Hans, there exist a series of structures sponsored by viziers,197 statesmen,198 am»rs,199 as well as by various honorable men and women.200 Unfortunately, the inscriptions do not contain clear information regarding the kh«ns’ nature—the formula kh«n al-sab»l or kh«n li’lsab»l is lacking—nor of their patrons’ intentions. Were these kh«ns solely charitable institutions, or did they serve different purposes?

stabling facilities, the kh«n also provided treatment for animals free of charge, including farriers’ services. Shoemakers would repair travelers’ shoes, and also make new ones if necessary (Turan 1948, p. 57). There was one permanent physician, a pharmacist, and a veterinarian on the staff, and a hospital supplied with necessary medicines, as well as bedding. A bath (¯amm«m) operated round the clock and served travelers and local villagers alike (Turan 1948, p. 58). The endowment charter even provided for those who died within the precincts, whether a Muslim or an unbeliever, a freeman or a slave (Turan 1948, p. 58).

Fortunately, the waqfiyya of Karatay Han (638AH/AD1240–1), built under the patronage of Jal«l al-D»n Karatay, has survived. Karatay (d. 652AH/AD1254), was the de facto ruler of Anatolia following Kaykhusraw II’s death (r. 634– 643AH/AD1237–1245/6), before his son ‘Izz al-D»n Kayk«wus (d. 678AH/AD1279–80) reached majority. The waqfiyya was published in 1948 by O. Turan201 and provides detailed information not only on the kh«n’s charitable services, but also on the wages of the various professionals employed (including an im«m and a muezzin), and on the relatively high number of properties immobilized for its upkeep.

Yavuz considered the idea that Anatolian Saljuq kh«ns, were also used as state houses (1997, 1999).203 Apart from the particular architectural elements apparent in some of the structures, Yavuz based his discussion on information drawn from literary sources204 as well as from the abovementioned waqfiyya. He wrote: “[t]he unusual scale and richness of the Karatay Han, as shown by its foundation deed, and of the two Sultan Hans, as revealed by the sources, show that they were equipped far beyond the needs of a commercial building of any importance. These endowments were more to operate State building suited to the itinerant nature of the State, to run its national and international affairs smoothly.” (Yavuz 1999, pp. 760–761)

Karatay Han had cooks and a well-equipped kitchen, and food was provided to all travelers, Muslims and nonMuslims (Turan 1948, pp. 56–57).202 Apart from proper

In terms of function and architectural elements, it would thus be possible to compare the Saljuq kh«ns to the Umayyad palaces, for example. Yavuz’s theory recalls that of King in relation to the role of the Umayyad palaces in Bil«d al-Sh«m (King 1992). According to King, the latter were erected to serve, among others, diplomatic purposes, and to maintain close ties between the Umayyad caliphs and the Bedouin tribes who supported them. King further suggests that at least some of the palaces were also used as road stations.205

197

The Sadeddin Han on the Konya-Aksaray road, for example, was erected by ‘Al« al-D»n Kayqub«d’s vizir and architect Köpek b. Mu¯ammad (Erdmann 1961, pp. 102–107; Aslanapa 1971, p. 153). Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Alī, also known as ¶«¯ib Ata, a high prominent vizir under sultan Kayk«wus b. Kaykhusraw and Kaykhusraw b. Qilij Arsl«n, erected ¼s¯aql½ Han – between Ak¹ehir and Afyon (647AH/AD1249; Erdmann 1961, pp. 143–146) and the kh«n at Ilg½n, between Konya and Afyon (666AH/AD1267; Erdmann 1961, p. 199). Mu‘»n al-D»n Sulaym«n, the strongman of the sultanate during Kaykhusraw b. Qilij Arsl«n's reign, erected Durak Han, between Boyabat and Vezirköprü road (664AH/AD1266; Erdmann 1961, pp. 72–74). For ¶«¯ib Ata's and Mu‘»n al-D»n Sulaym«n's further patronage, see J.M. Rogers, ‘Saldj−Όids’, EI2, viii, p. 967. 198 See the kh«ns Altınapa and Argıt erected by Shams al-D»n Altinapa (Erdmann 1961, pp. 29–33; Aslanapa 1971, p. 148) and Ertokuş (620AH/AD1223)—and probably also Pınarba¹ı (no inscription)—by Mub«riz al-D»n Ertokuş (Erdmann 1961, pp. 51–55; Aslanapa 1971, p. 149). 199 The am»r Qayamukh built the K½z½lören Han (602AH/AD1205; Erdmann 1961, pp. 45–49). Rash»d al-D»n Iy«z b. ‘Abd All«h alShih«b», an am»r of ‘Al« al-D»n Kayqub«d, built the Çardak Han in 627AH/AD1230 (Erdmann 1961, pp. 59–61; Aslanapa 1971, p. 152). 200 A physician by the name of Ab− S«lim b. Ab»’l ®asan al-Shamm«s of Malatya built the Hekim Han (¯ak»m = physician) on the SivasMalatya road in 615AH/AD1218 (Erdmann 1961, pp. 63–67; Aslanapa 1971, p. 149). A lady named Ra±iya or Ruqaya Kh«t−n b. Ma¯mud built the Kadın Han on the Konya-Ak¹ehir road in 620AH/AD1223 (Erdmann 1961, pp. 49–51; Aslanapa 1971, p. 149). 201 Karatay Han is located on the road from Kayseri to Malatya, 50 km east of Kayseri (Erdmann 1961, pp. 117–125). The waqfiyya was published and discussed by O. Turan, “Selçuklu Devri Vakfiyeleri 3, Celâleddin Karatay, Vakiflari ve Vakfiyeleri,” Türk Tarih Kurumu Belleten 12, no. 45, 1948, pp. 17–171, and summarized in Yetkin 1961, p. 371 and Yedíyildiz 1996. I would like to thank Daphna Sharef of the Dept. of Middle Eastern Studies at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, for translating excerpts from Turan’s article. 202 According to the waqfiyya, the kitchen was provided with fifty ceramic bowls, twenty copper plates, a hundred large wooden bowls, fifty wooden plates, twenty large cooking pots, five medium-sized and five small, two big jars, two big jugs, etc. According to the endowment charter, all travelers were entitled to free meals, even though Jews

apparently received smaller rations. On Fridays halva with honey (a typical Middle Eastern dessert prepared from sesame seeds) was served to all (Turan 1948, pp. 56–57). 203 Yavuz wrote: It is generally agreed that they continued the function of the ribats in Transoxiania, and therefore it is taken for granted that they had military uses… [but] there is no direct reference to military activities taking place in the buildings. The same is true for references to welcoming and leave-taking ceremonies for the Sultans or their honored guests. They served as royal guesthouses for visiting sovereigns, as prisons, as places of refuge, and when they lost their commercial function, as zaviyes or for other religious purposes. Functions not mentioned in the sources on caravanserais, but verifiable by other means, include their use as government offices or statehouses for the Sultan and his retinue when they moved from one town to another, especially between the capital Konya and Kayseri, Sivas, as well as Antalya and Alanya, which served as winter residences. Their use as stations in the networks of the post, menzil, and derbent systems has also recently been discussed.” (Yavuz 1997, p. 81) 204 Discussed by Yavuz in his Selçuklular Zamanında Türkiye (Istanbul 1971). 205 King’s example for his theory—Minya—is nevertheless an anachronism. He refers to late Muslim sources which speak of Minya as a road station (King 1992, p. 373), but does not realize they are referring to Kh«n Minya (see Gazetteer) and not to the Umayyad palace, as he thought.

47

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m However, together with their usual charitable nature and their probable use as state-houses, the Anatolian inns of the Saljuq period were primarily commercial institutions, whose

3. The Patronage of Rural Inns during the Mamluk Period When the year 713AH/AD1313 came, the people in Egypt (bi-Diy«r Mi·r) displayed a great desire in building, and that is because of Sultan al-Malik alN«·ir’s infatuation and perseverance in it. It was as if it had been announced in Cairo and Fus³«³ that none of their people would lag behind in constructing a building. The military commanders, the army, the clerks, the merchants and the general public (al-‘«mma) built with great zeal… and there was a great competition among the people [in that domain]… (alMaqr»z», Khi³«³, vol. 2, p. 131; Ayalon 1994, pp. 14–15)

“principal function was evidently to service the northsouth overland trade of strategic exports such as timber and ªipč«ª slaves from the Crimea to Antalya, whence they made their way by sea to the Ayyubid states of Syria and Egypt, and to levy transit taxes on international trade.” (J.M. Rogers, ‘Saldj−ªids’, EI2, viii, p. 964)

2.2. Discussion

At least eighteen Mamluk patrons responsible for the erection or renewal of road inns in the limits of Bil«d alSh«m are known. They vary in social rank, from rich merchants to the Sultan himself. These were erected on the main routes, contributing to the efficiency of the communications between Cairo and the provincial capitals, but mainly in Damascus, the seat of the most powerful official of Syria.

Little has been written on the patronage of the Ayyubids in Egypt and Syria, or of the Saljuq period in Anatolia.206 Endowment deeds need to be edited and published to benefit academic research, and the Arabic and Turkish administrative, historical and geographical literature needs to be further explored. Yavuz’s work may be expanded to cover all categories of rural inns, furthering his ideas of political purpose as well as commercial exploitation. At the same time, the relatively unpretentious architectural language of the late twelfth— early thirteenth century kh«ns which arose in Egypt and Syria could be investigated as a contrasting phenomenon. Was this contrast the fruit of different concepts of patronage, different degrees of investment, diverse functions, or was it merely a clinging to respective inherited traditions?

These men were responsible for at least twenty-seven rural kh«ns (Table 1) that vary in their degree of conservation (see Gazetteer and Sauvaget 1940). Ten were erected during the second and third reign of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w−n (698–708AH/AD1299–1309 and 709–741AH/AD1310–1341), mostly under the governorship over the Syrian provinces by the am»r Tankiz (712–740AH/AD1312–1340).207 This fact is significant, because apart from the architectural similarities between these structures, a considerable number also catered to the royal mail (bar»d), a government institution which most likely had a say in their placement and perhaps also their layout (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 66–67). In addition, considering the fact that alN«·ir Mu¯ammad and his sh«dd al-‘am«’ir208 are known to have been directly involved in the construction of some amiral mosques, providing them with materials and designs (Irwin 1986, p. 117), it would not be surprising to find a similar involvement in the construction of road inns.

Architecturally the Mamluk kh«ns are a continuation of those of the Ayyubid period. But whatever the resemblance to their regional predecessors, their erection was the fruit of far more complex historical, social, economic and military contexts. This will be examined in the following section.

Following al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s reign, the only periods in which a comparably flourishing situation can be observed is during the early fifteenth century, when a rich merchant from Damascus, Shams al-D»n Ibn al-Muzalliq (d. 848AH/AD1444), sponsored four neighbouring kh«ns in a single project, and during Q«ytb«y’s reign, in the second half of that century (872–901AH/AD1468–1496).

207

To these we can add the kh«n at Jisr al-Maj«mi‘, whose construction pre-dated 740AH/AD1340 according to al-‘Umar»'s and alQalqashand»’s testimony (see Gazetteer, Entry no. 9, ‘Jisr al-Maj«mi‘’); the patron’s identity remains unknown. 208 See Chapter 2, p. 13, for the inscription from Kh«n al-Sab»l (Inqir«t«), dating to 773AH/AD1371, in which the sh«dd al-‘am«’ir— al-Sayf», i.e., of Sayf al-D»n Manjak, then viceroy of Syria—is mentioned. For references to this title, see n. 50.

206

On patronage in Ayyubid Syria, see Tabbaa 1997, pp. 27–49). On Anatolia, see brief discussion by J.M. Rogers in EI2, viii, p. 967.

48

The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns Table 1: Patronage of Mamluk rural inns in Bil«d al-Sh«m. Patronage

Dating

Patron

Post at the time

Kh«n

of patronage

1. Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 1–3)

690AH/AD1291

®us«m al-D»n L«j»n

Governor (n«’ib) of Damascus (679–691AH/AD1280–1292)

2. Kh«n al-A¯mar (Bays«n; see Gazetteer)

708AH/AD1308

Sal«r b. ‘Abd All«h

n«’ib al-sal³ana (viceroy of Egypt (698–709AH/AD1299– 1310)

3. Q«q−n (see Gazetteer)

early 14th c.

Sanjar al-J«wul»

Governor of Gaza (712– 720AH/AD1313–1320 and 728AH/AD1328)209

4. Shaq¯ab (Sauvaget 1940, p. 4)

716AH/AD1316– 1317

Tankiz

Governor of Damascus (712– 740AH/AD1312–1340)

5. Jalj−liya (see Gazetteer)

early 14th c.

6. Bayt Dar«s (see Gazetteer)

early 14th c.

Tankiz or N«·ir al-D»n

Mushidd al-awq«f (comptroller), n«μir of Jerusalem and Hebron

8. Kh«n Kha³³«b (‘Ghab«gheb’ in Sauvaget 1940, p. 18 ?)

725AH/AD1325

‘Izz al-D»n Kha³³«b

Am»r

9. Muzayrib (®awr«n)210

before 731AH/AD1330– 1331

Am»n al-D»n Ibn alBa··

Merchant

11. J»n»n (see Gazetteer)

740AH/AD1339– 1340

²«j«r al-Daw«d«r

Am»r of Tankiz

12. Kh«n al-‘Asal (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 6–7)

744AH/AD1343

Sharaf al-D»n M−s«

Chamberlain of Aleppo (according to inscription)

13. Kh«n Shaykh−n211 (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 7–8)

mid 14th c.

Shaykh− al-‘Umar»

Governor of Tripoli (from 752AH/AD1351)

14. Kh«n al-Sab»l (Inqir«t«?)212

773AH/AD1371– 1372

al-Ashraf Sha‘b«n

Sultan (764–778AH/AD1363– 1377)

7. ²»ra (see Gazetteer)

10. Lajj−n (see Gazetteer)

209 The kh«n was most probably erected during his first term as governor of Gaza, when various other architectural projects were also carried out. See discussion on next item. 210 This station was transformed into a qal‘a during the Ottoman period, catering to the Syrian ®ajj route as well. It was described by Burckhardt (1822, p. 241–243) as the first station of the ®ajj: “El Mezareib is the first castle on the Hadj road from Damascus, and was built by the great Sultan Selym, three hundred and eight years ago. It is the usual residence of the Aga of the Haouran; but that office is now vacant, the late Aga having been deposed, and no one has yet been appointed to succeed him. The garrison of the castle consisted of a dozen Moggrebyns, whose chief, a young black, was extremely civil to me. The castle is of a square form, each side being, as well as I can recollect, about one hundred and twenty paces in [l]ength. The entrance is through an iron gate, which is regularly shut after sunset. The interior presents nothing but an empty yard enclosed by the castle wall, within which are ranges of warehouses, where the provisions for the Hadj are deposited; their flat roofs form a platform behind the parapet of the castle wall, where sixteen or eighteen mud huts have been built on the top of the warehouses, as habitations for the peasants who cultivate the neighbouring grounds. On the east side two miserable guns are planted. Within the castle is a small mosque. There are no houses, beyond its precinct. Close by it, on the N. and E. sides, are a great number of springs, whose waters collect, at a short distance, onto a large pond or lake, of nearly half an hour in circumference, in the midst of which is an island. On an elevated spot at the extremity of a promontory, advancing into the lake, stands a chapel, around which are many ruins of ancient buildings… “The pilgrim caravan to Mekka collects at the Mezareib, where the Pasha, or Emir el Hadj, remains encamped for ten days, in order to collect the stragglers, and to pay to the different Arab tribes the accustomed tribute for the passage of the caravan through the desert. The warehouses of the castle are annually well stocked with wheat, barley, biscuit, rice, tobacco, tent and horse equipage, camel saddles, ropes, ammunition, &c. each of which has its particular warehouse. These stores are exclusively for the Pasha’s suite, and for the army on their return. It is only in cases of great abundance, and by particular favour, that the Pasha permits any articles to be sold to the pilgrims. At every station, as far as Medina, is a castle, but generally smaller than this, filled with similar stores. The Haouran alone is required to deliver every year into the store houses of the Mezareib, two thousand Gharara of barley, or about twenty or twenty-five thousand cwt. English. The town of Damascus has been fed for the last three months with the biscuit stored in the Mezareib for the Hadj.” 211 On this kh«n, see Sauvaget 1937, p. 112; 1940, p. 7; Meinecke 1992, II, p. 228 (Nr. 19B/27). On other architectural works by this patron, see references in Meinecke 1992, II, pp. 214 (Nr. 19A/22), 222–224 (Nr. 19B/2 and 6), 227 (Nr. 19B/20–21). 212 According to Sauvaget, Kh«n al-Sab»l replaced the previous markaz of Inqir«t«, identified by the same author as Kh«n al-Khirba (“le caravansérail en ruines”), 5 km west of the village of Inqar«t« (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 90–91). Sauvaget believes that this is the “Kh«n Manjak“ mentioned by Ibn alJ»‘«n (Sauvaget 1940, p. 12, footnote 54; Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 75), thus emphasizing the fact that despite al-Ashraf Sha‘b«n’s patronage, it was his governor of Syria, Manjak, who carried out this project (see inscription in Chapter 2, p. 13).

49

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m 15. Kh«n Dann−n (Sauvaget 1935; 1940, p. 13)

778AH/AD1376

al-Ashraf Sha‘b«n?

16. Qadas (Sauvaget 1940, p. 9)213

1360’s-70s

Manjak al-Y−suf»

d. 776AH/AD1375. Governor of Aleppo, of Syria (771– 775AH/AD1369AH/AD70– 1373/74) and Viceroy of Egypt (775–776AH/AD1373 –1375) 214

18. Sar«qib (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 12–13)

before 771AH/AD1370

Uzdamur al-‘Umar»

d. 771AH/AD1370. Governor of Aleppo.

19. Kh«n Y−nus

789AH/AD1387

Y−nus al-Nawr−z»

Grand Daw«d«r of Sultan Barq−q (784–791AH/AD1382– 1389).

20. Jabala (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 13–14)

798AH/AD1395

Argh−n Sh«h alIbr«h»m»

Governor of Tripoli (796– 800AH/AD1394–1397)215

21. Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b (see Gazetteer) 22. Kh«n Minya (see Gazetteer) 23. Kh«n al-Tujj«r (see Gazetteer) 24. Qunay³ra

before 848AH/AD1444

Ibn al-Muzalliq

Merchant (754– 848AH/AD1353–1444)216

25. Kh«n ²−m«n (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 14– 15)

ordered217 in 883AH/AD1477

al-Ashraf Q«ytb«y

Sultan (r. 872– 901AH/AD1468–1496)218

17. ®asy« or ®isy« (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 9–10)

(see Gazetteer)

26. W«d» al-T»m (S−q alKh«n?) 27. Sa‘sa‘

213

The ruins of the kh«n of Qadas, is situated 2 km northeast of Qadesh—Tell Nab» Mind− (Lat 34º34N/Long 36º31E). According to Sauvaget (1940, pp. 9–10), the village of ®asy« was waqf land of the am»r Manjak al-Y−suf». As quoted by D. Richards in Burgoyne’s Mamluk Jerusalem (1987, p. 386), “He acquired fine properties and selected beautiful old buildings/monuments, and renovated (‘ammara) several mosques, ¶−f» convents and hospices, and erected several public caravanserais in Egypt and Syria, indeed throughout the kingdom. He repaired bridges and roads.” On his career, see Mayer 1933, pp. 154–155; Burgoyne 1987, pp. 385–386. See also reference to his patronage in Luz 2002, p. 140. 215 On him, see Meinecke’s entries on his mosque in Tripoli and on the kh«n (Meinecke 1992, II, p. 254, Nr. 22/80; p. 287, Nr. 25B/44). 216 On him, see al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 2, pp. 290–291; Sauvaire 1895/II, pp. 261–263. Also, on Ibn al-Muzalliq and his family, see Ashtor 1983, pp. 281–283. 217 Ibn al-J»‘«n’s testimony on Q«ytb«y’s journey in Syria in the late 1470s provides information on the patronage of both W«d» al-T»m’s kh«n and that at Sa‘sa‘. The phrasing of that source, using the verb ‘ammara, can lead to different interpretations (Ibn al-J»‘an, pp. 52, 89), i.e., either as erection or renewal, as already discussed in Chapter 2. For the identification of Q«ytb«y’s kh«n at W«d» al-T»m (the valley of the ®asban» river) with the site of S−q al-Kh«n (Lat33º22’54“N/Long 35º38’43“E) near ®asbaya, Lebanon, see Clermont-Ganneau 1900, p. 251, footnote 2. S−q al-Kh«n has been developed under the auspices of the United States Agency for International Development, whose work has uncovered a vaulted construction ca. 4000 m2. Notwithstanding Clermont-Ganneau’s identification, popular sources associate the name of a certain mid-fourteenth century am»r Ab− Bakr Shih«b (?) with the erection of S−q al-Kh«n (http://www.mom.fr/ifapo/templates/actualites.html, March 2002, site of the Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient, no longer available). In this case Q«ytb«y would in fact have renovated it (and probably also Sa‘sa‘), as he did with Kh«n Tum«n. 218 The patronage of al-Ashraf Q«ytb«y will not be discussed in this section, which focuses the first half of the fourtheen century (n. 147). On him, see, M. Sobernheim [E. Ashtor], EI2, iv, pp. 462–463 and A.W. Newhall’s The Patronage of the Mamluk Sultan Qa’it Bay 872–901AH/AD1468– 1496, Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1987. 214

50

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m It is well-known that al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s reign was witness to much construction throughout the empire (cf. Burgoyne 1987, p. 54; Ayalon 1994, pp. 14–15), and that the Sultan himself built to “aggrandize his name” and to “stay in power,” (Ayalon 1994, p. 15) prompting the upper ranks of society to join this trend. Since most of the road-related buildings during his reign were concentrated in the Syrian provinces,219 it seems useful to investigate the intentions of the sponsors.

The first patron to be discussed is Sayf al-D»n Sal«r b. ‘Abd All«h, who was originally a maml−k222 of Baybars, and came to prominence during Qal«w−n’s Sultanate.223 He remained in the service during the brief reigns of Qal«w−n’s sons al-Ashraf Khal»l and al-N«·ir, and was appointed Viceroy of Egypt in 698AH/AD1299 concurrently with Baybars II al-J«shank»r,224 following al-N«·ir’s second accession to the Sultanate. On alN«·ir’s third accession, Sal«r was removed from his position and left for Shawbak to serve briefly as governor (Mayer 1933, p. 196; CIAP, i, p. 186). In the same year Sal«r was recalled, incarcerated and finally executed (Amitai 1990, p. 152).

This section will discuss the religious, financial and institutional backgrounds separately, even though patronage is usually an integration of multiple aspects. Nevertheless, at least with regard to the first half of the fourteenth century, we may be able to point out its main catalysts.

According to the in situ foundation inscription, Sal«r built the mosque at Majdal, near Ashqelon (Yad»n 1964, pp. 108–109; CIAP, i, pp. 184–186) in 700AH/AD1300.225 Two years later (702AH/AD1302), according to two (similar) inscriptions at the mosque/z«wiya of Shaykh ‘Al» Bakk«’ in al-Khal»l/Hebron, he erected a minaret above the building (Jaussen 1925, pp. 29–33; RCEA 13, pp. 233–234, nos. 5146–5147; Mayer 1933, pp. 196– 197). Muj»r al-D»n adds that Sal«r also built a spring water well (bi'r ma‘»n) and a ¯aw± sab»l next to the z«wiya (Muj»r al-D»n, al-Uns, ii, pp. 80–81; Histoire, p. 226). Apparently he was also respondible for the construction of a birka at Nakhl in the Sinai Peninsula (Tamari 1982, p. 475, footnote 29).

3.1 The Patrons The patrons included two Sultans, two viceroys, six provincial governors, a daw«d«r al-kab»r, a chamberlain, four high-ranking am»rs, and two wealthy merchants. This list shows that patronage of rural inns in Syria attracted various ranks of Mamluk society. The background for their patronage, however, seems to have been different from that seen in Saljuq Anatolia, for example.220 There the Sultans were much more involved in patronage of road architecture, most probably due to the court’s wandering nature and its desire to maintain a strong grip over the continental trade.

It was during Sal«r’s service as Viceroy of Egypt that the kh«n in Bays«n was erected, under the direction of Sanjar al-J«wul» (653AH/AD1255–56 to 745AH/AD1345). The latter, who lived to the age of nearly ninety, held a series of important posts under various Sultans (Jaussen 1925, p. 9; Burgoyne 1987, pp. 201–203; CIAP, iv, pp. 86–88), and was involved in a number of architectural projects in Egypt and Syria, many of them still extant. Among his many architectural enterprises, Sanjar’s patronage of kh«ns is of special interest.

The structure of the Mamluk regime seems to have dictated different patterns of social and political behavior, to be discussed below.221 But before embarking on further discussion, it is necessary to present some basic information about certain of the patrons in question, as well as about other architectural projects in which they were involved.

On Sanjar, al-¶afad» (d. 764AH/AD1363) writes (alW«f», vol. 15, p. 483):226

219

Most of the construction work undertaken in the Darb al-®«jj alMi·r» in central Sinai during the Mamluk period seems to post-date his reign. See Tamari 1982. 220 The list does not include the q«±» Ibn ¶a·r« (d. 723AH/AD1322; W.M. Brinner, EI2, iii, p. 931), suggested by Sauvaget (1940, pp. 4–6) as the patron of the kh«n at Burayj (Burayj al-‘Atash), on the road between Damascus and al-B»ra. Although he was the patron of a mosque and a birka at al-Burayj (al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 249; alQalqashand», Sub¯, p. 427; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, p. 245), the kh«n itself was an Ayyubid structure. Ibn W«·il (d. 697AH/AD1298), one of the main sources for the history of the Ayyubid period, mentions its patronage by ®us«m al-D»n al-®«jib, one of the officers closest to alMalik Ashraf al-M−s« (d. 635AH/AD1237), al-Mu‘aμμam ‘ºs«’s (d. 624AH/AD1227) brother and sometimes ruler of Damascus. According to his account, he also erected a kh«n on the road between ®ar«n and Ni·ib»n (Ibn W«·il, al-Mufarrij, vol. 4, p. 264). Al-Burayj is located at the village of the same name (Lat 36º15’N/Long 36º51’E), listed as one of the postal stations on the ancient road from Homs to Damascus (see also Dussaud 1927, p. 277). 221 Kh.A. Alhamzeh, in his dissertation on al-Gh−r»’s waqfiyya and his patterns of patronage, suggests that “at least three considerations were at work in the Sultan’s mind above and beyond the matter of simple support of his foundations. These include: first, a desire on al-Gh−r»’s part to give expression and to reap divine reward for his personal piety; second, a wish to secure the material well-being of his family and descendants; and finally, a desire to enhance his legitimacy through the concrete expression of ideals of Mamluk and Islamic rulership.” (Alhamzeh 1993, p. 185)

…And he is the one who built the mosque in the city of Abraham [Hebron]—may he be in Peace. He erected in Gaza a vast beautiful ¯amm«m, a madrasa and a mosque of no comparison. He ordered the kh«n li'l-sab»l in Gaza, and he ordered the lofty kh«n (kh«n al-‘az»m) in Q«q−n. And he has a beautiful and elegant mausoleum

222

According to Mayer (1933, p. 196), Sal«r was the “son of a Master of the Hunt at the Salj−q court , known as the dispatch-rider (bar»d»), captured by Baybars, bought by Qalā−n.” 223 On Sal«r’s early career during Qal«w−n’s Sultanate, see Levanoni 1995, pp. 21–22. On him see also al-Maqrīzī, Sul−k, II/1, pp. 97–98. 224 Sal«r and Baybars al-J«shank»r were the de facto rulers of the Sultanate during al-N«·ir’ second reign. On the various titles used in epigraphic and literary evidence to describe Sal«r’s post, see Jaussen 1921, pp. 101–103; Jaussen 1925, pp. 30–31; CIAP, i, p. 186. For a vivid account of Sal«r, based on al-Maqr»z», see Devonshire 1921, pp. 59–69. 225 The building has been renovated and is used today as a local museum, mistakenly called “Ashqelon Museum—The Kh«n.” 226 On Sanjar and his patronage, see also al-Subk», Tabaq«t, vol. 10, p. 41 (d. 769AH/AD1368); Ibn ®ajar, al-Durar, p. 266 (773– 852AH/AD1372–1449); al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, II/3, p. 674.

51

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m According to an official Ottoman document, he endowed a water wheel in Ramla (Burgoyne 1987, p. 203 and note 23), while Ibn ®ajar al-‘Asqal«n» writes that in 710AH/AD1311 Sanjar, then governor of Karak for alN«·ir, ordered the construction there of a palace, a mosque, a bath, a madrasa, a kh«n al-sab»l, a hospital (m«rist«n) and a public square (mayd«n) (Ibn ®ajar, alDurar, vol. 2, p. 266; Milwright 1998, p. 65, footnote 99).

(turba) at [Jabal] al-Kabsh in Cairo. He renovated to its side a structure of great dimensions. He is the one who made Gaza into a city—he had it fortified and built a hospital (bimarist«n) in it…He erected in Gaza the a public square (mayd«n) and the palace (al-qa·r). He built the kh«n in Qaryat al-Kat»ba,227 the aqueduct (qan«³ir) in the Forest of Ars−f. And all his structures are graceful, solid and sound.

Indeed, Sanjar’s complex in Cairo (703AH/AD1303–4), composed of a kh«nq«h, madrasa and double mausoleum, one being dedicated to Sal«r228 (BehrensAbouseif 1989, pp. 101–104; Creswell, MAE II, pp. 242– 245); the J«wuliyya mosque in the ®aram of Hebron (720AH/AD1320; Meinecke 1992, I, pp. 70–73) with two surviving foundation inscriptions (Jaussen 1925, pp. 7– 10);229 his mosque in Gaza (718AH/AD1318–19), which was actually a reconstruction of an earlier Crusader Church (RCEA 14, no. 5400, p. 127; Burgoyne 1987, p. 203; CIAP, iv, pp. 88–90); as well as the remains of his kh«n (Gazetteer)—all bear witness to al-¶afad»‘s statement. Several other constructions – and reconstructions – can be added to his list.

Tankiz’s patronage surpassed even that of Sanjar, during his nearly thirty years of service as governor of Syria.232 Sayf al-D»n Ab− Sa‘»d Tankiz (Mayer 1933, pp. 218– 223) was originally a maml−k of ®us«m al-D»n L«j»n (r. 696–698AH/AD1296–99; P.M. Holt, EI2, v, pp. 594– 595), before that am»r rose to the Sultanate. Tankiz’s career and achievements are fairly well known; we have much information deriving from literary sources and from his endowment charter, as well as from surviving buildings and works of art.233 The following passage by al-Nu‘aym» (al-D«ris, vol. 1, pp. 123–125; Sauvaire 1894/I, pp. 313–314), following al-¶afad» (W«f», vol. 10, pp. 420–421), is a good summary of his rise to power:

Sanjar was governor of Gaza between 711AH/AD1311 and 720AH/AD1320,230 during which time he also served as n«μìr al-®aramayn (Superintendent of the Two ®arams—Jerusalem and Hebron) for al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad during the first half of his third reign, and had further buildings erected all over southern Bil«d alSh«m.

The great and venerable am»r, Tankiz, Sayf al-D»n Ab− Sa‘»d, viceroy of al-Sh«m, was imported into Egypt in his youth, and he grew up there; he was brownish-white in color, of elegant stature, beautiful hair, thin beard, little white hair, a graceful and beautiful figure; the khw«j« `Al«’ al-D»n al-S»w«s» imported him, and the am»r ®us«m al-D»n L«j»n bought him... ... when L«j»n was assassinated during his Sultanate, [Tankiz] became part of the Sultan’s [al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s] Kh«··akiyya and took part in the battle of Khaznad«r [699AH/AD1299; KCS] and afterwards in that of Shaq¯ab [702AH/AD1303, KCS]234 … and Sayf al-D»n Tankiz [was sent] as n«’ib to Damascus. And he, together with al-®«jj Sayf al-D»n S−d» and Arqa³«y and the am»r ®us«m al-D»n ²aran³«y al-Bashmaqd«r, arrived there on the bar»d [horses]. They arrived in Damascus in Rab»` II, 712 (August 1312), and Tankiz established himself firmly in the niy«ba and left with the troops to Mala³iya and conquered it and his prestige became greater; the am»rs of Damascus respected him and the people felt safe, and neither the am»rs nor the landlords were in a position to oppress the dhimm»s or others, out of fear of Tankiz, because of his power and the strength of his punishment and [Tankiz] continued his ascent and elevation in rank. His iq³«‘«t doubled, as did his livestock and the revenue from his horses, cloths, birds and birds of prey...

In Gaza, in addition to his mosque, he built a public square, an official residence, a bath, and a kh«n. In Jerusalem he erected a madrasa (al-J«wuliyya) at the northwestern corner of the ®aram (Burgoyne 1987, pp. 201–210), which does not have a foundation inscription, but carries a pair of identical blazons (Burgoyne 1987, p. 209, fig. 14.6, 14.10). Apart from the lofty (‘aμ»m) kh«n erected in Q«q−n (see Gazetteer), he also built a kh«n on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho (Qaryat alKat»ba, apparently Kh«n ®athrūra), as well as the kh«n in Bays«n for Sal«r; he also erected an aqueduct at Ars−f.231 227

On this location and identification with Kh«n ®athr−ra (The Good Samaritan Inn), see discussion in CIAP, iii, pp. 102–103 and entry no. 2 in the Gazetteer. 228 Sanjar and Sal«r were close friends, having even appointed each other as guardian of their children (Burgoyne 1987, p. 203). 229 According to Muj»r al-D»n al-‘Ulaym», al-J«wul»’s mosque was begun in 718 and inaugurated in 720 (Muj»r al-D»n, al-Uns, i, p, 62; Histoire, p. 19; Jaussen 1925, p. 8). 230 Amitai believes that by the time he was appointed governor of Gaza he was also granted an amirate of a hundred (Amitai 1990, p. 153). 231 D.S. Richards, in his historical survey on Sanjar al-J«wul» for Mamluk Jerusalem (Burgoyne 1987, p. 203), also lists a mosque in Lydda. I did not find a reference to this mosque in al-¶afad»’s al-W«f» (see above), in Ibn Taghr» Bird»’s Nuj−m al-Z«hira (vol. 10, p. 109), or in al-Maqr»z»’s Sul−k, (II/3, p. 674). On Ibn ®ajar’s al-Durar, on the other hand, the section on Sanjar al-J«wul» includes the following passage: “...wa-huwa ·«¯ib al-madrasa all«t» bi’l-Kabsh, wa’l-qan«³ir biArs−f, wa’l-kh«n bi-qurb li’l-sd [?], wa-kh«n bi-¯amrat Sin«n [Bays«n]...” (Ibn ®ajar, al-Durar, vol. 2, p. 267) Perhaps al-Ludd, like Bays«n, was misspelled, but still the passage would refer to a kh«n, and not to a mosque (see Mayer 1933, p. 198, where the kh«n “in the village of Ludd” is listed). In this context, Sharon’s entry ‘Ludd’ in EI2, v, pp. 798–803, notes only the mosque of Baybars. Yet, with reference to “qurb li’l-sd,” al-Durar’s editor noticed a few other spellings

Tankiz’s high standing in Mamluk society stemmed not only from his cardinal and lengthy role as n«’ib al-Sh«m encountered in the various sources, among which are al-lsd, al-L»d, alSd (Ibn ®ajar, al-Durar, vol. 2, p. 267, note 3). 232 On Tankiz's patronage, see E. Kenney, Power and Patronage in Medieval Syria: The Architecture and Urban Works of Tankiz al-N«·ir», Chicago Studies on the Middle East, Chicago, 2009. 233 Tankiz’s waqfiyy«t were published by M.M. Amin in his edition of Ibn Habib’s Tadhkirat al-Nab»h f» Ay«m al-Man·−r wa-ban»h, vol. 2, Cairo, 1982. The estimated values of part of his properties, including a series of urban kh«ns in Syria, are available in al-¶afad», W«f», vol. 10, pp. 429–432), translated into French in Sauvaire 1894/I, pp. 316–317. 234 Shaq¯ab, where Tankiz had a kh«n erected in 716AH/AD1316–1317. See below.

52

The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns • in Safed he erected a hospital (b»m«rist«n) and a kh«n;237

(712–741AH/AD1312–1340), but also from his close ties with the Sultan. According to the sources, al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad would consult with Tankiz on the most important matters of state, treating him as an equal, as well as part of the family. The latter was mainly due to marital ties, as al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad was married to one of Tankiz's daughters who borne him a son, and later on two of the Sultan's daughters got married to Tankiz's sons (Holt 1985, pp. 114–115; Levanoni 1995, p. 70).

• in Jalj−liya he erected a kh«n li’l-sab»l (see Gazetteer); • in Cairo he built a house of great dimensions, a bath, shops, and other buildings. • ¶afad» also attributes to Tankiz the restoration of many mosques238 and madrasas, as well as the expansion of the road network in Syria.

But Tankiz’s privileged position deteriorated towards the end of al-N«·ir's sultanate. He was captured in Damascus and put to death in Mu¯arram 741/July 1340), a few months before al-N«·ir's death in Dh− ’l-®ijja 741/May 1341. Tankiz's demise has been interpreted in different ways by scholars; some see it as a result of the Sultan's own paranoia vis-à-vis Tankiz's power, further fed by maliciousness of envious amirs (see for example Holt 1986, p.115). Levanoni, on the other hand, rather emphasizes Tankiz's occasional insubordinate conduct, as well as his connection with the Turkomen of northern Syria, led by Dh− ’l-Q«dir federation. The latter did not recognized the Sultan’s authority, but did accept that of Tankiz. The wary Sultan probably feared that together they might overthrow the Egyptian ruler (Levanoni 1995, pp. 70–71).

To the above list we can add the kh«n at Shaq¯ab (see above, p. 11) in 716AH/AD1316–1317, as well as a probable water basin (¯aw±) in Nab» Yam»n, between Jalj−liya and Qalqiliya (Fig. 6.7: -5; Mayer 1933, pp. 219–220). 239 Tankiz’s patronage is impressive, and certainly fitting a governor of Syria, the most important seat after Cairo. Our own concern is Tankiz’s investment in road improvement and inns, rural and urban alike. In fact, if we also take into consideration the kh«ns built by his am»rs, as well as by a wealthy merchant, also from Damascus (see below, p. 54), one can get the impression that they were all part of a single project, directed—and probably dictated—by the Syrian government. Among others, we should take into account the development of the bar»d route connecting Damascus with the main centers of the Sultanate (see below, p. 59).

In addition to his architectural works in the name of the Sultan—S−q al- Qa³³«n»n in Jerusalem being one such example (Burgoyne 1987, pp. 276–277)—Tankiz was a great architectural patron on his own, of both urban and rural monuments. Al-¶afad» listed his main projects (later copied by al-Nu‘aym»), which include (al-¶afad», al-W«f», vol. 10, pp. 420–432; al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 1, pp. 125–126; Sauvaire 1894/I, p. 315):235

Tankiz’s involvement with the erection of two other kh«ns—at Bayt Dar«s and ²»ra—both also catering to the bar»d (see below), is less clear. The passages in al‘Umar»’s al-Ta‘r»f refer to his daw«d«r N«·ir al-D»n, but since their respective foundation inscriptions or endowments are not available, it is hard to decide if this

• in Damascus he built a Friday Mosque bearing his name [Mayer 1933, p. 223], a mausoleum (turba) for himself [730AH/AD1330; Mayer 1933, pp. 220– 221] and his wife, a D«r al-Qur’«n and a D«r alHadith, a bath, and his private house, also known as D«r al-Dhahab, the Golden House. He also had the water channels repaired;

237

Perhaps at the site of today’s Rimonim Hotel, facing the z«wiya Ban«t ®am»d. The hotel, constructed in the 1970s, was planned around a medieval structure consisting of a stable (the stone rings built into the walls are still visible in the hotel restaurant) and three adjacent vaulted rooms, today used as guestrooms. Its location, next to other Mamluk buildings, makes it a probable site for the original kh«n. The archaeologist I. Shaked, who worked for the Israel Antiquities Authority and was involved in clearance work next to the back wall of the hotel, uncovered fourteenth-fifteenth century pottery sherds at the site (Shaked, personal communication, 2001). 238 Including his marble panelling works at the al-Aq·« Mosque and at the ®aram in Hebron, dated respectively 731AH/AD1330–1331 and 732AH/AD1331–1332 (Jaussen 1925, pp. 10–11; Burgoyne 1987, p. 235). They are stylistically in accord with the mi¯r«b at the Tankiziyya, and were most probably undertaken by the same group of artisans (see also Rosen-Ayalon 1986). In addition, according to the wording of the inscriptions at the gate and doors of the S−q al-Qa³³«n»n (Golvin 1967, p. 103), its renovation was also undertaken by Tankiz, in 737AH/AD1336–1337. 239 An inscription referring to Tankiz and bearing his heraldic blazon stands at the top of an Ottoman sab»l, abutting the maq«m Nab» Yam»n. It reads: In the name of the most merciful God. Ordered to renew this blessed ¯aw±/kh«n His Most Noble and High Excellency, our lord, the great am»r, the master, the learned, the just, the warden of the marches, the warrior at the frontiers, the viceroy Sayf al-D»n Tankiz, governor of the noble Sultanate in Damascus, the protected, may his victory be glorious. (adapted from Mayer 1933, p. 219)

• in Jerusalem he erected a rib«³ [Madrasa alTankiziyya (729AH/AD1328–1329) Burgoyne 1987, pp. 223–239], restored the city and brought water into it, introducing it into the ®aram [by means of a fountain, al-Qa··], facing the mosque of al-Aq·«. He also erected two baths and an enclosed market street (qay·ariyya) [within S−q al- Qa³³«n»n; CIA, Jérusalem I, pp. 262–265; RCEA, xv, no. 5707, p. 73; Mayer 1933, p. 222; Golvin 1967, pp. 102– 103, 110–117; Burgoyne 1987, pp. 280–297];236

235

A long list of buildings by Tankiz is given by Meinecke (1992, vol. 2, part of them discussed in his first volume); the reader is referred to his Personenregister (Meinecke 1992, vol.2, p. 541) for references. 236 To that we can add the foundation of Rib«³ al-Nis«’ (730AH/AD1330) facing his madrasa (Burgoyne 1987, pp. 240–243).

53

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m respected personality (shaykhan kab»ran) of great possessions (lahu tharwat min al-m«l kab»rat wa-amw«l wa-aml«k). Apart from a kh«n, ‘Izz al-D»n erected an elegant ¯amm«m,242 and his turba in Damascus where he was buried in 725AH/AD1325.

am»r was himself the patron, or merely Tankiz’s executor. The passages read (al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, pp. 247–248): …On the route from Gaza to Damascus one arrives as Jit»n—and this is a bar»d station—then arrives at Bayt Dar«s—and at that place there is a kh«n built by N«·ir al-D»n al-Khaznad«r al-Tankiz»…

For Almalik and his kh«n on the Damascus route— perhaps to be identified with Kh«n al-Sukkariya near Qiryat Gat (‘Ar«q al-Manshiya)—as well as his probable patronage of Kh«n J−khad«r in the Golan Heights, see the respective entries in Chapter 5, the Gazetteer.

…Then from there to Ludd, from there to al-‘Awj«’— that is off the road and would be better if it was removed from there—then from there to al-²»ra—and there, there is a kh«n, started by (wa-bih« kh«n shara‘a f»hi…) N«·ir al-D»n al-Daw«d«r al-Tank»z» and finished by someone else—then from there to Q«q−n…

The last patron known to have built during al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s Sultanate—the Damascene merchant Am»n al-D»n Ibn al-Ba··—was also closely connected to Syria and, most probably, to Tankiz himself. He built the kh«ns at Lajj−n (see Gazetteer) and at Muzayrib in the ®awr«n.243

Unfortunately, neither of these kh«ns survive. In any event, this patron should probably be identified with the am»r N«·ir al-D»n, mushidd al-awq«f (comptroller of the endowments), n«μir al-®aramayn (inspector of the two holy precincts, Jerusalem and Hebron) since 729AH/AD1328. According to Muj»r al-D»n, N«·ir al-D»n was in charge of various restorations, including those at al-Aq·« Mosque in the name of Tankiz (supra, note 238), undertaken in 731AH/AD1330 (Muj»r al-D»n, al-‘Uns, ii, p. 271; Histoire, p. 265).240

The chronicler al-Nu‘aym», after Shih«b al-D»n b. ®ajj» and ‘Alam al-D»n Q«sim b. Mu¯ammad al-Birz«l» (d. 739AH/AD1339; F. Rosenthal, EI2, i, pp. 1238–1239), cites the name of the founder of Kh«n al-Lajj−n and Muzayrib—Shaykh Am»n al-D»n Ibn al-Ba·· al-T«jjir. According to al-Birz«l», Ibn al-Ba·· was a pious man, who spent a considerable amount of his fortune on charity (f» sab»l al-khayr), building not only these two kh«ns,244 but also renovating the Mosque al-Dhibb«n (Flies) next to his own mausoleum, the mosque’s minaret and the tomb inside, all in 723AH/AD1323.245 Ibn al-Ba·· passed away in Dh− ’l-®ijja 731/September 1331 and was buried in his Damascene turba (al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 2, p. 233; Sauvaire 1895/II, pp. 228, 275–276, footnote 22).

In the case of the kh«n in J»n»n, a station of the bar»d since Baybars’ reign (see Gazetteer for Baybars’ visit to J»n»n), al-‘Umar»’s wording is clearer (al-`Umar», alTa‘r»f, p. 248). He related its erection (or renewal; ‘ammara) to ²«j«r al-Daw«d«r al-Tankiz» (d. 742AH/AD1341–1342) and highlighted its qualities: “a beautiful structure of great benefit, no structure on the road surpasses it…” The kh«n and a ¯aw± li’l-sab»l (public fountain) on the Gaza route, were apparently the most important projects undertaken by ²«j«r al-Daw«d«r, according to his biography in al-¶afad»’s al-W«f» (vol. 16, pp. 378–379). The buildings erected by ²«j«r at Qa³r«, another markaz of the bar»d on the route from Gaza, should also be added to his list of architectural projects.241

In addition to the patronage of kh«ns by Muslims, we know of inns erected by non-Muslims, catering to wayfarers side by side with other structures on the road. A passage in Frescobaldi’s Viaggio (Frescobaldi, Viaggio, p. 136; Visit, p. 67) refers to such a non-Muslim hostelry:

²«j«r al-Daw«d«r was known for his extensive financial interests. In 740AH/AD1339, the year his kh«n was erected, he was imprisoned together with two other am»rs, following an accusation by al-Nash−, al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s n«μir al-kh«·· (inspector of the privy purse), of fraudulent acquisition of lands (Levanoni 1995, p. 76). That ²«j«r’s political power was notable we learn from the outcome of the above episode: it eventually led to the incarceration of al-Nash−, and not of the am»rs accused.

Then on the XIX day of November we left Gaza to go to the land of promise, going towards the Valley of Abor, where today is the Land of St. Abraham, leaving to our left the plain of the city of Rama, where Samson killed a big thousand of the Philistines with the jaw-bone of an ass, as the Bible relates. The first day we travelled through desert country, and in the evening we reached a khan, which they say a Florentine lady had built. And in this place we put up

Another prosperous am»r involved with kh«n patronage is ‘Izz al-D»n Kha³³«b b. Ma¯m−d b. Mart‘ash, the builder of Kh«n Kha³³«b between Kiswa and Ghab«ghib (Ibn Kath»r, al-Bid«ya, vol. 14, p. 121; al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 2, p. 244; Meinecke 1992, vol. 2, p. 142, Nr. 9C/194). According to the sources, ‘Izz al-D»n was a

242

Both the Ibn Kath»r and the al-Nu‘aym» texts read “walahu ¯amm«m bi¯ikr al-sim«k” (Ibn Kath»r summ«q), but I believe this should be “bi ¯ajar al-summ«q,” i.e., made of porphyry, a better reading in the architectural context. 243 Muzayrib is located in the ®awr«n, at Lat 32º42’40”N/Long 36º1’32”E, 473 m above sea-level. See also footnote 211. 244 Kh«n al-Lajj−n was clearly a charitable foundation, being referred to by al-‘Uthm«n», writing between 774 and 778AH/AD1372–1376, as a kh«n sab»l (al-‘Uthm«n», p. 483). 245 Al-Nu‘aym» also gives the reading of the inscription on the mosque’s façade. It lists the works undertaken by Ibn al-Ba·· and also the properties endowed for their benefit (al-D«ris, vol. 2, p. 233).

240

N«·ir al-D»n's name is not clear from neither of these sources. Should ²aj«r’s ¯aw± listed by al-¶afad» be identified as the public well at Qa³r«? The passage reads: “…Then from there [Bayt Dar«s] to Qa³r«—and this is a renewed station (where) there is a public well (bi’r sab»l) and ruins of buildings by ²«j«r al-Daw«d«r al-N«·ir», in charge of the renewal of this station…” (al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, pp. 247–248)

241

54

The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns The erection of charitable kh«ns by Sultans and am»rs can be interpreted as acts of benevolence that reached out to the people, nourishing the patron’s prestige in the eyes of his subjects and promoting their support. The repeated denomination as kh«n li’l-sab»l, kh«n al-sab»l or merely kh«n sab»l (see Chapter 2, p. 12), strengthen the socialreligious status associated with these foundations.

for the night, giving a dirhem a piece for lodging to the keeper who runs the place…246

Despite the charge for lodging described by Frescobaldi, we read in Gucci’s testimony that: the place was built by a renegade Christian, who willed that in this place all Christian pilgrims could put up without pay. And so it is; for we paid nothing; and the Saracans [sic] who put up there pay something. (Frescobaldi, Visit, p. 123)

It is not surprising to find Qur’«nic passages in some of the foundation inscriptions of the rural kh«ns under discussion (see Chapter 2). Even if understood as true expressions of personal piety, these inscriptions became part of the patrons’ outward proof of faith. Kh«n Dann−n in Syria (778AH/AD1376) is a good example (p. 13):

3.2 The Religious Background—Generosity and Charity That which ye lay out for increase through the property of [other] people, will have no increase with Allah: but that which ye lay out for charity, seeking the Countenance of Allah, [will increase]: it is these who will get a recompense multiplied (Qur’«n 30: 39).

Those who spend their substance in the cause of All«h, and follow not up their gifts with reminders of their generosity—or with injury—for them, their reward is with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (Qur’«n 2: 262)

In his entry ‘Almsgiving’ in the Encyclopaedia of the Qur’«n, A. Nanji (i, pp. 64–70) elaborates on this central ideal in Islamic society and religion:

It was perhaps the social-religious status of the kh«ns that attracted the eclectic group of patrons involved in their construction. On the one hand, maml−ks of various ranks would feel at ease investing in such an institution, which, whatever its commercial advantages, was nevertheless an accepted charitable foundation. Merchants, on the other, could also benefit from the kh«ns’ dual nature, by fulfilling their social-religious duty as imposed by the Qur’«n, and meeting the expectations—at times even demands—of their rulers and the ‘ulam«’. Even though only two merchants are known as patrons, between them they were responsible for the erection or renovation of six kh«ns.247

“…Individuals within a society, whom God endowed with a capacity to acknowledge and respond to him were seen as trustees through whom the moral and spiritual vision of the Qur’«n was fulfilled in personal and communal life. They were thus accountable for the way in which they used their resources and their wealth, and they earned religious merit by expending them in a socially beneficial way. While recognizing that individuals were endowed with different abilities, resources and property, the Qur’«n emphasizes the ideal of social solidarity and enjoins justice and generosity (Q 16:90). In particular, it holds up as truly virtuous those who spend their resources to assist others (Q 57:18) and condemns the hoarders of wealth (Q 3: 180).” (EQ, i, p. 64)

An early, if not the earliest, example dating to the Mamluk period of a charity-oriented building is Baybars’ kh«n in Jerusalem (see above, p. 44). According to the various sources, during his visit to Jerusalem the Sultan ordered the erection of a kh«n (Ibn ‘Abd al-§«hir, Raw±, pp. 220–221; al-‘Asqal«n», ®usn al-Man«qib, pp. 86–87; Ibn Shadd«d, al-A’l«q al-kha³»ra, pp. 237–238; al-Y−n»n», vol. 1, p. 554; al-Maqr»z», Sul−k I/2, p. 521; al-Maqr»z», Khi³a³, vol. 1, 435; Muj»r al-D»n, al-Uns, ii, p. 87), so “no one should halt in a sown field” (al-Maqr»z», Sul−k I/2, p. 491). In his act of endowment Baybars stipulated that the immobilized income should be devoted to charitable acts, towards those spending the night at his kh«n, and also towards the poor living in Jerusalem (Ibn Shadd«d, S»rat, p. 351).

Accordingly, if the honor of a Muslim can be measured, among others, by the amount of charitable deeds fulfilled during his lifetime, it is not surprising that the Mamluk ruling class, composed of Islamized freed slaves and to a much lesser degree of their offspring, felt that they had much honor, and also legitimacy, to acquire. For a maml−k was not only born non-Muslim; he was brought into Islam as a slave, educated in religion and military doctrine and, after being manumitted, given an opportunity to rise to the highest social ranks. Education in Islam introduced him to codes of social behavior, preparing him to carry out his duties towards the people over whom he ruled (Lapidus 1984, p. 68).

As well as realizing the altruistic and pious intentions of the maml−ks, the kh«n was perhaps part of their patron’s self-presentation before the public. It reflected his care for all sectors of the population, from the poor seeking charity to the wealthy merchant enjoying the kh«n’s services. Apparently even the most prestigious Mamluk rulers and am»rs needed their support, their economic and political power still not being strong enough to guarantee their ascendance and continuance among the ruling elite. This was the case during al-Malik al-§«hir Barq−q’s

246

Three stations come to mind when speaking of the road between Gaza and Hebron during the Maml−k period: Umm L«kis, a relaystation of the royal mail, which not necessarily had a kh«n serving regular travelers, Khirbat al-Sukkariya (see Gazetteer below, entry no. 19), where remains of a kh«n were reported in the early twentieth century but are no longer visible, and Bayt Jibr»n. Could Frescobaldi be referring to one of these? In fact, in the memoirs written by Giorgio Gucci and Simone Sigoli, both traveling with Frescobaldi, the location is named, respectively, Butingi and Abutigia (Frescobaldi, Visit, pp. 123, 179). It is possible this denomination relates to Bayt Jibr»n, but the other two sites cannot be ruled out. For a the identification of Abutigia with Bayt Jibr»n, see also Bellorini and Hoade’s annotation in their translation of Frescobaldi’s Viaggio (Visit, p. 67, footnote 4). For a similar charge for lodging, see infra, p. 129.

247

On the relationship between the merchant and religious classes, see Fernandes 1997, pp. 116–117.

55

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m of the am»rs profited greatly from these grants (Levanoni 1995, p. 54), we read that they still feared for their economic stability. It seems quite natural that the am»rs would try to find legal ways of perpetuating their property.251

reign (r. 784–801AH/AD1382–1399), for example, when the people were of vital strategic assistance in siding with the sultan during ºn«l al-Y−suf»’s rebellion (Levanoni 1995, pp. 85, 112–114). Kh«n Y−nus, a frontier charitable kh«n of evident military importance, suggests such sociopolitical propaganda. Built under the patronage of Barq−q’s most loyal am»r, his daw«d«r Y−nus alNawr−z», the kh«n’s façade bears emblems (rank) and inscriptions extravagantly glorifying and lauding the Sultan, overtly displayed for all to see:

The case of Fakhr al-D»n Mu¯ammad b. Fa±l All«h (d. 732AH/AD1332) may illustrate the above. He was the patron of the kh«n at al-Kharr−ba in northern Sinai, of the rib«³ at al-Warr«da, also in north Sinai, of three mosques in Cairo (Meinecke 1992, vol. 2, pp. 159–160, Nrs. 9C/286–288), a m«rist«n (hospital) in Ramla (Meinecke 1992, vol. 2, pp. 159–160, Nrs. 9C/283, 289, 290 respectively), a madrasa/z«wiya in the Jerusalem ®aram (Burgoyne 1987, pp. 258–269), and a market in that city (Meinecke 1992, vol. 2, p. 159, Nrs. 9C/284–285). According to Muj»r al-D»n (al-Uns, ii, p.34; Histoire, pp. 141–142), Fakhr al-D»n set up many waqfs, 252 was charitable and generous, fulfilling his religious obligations. He retained administrative office until 709AH/AD1310, during al-N«·ir’s third reign, when he became head of the d»w«n al-jaysh (army bureau). His successful career did not spare him from persecution, consequent dismissal, and confiscation of assets. Even though these were later restored to him, the trauma of confiscation dictated a new policy. The foundation of a mosque in Cairo honoring the Sultan, together with the above buildings, may be understood against the background of Fakhr al-D»n’s wish to avoid future seizure. Still, even his immobilized property did not escape appropriation after his death:

…He [Barq−q] praise be to him, the possessor of the throne, has supported kingship as a most capable protector. The generous sea, possessor of plentiful bounty, Al-Malik al-§«hir Ab− Sa‘»d. Egypt has become through him, a paradise, while its people enjoy their umbrageous shade…

3.3. The Financial Background a. Protecting the assets … the Mamluks found in the waqf a useful means of protecting their personal wealth from confiscation by the Sultan and the state, events which frequently took place in the environment of intense competition for control of the Sultanate which existed among members of the Mamluk ruling elite… (Alhamzeh 1993, p. 18)

Immobilizing properties as waqf and tying them to pious and/or charitable foundations was a long-enduring solution for avoiding state appropriation (‘Waªf’’, EI2, xi, pp. 59–63).248 Agricultural lands were made waqf already in Fatimid and Ayyubid Egypt, for example, and endowed for religious and charitable purposes. As noted by Alhamzeh in his discussion on Mamluk Egypt:

Before his death…he made an attempt to avoid the likely plundering of his estate by bequeathing to the Sultan a large sum of money. Nevertheless, a maml−k of his, Lu’lu’, was forced to provide a full list of his master’s possessions, commodities of trade and real estate in Egypt and Syria, including some in the Jerusalem district, whether they had been made waqf or not. (Burgoyne 1987, p. 259)

not only were agricultural lands given as waqf but other types of real estate were placed under restraint on a large scale as well. In time, it seems, the majority of urban real estate, including houses (d−r), shops 249 in Mamluk (haw«nit) and residential palaces (rab‘) Egypt came to be owned and administered by and through pious or family endowments. In addition, it is estimated that almost half of the agricultural land in the countryside was made [waqf]. (Alhamzeh 1993, pp. 16– 17).

The waqf was thus a practical, though only tentative, solution for the various financial threats of the Mamluk period. In this context, the establishment of charitable kh«ns could theoretically not only contribute to the immobilization of part of the patron’s properties; if built in or near their boundaries, they could also add to their

The waqf system was thus common during the Mamluk period, applied not only in Egypt but in the whole Sultanate. It helped to compensate for the rules of inheritance of the period in which a maml−k could not bequeath his assets to his family,250 as well as for the lack of financial stability during his lifetime. For despite the profits guaranteed by the remuneration system of the period, based on the granting of iq³«‘«t and aml«k (private properties), it was not uncommon for the Sultan to have his am»rs’ properties seized and their assets stripped. Especially during al-N«·ir’s reign, when some

251

But despite the efforts made to keep assets immobilized as waqf, and contrary to strict shari‘ah regulations, it was common, at least in fifteenth century Egypt, for lands to be released from their waqf stricture (Conermann and Saghbini 2002, p. 32). 252 According to the norms of the Mamluk society, neither military rank nor social status could be transmitted from a maml−k to his offspring; there was also a danger that personal assets would be expropriated after the death of the maml−k (see discussion in Ayalon 1996, pp. 25- 26 and in Conermann and Saghbini’s introduction to Awl«d al-N«s as Founders of Pious Endowments, 2002, pp. 21–25, also referring to the relevant bibliography). The above conditions established that, unless immobilized as waqf (endowment), and more specifically as a waqf ahl», i.e., a family endowment, the assets of a deceased maml−k should be turned over to the authorities. In Mamluk Syria and Egypt the waqf ahl» provided for both family and charitable causes by benefiting a charitable institution while also immobilizing part of the income to the benefit of the founder and his family. See D. Behrens-Abouseif, ‘Waªf in Egypt’, EI2, xi, p. 65. This provided ample motivation for the building activity during the Mamluk period.

248

See p. 35, note 160. Residential complexes rather. 250 On the connection between the rules of inheritance and the vast building activity during the Mamluk period, see Humphreys 1972; Ayalon 1996, p. 26. 249

56

The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns value. For a kh«n would not only be a successful way of avoiding heavy taxes and duties by establishing an a priori profitable property as a charitable foundation. It would increase the patron’s income by attracting inland commerce, while also creating a tied market for his own produce.

lucrative interchange with the West. Agricultural lands had also suffered from the political vacuum which had characterized the late years of Ayyubid rule. General security on the roads and in the urban centers was also threatened, leaving no infrastructure for healthy and steady commerce (Irwin 1986, pp. 22, 46).253 To this one can add the instability specifically experienced in Syria during the early 1250s, resulting from al-N«·ir Y−suf’s weak grip on his provinces, his weakness vis-à-vis the Crusaders, as well as his unsuccessful attempts to conquer Egypt (Irwin 1986, p. 30). Much had to be done by the early Mamluk rulers to overcome the difficulties inherited from their predecessors.

Aybak’s patronage of four Ayyubid kh«ns in the borders of his own iq³«‘«t during the early thirteenth century (see above, p. 46) may serve as an indication that a similar pattern could theoretically also have occurred during the Mamluk period, despite different principles of iq³«‘ distribution (on the latter, see Humphreys 1977, pp. 371– 375).

Baybars, praised by historians not only for the actual establishment of the Mamluk regime, but also for his disciplined rule over his large dominion, could not have succeeded in his external and internal struggles were it not for his understanding of the role of a healthy and profitable economy in maintaining his authority.

Unfortunately, in the absence of a list of aml«k (sing. mulk, private property) granted to the various am»rs during the early fourteenth century or before, it is virtually impossible to ascertain a geographical connection between the rural inns and the patrons’ private lands, or of their wish to have the latter’s value enhanced and immobilized.

Already during his visit to Palestine in 659AH/AD1261, Baybars negotiated a series of treaties with Frankish Jaffa, Acre and Beirut. According to the chronicler Ibn alFur«t, “the roads became safe and there was an increase in imports.” (Ibn al-Fur«t, Selections, vol. 1, p. 53; vol. 2, p. 44) The same policy was pursued by Qal«w−n, whose reign was characterized, among others, by its commercial relations with the Franks and Western powers (Irwin 1986, pp. 72–73).254

The kind of economic formula suggested above is best described by Alhamzeh, in his discussion on Sultan alGh−r»’s endowment act. He thus summarizes the role of certain charitable foundations in preserving the patron’s wealth (Alhamzeh 1993, pp. 20–21): As is well known, trade, both internal and international, flourished under the Mamluks and was engaged in by many members of the ruling elite, including the Sultans themselves. Although normally the profits of such enterprises would have been subject to various stateimposed dues and tariffs, when they were carried on under the guise of waqf ahl», since such foundations were in principal [sic] charitable acts, and since, according to Islamic Law charity is a sort of selftaxation, the income of such enterprises would have escaped state taxes.

b. Promoting Commerce

In time, the Levantine economy was re-established, with local and international trade flourishing and generating great profits. The end of the thirteenth century saw the growth of the Levantine trade of the South European nations, also opening up new markets for European industries, mainly textiles. Developments in banking techniques as well as in navigation gave traders more mobility to work all year round on the route along the Mediterranean (Ashtor 1983, pp. 3ff.).

Road inns are doubtless best associated with the notion of merchant caravans looking for water and shelter. Indeed merchants might find refuge from highway robbers, but could not avoid government taxes and compulsory payments. Ibn Ba³³−³a’s early fourteenth century testimony shows how commerce generated a high income for the Mamluk state (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Travels, vol. 1, p. 72):

The fall of Acre in 1291 was economically painful for both the West and the Mamluks—the former lost their main port in the Levant while the Muslims, ironically, lost their commercial sea-bridge.255 The Mamluks had to assure the commercial infrastructure that would keep the western commercial powers, mainly the Catalans, Venetians and Genoese, interested in the Levantine trade

Among these stations is the well-known place called Qa³y«, which the people pronounce Qa³ya, where zak«t is collected from the merchants, their goods are examined, and their baggage most rigorously searched. There are government offices here, with officers, clerks, and notaries, and its daily revenue is a thousand gold dinars. No one may pass this place in the direction of Syria without a passport from Egypt, nor into Egypt without a passport from Syria, as a measure of protection for a person’s property and of precaution against spies from Iraq.

253

Irwin also suggests that the local economy was further disturbed when Turkomans and Kurds, either fleeing the Mongol incursions in the East or encouraged by Baybars himself, brought their herds of cattle into the Levant (Irwin 1986, p. 30). 254 On the commercial relations between the Mamluks and the West, and between the Mamluks and the Frankish states before the fall of Acre in 1291, see also Holt 1986, pp. 156–166. 255 See Ashtor 1983, pp. 3–9. As to the fate of the Crusader ports, said to have been completely destroyed by the Mamluks, documents regarding the active commerce between them and Cyprus after 1291 leave little doubt that most continued to function, though trade was much reduced. Even Acre, described in various travelogues as in ruins, seems to have carried some commercial traffic at the turn of the fourteenth century, and was operating during the first decades of the fourteenth century (Atiya 1935, pp. 58–62; Ashtor 1983, pp. 39–44). On Mamluk dependence on the European sea powers both for the supply of raw material and for the supply of maml−ks, see Ayalon 1980, p. 339.

This description of a flourishing commerce should not be taken entirely for granted. Baybars inherited an economically traumatized Muslim Levant, existing beside a relatively wealthy Frankish kingdom that enjoyed a

57

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m their political and economic power (Levanoni 1995, p. 72; see also Amitai 1990, pp. 152–156). They mostly ended up imprisoned and/or executed. 257

(Ashtor 1983, pp. 10–14). The Genoese were especially important, for they possessed privileges in the Black Sea area, source of the Qipchaq slaves (Ashtor 1983, p. 11). Such an infrastructure demanded properly operating ports where merchants could anchor their ships, safe routes that would connect them to the main centers and provide them with accommodation and provisions and good markets where they could buy and sell goods. At the same time, this infrastructure would promote commerce within the Mamluk realm itself.

The growing polarization between the Sultan and the am»rs, as well as between the Sultan and the local merchants (Levanoni 1995, p. 65), in both cases over trade issues, was among the first signs of the Sultanate’s deterioration from within.258 Further signs became evident following al-N«·ir’s death. The fragile association between the Sultanate and the Syrian Bedouin (al-‘arab or al-‘urb«n) soon surfaced, together with strife among the Bedouin themselves. During his rule, al-N«·ir managed some orchestration among the tribes, on the background of representation before the government.259 After his death, tribal rivalry soon erupted, causing much loss to Egypt and Syria. Especially in Syrian lands, open Bedouin conflicts endangered roads, commerce and agriculture (Levanoni 1995, pp. 178–179).

Al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w−n became, Irwin says, …the greatest entrepreneur in his lands, engaging in import and export both in the Mediterranean and in the Red Sea, as well as grain sales, and sugar and textile production. (Irwin 1986, p. 112)

Karīm al-D»n, al-N«·ir’s n«μir al-kh«ss (overseer of crown property), established commercial representations in every town in Egypt and Syria (Irwin 1986, p. 112). It is thus not surprising, and naturally not exceptional, that Karīm al-D»n is also associated with the erection of two kh«ns in northern Sinai in Egyptian territory: at al-Qu·ayr to the west, just a few stops before Qa³iy«/Qa³ya, the administrative centre of Sinai (al-‘Umar», Ta‘r»f, p. 246; see Ibn Ba³³−³a’s passage above, p. 57), and at al-‘Ar»sh (al-‘Umar», Ta‘r»f, p. 247), on the eastern stretch of the road.

The Bedouin danger increased with the outbreak of the Black Death between 748AH/AD1347 and 750AH/ AD1349, when great losses in population left a vacuum for the Bedouin to move deep into south Bil«d al-Sh«m. Their incursions had far-reaching effects on Syria’s depopulated urban centers, and mainly on local industries such as sugar manufacture (Levanoni 1995, p. 179; Holt 1986, p. 194).260 In demographic and economic consequences, the period following the Black Death might naturally have been expected to have been catastrophic for Levantine trade. Manpower decreased, agriculture shrank, but surprisingly, merchants still made great profits. Not only was the real-estate business vigorously nourished by properties left by the deceased, but European demand more than ever stimulated local affairs, now in the hands of fewer entrepreneurs.261 Still, the economy never completely recovered, especially as a series of epidemics kept striking the Levant (Levanoni 1995, pp. 136–139).262

Commerce was not limited to government and mercantile investment, however. By investing large sums of money in business enterprises, powerful am»rs cultivated their economic independence, and with it their bases for political ascendance (Levanoni 1995, pp. 142–148; Lapidus 1984, pp. 59ff.). The written sources offer some examples of this (Levanoni 1995, p. 66, note 167), also pointing to the decentralization of the economic power. That the part the am»rs played in the growth in commerce and trade was extensive is borne out by the number of markets and inns they built in Cairo to accommodate the foreign merchants who operated on their behalf. (Levanoni 1995, p. 148)

257

On the procedure of the Sultans to place their favored am»rs on positions of power, while also systematically weakening the senior ones, see Ayalon 1953, pp. 206–216; Amitai 1990, pp. 156–158. 258 See also Ayalon 1993, p. 110, n. 4. 259 On the importance of these tribes to the stability of the early Mamluk regime, see Amitai-Preiss 1995, pp. 64–71. Among them the ªl Fa±l, who controlled the country between Hama and the Euphrates, and from Qal‘at Ja‘bar to al-Ra¯ba, stood out. However, see Ayalon 1988, p. 27, for the later temporary alliance between the ªl Fa±l—lead by alMuhann«—and Ilkh«nid Iran, against the Mamluk Sultanate under alN«·ir Mu¯ammad. 260 Kate Raphael of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is currently researching natural disasters in Greater Syria during the Middle Ages. Her work, funded by the Galilee Project under the auspices of York University in the UK and the Hebrew University in Israel, aims to learn how severe crisis influenced leaders in the region to take decisions. Her results should provide a more emcompassing picture of the shortcomings faced by the local population during the mid-fourteenth century. 261 On the ambiguous commercial relations with the West in the period following the Black Death, see Ashtor 1983, pp. 71ff. 262 On the plagues that struck the Mamluk army, see Ayalon 1946, even though he mainly deals with the ninth/fifteenth century waves. Those, according to Ayalon, unlike the Black Death of 749AH/AD1348, “did not affect all sections of the population equally. Its victims were chiefly foreigners and children, elements that had not secured a sufficient

To this we can add the am»rs’ association with road inn patronage in Syria. Such inns, as noted above, played an important role in attracting inland trade; they made the Sultanate’s roads more attractive and safer, bringing merchants closer to agricultural lands and to manufacturers.256 It is thus not coincidental that at least some of the patrons discussed in connection with road inns—Sal«r, Sanjar alJ«wul», Baktamur al-J−kand«r and even Tankiz—held pivotal roles in the Mamluk regime, though at the same time they were perceived as a threat to the Sultan due to 256

The degree of economic independence achieved by the am»rs, as well as their open disregard for the once-accepted rules of the regime, is expressed by episodes associated with the figure of Sharaf al-D»n Ibn Fa±l All«h (al-Nash−), appointed al-N«·ir’s n«μir al-kh«·· in 733AH/AD1333. In his efforts to cause the am»rs to fulfil their legal duties and let part of their profits flow into the treasury, al-Nash− encountered much protest and disobedience (see above, p. 54; Holt 1986, p. 118; Levanoni 1995, pp. 73–80).

58

The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns 10th of the month Dh− ’l-Qa‘da of the year 852 (15th January 1449).

In terms of the patronage of Syrian road inns little happened until the 1370’s, during the reign of al-Malik Ashraf Sha‘b«n (r. 765–778AH/AD1364–1377). In 773AH/AD1371–1372 the Sultan had a kh«n erected north of Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘m«n on the road to Aleppo, under the supervision of the am»r Manjak b. ‘Abd All«h al-Y−sufī, who apparently himself built a kh«n at the village of ®isy« (see footnote 228). Kh«n Dann−n was also erected during Sha‘b«n’s reign, but not necessarily under his patronage (see inscription in Chapter 2, p. 13).

The inscription is placed above the window next to the southern entrance to Z«wiya Ban«t ®amid in Safed, originally built in 774AH/AD1372 as the mausoleum of the am»r Muμaffar al-D»n M−sa b. ®«jj Aruq³«y (Mayer 1950, p. 43). Its content, of pure economic purport, targets merchants trading in Safed, the provincial capital and the central city in the Galilee. The very existence of this inscription reveals the abusive situation reigning in the markets, but at the same time the regime’s attempts to control it.264

Catastrophes kept hitting the Levant, crowned by Tamarlane’s invasion of Syria in 803AH/AD1400, with far-reaching consequences (Ayalon 1993, pp. 113–114), including a rise in prices, land taxes, inflation, as well as extortion by the ruling regime.

The same conditions probably prevailed in the time of Q«ytb«y, when a notable effort was made to revive the Sultanate’s economy and military power. Road safety was a primary necessity for overland trade, but above all it was crucial for military movement. The Ottomans, as the Mongols and Franks before them, were a threat to the Mamluks. Like Baybars, Q«ytb«y attempted to preserve a proper line of communication between Egypt and the Syrian border, reviving for a last time the Mamluk royal mail (bar»d), in a state of decay at least since 1400, following Tamerlane’s incursion. The relationship between the bar»d and the erection of rural inns by the Mamluks is the subject of the discussion that follows.

Of great interest is the patronage of the wealthy merchant Ibn al-Muzalliq, who undertook a contiguous line of kh«ns between the Galilee and the Golan Heights. As stated by al-Nu‘aym» (al-D«ris, vol. 2, p. 290; Sauvaire 1895/II, pp. 261–263): …and he [Shams al-D»n ibn al-Muzalliq] built magnificent inns (kh«n«t ‘aμ»ma)263 in Qunay³ra, Jisr Ya‘q−b, al-Minya, ‘Uy−n al-Tujj«r, on the route between Syria and Egypt. And he spent over a hundred thousand din«rs on their erection. Inside each of these inns there is water. They were extremely beautiful, in a way never surpassed by any king or caliph…

3.4. The Institutional Background—The Royal Mail (Bar»d)

It is true that the extortion of compulsory loans and “contributions” (mu·«dar«t) from rich merchants was a common practice during the Mamluk period (Ashtor 1983, p. 274). It is also possible that not every kh«n represented a profitable enterprise for its patron, but was mainly a money-saving device for the government, exempting the treasury from investing in road architecture (see below, p. 59). On the other hand, Ibn alMuzalliq’s efforts could also be interpreted as a way of reviving commerce in the region—perhaps the trade in raw materials and sugar, especially on the Upper Galilee– Damascus axis, where his kh«ns are located. In fact, an inscription found in Safed points to parallel efforts to revive commerce in the region (Mayer 1950, p. 43):

In his work on the bar»d, La Poste aux Chevaux dans l’Empire des Mamlouks, Sauvaget suggested that it was during al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s third reign that new kh«ns were erected functioning as mercantile inns and as horserelay stations catering to the royal mail (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 153–154). According to this theory, their erection saved the treasury considerable outlay, for it absolved the State from building and maintaining many individual relay stations. At the same time, as discussed in the previous section, it advanced commerce, eventually benefiting the treasury through taxes and duties (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 53–54). The imperial postal service was an institution already known in pre-Islamic Persia and Byzantium (D. Sourdel, ‘Bar»d’, EI2, i, pp. 1045–1046; al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 239; Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1923, p. 241, note 1).265 The aim of this service was to send information as

In the name of the most merciful God. It has been decreed by royal and august order of our Lord, the Sultan al-Malik al-§«hir Ab− Sa‘»d Jaqmaq, may God make his reign eternal, that the illegal taxes which are being levied for merchandise entering the D«r alWak«la in Safed, may it be protected, shall be abolished, and that none of those who bring in the goods shall encounter any opposition whatsoever. It has been ordered to write this during the governorship of His Most Noble Excellency Sayf al-D»n Yashbak al®amz«w», governor-general of the province of Safed, may God make his victories glorious, on the date of the

264

See also the inscription at the entrance to St. James Cathedral in Jerusalem, dated 854AH/AD1450–1451. It was similarly conceived and also associated with Sultan Jaqmaq (CIA, Jerusalem, Ville, pp. 331– 336). 265 For a concise history on the royal mail, from pre-Islamic times to the Mamluk period, see A.J. Silvertein, Postal Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World, Cambridge, 2007. Worthwhile also mentioning M. Saig's M.A. thesis submitted to the Dept. of Arabic of Bar Ilan University (Saig 1977), in which Saig also deals with this institution, since the Achaemenid period. Unlike Silverstein, Saig also deals with the development of the stations and the khāns in Palestine, unfortunately falling into the pitfall of including road-inns which not necessarily catered to the barīd, e.g. Khān Y−nus, Khān Jubb Y−suf , or in considering that the Ottoman qal‘a at Afek/Rās al-‘Ayn should be identified as the Mamluk khān of al-‘Awjā’ (Saig 1977, pp. 99–119). See discussion below on the khān at Jalj−liya.

degree of immunity, a category which, of course, included the Mamlûks.” (Ayalon 1946, p. 69) 263 For the incidence of superlatives in architectural descriptions in the various written sources, see Rabbat 2002, pp. 158–165. On the use of ‘aμ»m, kab»r and f«khir for conveying “monumentality and display of wealth,” see Rabbat 2002, p. 160.

59

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m 27). The stations were not positioned at regular distances from each other, as the term bar»d as a measure of length (al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 239) seems to imply, but varied according to topographical and logistic circumstances (Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1923, p. 241; Sauvaget 1941, pp. 27–28).

quickly as possible to and between the governing bodies, by means of fast messengers, on foot or on horseback. Relay stations were set up where the messenger could change horses and immediately continue on his journey. The system was adopted by the Umayyads and improved by the ‘Abbasids, especially during the reign of Hār−n alRash»d (170–193AH/AD786–809), when the meaning and potential of the bar»d as an administrative implement was expanded beyond military needs. Hār−n al-Rash»d understood its properties in controlling the provincial governors located far from the capital, and also the personnel of his own court. With the decline of ‘Abbasid rule and the decentralization of the Empire, the bar»d gradually lost its effectiveness. Even though used by the various regimes that followed, the bar»d recovered its importance only when it was renewed during Baybars’ reign (al-‘Umar», Ta‘rif, pp. 239–242; GaudefroyDemombynes 1923, p. 241, footnote 2).

But while Baybars is much to be honored for his reestablishment and personal involvement with the bar»d, it was still far from achieving its full potential. The reasons were mainly logistical: not enough couriers and suitable horses were used solely by the bar»d (Sauvaget 1941, p. 23), as well as various technical problems on the routes hindered the service. According to al-‘Umar», it was only during an-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s reign that certain routes were re-drawn to avoid long distances, topographically difficult stretches, and river fords.268 During al-N«·ir’s third reign the number of messengers (sing. bar»d») increased and the service itself became more frequent and faster. According to Sauvaget, the main strategy applied by the administration of the bar»d under the Ibn Fa±l Allah family269 was to charge the provinces where the relays were located with their upkeep. The advantage of this system was that it relieved the central treasury of outlays related to the maintenance and/or building of stations, provision of horses and equipment. It also encouraged the convergence of government and commercial traffic into the same routes and buildings, thus creating a new source of income for the central treasury through the payment of mercantile taxes (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 53–54).

After having reunited the lands from Egypt to the Euphrates under his authority, Baybars became concerned with an efficient administration able to link even the furthest regions with the central government in the citadel in Cairo. Whatever the ancient models, it was probably a current parallel, the Y«m used by the Mongols since 631AH/AD1234 (their occupation of Northern China), that most influenced Baybars.266 To Ayalon “[t]he Bar»d was a powerful weapon in the hands of the Mongols, and Baybars found it prudent to wield their own weapon in his wars against them.” (Ayalon 1971, p. 301; following Sauvaget 1941, p. 13).

Basing himself on al-‘Umar», Sauvaget tried to explain the dynamics of the bar»d route between Cairo and Damascus and the gradual replacement of primitive relay stations for what he called “les caravansérails du barid.” He maintained that at the time of Baybars, who reestablished the service, the mar«kiz (relay stations), were housed either in pre-existing buildings, including Ayyubid kh«ns, or in newly built structures, examples of which he identified in his field survey (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 29–41). Those were simple constructions with limited living space, large stables and narrow gateways. These main elements, Sauvaget thought, persisted in the structures erected during the late thirteenth - early fourteenth centuries, even though there were some architectural developments in planning and style of construction. According to this interpretation, none of these buildings could have suited a more public function, given that the limited living space was inadequate for large groups of people such as caravans; their large stables were appropriate to a markaz, but unnecessary in

Of course this institution was vital when dealing with outside enemies, but no less so against those from within—conspiring Mamluks, rebellious Bedouin, and the hostile Ayyubid princes (Irwin 1986, pp. 44–46). When Baybars died in 676AH/AD1277, the bar»d had achieved its basic objectives: it connected the main centers of the Mamluk empire by well-planned roads— the Darb al-Sul³«n»267—to be used by the bar»d, along which couriers could travel safely and quickly. The roads bypassed remains of the Crusader Kingdom and reached the frontiers of the Ilkh«nid empire; they were an important military advantage in the wars against the Crusaders and the Mongols (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 23–27). To maintain the efficiency of the service, troops and watchtowers guarded the roads, while relay stations were built to allow messengers to get water, provisions and change exhausted horses for fresh ones (GaudefroyDemombynes 1923, p. 241, footnote 1; Sauvaget 1941, p. 266

On the Y«m, see Morgan 1986, pp. 103–107, Gazagnadou 1994, pp. 45–59. For some arguments opposing the influence of the Mongol mail system on the bar»d, see Silverstein 2007, pp. 165, 169–170. 267 The belief that the darb al-sul³«n» was established for the sole use of the couriers (Sauvaget 1941, p. 15) is debatable, since it is known that travelers and merchants also used large stretches of this road. Besides, many of the relay stations were originally Ayyubid kh«ns—clearly erected for travelers and merchants. The only stretches most likely to have been exclusive to the bar»d» were those in the Syrian desert, removed from the trade routes, and leading to the Empire’s furthest borders.

268

See, for example, al-Ta‘r»f, pp. 247–248 for the advantages of building the markaz at Qa³ra; on building the markaz at Dhir‘»n (alTa‘r»f, p. 248), and mainly on diverting the route to Jisr S«ma to avoid fording the Jordan river (al-Ta‘r»f, pp. 248–249). 269 Long identified with key roles in the chancery (diw«n al-insh«’) during the Mamluk regime. See Sauvaget 1941, p. 51, footnote 214; K.S. Salibi, EI2, ii, pp. 732–733). A famous member of this family is Shih«b al-D»n A¯mad, author of al-Ta‘r»f and Mas«lik al-Ab·ar (see above, p. 90), who served as head of chancery in Damascus between 740AH/AD1339 and 743AH/AD1342 (K.S. Salibi, EI2, iii, p. 758).

60

The Patronage of Mamluk Rural Inns a public kh«n, where people and beasts could stay in a single space; the narrow gateways could only have admitted lone horsemen, not loaded caravans wishing to enter the structure; and finally, the often awkward geographical and topographical location would have made it hard for loaded beasts of burden to reach them (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 33–34).

These features allow us to infer the use of this kh«n for multiple functions, including that of a markaz. Another station which testifies to the multiple functions of the kh«ns is the no longer extant one in J»n»n. This is an example of the transformation of a “primitive” station into an impressive inn. According to al-Maqr»z», Baybars visited this relay station in 667AH/AD1269 when traveling to Syria. The only thing he found there were “lame horses covered with sores.” (al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, I/2, p. 576; Sauvaget 1941, p. 23, footnote 104). On the other hand, al-‘Umar», when referring to J»n»n in the 1340’s, described it as having a beautiful kh«n (kh«n jam»l albin«’i), of great utility, no other kh«n on the route being more splendid (laysa f»’l-³ar»q… a¯san minhu), better fortified, more useful or more beautiful (azyan) (al‘Umar», Ta‘r»f, p. 248; see Gazetteer).

According to Sauvaget, the second building category serving the royal mail was the kh«n. It differed from the previous category in dimensions, building style, architectural detail, as well as decoration. Kh«n al-Sab»l, between Homs and Aleppo (see Table 2), is Sauvaget’s prototype for this category, being of great importance to research for the foundation inscription in situ (see above, p. 13), establishing the nature of the building—a kh«n alsab»l, the date and patron, the executor, the builder, and even a part of the endowment. This kh«n was one of alAshraf Sha‘b«n’s projects, undertaken by his governor of Syria, Sayf al-D»n Manjak, in 773AH/AD1371–72 (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 63–64).

Kh«n al-A¯mar in Bays«n is also an interesting case in the study of the bar»d and the terminology used by al‘Umar» (see Chapter 2, p. 30). Apart from serving as a relay station, it was used for the transport of snow from Syria to Egypt by special camels of the bar»d. In his list al-‘Umar» did not say much about this station, only noting its location at Bays«n. If not for the archaeological remains at the site as well as the finding of the foundation inscription referring to function, date and name of patron, we might be left with the impression that there was no remarkable construction connected with this markaz. The inscription indicates that the building at Bays«n was a public kh«n built to give shelter to passers by and the needy. Its use as a bar»d relay thus seems to be secondary, but this does not explain why al-‘Umar» did not find it necessary to do more than refer to its location.

Still, as Kh«n al-Sab»l is not necessarily the station of Inqir«t« mentioned in the sources, it is difficult to check Sauvaget’s theory. The truth is that the passages where al-‘Umar» writes a formula like “at this x station there is a kh«n…” are not clear evidence for the specific use of the kh«ns for the bar»d service. When he writes for example, …Then to the abovementioned al-Kharr−ba—and there are found a water wheel and the kh«n already mentioned, among the (buildings) erected by Fakhr alD»n, the scribe of the Mamluks—may All«h have mercy on him. And he ordered it (for) the defense of the travelers (like?) the Kh«n al-Kar»m» in al-‘Ar»sh. And this is the last of the mar«kiz of the Shah«ra Bedouin…

The heyday of the Mamluk bar»d did not outlast the midfourteenth century, and definitely not the turn of the fifteenth. Tamerlane’s invasion of Syria in 803AH/AD1400 (Silverstein 2007, pp. 184–185), the frequent Corsair raids on the coastal cities, as well as the advanced deterioration of the Sultanate (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 80–82; Ayalon 1993, p. 110), directly affected the basic conditions for an effective functioning of the service—safety, wealth and discipline. The bar»d never recovered its previous grandeur, especially not its special title of al-bar»d al-man·−r, suggesting its once pivotal role in the “Holy War” against the Mongols and the Crusaders (Sauvaget 1941, p. 27; Ayalon 1971, p. 300).

apart from declaring that at the station Kharr−ba there is a s«qiya and a kh«n, there is no clear indication that the bar»d horses were located inside the kh«n. That a markaz could function even in the open air we can see in the passage on ®abwa, that “… despite having no water or building, it [Habwa] is a stopping place towards which the horses of the Shah«ra Bedouin amble.” (see passage in Chapter 2, p. 30)

Does the above show an inconsistency in Sauvaget’s theory? Not necessarily. The kh«n at al-Maj«mi‘ bridge near the present Kibbutz Gesher on the Jordan river illustrates the fact that some kh«ns were indeed used as relay stations, even though al-‘Umar» clearly refers to that station as a markaz:

4. Summary If in Islam state and religion are part of an integral concept, it seems almost pointless trying to speculate which had special weight in the erection of rural inns in Syria during the Mamluk period. The Mamluks, looking for legitimization as rulers and as “real Muslims,” found in their architectural ventures a convenient and effective way to express power and piety, but also a way to guarantee and support their financial achievements.

… Then from Dhir‘»n to Bays«n, and from there to alMaj«mi‘—and this is a renewed station which I [al‘Umar»] advised [on its reneweal], and this (station) is at the S«ma Bridge, and it is of great advantage due to the great distance between Bays«n and Zu¯ar.

The archaeological excavations undertaken in recent years at this site leave no doubt of its use as a public kh«n. The architectural features of the building (see Gazetteer) are evidence for the fourteenth century date, compensating for the absence of a foundation inscription.

The charitable rural inns—al-kh«n«t li’l-sab»l—make up a special category in the architectural repertoire of buildings erected by the Mamluk rulers and their

61

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m associated elites, responding to the religious aspirations of the patronage, but perhaps mainly providing desirable social prestige and economic security. The kh«ns gave shelter to travelers and provided for the poor, but at the same time they were rendez-vous for merchants, which apart from possibly generating some immediate income, also fostered and protected the routes to which they catered and, consequently, invigorated the commerce within the Sultanate.

expressed, for instance, in episodes concerning al-N«·ir’s treasury inspector al-Nash−, in which a total disregard for once-accepted rules of taxation and government economic centralization is manifested, indicates that profits arising directly or indirectly from their enterprises—to which the inns can be added—did not necessarily reach the coffers in Cairo. Yet such symptoms of disobedience are not surprising—the maml−k system itself, and mainly its rules of inheritance, prevented the maml−ks from basic economic rights and, in the long run, encouraged such behavior.

From its beginning the Mamluk regime promoted trade, both governmental and private. Baybars encountered a country unstructured and unsafe for potential commerce, still very dependent on its Crusader partner. But by the early fourteenth century, and especially during al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s third reign when the Mamluk borders were mostly stabilized, commerce was flourishing. The many road inns that were established during this specific period may be understood as part of this economic process.

However, the symbiosis “bar»d-kh«n“ suggested by Sauvaget seems very logical. On the one hand the kh«ns acted as mar«kiz of the bar»d and thus spared the treasury expense; on the other the inns profited from the safe routes, and consequently increased their income. One can conclude that the patronage of charitable kh«ns, like other Mamluk buildings, was in fact far from purely altruistic. It could also be said that among the various possibilities of religious architectural patronage, the kh«ns seem to have been worthy for they offered return on their patron’s investment in God and man.

The high profits made by the powerful am»rs, who by the early fourteenth century had become great business investors, mainly strengthened their own political and economic ambitions. The disobedience of some am»rs, as

62

Chapter 4 The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period

1. Introduction

2. The Architectural Remains

The Mamluk inns, together with their Ayyubid predecessors and the Saljuq inns of Iran and Anatolia, developed from the basic courtyard plan accessed by a single fortified gate. This plan was also in use in other functional categories throughout the Islamic periods, such as palaces, fortresses and farmhouses. These different categories, however, varied not only in the organization of their covered areas and their aesthetic character, but also in the appearance of appended units, as with the Saljuq inns of Iran and Anatolia. The inns of Syria, on the other hand, adopted the long-lived tradition of single courtyard units since the early Islamic period, and this was the basis for the planning of the Mamluk kh«ns.

Concerning the Mamluk inns of Syria, only twenty-three kh«n«t (see Table 2) offer archaeological material useful in an architectural analysis of what Sauvaget called “le type Syrien du caravansérail.” (Sauvaget 1940, p. 19). Unfortunately, only five of these structures have been excavated—Qaryat al-‘Inab/Ab− Gh−sh near Jerusalem (De Vaux and Stève 1950); Dhr«‘ al-Kh«n in Jordan (Kareem 1997; 2000);271 Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ on the Jordan river (Mokary and Gal 2005; Kh«n Minya (Stepansky 1988–1989) and Kh«n al-Tujj«r in the Galilee (Muqari and Gal 1998). A sixth inn—Kh«n ®athr−ra, on the way between Jerusalem and Jericho—has been recently excavated. A few other structures have been measured by architects—Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b (Stepansky, Mapat Rosh Pina, site no. 112, forthcoming) and Kh«n Jubb Y−suf (Lee et al. 1992, pp. 55–94; Kahaner 1995; Kahaner 2002, pp. 25–32) in the Galilee, Jalj−liya in the Sharon Plain (Petersen 1997), Kh«n Lubban in the West Bank (Hawari 2001), Kh«n Y−nus in the Gaza Strip (Mandatory Department of Antiquities)—and are thus of importance for this study.

M. Siroux, who dealt with late Iranian inns in his Caravansérails d'Iran et petites constructions routières, noted with regard to the Syrian inns that “[c]es établissements ne peuvent être comparés aux car. [caravansarais] iraniens. En effet du début à la fin de la série analysée par M. Sauvaget270 aucune évolution notable n’apparaît, le type reste quasi immuable.” (Siroux 1949, p. 45, footnote 3)

In the absence of full architectural documentation, it is difficult to examine the group in depth, or to apply metrological analysis to reveal planning modules. However, even without detailed descriptions, general layout and structural trends can be elucidated.

Sauvaget suggested that the reason for the architectural longevity and artistic reserve of the so-called “le type syrien” can be found in its suitability to the few requirements imposed by the short distances covered by the caravans to which they catered. These structures did not require the same kind of investment as did the Anatolian and Iranian inns, in spite of their common role as way stations (Sauvaget 1940, p. 19; Siroux 1949, pp. 45–46, footnote 3). Should Sauvaget’s explanation be accepted? Or was the socio-political background for the erection of the inns in the different lands of Islam (see above, pp. 45ff.) the main background for variation?

2.1. Layout The typical plan of the Mamluk rural kh«n in Syria is easy to describe: covered vaulted halls and/or cells surround a square or rectangular open courtyard, which is entered through a central gateway facing one of the cardinal points that determine the building’s main axis. This plan, either square or rectangular, usually maintains symmetry along its axis.272 The dimensions vary, from small (up to 1500 m2), to medium kh«ns (up to 3500 m2) and to large structures (over 3500 m2). There is no apparent attempt to keep standard proportions and a common internal layout. Size and shape seem to reflect the location and topography, as well as the patron's level

This discussion of Mamluk rural inns of Syria will focus on their standard plan, as well as the variations in the architectural concept. It will follow the different stages of construction by dealing with layout, masonry, structural type and decoration. In defining the influences discernible in the main elements, the discussion will introduce some immediate predecessors to the Mamluk inns, as well as relevant architectural sources for the “type syrien.” Some references to earlier scholarly assumptions with regard to the adoption of the courtyard plan by early Islamic inns are included.

271

Dhr«‘ al-Kh«n is situated 33 km west of Irbid, and 15 km north of Pella in Jordan. 272 The layout of Kh«n Y−nus’ central area as an annular unit is exceptional. Annular plans occur in rural inns already during the thirteenth century, as in Saljuq Alara Han in Anatolia (Erdmann 1961, pp. 184–187, tafel XXXII; Yavuz 1997, p. 82, fig. 8). Still, the central area might have been added at a later date, perhaps during the kh«n’s transformation into a fortress (qal‘a) in the seventeenth century.

270 Siroux here refers to Sauvaget 1939 and 1940, dealing respectively with Ayyubid and Mamluk kh«ns.

63

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m of investment, rather than reflect a chronological development. Kh«n al-‘Asal (Pl. I: 4),273 Markiya,274 Ru·«fa (Pl. I: 2)275 and Qaryat al-‘Inab (Pl. II: 1; see Gazetteer) are the smallest structures, the first two measuring 25×25 m., the third ca. 30×30 m., and the last 28×32. In the case of Qaryat al-‘Inab, it is clear that the measurements were dictated by the layout of the previous ‘Abbasid inn, whose remains still stood at the site, thanks to reuse by the Franks. The Mamluk plan was thus a renewal, although it also involved some reorganization. The small size of the original inn was not exceptional; the early Islamic kh«n uncovered at Tell Qasila on the coastal plain (Pl. XIV: 2; Ayalon et al. 1986–7 and 1987–9), for example, is a square building measuring 28 m per side. Another, at Yotvata in the Negev, measures 35×33.5 m (Pl. XIV: 3; Meshel 1990).

the Lower Galilee (86×93 m.; see Gazetteer)—do not have many similar features. In addition to the differences in overall dimensions, as well as the varied internal layouts, certain elements which could be expected to follow some architectural standard, also lack uniformity. The covered halls and the entrance gate for example, despite performing similar functions everywhere, vary surprisingly. The gates, in their narrowest span, vary from ca. 2 to 4 m.,277 while the width of the covered halls, either running continuously around the courtyard or segmented, varies from 4.5 to 7 m. Spatial organization of most Mamluk inns, despite having some features in common, also displays much variation. In addition to Kh«n Y−nus, whose internal annular layout is outstanding and somewhat reminiscent of the thirteenth century Saljuq Alara Han in Anatolia (Fig. 23.5: 7; see discussion there), the number of exceptions to symmetrical plans is considerable. Ru·«fa (Pl. I: 2), Qaryat al-‘Inab (Pl. II: 1), ‘Ar³−siya (Pl. I: 8),278 and Ban«t Ya‘q−b (Pl. II: 2), for example, are clearly asymmetrical. Their gates are off-axis, in spite of the general tendency of planners to open a gate at the center of the façade. In the case of the first two, pre-existing structures determined the plan. The optimum layout looked for symmetry, delineating an axial line starting from the gate and crossing the courtyard. The covered halls, and, when present, the cells flanking the passage into the courtyard, were usually organized in relation to it. In Kh«n Dann−n279 and Jubb Y−suf (Pls. I: 8; II: 5)280 this axis was further emphasized by a room facing the gate. In Kh«n al-‘Asal, Kh«n Shaykh−n, Kh«n al-Sab»l,281 Kh«n al-A¯mar and Jalj−liya (Pls. I: 3, 5, 6; II: 3, 4) the axis is stressed by an opening into the vaulted hall on the opposite side.

This naturally does not imply that the small inns of the Mamluk period were necessarily renewals of earlier structures; some contemporary inns outside Syria were also planned on a small scale. For example, Uchkuduk on the Ust’yurt Plateau in modern Uzbekistan is representative of the style of inns on the route to the centers of the Golden Horde on the Volga, dated early fourteenth century and later.276 This building has a rectangular plan, ca. 32×28 m, with cells on three of sides and a long hall used as a stable on the fourth, at the back (Brentjes 1999, p. 222, fig. 11). The plan, while differing from most contemporary Syrian inns, shows some similarities to the single-courtyard inns of early thirteenth century Saljuq Anatolia, such as K½rkgöz Han and Karg½ Han (Erdmann 1961, pls. 30–31). More relevant to the small Syrian kh«n«t than the above examples are the relays of the bar»d in Syria investigated by Sauvaget. One of them—the relais de la bifurcation (Pl. XIV: 6), located on the road between Damascus and ®im·, 3 km north of Qu³ayf«—has an odd layout, in which the open courtyard, 25.25 m in width, is flanked by roofed spaces to its north and south, and by the outer walls alone to east and west. Sauvaget dated this building to mid-fourteenth century (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 59–61), and it is thus contemporary with and geographically near many of the inns under discussion.

The above elements can be compared to those of a contemporary building serving the bar»d (Pl. XIV: 5), on the route between Aleppo and B«lis. Kh«n al-Sha‘r (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 61–62), despite its small dimensions (20 m per side, courtyard 7.75 m wide) is organized in a strikingly similar manner to Kh«n Jubb Y−suf, as well as some of the Ayyubid kh«ns of north Syria (see Architectural Sources below). The axis of this small structure was enhanced by the placement of the prayer room, in the form of a »w«n, facing the entrance. The openings leading from the courtyard into the vaulted halls are symmetrical, as are those leading to cells flanking the gateway.

In contrast to this group of small kh«n«t, there are eight structures of considerable size. The plans of the three largest—Kh«n al-A¯mar near Beth She’an (72×83 m.; Pl. II: 3 and Gazetteer), Kh«n Y−nus in the Gaza Strip (85×85 m.; Pl. III: 4 and Gazetteer) and Kh«n al-Tujj«r in

273

The kh«n was built at the site of an ancient quarry, not only using the hewn rock as a backing for the construction but also integrating hewn niches and rooms as further spaces the enclosed wings (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 6–7). A second Syrian kh«n erected in an ancient quarry is found at U±«¯i, 10 km south of Aleppo (Sauvaget 1940, p. 17, figs. 34– 35). Unfortunately Sauvaget gives neither the plan nor measurements. 274 Markiya is ca. fifty meters away from the coast (Lat 35º27’N /Long 36º10’E), on the road between Tartus/Tortosa and Lattakiya/Antiochia. It is also called Maraclée (Dussaud 1927, p. 126; Sauvaget 1940, p. 17). 275 The Maml−k kh«n abuts the southeastern corner of a church, located outside the walls of Ru·«fa (Sauvaget 1940, p. 17). 276 The series of inns analysed by Brentjes (1999, p. 222) is dated by coins “beginning with Khan Uzbek (1312–1340).”

277

In Kh«n al-A¯mar, Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ and Kh«n Y−nus, there was a second archway separating the passage from the courtyard. 278 The kh«n at ‘Orthosiya’ (or Ar³−siya) is located near a bridge by the same name, over the river al-B«rid, near Tripoli (Dussaud 1927, p. 78). 279 On the location, see Chapter 2, p. 13, n. 51. 280 In the case of Jubb Y−suf the presence of the prayer room opposite the kh«n’s entrance compensates for the gate being off-centre, conferring symmetry to the general layout. Kh«n Lajj−n/Megiddo (Fig. 13.1: 2–3), as well as Kh«n Minya (see Gazetteer, Fig. 16.1: 3) also seem to have had a central room facing the entrance. 281 For location of Kh«n Shaykh−n and Kh«n al-Sab»l, see Chapter 2, n. 164 and p. 13, n. 47 respectively.

64

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period The openings around the courtyards of the Mamluk rural inns do not seem to have had a direct relation to their respective size. One should not forget that these openings were usually the main sources of natural light and ventilation in the halls, which were occupied by both humans and beasts. It is however surprising to find only a single opening in the side wings of al-Ar³−siya (Pl. I: 8). Perhaps, as in the case of Kh«n Jubb Y−suf (Pl. II: 5), the halls at al-Ar³−siya were also provided with window-slits (see below).

²−m«n (Pl. IX: 1; Sauvaget 1940, pp. 14–15, fig. 26; Creswell 1923, pl. XXVI: A) and Kh«n Uraynba285 were briefly discussed by Sauvaget (1940, pp. 1, 6, 7, 10, 14– 15; 16–17 respectively), but his descriptions are brief and lack detail.286 Nevertheless, they usually have machicolations facing outwards, enabling wide surveillance, and facilitating the active defense of the building through the narrow slits at their base. In the case of Kh«n Y−nus the machicolation is missing, but a narrow slit at the apex of the gate archway fulfils a similar function (Pl. VII: 2; see infra pp. 69ff.).

Another important feature in a rural inn is the prayer room, also of varying size and location. At Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh, Ar³−siya, Kh«n al-Sab»l, Kh«n Dann−n, J−khad«r and Kh«n Minya (Pls. I: 1, 5, 6, 8; II: 6; Fig. 16.5),282 it is near the entrance, and at Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b, Jubb Y−suf and Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ (Pls. II: 2, 5; III: 3)283 it is in the center of one of the wings. In Qaryat al-‘Inab (Pl. II: 1) the prayer room is notably off center.

Another form of fortification found among the Mamluk inns is the tower, at the corner/s or near the gate. At Kh«n al-Sab»l, for example, three polygonal and one circular tower reinforce the corners, and add to the fortress-like appearance of this inn, also provided with crenellations around the parapet (Pl. VII: 7; Sauvaget 1940, pp. 10– 11).287 A similar use of corner towers is seen at Kh«n Dann−n erected only five years later (778AH/AD1376), otherwise without an upper room. At Kh«n Y−nus we find the combination of an upper chamber with corner towers. At Jalj−liya the remains point to reinforcement buttresses along the wall and at the corners; Both Petersen and the author reconstructed an upper chamber over the entrance, based on archival photographs from 1926 (Figs. 6.3: 1, 4; 6.4: 5; 6.7: 3). The remains of a minaret south of the gate resemble the façade at Kh«n Y−nus, but have nothing in common, for instance, with the protruding piers at Qaryat al-‘Inab and Jubb Y−suf (Pl. II: 1, 5), the square tower beside the entrance to Kh«n al-‘Asal (Pl. I: 4), or the towers on the entrance side at Dhr«‘ al-Kh«n, flanking the gate and at the corners (Pl. I: 1).288 At Jisr al-Maj«mi‘, apart from square buttresses at the western corners of the kh«n, we also find a square water tower, protecting the descent to the water source near the river. The need to defend such a vital feature, especially in an inn located in a strategic position at the crossing of the Jordan, imposed the erection of the tower (Pl. III: 3).

The varied plans of the Syrian kh«ns are also seen in the positioning of the stairs, not discernible in all the structures mainly due to poor conservation. The existence of a staircase in no way indicates a second floor, but rather suggests the use of the roof in the kh«n’s daily life. At times the stairs specifically lead to a defensive unit over the entrance, found in a number of structures. Unfortunately only one of these upper units (that found at Kh«n Y−nus) has been properly measured and drafted (Pl. VII: 1–3)(cf. Abu Khalaf 1983, figs. 5–6). Examples from Syria bearing an upper chamber designed for protection—Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh, Kh«n al-‘Asal (Pl. VII: 5), Kh«n Shaykh−n,284 Kh«n al-Sab»l (Pl. VII: 6–8), Kh«n 282

In Kh«n Y−nus it topped the entrance block. Apparently also at Mamluk Q«r«, located north of the Ayyubid inn discussed below. According to Sauvaget, who only gave a verbal description and did not include plans or photos of the site, this was a large structure (larger than the Ayyubid inn) in a poor state of conservation. He wrote: La disposition de l’ensemble est celle de tous les edifices précédents: elle ne s’en distingue que par l’existence d’un iw«n, placé au milieu de la face Sud de la cour et servant d’oratoire, qui interrompt le développement de la galerie; son mi¯r«b est surmonté d’un bandeau d’alvéoles. This kh«n was dated by Sauvaget to the late fourteenth century, according to the blazon on the entrance keystone: a tripartite medallion whose upper register is blank, while the other two each bears a cup. Sauvaget followed L.A. Mayer dating of this type between 1380 and 1401 (Sauvaget 1940, p. 18), but in his publication Saracenic Heraldry, Mayer rather dated this type to the early fifteenth century, while also presenting a short list of eight am»rs associated with this insignia, most of them serving Barq−q (Mayer 1933, pp. 32–33) 284 On the tower over Kh«n Shaykh−n’s gate, see Thevenot’s travelogue (Thevenot 1687, p. 28): A little after towards Noon we arrived at Han Scheilhoun, before which we encamped; finding our selves better abroad under Tents than within, though that Han which stands alone, be pretty enough. The first entry into it, is by a Gate that looks to the West, which leads into a large square Court, and on the right hand as you enter, there is a little door by which you enter into a Stable, divided in length by a range of Arches that reach from one end to the other, but it is not covered: At the other end of the Court, almost opposite to this door, there is a little house inhabited; and on the left hand in the middle of the Wall, there is a great Gate, which leads into another Court, as large as the first, where there are half paces covered for Lodging of 283

Travellers. Over the Gate of the second Court, there is a great square Building of pretty good work in form of a Tower with a Dungeon before it, and the Dome of the Mosque is in the middle. There the Aga lodges, for this is a Castle depending on the Basha of Aleppo. Some hundreds of paces Northwards from thence, behind a Hillock, there is a Village of the same Name with the Han. Thevenot’s testimony also shows that by the late seventeenth century some added constructions already abutted the kh«n’s enclosure. 285 On Kh«n Uraynba, see again Thevenot (1686, p. 217): Next day [after leaving Coneitra] you lye at Saxa, and have bad way to it, the Countrey being so stony that it cannot be Cultivated. About mid way you find a Han built of black stones and called Raimbe, over the Gate whereof there is a square Tower with four Windows after the manner of our Steeples. 286 It is possible that such an upper chamber topped the vaulted hall at the western side of the kh«n at Ban«t Ya‘q−b, given the thick walls of that lower unit, suitable for supporting an upper structure. At Jubb Y−suf the upper chambers, whose façade partly remain in situ, are later additions. 287 The crenellations themselves had small machicolations. 288 See corner towers at the kh«ns of L−biy« and Minya in the Galilee (Figs. 15.1; 16.1: 2). The towers at Kh«n al-Tujj«r are apparently all datable to the Ottoman phase of the site.

65

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Towers fulfil another function as the location of the latrine. At Kh«n Dann−n, for example, the latrine apparently occupied an appended square tower, on the eastern side of the kh«n. That would not be the first time this kind of layout was used in Muslim countries, as we find it already in early Islamic structures such as the Umayyad palaces of Mshatt« and Khirbat al-Minya (Creswell 1989, pp. 201–202, ill. 118) and the ‘Abbasid rib«³ at Monastir in North Africa (Creswell 1989, p. 288). Private latrines were also found at the Ayyubid/Mamluk towers at Qal‘at al-¶ubayba (Hartal 2001, pp. 69–71, figs. 134–135), leading the excavator to remark that

Mamluks did not shift the inn elsewhere, despite Crusader interventions in the original planning. Kh«n alLubban and Kh«n al-Tujj«r developed near their respective springs, the kh«n at Jubb Y−suf was erected near a venerated pit291 and Kh«n ®athr−ra was built over the Cisterna Rubea adjacent to the road to Jericho. Other inns were placed near rivers—Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ near the Jordan/Yarmuk and Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b near the upper Jordan, or provided with nearby water installations as at Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh (Sauvaget 1940, p. 3), where a domed structure called ma·na‘ al-m«’ in the foundation inscription was found some thirty meters east of the entrance.

“[t]he Mamlûks apparently respected privacy, as each cell had a single seat, as opposed to the multi-seat institutions common in the Roman period.” (Hartal 2001, p. 71)

Water had to be made easily accessible to visitors often by placing a basin in the center of the courtyard, filled by an underground conduit. Remains of such arrangements can still be seen in situ at Kh«n al-A¯mar/Bays«n (two of the columns that once supported a dome over the basin; see Fig. 1.3: 1–2) and at Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘, completely exposed by the excavations (Pl. X: 6). Remains of the water track leading from the source to the kh«n's premises can be seen in aerial photographs of the kh«n at Q«q−n (see Fig. 17.1: 1). Aerial photographs have also enabled the reconstruction of a water basin in the courtyard of Kh«n Minya, on the north-south axis (Fig. 16.1: 1c).

The choice of placing the latrine at the tower probably facilitated the channeling of sewage outside the structures’ premises. Notwithstanding Hartal’s impression of the maml−ks’ regard for privacy, Kh«n Dann−n, together with Qaryat al-‘Inab/Ab− Gh−sh in which the lavatory was located in a corner room (over an underground chamber padded with a ceramic layer)289 are the only instances where latrines can be listed among the elements of the inn. The only other published example is found at the contemporary relay “of the bifurcation” mentioned above (Sauvaget 1941, fig. 13: E).

2.1.b. Additional functions

Surprising as their absence may be, latrines are also rare among the Safavid Iranian inns, on which Siroux wrote that

Apart from the identification of prayer rooms, or the few cases in which latrines could be located among the architectural remains, archaeological work has mostly failed to define specific roles for given rooms or areas. It is thus mainly from the written sources that we understand their use—even though not necessarily in the original conception. The French traveler Thevenot wrote the following in his travelogue published in 1686:

[l]a plupart des caravansérails ne disposent pas de ces commodités élémentaires [les latrines], sans doute rendues superflues par la proximité des déserts ou l’obscurité des écuries. Lorsqu’elles ont été prévues, les latrines n’ont pas d’emplacement bien déterminé: tantôt c’est la chambrette d’une tour d’angle (car. RabatKerim, Riavade-é-Bostan, Zawareh), d’autres fois, c’est une surépaisseur des maçonneries qui, évidée, tiendra cet office (car. Guilak, Passangan, Tchehel-hessieh, Mader-é-Chah). Elles sont d’ailleurs en nombre très insuffisant par rapport aux habitants (en général quatre), ce qui prouve leur faible utilité. (Siroux 1949, p. 137)290

…Then you come to lodge at Coneitra,292 which is a little Village, wherein there is a very old large Han, built in form of a Fort, with three Culverines; within the precinct of it there is a Mosque, a Bazar, and a CoffeeHouse; and there also you pay a Caffare [toll]. (Thevenot 1686, pp. 216–217)

In this case, it is evident that some reorganization of the original fifteenth century kh«n must have occurred:

2.1.a. Water Supply The provision for water was a central feature when determining the placing of an inn. As a rule, the kh«n was located near a spring, a well, a river, or provided with a reservoir to collect rainwater.

291

At Kh«n Jubb Y−suf the present domed structure on the adjacent hill is of unknown date. The cistern under the outer mosque’s courtyard, apparently of Mamluk or Ayyubid date, according to the construction technique, was not only a water provider, but the subject of devotion as well. Still, those staying at the kh«n were most probably provided with water in the courtyard as usual. No remains of a basin have been found, but a small square opening in the back wall of the southern wing (Fig. 10.6: 9) indicates the outlet of the water duct crossing the courtyard, a feature clearly shown in Sauvaget’s photographs of the Ayyubid kh«n at Qu³ayf« (Sauvaget 1939, figs. 12–13). 292 Thevenot is here referring to the kh«n at Qunay³ra, built before 1444, together with Kh«n Minya, Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b and Kh«n al-Tujj«r. See Chapter 3, p. 50, n. 217 and p. 59, on Ibn al-Muzalliq’s building enterprises.

It is not surprising, then, that the early Islamic inn at Qaryat al-‘Inab was placed near the spring, at the same location where the Romans stationed their legion. The 289 The arrangement is not original, as the underground space at first served as a small reservoir, plastered on all sides. See Gazetteer. 290 Note that Rib«³-i-Karīm was erected during the second half of the tenth century. Siroux adduced it as part of his discussion of the architectural predecessors to the Safavid inns (Siroux 1949, pp. 46–48). For description and discussion of the other inns, see Siroux 1949, pp. 60–62 (Riavade-é-Bostan), 62–63 (Guilak), 64–65 (Passangan), 69–70 (Zawareh), 79–81 (Mader-é-Chah), 81 (Tchehel-hessieh).

66

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period coffeehouses did not appear in Islam before the sixteenth century, neither did culverins.293

gravel (Pl. VI). This coarse appearance was often concealed by the application of a plaster coating, which has usually decayed. In addition, reinforcement ribs in ashlar (Pl. VI: 5, usually springing from side brackets (see below), interrupt the masonry.

Still, most functions would be preserved, such as the guardroom over the entrance, the keeper’s room next to the gate, and the prayer room on the southern side.294

In general, the lack of homogeneity seen in the ground plans is also reflected in the construction in that the stone blocks were not of a standard size (Pl. V: 2, 7), and secondary material was commonly used. Old masonry and pieces of molding often found their way into the walls or even the gate threshold as in Kh«n Jisr alMaj«mi‘ and Kh«n Y−nus (Pl. V: 5; Fig. 23.2: 8), and there is no apparent sign of any attempt on the part of the builder to conceal the dissimilarities. The masonry at the corner and west wall of Kh«n ®athr−ra (Pl. V: 9–10) for example, with a central boss and diagonal chiselling, was probably taken from the Crusader fortification nearby. An earlier dating for the inn seems less likely, given that many of the bossed stones have chipped corners, indicating removal from an earlier site. A probable case of re-used Crusader masonry also occurs at Kh«n Y−nus, both at the corner towers (Fig. 23.3: 4),296 and inside the building (Fig. 23.5: 3–4).

Another expected service area, but not always evident, is the stable. Perhaps because beasts of burden, travelers, as well as merchandize, were often accommodated in the same space, the halls were not specifically prepared to function as stables. On the other hand, at least at three sites—Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘, Kh«n al-A¯mar and Kh«n Minya—there is evidence of the use of stone tethers to tie the beasts. In the first case, these were found in situ, in two variations. The first, inside a corner room, placed at some height (Pl. X: 4), was probably designed for horses and mules, and it seems safe to call this room a stable. The second variation was found attached to platforms surrounding the courtyard, where the tethers were placed quite low, near the pavement (Pl. X: 3). Those were most probably used for camels, which usually have their legs tied when resting (Pl. X: 5).

As for the material in primary use, apart from plain blocks of limestone and/or basalt, a repeating type of limestone ashlar was found in most of the kh«ns surveyed. This masonry can be identified by the chisel marks which punctuate the surface in a tight striated pattern (Pl. V: 4, 6; Fig. 23.3: 1).297 In places this masonry was covered with a plain plaster coating, as, for example, in Jubb Y−suf’s passage and prayer room (Pl. IX: 2, 9). Much of the outward-facing masonry, nevertheless, smooth or chiselled, was planned to be left bare, especially when the different colored stones were designed to produce a contrasting effect (ablaq).

2.2. Masonry Before embarking on a discussion of the main structural types found among the Mamluk kh«ns, a few words on the masonry are necessary. Mamluk rural inns in Syria are invariably built of stone, usually combining rubble, dressed or roughly dressed stones, and ashlar. The stonework naturally varies according to the geographical location, which determined the use of basalt or limestone as the main material of construction. Marble was also used, usually in architectural decoration (Pls. V: 8; VIII: 2, 5).295

As for the question whether the stonemasons of the Mamluk period worked in a characteristic technique, chiselling during the Mamluk period was as much a continuation of earlier styles as a method in itself. A finely toothed chisel had been in use since the Crusader

The enclosure walls were built around a composite core, containing rubble, mortar and sometimes even pieces of wood (Pl. V: 1, 8). Outwardly the walls were faced with dressed stones, showing a finer finish around the gateway (Pl. V: 3–4), at times around the mi¯r«b (Pl. IX: 6, 7 and 9) and, when present, on the towering minaret (Pls. V: 2; VIII: 2–3). Kh«n Y−nus is exceptional among the rural inns, having its façade completely faced with ashlars. Despite the different sizes of the blocks, the result is quite homogeneous, thanks to the repeating pattern in which the courses were laid (Pl. VIII: 1–4, Fig. 23.3: 2).

296

Bossed stones with flat margins were also produced after the Crusader period. They are usually characterized by the use of a pointed hammer, leaving rough scars on the stone. No sign of diagonal chiselling, typical of the Crusader period, is present in the later examples. My thanks to Taufik De'adlee, doctoral student at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IAA inspector in the Old City of Jerusalem from 2001 to 2005, for pointing out some Mamluk examples of such masonry. 297 See also masonry around the inscription over a domed fountain to the southwest of the Ayyubid kh«n al-Burayj, (Sauvaget 1940, fig. 11). This fountain, designated a sab»l by the inscription and birka by al-‘Umar» (al-Ta‘r»f, p. 249; copied by al-Qalqashand», Sub¯, p. 427; GaudefroyDemombynes, p. 245), was erected by the q«±» of Damascus, Ibn ¶a·r«, in Rama±«n 720/October 1320. According to al-‘Umar», Ibn ¶a·r« also erected a mosque at al-Burayj, most probably a reference to the prayer hall on the southern wing of the Ayyubid kh«n, provided with an opening adjacent to the fountain (Pl. IV: 7; Sauvaget 1940, figs. 9–10). The kh«n at al-Burayj was mistakenly dated by Sauvaget to the Mamluk period, since he believed Ibn ¶a·r« to be its patron (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 5–6). A passage in Ibn W«·il’s al-Mufarrij (vol. 4, p. 264) attributes the kh«n at al-Burayj al-‘Atash, as well as a kh«n on the road between ®ar«n and Ni·ib»n, to ®us«m al-D»n al-®«jib, an officer close to alMalik Ashraf al-M−s«. See also Chapter 3, p. 51, note 220.

The vaulted ceilings were usually composed of roughly cut stones, embedded in mortar and reinforced with 293

On the introduction of coffee consumption during the Ottoman period see R. Hattox, Coffee and Coffeehouses: The Origins of a Social Beverage in the Medieval Near East, Seattle, 1985. On the use of culverins, see A. Cohen, “The Projects of Sulayman the Magnificent in Jerusalem,” Cathedra 57, 1990, pp. 40–42 (in Hebrew). 294 The case of Qaryat al-‘Inab is quite exceptional in moving the prayer room from the southern wing to the north of the inn. 295 Wood might have also been used as building material, though no clear example has been found so far. However, in some building such as Kh«n Jubb Y−suf recesses are notable on one of the walls facing the courtyard (Fig. 10.8: 1), which might have been used for wooden beams. Their dating cannot be determined.

67

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m period (Deschamps 1934, p. 231), and was widely employed in both Ayyubid and pre-fourteenth century Mamluk buildings. Specimens of such masonry are found at the Ayyubid-Mamluk Qal‘at al-¶ubayba on the Golan Heights, for example (Hartal 2001, p. 61, fig. 121). This technique can also be observed in other Mamluk buildings, such as in the main street and appended structures of the Cotton Merchant’s Market (Pl. XI: 1–5) in Jerusalem, dated 737AH/AD1336–1337 (Burgoyne 1987, pp. 273–298). Therfore, until an in-depth study on this topic is done, chiselling cannot be used as a parameter for identifying or dating Mamluk buildings.

in Kh«n Y−nus a round dome topped the upper-level mosque, rising above the façade (Pl. VII: 1).299 Until the mid-fourteenth century, wall-bearing barrelvaulted halls was the dominant structural type applied among the Syrian kh«n«t. The vaulting, either uninterrupted, or sectioned by means of ribs, sprang over five to six courses of masonry, whose building preceded the centring of the vaults’ scaffolding (Pl. XI: 6). Kh«n al-A¯mar/Bays«n’s cross-vaulted halls (Pl. VI: 1) are the main exception to this architectural trend which had its roots in twelfth century Ayyubid inns (Pl. IV; Table 2). Nevertheless, analysis shows that its surviving cross-vaults, supported by piers on one side and the wall on the other, manifest some architectural oddities. Apart from the random and careless courses of stone facing the outer walls, suggesting later repairs, the placement of one of the piers over a side opening raises some questions (Fig. 1.4: 1–2). There can be no doubt that the 1.60×1.20 piers were a later addition, engaged into the walls by the removal of some of the original facing. Most of the work was done with some care, matching the piers’ masonry with that of the walls. The addition might have seemed an integral feature of the original structure, if not for the concealing of the voussoirs of the side opening, as well as the constructional seam at that point.

No further distinctive feature stands out amidst the heterogeneous construction masonry of the kh«ns under discussion. On the secondary use of moldings as brackets (Pl. IX: 4–5), see the discussion on structural techniques, pp. 68ff. In many of the buildings surveyed the main surviving element was the core of the walls, the blocks having been plundered for secondary use. In others, as in the case of Jubb Y−suf (Fig. 10.9: 1), Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b (Fig. 8.5: 1) and Kh«n al-A¯mar (Pl. VIII: 7), later alterations affected the original facing. Perhaps the most impressive case of robbery is that seen in Jalj−liya (Pl. IX: 3), where nothing remains of the original facing around the arched openings into the halls. Unlike other inns where the only enhancement plundered were the smoothed voussoirs around the openings, in Jalj−liya the whole rectangular frame was removed, suggesting a more elaborate application of material.

Having determined that the surviving cross-vaults at Bays«n are a late addition (the dating of which is difficult to fix), the issue of the original vaulting style can be reassessed. Is there a possibility that it was barrelvaulted? This question brings us back to the testimony by the surveyors of the Palestine Exploration Fund:

Jalj−liya’s missing elements are regrettable, and the original decorative program will probably never be clearly understood. The systematic removal of the framing of all the arches brings to mind al-¶afad»’s reference to the kh«n in Jalj−liya (al-¶afad», al-W«f», vol. 10, p. 432), followed by al-Nu‘aym» (al-Nu‘aym», alD«ris, p. 93) who wrote:

The galleries on each wall are 37 feet broad, the tunnelvaulting [!] being of rag-work with pointed arches (SWP, II, p. 119).

Perhaps the best clue to Kh«n al-A¯mar’s original vaulting is the discovery of a reused molding on the back wall of the eastern hall (Pl. IX: 5). The molding, in cream limestone and partly broken, is nearly identical to the molding used as brackets in Jalj−liya (Pl. IX: 4), as well as in Qaryat al-‘Inab/Ab− Gh−sh (Pl. VI: 2).300 They are all re-used cornice pieces, similar to the one found at the Madrasa Kar»miyya in Jerusalem, dated to 718AH/AD1319 (Burgoyne 1987, pl. 15.4). Burgoyne believed that the piece in the Kar»miyya was of Crusader origin, similar to that found over B«b ®i³³a on the north portico of the ®aram (Burgoyne 1987, pl. 1.1).

… we are indebted to him [Tankiz] for the charitable public kh«n at Jalj−liya, of extreme beauty (fi gh«yat al¯usun) …298

2.3. Structure As the ground plans of the various Mamluk inns show (Pls. I-III), the architects and builders of Syria devised variants in their structural types. Their kh«ns basically consisted of enclosed spaces, barrel- or cross-vaulted, surrounding a single courtyard. Flat ceilings or domes rarely occur, but in Qaryat al-‘Inab the ceilings over the southern cells were apparently flat (see Gazetteer), while

Whatever the association with local Frankish architecture, the use of these molded brackets in some Mamluk kh«ns points to a different source of influence—further away, but of great importance for understanding some of the structural trends under discussion—the thirteenth century

298

The same expression (fi gh«yat al-¯usun) is used by al-Nu‘aym» in the description of the kh«ns erected by the Damascene merchant Ibn alMuzalliq (al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris vol. 2, p. 290). According to Rabbat in “Perception of Architecture in Mamluk Sources,” the Mamluk authors …hardly ever qualified [buildings] as beautiful (¯asan, jam»l), proportionate or harmonious (mutan«sib, mu’talif, muntaμam), or pleasing (b«hij), all terms associated with aesthetic concepts that had a venerable history in philosophical and adab treatises of an earlier period. (Rabbat 2002, pp. 158–159)

299

As we have seen, this is not the only instance in which Kh«n Y−nus is exceptional. 300 There the molded brackets apparently supported a cross-vaulted gallery—at least according to De Vaux and Stève’s theoretical reconstruction—but in this case, unlike Jalj−liya, the brackets are found in an open circumambulatory gallery, the only example of this kind among the rural inns of Mamluk Syria.

68

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period Saljuq inns of Anatolia (Pl. XII).301 Those usually combined a courtyard building and an enclosed vaulted hall (Pl. XII: 2–4), invariably barrel-vaulted and enhanced by a small central dome. The vaulting within the enclosed hall was reinforced by ribs supported by molded brackets, in general very similar to those found in Syrian inns (Pl. XII: 2, 6).302

were constructed on the walls, contributed to a feeling of safety, even when these were not entirely functional.304 Certain fortification elements, on the other hand, definitely fulfilled their designated roles. The superimposition of a guardroom over the entrance was perhaps the main fortification component at an inn, also found in Ayyubid examples. Kh«n al-‘Ar−s, Q«r« and ‘A³ni (Sauvaget 1939, figs. 15–16, 21–23) are prototypes of later examples such as Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh, Kh«n al-‘Asal, Kh«n Jalj−liya; Jabala, Kh«n Shaykh−n, Kh«n al-Sab»l, Kh«n Y−nus and Kh«n Uraynba, even though a direct influence from thirteenth century Anatolia should not be ruled out. The three windows over the gate at Obruk Han (Pl. XII: 11) are reminiscent of Kh«n al-‘Asal and Kh«n Y−nus (Pl. XII: 11; Erdmann 1961, pp. 126– 130, pl. 236).305

Fragmentary remains of a reinforcement buttress attached to an outer wall—a further structural element—have been found at Jalj−liya, Kh«n Y−nus, Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘, Kh«n al-A¯mar/Bays«n and Dhr«‘ al-Kh«n (Pl. VI: 4; Figs. 6.7:1; 23.3: 3). Similar buttresses flank the gateway opening into the courtyard at Kh«n Dann−n (Sauvaget 1935, pl. II: 2), recalling the original appearance of the northern wing at Kh«n ®athr−ra on the road between Jerusalem and Jericho (Fig. 2.3: 2). This feature showing six buttresses standing at full height is apparent on an 1890 photograph that belongs to the ‘Abd al-®amid collection.

The towers, of different shapes and dimensions, were also an integral part of the fortification principle. Square gateway towers are found in Kh«n al-‘Asal and Dhr«‘ alKh«n (and also at the Ayyubid kh«n al-Qu³ayf«,306 Pl. IV: 1), while corner towers are found at Dhr«‘ al-Kh«n, Kh«n al-Sab»l, Kh«n Dann−n and Kh«n Y−nus (Pls. I: 6, 8; III: 4). The first has two square shaped towers, the others, all postdating the 1370s,307 four round ones. We may also consider a double purpose for the minarets at Kh«n Y−nus (Pls. VII: 1, 3; VIII: 2–3) and Jalj−liya (Pl. V: 2). Their position beside the entrance, combined with the use of defensive elements at Kh«n Y−nus, suggest their function as watchtowers as well.

As in the western portico supporting the upper floor of the Madrasa al-Tankiziyya in Jerusalem (Pl. XI: 7; Burgoyne 1987, pls. 18.1–3), and even earlier (610AH/AD1213–1214) in the northern portico, these buttresses are piers with a quadrangular section and slanting tops. Burgoyne says that the buttresses had sloping tops for shedding rainwater, originally a Crusader invention (Burgoyne 1987, p. 107). They are seen on the façade of the Crusader church of St. Anne in Jerusalem, for example, and clearly belong to the original constructional phase there (Pl. XII: 8). In Mamluk inns, their random appearance and their absence in the Ayyubid period, seems to imply that they had lost their functional role. A possible reason for the appearance of buttresses on the outer walls of a kh«n might have been the desire to imitate a pattern found in thirteenth century Anatolian inns, even though there the buttresses were of varied shape and never slanted at the top (Pl. XII: 1, 10, 11). However, even if such a connection could be proved, it would not necessarily mean that the ultimate origin of the practice was Anatolian. Perhaps it derived from Armenia, or from Frankish Syria itself. At all events, when used on the Mamluk inns, the buttresses did not inevitably follow a rhythmic pattern, as their supposed predecessors did.

The fortification of the kh«n façade was at times supplemented by the building of machicolations, i.e., parapets on brackets with slits in the floors, a characteristic feature of military structures (Pl. VII: 6), or else simple slits on recessed arches (Pl. VII: 4), which allowed the throwing down of various substances, usually fluids. At Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh the brackets of only five machicolations have survived, enough to reconstruct the original design (Pl. I: 3; Sauvaget 1940, fig. 1), while at Kh«n al-Sab»l a number of machicolations topped not only the upper chamber, but also the walls. In addition, a slit over the recessed arch added further security to the gateway (Pl. VII: 6–8; Sauvaget 1940, fig. 20).

2.4. Fortification

304

The buttresses, for example, could not function as towers, but endowed the walls with a fortified appearance. The arrow slits often stood at inaccessible heights. Nevertheless, their shape was the best way of keeping sun or rain out of the rooms and halls. Perhaps the best examples, although much earlier, of the decorative use of fortification elements can be seen in the Umayyad palaces in Syria (Creswell 1989, pp. 93ff). For contempory uses in Mamluk architecture, see CytrynSilverman 2008. 305 K½z½lören Han also has three windows opening over the façade, even though they belong to different upper-storey units (Erdmann 1961, pl. 48). These two Anatolian examples have their prayer rooms placed over the façade, as at Kh«n Y−nus. 306 The village of al-Qu³ayf« is located ca. 32 km north of Damascus, at Lat 33º45’N/Long 36º36’E, 926 m above sea-level. 307 Apparently also at Dhr«‘ al-Kh«n (Pl. I: 1), even though the ground plan exposed by the excavations is very exceptional and might need some further archaeological clarification.

In a building such as a road inn, whose main role was to provide security for travelers and merchants, the enclosing of the inhabited space by a strong wall with a single gate was essential.303 A fortified appearance, in which crenellations, buttresses and arrow slits (loopholes) 301

An apparently similar type of masonry is found in secondary use on the façade of the Ayyubid Kh«n Qu³ayf« in Syria, but there as part of the wall facing (Sauvaget 1939, fig. 9). 302 See also: Erdmann 1961, pls. 4, 19–21, 58, 80, 103, 119, 142, 176– 177, 196). 303 On the inner side of Jubb Y−suf’s gate there are two holes near the arch apex (Pl. VII: 4). The symmetric arrangement suggests that these may refer to the existence of hinged doors.

69

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m A third defensive element, found at both Kh«n Y−nus and Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘, is something like a speed hump at the gate (Pl. VIII: 4; Fig. 23.2: 8). In both cases a fragmentary granite column was placed at the threshold, most probably to control circulation at the gate.308

whose remains appearance.

suggest

the

original

decorative

Even with this partial information, it is possible to establish that there was no clear aesthetic standard for the rural inns. At Kh«n Y−nus (Fig. 23.2: 7), Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ (Pl. VIII: 4) and Kh«n al-Sab»l (Pl. VII: 6), the entrance is flanked by a pair of benches, also a common feature in Mamluk architecture. At the original entrance to Kh«n Jubb Y−suf (Fig. 10.3: 9) there is the probable mark of an original bench on the first three courses next to the construction seam. Except for this feature, common to the four gates, the other elements seem to have varied. Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘’s gate only partly survives, while Jubb Y−suf’s is blocked by a late addition. In Kh«n Y−nus the archway has fully survived. It is composed of an outer pointed arch (ca. 5 m high) and an inner flat arch, the first framed by a molded profile and faced with alternating long and wide voussoirs, the second by a billet molding (Pl. VII: 2). In Kh«n al-Sab»l a much higher archway, reaching ca. 6.5 meters, is framed by a horseshoe arch with cushion-voussoirs. I could not establish the style of the inner arch or of the lower door on the basis of the available pictures.

2.5. Architectural Decoration The architectural decoration of the Mamluk inns in Syria may be discussed under four main categories: (a) the façade and its decorative elements; (b) the passageway; (c) the walls surround the courtyard; and (d) the prayer room. The discussion will mainly show the heterogeneity of the decorative programs, which do not follow specified models as in the case of the thirteenth century Anatolian inns, for example. The archway styles vary, the positioning of the inscriptions, if present, is not standard, the chromatic choices, as well as the laying of masonry courses, were open to innovation. The overall appearance was austere, lightened at places, but mainly based on solid masonry, sometimes chaotically set. The following paragraphs will discuss the elements that to some extent relieved this austerity, and the ways in which they were employed.309

It is not surprising to find that every opening had a different style of arch: at the entrance to the mosque at alBurayj the arch is trilobed, at Jubb Y−suf and Qaryat al‘Inab the arches seem to have been of a simple pointed shape, as at Kh«n al-‘Asal. The latter, despite lacking a framing molding, was composed of alternating long and broad voussoirs (as in Kh«n Y−nus), with the foundation inscription carved over the apex (Pls. VII: 5; X: 1; on the inscription see p. 16; see also below, p. 73).

2.5.a. The façade Few inns still retain their original façade. In Palestine only Kh«n Y−nus preserves the original front to its full height, even though the gateway passage and its internal layout were partly destroyed. Among the kh«ns of northern Syria, at least according to Sauvaget’s documentation in the 1930s, Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh, Kh«n al‘Asal, Kh«n al-Sab»l, al-Ar³−siya, Q«r« (Sauvaget 1940, figs. 1, 9, 12, 21, 29, 33) also preserved most of their façades.310 To these a few surveyed sites can be added,

The gateway to Kh«n al-A¯mar at Bays«n (Gazetteer, entry no. 1), despite its present state of total collapse, was still standing when the Palestine Exploration Fund surveyors visited the site in the late nineteenth century.

308

M. Rosen-Ayalon brought to my attention a similar arrangement at the entrance to Kh«n al-Sultan (al-Wak«la) in ²ar»q B«b al-Silsila in Jerusalem. The column is no longer visible due to modern paving, but can be seen in a photograph in L.A. Mayer’s photo archive. 309 The definition of a building’s appearance as austere is of course relative. Theoretically it could have been ornamented with rich and colored materials, such as wood, textiles and carpets, which usually do not survive. T. Allen in “The Concept of Regional Style,” refers to the appearance of some early thirteenth century Ayyubid madrasas in Aleppo. He wrote: “It is hard to comprehend how they could have been as dull as they now appear, but those blank courtyard facades are the key to understanding how the masonry was complemented by decoration. Just as color and texture predominate in the citadel palace portal and the Firdaus [madrasa] courtyard, so courtyard facades and the interiors behind them were enlivened with color and texture in the form of wooden door and window frames and soffits, wooden doors and window screens, wooden minbars, and at times wooden mihrabs and panelling, all of them in fine joinery and carved, inlaid, or painted.” (Allen 1988, p. 99) Allen’s approach to urban architecture can not necessarily be projected on to rural architecture. In the case of the rural inns, the literary sources offer no evidence of such adornments. 310 According to Sauvaget (1935, p. 44, footnote 4), the façade of Kh«n Dann−n had been redone previous to his visit, destroying, among others, the foundation inscription. It is unfortunate that these structures have not been documented, at least pictorially, in accessible books.

…The main entrance is on the north, a gateway with pointed arch; on either side is a staircase leading to the roof. That of the left (west) is circular… The lintel within the pointed arch of the north doorway is 15 feet 6 inches long, 2 feet wide, 3 feet high. Another lintel to the side door is 6 feet by 1 foot 10 inches by 1 foot 4 inches, dressed smooth, and the separation is shown by a groove cut in the face. (SWP, II, pp. 119–121)

This description, together with the narrative by Guérin from 1863 (Samarie I, pp. 299–300), and the reference to the gate’s style by Irby and Mangles when describing Karak (Irby and Mangles, p. 362), enables us to reconstruct the entrance to the inn as a pointed horseshoe arch, in which a second pointed arch contained a “magnifique linteau,” according to Guérin, probably referring to the long foundation inscription in white limestone, first published by Jaussen, and since lost (Fig. 1.6). In fact, Guérin documented important details of the gate’s decoration, such as the re-use of old building material from Classical Beth-She’an, as well as the alternating black and white ashlars of considerable size.

70

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period The surviving ashlar at the entrance (Pl. V: 7) testifies to Guérin’s observation, even though nothing of the original ablaq of the gate remains exposed.

Y−nus, and at Jubb Y−suf. This suggests that some degree of decoration might have also existed at other inns.

Façades in ablaq are found elsewhere. Excavations at Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ have exposed two courses near the gate, which are strikingly set in ablaq. The Mamluk façade of Jubb Y−suf, entirely in ablaq, is concealed by the late Ottoman additions, but is still visible when entering the rooms (Fig. 10.3: 4–7). In Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b, if we take into account the remaining ablaq on the entrance to the vaulted room, and the possibility that this room also flanked the original gateway passage, it is possible that the gate itself was similarly decorated. In any event, the small windows opening due west, probably part of the kh«n frontage, were framed with white limestone blocks, contrasting with the dark basalt of the construction (Fig. 8.4: 4–5). At Kh«n al-Sab»l a single contrasting course of dark basalt blocks surrounds the upper chamber (Pl. VII: 6), an arrangement unique among the Mamluk inns.

At Kh«n Y−nus the passage is composed of two units. The first, immediately proceeding from the archway, is narrower than the following one, and its walls are bare. The second is a cross-vaulted vestibule, enhanced on both sides. The reason for this is two symmetrical openings that flank the passage. The one to the right (Fig. 23.4: 3– 5) originally led to the second storey and minaret, the left one opened into a room that was apparently part of the mosque located on the upper floor (Fig. 23.4: 6–7). The decoration consisted of improved surface treatment by high quality chiselled ashlars for the facing, white marble lintels over the openings, and monumental inscriptions (mainly that on the left) within a cartouche with cusped finials.311 The program in Jubb Y−suf, on the other hand, was mainly based on two pairs of pointed ogee arches flanking the original passage. The first arch on the right side (Pl. IX: 2) led to a L-shaped room, perhaps a passage to the outer mosque, the second framed a shallow niche (perhaps for a water installation or a jar); to the left, the first arch opened into a room, the second led to the staircase to the roof.

A further architectural feature characteristic of the Mamluk period is the use of muqarnas at the recessed entrances. This has been documented in relation to Mamluk inns, at Kh«n al-Sab»l, and probably at Kh«n alA¯mar (Pls. VII: 6; VIII: 6). In Kh«n Y−nus rows of muqarnas crown the frontage of the upper chamber, giving the guardroom an appearance which recalls the second-storey loggias facing al-®aram al-Shar»f in Jerusalem, for example (Burgoyne 1987, pls. 26.1; 30: 1; 33.9; etc.).

2.5.c. The courtyard enclosure While a number of kh«ns have almost no architectural decoration enhancing the walls surrounding the courtyard at ‘Ar³−siya, Ghab«ghib and Q«r« it seems that tightly chiselled voussoirs were the main treatment, a representative number of structures still retain remains of their ablaq decoration.

Also in Kh«n Y−nus, a rich ornamentation of the tower/minaret stands next to the entrance. Today only the first three hexagonal storeys survive, topped by a hexagonal gallery on brackets. The storeys are divided by different types of moldings; round windows – some of them framed by arches niches of various styles – are placed on three of the sides; the remaining sides are decorated with round inscribed medallions (Pl. VIII: 2– 3). Until the early twentieth century the two top storeys were still standing (Fig. 23.1: 2). The storey leading to the gallery seems to have been hexagonal, while the top one was cylindrical, probably provided with slits (not clearly visible in the photograph), and roofed by an elongated dome.

Khān Jubb Y−suf is perhaps the best surviving example of such a scheme (Pl. VIII: 9), but at Khān Jisr alMaj«mi‘ (Pl. VIII: 5); Kh«n al-A¯mar at Bays«n (Pl. VIII: 7); Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b (Fig. 8.5: 1) and Kh«n ²−m«n (Pl. IX: 1) we also find clear evidence for this type of wall decoration. At Jalj−liya, on the other hand, the striking absence of masonry (see above, p. 68) around the archways into the hall (Pl. IX: 3) testifies to the existence of decoration at these specific points, probably later stolen for secondary use. With some imagination one can reconstruct the decorated archways (see Fig. 6.7:3); ornamental schemes such as those on the archways surrounding the Anatolian Saddedin Han’s courtyard (Pl. XII: 10; 634AH/AD1237), for example, could have been a possible influence.

2.5.b. The passageway Little is known about the decorative scheme of the passageways leading to the courtyard (which typically open into two flanking rooms or into a circumventing hall). Compounding Sauvaget’s omission of passageways in his brief descriptions, most of the archaeological survivals in Palestine (as well as in the excavations at Dhr«‘al-Kh«n in Jordan), do not provide enough evidence to determine a general trend.

A different kind of decoration was used in Kh«n Y−nus, exceptional in almost every respect. A molded arch and two columns, most likely taken from Crusader structures nearby (Fig. 23.5: 3–4), adorned the entrance to one of the units on the eastern side of the kh«n. The most impressive decorative survival, both in state of preservation and in beauty, is the fountain in the

Nevertheless, at least in three cases the entrance to the vaulted hall has ablaq decoration – at Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b, at the partially surviving passageway at Kh«n

311

71

See Gazetteer for the contents of these inscriptions.

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m courtyard of the Mamluk Kh«n ²−m«n (Pl. X: 7). The structure, located at the southern side of the kh«n, was flanked by a pair of engaged plaited column shafts with carved capitals, whose style Creswell compared to Ottoman Syrian structures, though he also referred to at least two late Mamluk buildings, one of them Kh«n alSabb−n in Aleppo (Creswell 1923, pp. 136–137). The fountain was approached by a flight of steps leading to the drinking basin. On the back wall there was an inscription dated 1062AH/AD1652. Sauvaget, however, believed that this inscription was added later, and offered a further stylistic comparison, that of Q«ytb«y’s qa·r (palace) in Aleppo. In this case, Q«ytb«y’s kh«n, dated 883AH/AD1478, in addition to the still standing Ayyubid kh«n, included a monumental side fountain, a feature unknown in other examples and perhaps a reflection of Sultanic monumentality.

function has not been established, and the absence of a niche on the south makes it an unlikely mosque. The prayer room inside Kh«n Jubb Y−suf merits attention (Pl. IX: 9; Fig. 10.9: 2–8). The mi¯r«b is framed asymmetrically by tightly chiselled ashlars. The nichehead is composed of a half-circle of radial elongated stones, centered on a semi-circle,313 and above this are the remains of a shallow rectangular recess with cusped finials, in a style similar to the inscriptions at Kh«n Y−nus. This rectangular recess shows some remains of plaster, originally with a carved inscription. Some plaster is also visible inside the niche-head and on the wall facing it, suggesting that at a certain stage the masonry was concealed. There is an ogee arch on either side of the room; that to the left opens into a side room, that to the right seems to be there for the sake of symmetry. Also in good state of preservations are the prayer rooms excavated at Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ and at Kh«n Minya (Pl. IX: 6–7).314 They are both characterized by the extensive use of white limestone contrasting with the dark gray basalt of the construction. While in the first example the white is confined to the qibla wall, at Kh«n Minya the whole construction was faced in white, including the floor, which for functional reasons was paved in both examples. At Kh«n J−khad«r in the Golan Heights (Pl. IX: 8), also built in dark gray basalt and whose prayer room is placed at the entrance, the decoration is unfortunately missing.

2.5.d. The prayer room Regarding decoration, the prayer room and especially the qibla wall is second in importance to the gate. There the builders employed better masonry, applied architectural enhancements such as a different vaulting or a decorative arch style, and adorned the mì¯r«b with color, inscriptions and other effects. Once again Kh«n Y−nus stands out, both for the considerable surviving remains of the room, still in situ on the upper storey over the entrance wing, as well as for the components.312

At Q«r« is a different kind of decoration. There the walls of the prayer room were painted, probably at a postconstructional phase. Unfortunately no illustration has been published, and we can only rely on Sauvaget’s description (Sauvaget 1940, p. 18), mentioning an epigraphic band at the spring of the vault, with a Qur’«nic inscription (Qur’«n 2: 160) written in wide black letters on a white background. The band was framed by a floral design, and above it, drawn in white on the dark background of the vaulting, was a Sultanic cartouche surrounded by a lobed frame.

An ornamental recessed opening, remains of which are still in place (Pl. IX: 10), leads to the room. It is arranged in the typical Mamluk style, with a pair of benches flanking the door, a long marble lintel above the opening, over which a relieving arch distributes the load. A short inscription, now missing, was inserted in a small rectangular niche framed by a saw-toothed molding and seven ornamental rounded knots (m»ms) set in an outer molding. A small arched window pierced the spandrel over the inscription, adding to the decoration, and probably bringing some light and air into the room. The whole recess was vaulted; the springing can still be seen, in muqarnas formation.

It is difficult to ascertain if painting of prayer rooms was a common practice. At Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ and Kh«n Minya the ornamentation was based on chromatic contrast, while at Jubb Y−suf the asymmetry of the

To the left of the entrance to the mosque is a tall rectangular window whose sill and lintel are of marble, as in all the outward-looking windows of the upper storey (Pl. VIII: 1). Inside, this window is arch-shaped (Fig. 23.4: 1). The interior of the prayer room is also exceptional as the space was originally domed, well lit by a pair of windows facing out, and with an extension over the gate, also lit by a window.

313

The radial layout of the niche head is not an innovation of the Mamluk period. Similar work is also seen at the caldarium of the Umayyad ®amm«m al-¶arakh, for example. Nevertheless, there are some geographically and chronologically closer parallels, as the nichehead of the sunken entrance to the Aw¯adiyya complex in Jerusalem, dated 697AH/AD1298 (Burgoyne 1987, p. 179, pl. 9.4), the now restored water trough next to the entrance to Turba Berke Kh«n in Jerusalem, for example (Pl. XI: 9; Burgoyne 1987, p. 113) dated 792AH/AD1390, or the mi¯r«b of the assembly hall in the later alMuzhiriyya Madrasa, dated 885AH/AD1480–81 (Burgoyne 1987, p. 584, pl. 62.9). Similar stonework on the niche head is seen on the mi¯r«b of K½z½lören in Anatolia, dated 602AH/AD1205 (Pl. XII: 7–8). 314 The latter was exposed in 1988 during the IAA salvage excavation at the site, today within the secured premises of Israel’s Water Company. Many of the elements uncovered, including the prayer room, were destroyed shortly after, to allow the laying of a pipe and the paving of an asphalt path. See Gazetteer.

The second instance of a domed room on the upper storey is at the Mamluk Kh«n ²−m«n (Pl. IX: 1; Creswell 1923, p. 135; Sauvaget 1940, pp. 14–15). However, this room’s 312

Some reservation as to the dating of this prayer room should be noted. The masonry of the façade of this upper room notably differs from the rest of the wall, what could be interpreted as a later addition, perhaps post-Mamluk, or as the result of restoration work. Unfortunately the author could not visit the site to assess from close examination the architectural details of the various wings.

72

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period chiselled blocks around the mi¯r«b can only be explained if that was originally plastered and painted over.

the epithets of All«h, and perhaps should be further considered as a symbolic shield.320 At Kh«n Dann−n, erected some ten years earlier than Kh«n Y−nus, the epigraphic decoration is composed of three inscriptions—an informative inscription measuring 8.15 m long and 0.25 m high over the gate, and a pair of Qur’«nic inscriptions measuring 4m×0.25 m, framed in ornamented cartouches with finials (Sauvaget 1935, pp. 44–45). Photographs of these three inscriptions were not available to the author, but the setting seems closely related to that of Kh«n Y−nus.

2.5.e. The decorative aspect of the foundation inscriptions Foundation inscriptions, above the entrance or beside it, are known from at least twelve inns: Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh, Kh«n al-A¯mar , Shaq¯ab, Kh«n al-‘Asal, Jubb Y−suf, Kh«n Uraynba,315 Khan Shaykh−n, Kh«n al-Sab»l, Kh«n Dann−n, Qadas, Kh«n Y−nus, Kh«n ²−m«n.316

This was apparently the standard during the 1370s and 1380s, for the 2.75×0.50 m inscription on the lintel at Kh«n al-Sab»l is described by Sauvaget in a similar way:

The inscription from Kh«n al-‘Asal, for example, together with the flanking medallions with images of a horseman (Pl. X: 1–2; see above, p. 12; also Müller 1920, p. 12; ill. 1, pl. I: 2–3)317 document the kh«n’s renewal in the 1340’s, while also contributing to the façade's decoration.

“Cartouche orné à chaque extrémité… Quatre lignes en neskhi mamelouk: car.[actères] petits et serrés; quelques points et signes. Une cinquième ligne (martelée) au dessous du cartouche. La fin du texte sur les deux coupes héraldiques qui chargent les corbeaux soulageant le linteau, à droite (l. 6–7) et à gauche (l. 8–9).” (Sauvaget 1940, p. 11, footnote 52)

The inscription from Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh was described by Sauvaget318 as badly executed (Sauvaget 1940, p. 1, footnote 5). The 2.80 m by 0.55 cm five-line inscription, written in a small naskhī script, is in a poor state of preservation which adds to its unattractive appearance. It is difficult to discern its decorative aspect, but its placement over the entrance lintel determines it as part of the kh«n’s overall decoration.

The foundation inscription of the kh«n in Jabala (Sauvaget 1940, pp. 13–14), dated 798AH/AD1396, is also carved on a marble slab over the entrance, between two brackets that once supported a machicolation. According to Sauvaget, two undecorated blazons flanked the 1.90m by 0.30 m slab (Sauvaget 1940, footnote 62).

At Kh«n Y−nus monumental inscriptions decorate the gate, its flanking walls and those of the vestibule. The fine calligraphy of the foundation inscription over the entrance is flanked by a pair of felines, in this case Sultan Barq−q’s blazon (Pl. VII: 2).319 The long inscriptions at the sides of the gate are placed within cusped cartouches, and are crowned by the Sultan’s epigraphic medallion and a pair of Y−nus’ heraldic blazons—a composite medallion whose upper field contains a pen box, the middle and lower fields a cup (Pl. VIII: 3; Fig. 23.3: 5–7; Mayer 1933, pp. 254–257). The two inscriptions on the sides of the vestibule are placed in cusped cartouches. In addition to all these, inscribed roundels decorate alternate sides of the minaret. One of them reads al-Qahh«r, one of

The other sites with known foundation inscriptions, though no longer in situ, seem to confirm their decorative role, besides their informative function. The 2 m long inscription from Kh«n al-A¯mar, discovered near the gate area (now missing), stood as the inn's entrance lintel. It was carved on the white slab, and shaped as a tabula ansata, whose “handles” were also inscribed (Fig. 1.6). At Shaq¯ab (Marj al-¶uffar), built almost ten years after Kh«n al-A¯mar, a similarly placed inscription was longer (3.20×0.40m) and carried Tankiz’s blazon, the cup, 22 cm high (Mayer 1933, p. 220). Sauvaget comments on the large characters and the floral designs ornamenting the script (Sauvaget 1940, p. 4), stresses its decorative aspect.

315

Sauvaget reported that the inscription which was once set on the gate's lintel disappeared during a modern refurbishing (Sauvaget 1940, p. 17). 316 For the transcription of the various inscriptions, see Chapter 2, p. 10. 317 The two lines were carved on three blocks, in an elongated hexagonal frame, 2 m long, 40 cm wide. The pair of round figurative medallions (ca. 40 cm diameter) is described by Sauvaget (1933, p. 169) as a “horse with ceremonial saddle on undivided shield.” 318 See Chapter 2, pp. 10-11 for Sauvaget’s description and transcription. 319 The Mamluk kh«n at Q«r« should be also mentioned with regards to the use of emblematic medallions. Apart from a composite trepartite blazon with two cups topping the entrance to the building (on the dating of this style of blazons to Barq−q 's time, see above, n. 283), a second blazon appears on the right side of the entrance vestibule. It consists of a feline, carved below a short inscription referring to the inscriber (“naqasha Ab− 'l-Majd, rahimahu Allah”). In RCEA (12, p. 104, no. 4555) the feline is referred to as “lion de Baibars,” but here I propose to see this feline as the insignia of Barq−q, as in Kh«n Y−nus, thus dating Q«r« to approximately the same period of time.

The inscription from Kh«n Shaykh−n, which in the Ottoman period was covered by added structures, was described by Thevenot in the seventeenth century (Sauvaget 1940, p. 7). The six-line inscription was carved on a marble lintel and flanked by a pair of cups, in this case the blazon of the am»r Shaykh− al-‘Umar» (Sauvaget 1940, p. 8). It thus repeats the same decorative program—an informative inscription accompanied by the mamluk's blazon—found in the previous example. Finally, the foundation inscription of the Mamluk kh«n at Q«r« (built to the north of the Ayyubid kh«n has not survived, but the keystone of the entrance archway was 320

On the use of symbolic decoration on gates and walls of Fatimid Cairo, see Behrens-Abouseif 1989, p. 68.

73

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m described by Sauvaget as bearing a tripartite heraldic blazon, in which the upper portion was plain, while the two others had a cup each. Following Mayer’s typological interpretation of the blazon, Sauvaget suggested a 1380–1401 range for the construction of the inn (Sauvaget 1940, p. 18).

jusqu’à nous sous le nom de ‘kh«n’.” (Dentzer 1994, p. 96)

In general, the Mamluk kh«ns of Syria, Sauvaget’s “type Syrien,” can be considered faithful to the tradition of Levantine introvert courtyard buildings to the point that nineteenth century travelers and even modern researchers might mistakenly designate earlier buildings such as the Umayyad palace at Mshatt« (Valentine 1893, p. 308), as well as Late Ottoman farmhouses in northern Palestine, as kh«ns (see Chapter 2, p. 37).

3. Architectural Sources In the search for the architectural sources of the courtyard plan of the Mamluk rural kh«n«t of Syria, one might recall not only to early Islamic times when frontier fortifications (rib«³«t), palaces, manor houses as well as way stations were based on this simple plan, but also further into the past. Byzantine pandocheia (public inns) and xenodochia (monastic inns), Nabatean inns in the Negev, Roman forts of the limes, as well as the mutatio (relay stations), burgii and mansiones (inns), could all have exercised a direct influence on the formation of an architectural model. Pre-Islamic buildings have also been compared to earlier prototypes, including the Iron Age fortifications of the Negev, for example.321

Notwithstanding the general common concept, the typological differences—mainly in the organization of the closed space—help distinguish between the different types of architecture.323 In that sense, the Mamluk inns are a natural continuation of those of the Ayyubid period, which in turn differ from the few known early Islamic Syrian inns (see The Ayyubid inns of Syria, below). 3.1. From Rib«³ to Kh«n? Together with the influence exercised by the many preIslamic architectural models on the planning of the Islamic rural inn, some remotely, others more directly, scholars have also looked for the immediate impact of rib«³«t in the architectural development of rural inns. The reasons for doing so are various. First, the common use of the term rib«³ to define a kh«n in certain lands of Islam (see Chapter 2¸ p. 23), together with the fairly similar courtyard-plan, suggests a relationship between these two architectural categories. Second, the historical context indicates that at least some of the early defensive structures were transformed into road inns for the caravans after their original function had lost its raison d’être (see Chapter 2¸ pp. 25ff.). This would seem to show that the rib«³«t were more than a mere architectural influence; they were amongst the first type of structures to be used as road-stations during the Early Islamic period, in addition to the surviving pandocheia, xenodochia, and other forms of pre-Islamic inns.

J-M. Dentzer, in 1994 dealt with the identification of a series of courtyard buildings dating to the Roman period in Palmyra visible in aerial photographs taken in 1930.322 He carried out a long and meticulous study of courtyard buildings in the Levant from Roman to Early Islamic times. In Dentzer’s words, “[l]a continuité, sensible entre des constructions d’époque romaine (et sans doute déjà nabatéenne) et des monuments omeyyades, semble se prolonger, sans rupture, à l’époque médiévale et jusqu’à l’époque ottomane. Il faut noter que jusqu’à l’époque ottomane le même schéma a été utilisé pour des forts et pour des caravansérails. Matériellement des constructions antiques ont abrité des pèlerins du Hajj et sont arrivées

321

For early Islamic structures in general, see K.A. Creswell’s Early Muslim Architecture. On the relevant architectural categories dated to the pre-Islamic period see J-M. Dentzer’s “Kh«ns ou Casernes à Palmyre? À propos de Structures Visibles sur des Photographies Aériennes Anciennes” (see below); or the more specialized discussions by R. De Vaux and A.-M. Stève (1950, pp. 48–53); S. Apelbaum, “On Burgii and Burgarii in Eretz-Israel,” Yediot 18 (1960) in Hebrew; E. Netzer on Caravansaries in his recent Nabataeische Architektur (2003), pp. 152–155; I. Peña, “Hospedarias Rurales en la Siria Bizantina,” Liber Annus 50 (2000). 322 These courtyard building are described by Dentzer as follows: Les constructions de Palmyre, que l’on peut définir en première approximation comme des enclos, se présentent comme des espaces carrés ou rectangulaires dont la plus grande dimension varie entre 35 et 75 m (avec un exemplaire dépassant 170 m). À l’intérieur de ces enclos, des bâtiments de profondeur limitée, appuyés sur le mur de clôture, entourent sur ses quatre côtés un espace central vide auquel est réservée une surface importante, au moins un tiers de l’espace total. Dans les exemples les plus lisibles l’organisation interne apparaît: les bâtiments sont constitués par une seule rangée de cellules juxtaposées, rectangulaires ou carrées, dont les dimensions varient entre 4 et 8 m de côté et qui s’ouvrent, directement pour la plupart, sur l’espace central. Plus rarement, deux ou trois pièces, peuvent communiquer entre elles par des portes latérales, une seule s’ouvrant sur l’espace central.” (Dentzer 1994, p. 46)

E. Sims questioned that relationship in discussing the general appearance of the early-twelfth-century Saljuq inns of Iran. She believed that the rib«³«³ still influenced the fortified external appearance of Rib«³-i-Sharaf (Pl. XIII: 7–8),324 despite “its highly elaborate plan, unusual double courtyard and luxurious brick and stucco decoration [which] suggest instead a palatial edifice.” (Sims 1978, p. 102) Unfortunately, too little is known about the architecture of the Iranian rib«³«³ to establish a 323

The distinction, nevertheless, is not always clear-cut. It is worth noting the case of Da‘uq, for example, 8 km from Acre in the Upper Galilee (UTM grid 6985/6395; Israel grid 16175/25310). At that site, on whose tell a stronghold once stood, are the remains of a square courtyard building measuring ca. 58×58 m, directed west-east. Barrelvaulted halls of different dimensions enclose the courtyard, in the typical manner of Ayyubid and Mamluk kh«ns. Structurally, the building could be either of the above options, but despite the close architectural relationship, the geographical and historical contexts point to it as a Frankish manor house (Ellenblum 1998, pp. 205–209). 324 Completed in 549AH/AD1154. On this kh«n, see Godard 1949 and Kiani 1981.

74

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period direct influence on the development of the local inns from the early Islamic to the Saljuq period. On the other hand, some comparative work can be done on Mediterranean rib«³«³ and the early Islamic Syrian inns.

architectural remains are thus representative of the various stages. The eastern cells, for example, seem to postdate a narrow mosque (13×3 m) erected in the courtyard (Nahlieli et al. 2001, p. 128), but pre-date the Crusader period, when according to the archaeologist the cells were filled up and plaster floors laid at a higher level. Neither a small bath-house, uncovered in the northern portion of the courtyard, nor the stables placed in the south-eastern corner, look original.

The best preserved examples of Mediterranean rib«³«t are those excavated along the Israeli coast—at HaBonim/Kafr Lām (Barbé et al. 2002; NEAEH, v, pp. 1753–1755) and Ashdod-Yam/M«¯−z Azd−d (Nahlieli et al. 2001; Masarwa 2006, pp. 18–28; NEAEH, v, pp. 1575–1576), as well as those in Tunisia—S−sa (Creswell 1989, pp. 286–288, ill. 181) and Monastir/Munast»r (Creswell 1989, pp. 288–290, ill. 181).

Unlike the Umayyad rib«³«t discussed above, the two surviving fortifications in North Africa are of smaller scale. According to the ground plan published by Creswell, the original layout of the rib«³ at S−sa (Pl. XIII: 3) is square measuring 39 m each side, with a central open courtyard (19.21×20.41 m). It is surrounded by an arched gallery, absent in both examples from the Palestinian coast. They do share, nevertheless, the basic layout in which towers fortify the corners and walls (in the case of S−sa a pair of squared towers flank the single entrance on the south) and the circumventing tunnelvaulted rooms (thirty-five in this case, 3.50 to 3.60 m), though here they mostly open on to covered galleries (originally also tunnel-vaulted). Another important departure from the previous examples is the presence of a second storey of similar rooms. On the southern side, a broad eleven-aisled mosque replaced the row of rooms. The circular minaret (4.72 m diameter and 15.38 m high) rises over the south-eastern tower and carries a foundation inscription attributing the construction to the Aghlabid ruler Ziy«dat All«h in 206AH/AD821–2. Creswell consideres the inscription a later addition to the original plan (1989, pp. 287–288).

HaBonim/Kafr Lām (also Kafr Lāb), located ca. 15 km north of Caesarea,325 consists of a nearly square building in sandstone (46.6×51.4×60×62.8 m Pl. XIII: 1) provided with circular corner towers (5.2 m in diameter; one of them 6 m) and lateral buttresses (1.4×1.4 m). The building is accessed from the south, where two semicircular towers flank the entrance. The entrance leads to an open courtyard, provided with cisterns and originally surrounded by perpendicular barrel-vaulted rooms. The building is dated to the Umayyad period (Barbé et al. 2002, p. 38; El`ad 1982, p. 149), even though later additions, especially from the Crusader period but as late as from the Ottoman, are notable. However, at least since the Crusader period (the thirteenth century according to the pottery finds), it no longer functioned as a fortification. The rectangular building (60×40 m) at AshdodYam/M«¯−z Azd−d, 326 located 1 km south of the modern town of Ashdod, shares the plan of vaulted cells surrounding an open courtyard with HaBonim (Pl. XIII: 2; Nahlieli et al. 2001, 126–128, fig. 183; Masarwa 2006, pp. 22–23). Nevertheless, some important aspects in the layout set them apart. First, the lack of symmetry stands out in Ashdod-Yam; the corner towers are not homogeneous (circular on the western side and rectangular on the eastern) and the narrow reinforcement buttresses are set at irregular intervals (Nahlieli et al. 2001, p. 126). Also unique to Ashdod-Yam is the pair of entrances to building—both in the east and in the west,327 each flanked by a pair of semi-circular towers. The pair of staircases flanking each of the gateways enhances the defensive nature of the building. They lead to the crest of the outer wall (at places preserved to some 8 m high) and to the towers (Nahlieli et al. 2001, p. 126). The fortification was first built during the Umayyad period, over remains of the Byzantine city Azotos Paralius (Masarwa 2006, p. 21). It was continuously used until the Crusader period, but unlike Kafr Lām, M«¯−z Azd−d seems to have been abandoned soon after. The

The rib«³ of Monastir, dating to 796 (Creswell 1989, p. 288) has not survived in good condition. The reconstructed ground plan published by Lézine in his Le Rib«t de Sousse (Lézine 1956), was reproduced by Creswell (1989, ill. 182). The original structure was apparently square, 32.80 m per side (1076 m2), as at S−sa. The general measurements of the two latter examples, and the internal layout of cells around a courtyard can be associated with buildings in the Syrian milieu dated to the ‘Abbasid period, among them the inns at Qaryat al‘In«b/Ab− Gh−sh (Pl. XIV: 4; see Gazetteer), Yotvata (Pl. XIV: 3; Meshel 1990), and Tell Qasila (Pl. XIV: 2; Ayalon et al. 1986–7; 1987–9). To the east, ‘Atsh«n (ca. 161AH/AD778), between Ukhaidir and K−fa, may be taken as a comparison, even though its plan differs from all other road stations of the period (Pl. XIII: 4; Creswell 1989, pp. 258–260). Qaryat al-‘Inab, as stated above (see p. 64), during both the early Islamic period and the Mamluk renovation, measured 28×32 m (896 m2). Notwithstanding the asymmetrical plan, the southern and eastern wings were based on a compartmentalized layout preceded by an arched gallery, from which a staircase led to the roof (or perhaps to an upper floor). Yotvata was slightly more spacious (33.5×35 m; 1172.5 m2), while Tell Qasila was reconstructed as a square courtyard building 28 m per

325 Identified with al-Muqaddasī's Kafr Sallām (al-Muqaddasī, Aq«l»m, p. 177; Regions, p. 160). 326 For a virtual tour inside this site, see http://www.virtualworldproject.org/vr/isr/sites/AY/tour.html?hi (accessed in January 2009). 327 The use of a marble column as a threshold at the western entrance is noteworthy and reminiscent of the shafts used as speed humps at the entrance to Kh«n Y−nus and Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«miΚ, discussed above (see p. 70).

75

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m side (784 m2; Ayalon et al. 1987–9, p. 9). Both had staircases.

characterize Iranian architecture in general (Herzfeld 1943, pp. 13–30; Godard 1951)—four »w«ns opening on to the courtyard in an axial plan. When we look for the architectural sources of the Saljuq monumental doublecourtyard inns, it is the plan and decorative elements found at Rib«³-i-Malik (Pl. XIII: 8) on the BukharaSamarkand route (471AH/AD1078–9; Aslanapa 1971, p. 52) rather than the old-fashioned rib«³«³ that bridge the early four-iw«n inns and examples such as Rib«³-i-Sharaf (Pl. XIII: 9–10).

‘Atsh«n, despite similar dimensions to these of Tell Qasila (also ca. 28 m per side), differs in internal organization, and also in its fortified appearance, due to its round corner towers The Umayyad inn at Qa·r al-®ayr al-Gharb» is much larger and of a different internal layout (Pl. XIV: 1), built by the caliph Hish«m in 109AH/AD727 (Schlumberger 1986, p. 1; RCEA, i, p. 23, no. 27). It consists of a square nearly 55 m per side, with projecting wings at the northern and southern ends of the eastern side. The southern extension houses a small mosque, the northern a water installation. The inner plan of the building presents a large courtyard surrounded by a portico leading to the roofed units. The eastern side is composed of three cells on each side of the entrance, two of them almost square and relatively small, the corner ones much longer. Single long halls with two entrances each mark the three other sides. A flight of steps leads either to an upper storey or the roof (Schlumberger 1986, pp. 5–6; Dentzer 1994, p. 90).328

In the case of the Syrian inns, the connection between the Umayyad rib«³«³ and the Ayyyubid and Mamluk kh«ns also seems far removed. On the other hand, the connection in plan and measurements between the Umayyad inn at Qa·r al-®ayr al-Gharb» and the later Ayyubid and Mamluk inns is of great relevance. Unfortunately, that is the only instance in which an Umayyad inn has been fully recovered and clearly identified by an inscription (the interpretation of the smaller enclosure at Qa·r al-®ayr al-Sharq» as an Umayyad inn is much questionable; see Grabar et al. 1978, pp. 32, 148; Hillenbrand 1994, p. 334).330 Nevertheless, even if excavations bring forward further Umayyad inns, it would be difficult to point to a linear development of this architectural category in Syria, especially vis-à-vis the compartimentalized ground plan of the few remnant ‘Abbasid road-inns discovered (see above), atypical among the Ayyubid-Mamluk examples.

No clear proof exists of a direct relationship between the early Islamic inns and the surviving rib«³«t. Compartmentalization can also be found on Umayyad and ‘Abbasid palaces and manor houses, for example, and is not necessarily a heritage from the rib«³«t; similar proportions can also be established with other categories of buildings.329

3.2. The Ayyubid Inns of Syria

The architectural styles of the Syrian and Iranian inns grew apart at an early stage, and there is no reason to connect that development to the influence of the rib«³«³. Early Islamic inns such as Ch«h-i-Siy«h near I·fah«n (Ch«leh S»y«h, ca. 770–785; Siroux 1974, pp. 135–136; Sims 1978, p. 101), Rib«³-i-Kar»m southwest of Teheran (Pl. XIII: 5–6; second half of the tenth century) and Rib«³-i-An−sh»rw«n/ªhuw«n near Simn«n (Pl. XIII: 7; Siroux 1974, p. 137; Hillenbrand 1994, p. 339; built between 1029–1049) help to clarify that process. These inns introduced a distinctive architectural element to the basic courtyard plan, which from then on would

In the search for parallels of representative architectural features found in Mamluk rural inns, a study of the Ayyubid legacy is necessary. Not only the roads along which the new Mamluk inns were erected were already catered to by Ayyubid inns (Pl. IV; Table 3)—and perhaps even by earlier structures—those structures were often adopted and renewed by the Mamluks. They were thus an immediate inspiration for the new foundations. Sauvaget, in La Poste aux Chevaux dans l’Empire des Mamelouks, mentions some of the kh«ns appropriated by Baybars into his royal mail system on the route between Damascus and Homs: al-Qu³ayf«, most probably founded by N−r al-D»n Ma¯mud b. al-Zank» (d. 569AH/AD1174; Sauvaget 1939, p. 49); ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s Kh«n al-‘Ar−s (577AH/AD1181–1182; Sauvaget 1939, pp. 50–51), and the late twelfth century kh«n at Q«r« (Sauvaget 1939, pp. 53–54), the latter even carrying Baybars’ feline blazon as testimony to his appropriation.

328

A further structure at the site of Qa·r al-®ayr al-Gharb» has been identified as either a kh«n or a fortress. It consists of a later building, dated by the excavator to the twelfth-thirteenth centuries, superimposed on the northwestern section of the palace itself. The structure is a rough trapezium, measuring 24×50×28×53 meters, adjoining the still-standing Byzantine tower at the northwestern corner (13×16 meters). The builders made use of the northern and western walls of the Umayyad structure, but the two others completely ignore the existing plan. The elongated rooms that open onto the courtyard are built against the northern and western portions, while the other sides are left bare. The entrance was placed east of the tower. Water was available from a basin at the southeastern portion of the courtyard, and from inside the Byzantine tower. Actually the latter might have been the reason for concentrating the building efforts at this spot, and not at the Umayyad kh«n (Schlumberger 1986, pp. 13–14, pl. 22). 329 De Vaux and Stève dealt with some aspects of standardized proportions and measurements in the ‘Abbasid period in their study of Qaryat al-‘Inab/Ab− Gh−sh (1950, pp. 76–78). There they discussed the relationship in planning between the inn, the cistern at Ramla, Ukhaidir, the mosque at S«marr«, the Nilometer in Rawda, as well as the mosque of Ibn ²ul−n in Fus³«³.

The kh«n at Qu³ayf« (Pls. IV: 1; XV: 1–4) has a rectangular ground plan (58×35 m); the entrance is in the 330 Khalilieh, in his forthcoming article “Rib«³s as Way Stations, Caravanserais, and Places of Refuge during Early and Late Classical Islam” (Khalilieh 2009. I would like to thank the author for providing me with the unpublished text) brings Qa·r al-®ayr al-Sharq» as his architectural prototype of a “hostel-rib«³,” without nevertheless acknowledging opposition by various scholars to such an interpretation for the smaller enclosure, such as D. Genequand, to whose article (Genequand 2005) he refers.

76

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period middle of the wider side, flanked by two small cells (which lead to protruding rectangular towers). An open courtyard is surrounded on three sides by a continuous barrel-vaulted hall, and by two broad halls with single entrances on the entrance side. A third rectangular tower (perhaps for a latrine), accessed from the hall, is located over the rear wall. The masonry work recalls that of some Mamluk kh«ns: the core is composed of undressed stones and rubble in mortar, faced with a varied range of dressed stones. On the protruding gateway and the courtyard archways the stonework is finer, using ashlar, but very heterogeneous, including building material in secondary use. Slabs with a molded edge form part of the masonry flanking the gateway, in which three tabula ansatae were left bare (Pl. XV: 1). The rest of the building’s walls were mostly faced with roughly dressed slabs, quite homogeneous in size. The water pipe crossing the courtyard is clearly visible, and illustrates the testimony by the English pilgrim Biddulph, dated 1600:

(36×35 m; Pl. XV: 9–10). Located on a steep ascent from the Sea of Galilee to the Golan Heights, this kh«n was erected in 610AH/AD1213 by ‘Izz al-D»n Ab− al-Man·−r Aybak, ust«dh al-d«r of al-Malik al-Mu’aμμam ‘ºs«, who also built the kh«ns at ¶alkhad/¶arkhad and Zur«‘ in the ®awr«n, and S«la in the Jabal al-Druz (see the chapter on Chapter 3, p. 46). Kh«n al-‘Aqaba’s plan is even simpler than that of its predecessors; the four sides are surrounded by a continuous barrel-vaulted hall, with no cells flanking the entrance, no apparent »w«n, and no traces of a prayer room.331 The articulation of the stairway, in this case leading to the rooftop, is very simple, abutting the northeastern corner of the courtyard. The small proportions of the building and courtyard (ca. 16 m per side) dictated single openings at each side of the hall, unlike most of the Syrian examples. Taking these with al-Qu·ayr (perhaps pre-Ayyubid, see footnote 110; Sauvaget 1939, p. 50), the late twelfth century Kh«n ²−m«n (Sauvaget 1939, pp. 52–53), and al‘A³ni (before 1234; Sauvaget 1939, pp. 54–55), all briefly described by Sauvaget, we can propose a classification of Ayyubid rural inns into two types: (1) enclosures consisting of a barrel vaulted hall surrounding the courtyard, with a cross-vaulted »w«n located opposite the entrance; (2) enclosures continuously surrounded by a barrel vaulted hall, with two rooms flanking the entrance. There seems to be no chronological development to account for the differences. Difficult to classify is the kh«n at al-Burayj (Pl. IV: 6), both because it is only partially preserved, but mainly because of the Mamluk additions on the southwestern side. At that time a domed fountain was erected outside the kh«n (720AH/AD1320 according to the inscription over the fountain window), and a trilobed gate flanked by benches was added at the southwest corner, leading into a prayer room. This is perhaps the mosque mentioned by al-‘Umar» in al-Ta‘r»f as built by the q«±» of Damascus Ibn ¶a·r« (see above, note 220). Given that no proper architectural examination has been conducted, it is impossible to determine if Ibn ¶a·r«’s work also modified the original layout of the inn.332

…And in the middle of this Cane, there is a faire large Fountayne of water, of hewed stones foure square, wherein there is exceeding good water for Travellers to drinke, and Chambers for their Lodging: but if they will have any Beds, they must bring them with them, or sleepe on the hard ground, as most men that travell that way are wont to doe… (Biddulph, Letter, p. 1346)

The central fountain has disappeared, but together with the water installation exposed at Kh«n al-‘Ar−s (see below) much can be understood of the system used in the later Mamluk kh«ns as well. Kh«n al-‘Ar−s (Pls. IV: 4; XV: 5–7) is also rectangular (41×47 m), but organized along the longer axis, around an open courtyard ca. 30×25 m The gate is on the shorter side; to its side is the stairway to an upper chamber (6.4×3.85 m), overlooking the entrance. A barrel-vaulted hall surrounds the courtyard from all four sides, interrupted by a cross-vaulted »w«n facing the gateway. Cross-vaulting was also used on the chamber over the entrance, as well as in one of the side bays. A water basin hewn in the rock is located on the main axis; it was originally fed by a duct which started at the back of the iw«n, leading the water to an outlet some 5 m to the left of the entrance. The five-line foundation inscription was carved on a stone slab placed over the entrance. It attributes the construction to ¶al«¯ al-D»n and dates it 577AH/AD1181–1182 (see transcription and translation in Chapter 2, p. 6).

Clearly, the early Mamluk kh«ns directly followed the second architectural type in terms of layout. The 331

There might have been a prayer area, destroyed with the rest of the kh«n’s southern side. Aerial photographs dated 1945, by the Royal Air Force, points to the existence of a dome over the central bay, apparently as a means to emphasize the location of the prayer niche. For an indepth discussion on the architecture of Kh«n al-‘Aqaba, see my forthcoming article “On three kh«ns in the Golan Heights: Some notes on the background for the erection of road-inns during the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods,” following a paper by the same title delivered on December 11th, 2008, at the conference On Crossroads, organized by the Golan Archaeological Museum, Qatzrin. 332 Al-Burayj’s Mamluk arrangement contradicts the basic principle of a single opening to an inn. In a way, it recalls Petersen’s proposal for Jalj−liya, in which he sees the building as originally having had a side opening, later blocked to serve as a mi¯r«b. In al-Burayj, on the other hand, the opening was contemporaneous with the prayer room, and served as access for outsiders. Security could still be preserved if the passage from that room to the courtyard was controlled. Perhaps a similar routine obtained at Jubb Y−suf as well (see Gazetteer). In any case, Petersen’s interpretation of Jalj−liya’s side entrance should be reconsidered.

The Ayyubid inn at Q«r« (Pl. IV: 6) is a square building, 42 m per side. The design mixes elements from both Qu³ayf« and al-‘Ar−s; it has the same continuous barrelvaulted hall surrounding the open courtyard and interrupted by a back »w«n facing the entrance (in this case marked by a mi¯r«b and thus evidently used as a prayer room), and the same pair of side cells flanking the gateway. As in Kh«n al-‘Ar−s, the stairway is placed next to the entrance, and leads to an upper chamber (16×8.4 m), over the eastern cell. This basic ground plan is also found in another Ayyubid kh«n: Kh«n al-‘Aqaba (F»q), of smaller proportions

77

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m • The Mamluk rural inn continues the Ayyubid type, though gradually introducing new architectural concepts.

fortification units, as well as the water system were also basically preserved. Both Ayyubid groups tended to maintain an upper guardroom over the entrance, as did the Mamluk kh«ns. Defensive towers, on the other hand, were less common. They appear flanking the entrance to the inn at Qu³ayf«, as well as at a corner of al-Burayj, where an ancient tower was articulated into the building’s premises. In fact, it is probably this tower that gave the inn its name (burayj, “the small tower”). Al-Burayj’s gate was also protected, “couvert par un arc qui dissimulait sans doute à l’origine un mâchicoulis.” (Sauvaget 1940, p. 4)

• The inns of the Mamluk period vary in both size and spatial organization; symmetry is usually sought but not categorically followed. • The choice of vaulting seems chronologically related. The early Mamluk kh«ns, following the Ayyubid prototypes, used mainly barrel-vaulting as the structural type, reserving cross-vaulting for enhancing special areas like an »w«n or the prayer room. This trend seems to have changed at some point in the second half of the fourteenth century, being replaced by cross-vaulting alone or a combination of the two.

Such defensive gates were also used at Kh«n al-‘Ar−s and al-Qu·ayr, but were gradually replaced by machicolations, also more common in Mamluk inns. The slotted archway at Kh«n Y−nus, nevertheless, is a clear example of the longevity of the first system (Pl. VII: 2).

• The fortification of the entrance is evident in almost every example, even though the use of corner towers seems to be associated with the second half of the fourteenth century and later.

In terms of decoration these kh«ns are much more austere than their successors, and the only sign of some interior chromatic effect apparent on Sauvaget’s photographs are the ablaq work on one of the archways at Kh«n ²−m«n or some carved decoration on stone as at Kh«n al-Aqabat F»q, unfortunately not found in situ.

• The decoration of the Mamluk inns was mainly restricted to the gate and prayer room, a principle followed in most contemporary buildings, either religious or secular.

The relationship between Ayyubid and Mamluk inns is clear, and at times even methodologically troubling: how much of the earlier structure did a renovated Mamluk kh«n preserve? Should the structures referred to by their inscriptions as jaddada or tajd»d333 be studied as Mamluk?

• Some of the structural, as well as decorative, elements seen in the Mamluk kh«ns might suggest that the builders were aware of Anatolian monumental standards, and in a very modest way tried to translate them into their own traditional setting.334

For the moment the chronological division should be accepted, especially as structural and decorative innovations were introduced during the Mamluk period. On the other hand, given the similarities in plan, structures dated solely on the basis of their ground plan— including some of those included in the Gazetteer (Kh«n Lubiya, Khisf»n, ®aw± al-‘Azariya—should be analysed with much caution.

In addition to the above conclusions concerning the architectural aspects of the buildings, a further conclusion, of a quasi-political background, is possible. Despite our historical knowledge inferring some degree of government involvement and direction of building projects throughout the Sultanate (see Chapter 3, pp. 44ff.), the variations found in various aspects of internal planning and construction style of the inns seem to suggest the lack of a governing body closely inspecting their erection. If there was some government involvement, it probably had to do with the siting of the inns on the main routes, rather than their architectural expression.

4. Summary The courtyard building type, with cells or long halls surrounding the open area, is deeply rooted in Levantine architectural tradition; it has served various functions in both urban and rural contexts. Its continuous use for lodging purposes since Roman times makes the choice of plan quite natural for the inns of the Islamic period, including those of Mamluk date. In fact, it is this architectural past that may explain the difference in conception—in both plan and aesthetics—between the Levantine buildings on the one hand and the Iranian and Anatolian on the other.

334

Note Aslanapa’s speculation on the relationship between the two traditions: “Features that recall Mamluk art [on the Çay Han, built in 677AH/AD1278–1279] may indicate Mamluk artistic influences following Baybars’ Anatolian campaign of 1277.” (Aslanapa 1971, p. 159) Aslanapa’s remark is somewhat problematic. How “Mamluk” can one call the artistic influences exercised on the local builders, if at that stage Mamluk buildings were being erected in Fatimid or Crusader styles, both ultimately related to Armenian architecture? See H. Taragan’s discussion on the architectural style of the arches at Maq«m Ab− Hurayra in Yavneh/Yubn« (673AH/AD1274) in Palestine (Taragan 2000, pp. 72–78).

Despite the lack of metrological data concerning most of the Mamluk rural inns, for which an in-depth analysis is desirable, some preliminary observations can be made on the so-called “type Syrien.”

333

Apparently also ‘im«ra. On this term, see Chapter 2, p. 7, n. 12.

78

79

unknown

before 740AH/AD 1340

Khisf»n

Jalj−liya

3024

2009

4020

39×37

29×21

50×43

22×16

40×40

50×46

42×51

40×40

49×60

22×29

15×14

24×24

Courtyard

1443

609

2150

352

1600

2300

2142

1600

2940

638

210

576

(m )

2

Area

2.09

3.29

1.87

3.76

2.25

1.95

1.54

2.25

2.03

3.44

2.97

3.21

Courtyard

:

Enclosure

c. 4?

c. 4

unknown

3.3

2.4

?

c. 3.3

3

2

c. 2.5

2.5

c. 3

Gate

East-west

South-north

East-west

North-south

East-west

West-east

North-south

North-south

North-south

South-north

?

South-north

Direction

5

5.5 - 6

5.2

4.9–5.3

6–7

Cells

4.5

7

5.5

6

irregular

6.5 - 7

Halls (width)

Barrel-V.

unknown

Barrel-V.

Barrel-V.

Cross-V.

Barrel-V.

Barrel-V. ?

Cross-V.

Cross-V.

Barrel-V.

?

Cross-V.

(halls)

Vaulting

?

-

?

Barrel-V.

Cross-V.

Barrel-V.

unknown

Cross-V.

-

Barrel-V.

?

Cross-V.

(cells)

Vaulting

335 Most dimensions are approximate, apart from those of sites documented during excavations and/or architectural surveys. The reader is asked to be cautious with the plans published by Sauvaget, whose scales are usually not exact. In addition, his plans usually lack orientation. 336 The kh«n at Ar³−siya was already standing when Sultan Q«ytb«y passed by in 882AH/AD1477 (Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 56; Devonshire 1922, p. 9).

56×54

49×41

67×60

14th c.

J−khad«r

1326

39×34

unknown probably 14th c.

4480

3300

3600

Jubb Y−suf

Jisr al-Maj«mi‘

50×66

3600

60×60

14th c.

Dhr«‘ al-Kh«n

60×60

5976

1st half 14th

778AH/ AD1376

Kh«n Dann−n

72×83

2193

625

1849

(m )

2

Area

70×64

708AH/ AD1308

Bays«n

51×43

Irregular, c. 25×25

43×43

Enclosure

before 848AH/AD1444

690AH/ AD1291

Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh

Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b

744AH/ AD1343

before 882AH/ AD1477336

Date

Kh«n al-‘Asal

Ar³−siya/ Orthosiya

Site

Table 2: The main architectural features of some Mamluk inns of Syria.335

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period

80

Kh«n Y−nus

Uraynba

789AH/ AD1387

85×85

50×50

1st half 14th c.

53×47

86×93?

c. mid-14th c.

Kh«n Shaykh−n

36×36

before 848AH/AD1444

773AH/ AD1371–2

Kh«n al-Sab»l

Kh«n al-Tujj«r

unknown

30×30

28×32

probably 14 c.

45×55

th

58×50

Irregular c. 25×25

32×32

65×55

before 1320

Ru·«fa

Qaryat al-‘Inab

Q«q−n

before 848AH/AD1444

unknown

Markiya

Kh«n Minya

before 1384AH/AD

before 731AH/AD13301331

Lubban

Lajj−n/Megiddo

7225

2500

c. 8000

2491

1296

900

896

2475

2900

625

1024

3575

c. 60×60

?

unknown

28×25

21×20

18×18

c. 13×15 (irregular)

unknown

unknown

?

15×14

35×30

3600

?

unknown

700

420

324

195

unknown

unknown

?

210

1050

2.01

?

unknown

3.56

3.08

2.78

4.59

unknown

unknown

?

4.88

3.40

4

?

2

3

2

c. 2.5

c. 1.9

unknown

c. 3

?

2.73

unknown

West-east

North-south

North-south

?

South-north

South-north

North-south

North-south

South-north

?

West-east

South-north

-

?

Cells?

6.5

5.3

3.5 - 4

-

unknown

6.25?

?

5.25

unknown

Barrel-V.

?

-

Cross-V.

Composite

Barrel-V.

-

unknown

unknown

?

Barrel-V.

unknown

Barrel-V.?

?

unknown

-

Barrel-V.

Barrel-V.

both

unknown

unknown

?

Cross-V.

Barrel-V. ?

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m

81

before 585AH/ AD1189

Kh«n ²−m«n

before ca. 529AH/ AD1135 and 579AH/ AD1184 before 569AH/ AD1174

Qu·ayr

58×35

41×47

338

42×42

42×42

2030

1600

1764

2209

2601

1764

1927

1296

(m )

2

Area

42×18

24×24

25×25

29×29

35×35

27×27

30×25

16×16

Courtyard

756

576

625

841

1225

729

750

256

(m )

2

Area

South-north

?

North-south

South-north

South-north

?

East-West

Direction

Barrel-V.

Barrel-V.

Barrel-V.

(cross-v. on north is later)

Barrel-V.

Barrel-V.

Barrel-V.

Barrel-V.

Barrel-V.

(halls)

Vaulting

Unknown

Cross-V.

Both

Cross-V.

Both

?

Cross-V.

no cells

(cells)

Vaulting

338

All measurements approximate, based on Sauvaget’s plans. In the case of al-Qu·ayr’s measurements Sauvaget provides somewhat contradictory data. First he refers to it as “bâtiment carré, d’une quarantaine de mètres de côté… (Sauvaget 1939, p. 50), then, when comparing it to the plan of Q«r«, he gives the size as 41 by 47 m (Sauvaget 1939, p. 53).

337

Qu³ayf«

2 half 12 c.

Q«r«

th

47×47

before 626AH/122829

al-Burayj

nd

51×51

before 631AH/ AD1233

al-‘A³ni

41×47

577AH/ AD1181–2

Kh«n al-‘Ar−s

36×36

Dimensions

610AH/ AD1213

Date

Kh«n al-‘Aqaba (F»q)

Site

Table 3: The main architectural features of some Ayyubid inns of Syria.337

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period

82

The Architecture of Rural Kh«ns in Bil«d al-Sh«m during the Mamluk Period

Chapter 5 Gazetteer and even decorative styles, showed the need to select and treat groups separately in a first stage, in order to enable a developmental study of their architecture. At this point big gaps appeared: the Early Islamic period was illrepresented, the Ayyubid period had a single dated kh«n (Kh«n al-‘Aqaba in the Golan Heights) that could be used as an architectural anchor, and the Ottoman period displayed different trends and techniques, comprehensible only if presented in the light of previous knowledge in the field.

The following catalogue of Mamluk rural inns documents the kh«ns found within the boundaries of historical Palestine (on this term, see Notes on Usage), as well as those in the Golan Heights. The entries present the results of five years of field survey undertaken by the author, with the exception of inaccessible sites within the Gaza Strip and the West Bank which were documented on the basis of archival material, previous publications, and historical data.339 Originally the survey was intended to document the archaeological remains of both rural and urban inns, and of all Islamic periods. Accordingly, the research work that began during the summer of 1998 encompassed over a hundred sites, and covered a very heterogeneous architectural group.

The corpus of Mamluk kh«ns, on the other hand, was well represented both archaeologically and historically, comprising a notable group of dated structures with an overall architectural concept. While an integral research on both rural and urban inns would doubtless provide a fuller picture of the architecture and manners of accommodation during the Mamluk period, the technical and functional differences between the two sub-categories, mainly explored in the discussion on terminology in Chapter 2, showed the necessity to isolate their study.

The preparatory study towards the field survey was mainly carried out at the archives of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), where both the British Mandate files and the post-1967 inspection files are kept.340 In addition, both prior and concurrently with the survey, the Historical Aerial Photograph Collection of the Department of Geography of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem was thoroughly searched, mainly for First and Second World War photographs of the surveyed sites.341

The rural inns of the Mamluk period were usually charitable foundations, funded, among others, by endowed property immobilized for their upkeep. In reality, the clientele using their facilities was usually eclectic, including Muslims and non-Muslims, traders, pilgrims, mystics, students, general travelers and from time to time even official entourages. Some of these inns also catered to the royal mail, the bar»d, and as such also housed its staff and stabled its horses, and were provided with appropriate facilities to serve the couriers.

The material collected in the archives enabled a preliminary estimate of the archaeological evidence that was to be found. In many cases it even became the main source of information, as a good percentage of the inns to be surveyed had either vanished or were in a bad state of conservation.

Whatever the social interaction at the road inns, travelers who had shared a common roof while en route would turn to different types of accommodation once arriving in the cities—the religious Muslims would turn to rib«³«t, kh«nq«hs, z«wiyas, Christians and Jews would usually look for their respective foundations, the military and officials would be hosted in government headquarters, and others. The urban inns, at that time called either fan«diq (funduq) or kh«n«t, would cater mainly to merchants. They were mostly profitable establishments, generating income not only for their own upkeep but also for the upkeep of different religious and public foundations. Their layout, and even more so the activities taking place inside and around their premises, would be basically different from those commonly found at rural inns.

The actual nature of the fieldwork varied from site to site, depending on factors such as mobility and means of access, the state of conservation, and security. But it was not due to these factors that the final work was narrowed to Mamluk rural inns. In fact, the large number of inns with their different plans, construction techniques 339 The study on Kh«n Y−nus (Entry no. 23), one of the sites inaccessible to the author, was further enriched by the detailed photographic documentation prepared by D. Silverman in December 1999. 340 My deepest appreciation goes to the dedicated and professional team working at the archives of the Israel Antiquities Authority, Rockefeller Museum at the time of my research. Nurit Feig, then head of the Archives in the course of the survey and the writing of most of this study, Arieh Rochman-Halperin, Silvia Krapiuko, Haitham Niroukh and Shoshi Elmalem-Shirony, were all of tremendous help, encouraging and contributing to the intensive search among the many files under their care. 341 I would also like to express my gratitude to Dov Gavish, former head of the Aerial Photograph Collection of the Dept. of Geography of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for not only making the material available, but for teaching me the basics of aerial photography interpretation and encouraging the use of the photographs in my archaeological work, as well as referring me to further archives.

In accordance with these circumstances, the present catalogue concentrates on the archaeological and historical aspects of the rural inns of the Mamluk period. It includes sites dated either by epigraphic evidence or literary sources in which specific dates or patrons’ names appear. It also encompasses sites whose dating can be

83

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m The reader might be surprised not to find in this catalogue a number of sites believed until now to be Mamluk kh«ns. Among these are a series of locations identified by the sources as relay-stations (mar«kiz) of the bar»d, but with no evidence supporting their interpretation as regular kh«ns.343 As discussed in Chapter 2, the relay stations could vary from meeting points in the desert to structures built for the specific use of the royal mail. Together with such stations, kh«ns could at times have played a symbiotic role, and have housed the relays within their premises, as noted above.

inferred either by the archaeological evidence, by the interpretation of relevant literary passages, or even by the toponym (see Kh«n J−khad«r, Entry no. 11). The entries are organized in alphabetical order, according to the sites’ transliterated names. They include general geographical information, except for those kh«ns whose precise location has not been identified. The architectural description of the sites is based on the archaeological evidence and/or the information obtained from the literary sources. In addition, to enable the reader to follow the sources for the present research, each entry also details the archival documentation and the bibliographical references for the sites.

Future excavations and historical research may unveil additional Mamluk inns not listed in this catalogue. Perhaps some structures at present attributed to the Ottoman period will be found to conceal earlier phases. Or perhaps some of the relay stations will be excavated and found to comprise the typical kh«ns. Hopefully this catalogue will help in this future task of archaeological identification, as well as of interdisciplinary research.

Finally, extracts from the literary sources are quoted at the end of each entry, in an attempt to make the pre-twentieth century sources available to the reader.342 The repertoire is not exhaustive as that would go beyond the catalogue’s scope, but rather representative.

342 The bibliography relates to passages specifically dealing with the inns and not to those referring to their general location, unless of relevance for the historical discussion.

343

For the list of relay stations within the limits of modern Israel, see the translation of al-‘Umar»’s passage on the bar»d in Chapter 2.

84

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m 1. Kh«n al-A¯mar344

In October 1940 twenty meters of the eastern hall were still standing (Figs. 1.1: 1, 4–5; 1.3: 4) in different degrees of preservation. Today only a small portion of the eastern hall stands (Figs. 1.1: 2, 7; 1.2: 7; 1.3: 5), the remains of its collapsed southern opening are visible (Fig. 1.4: 6). A few slabs of the rear wall of the western hall were visible in 1998 (Fig. 1.3: 3) when the thick vegetation usually covering this neglected site had been burnt away.

‫ﺧﺎن اﻻﺣﻤﺮ‬

UTM grid: 73450/60025 Israel Old Grid: 19690/21325 Lat N/Long E: 32°30’47”/35°29’48” Altitude: -110 m Location: Beth She’an Basin Referential site: Beth She’an (Bays«n)

The masonry consists of white limestone and dark gray basalt (Fig. 1.1: 4–7) facing the core of the structure, which consisted of basaltic and limestone gravel combined with wooden pieces and bound with a grayish mortar (Fig. 1.5: 1–3). This masonry work, usually laid in alternate tiers and known as ablaq, characterizes the Mamluk period and is also found in Jubb Y−suf and Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ (see below). Unfortunately the chromatic effect of this technique cannot be appreciated at the present site due to the many repairs, additions and depredations which it has endured. Figs. 1.1–3 document some of these processes, also expressed by the careless work carried out in such later stages (Figs. 1.4: 1, 5; 1.5: 4).

River: ®arod (Jalūd) Description Kh«n al-A¯mar (The Red Kh«n) is located in the industrial area of modern Beth She’an, near the main road to Afula. Despite its closeness to the National Archaeological Park of Beth She’an where remains dating from Biblical through Islamic times have been unearthed, as well as its easy accessibility—beside the modern route connecting the Jordan Valley with northern Israel—this ancient stopover is practically unknown to the public, which is not aware of the interesting remains behind the low embankments seen from the road.

Apart from the ablaq, a few other features can be associated with the kh«n’s decorative scheme. As mentioned above, a nineteenth century source described the gate’s archway as being of horseshoe shape. A three meter-long inscription (on the length of this inscription, see below) decorated the white limestone lintel. The outer wall, most probably at the gate area, was further decorated by the use of muqarnas i.e., rows of stylized niches usually found in transition areas such as at the base of domes or half-domes, but sometimes as purely decorative elements. The presence of muqarnas at Kh«n al-A¯mar is inferred by the finding of a broken basalt slab lying a few meters to the east of the eastern hall (Fig. 1.5: 6), on which a pointed arch 40 cm high and 30 cm wide at the springing is carved. These measurements make it almost identical to those at the muqarnas over the entrance to the Red Mosque at ¶afad/Safed (Fig. 1.5: 7), for example, 40 cm high and ca. 32 cm wide, in reddish limestone. This mosque, built by Baybars in 674AH/AD1275–6 (a fact documented in the inscription over the entrance, below the muqarnas), had its prayer hall renovated by the am»r Najm al-D»n F»r−z, governor of Safed, sometime before 730AH/AD1329–30 (Yadin 1964, pp. 113–115).347

The site consists of a large quadrangular structure directed north-south and measuring ca. 72×82 m (Fig. 1.1: 1–2). The plan consists of cross-vaulted halls (ca. 5.65 m wide and 5.5 m high) surrounding an open courtyard. The halls were originally accessed through three openings on each side. The entrance to the building was from the north through a gateway that, according to the SWP, was fashioned with a pointed arch (SWP, II, p. 120). According to the SWP accounts and plan, two staircases flanked the entrance, probably leading to the kh«n’s roof. This gate has not survived. A further account from the nineteenth century adds that this arch was of a horseshoe type (Irby and Mangles, p. 362). Today only a few ashlars remain in situ (Fig. 1.2: 7), but in 1944, as attested by the Royal Air Force aerial photograph (Fig. 1.1: 3), most of the entrance passageway still stood to some height. Two of four granite columns that once supported a domed fountain in the center of the courtyard (SWP, II, p. 120) still stand at the height of 2.35 m above present ground level (Fig. 1.3: 1–2).345 Three additional fragments are buried next to them and measure, respectively from west to east, 85 cm long×60 cm diameter,346 190 cm and 87 cm.

The survey also revealed a rather functional aspect of the kh«n: in January 2001, during a field trip with students from the Department of Middle Eastern Studies

344

On the name of this kh«n, apparently based on the color of the soil (“…kh«n rasl«n fī ¯amrā’ Bays«n…”, al-Maqr»z», Khi³«³, vol. 2, p. 398) were it was founded, see Mayer 1932b and CIAP, ii, pp. 229–230. Mayer suggests that rasl«n is a scribe's error for Sal«r (Mayer 1932b, p. 96, n. 1). 345 On October 3, 1940 N. Makhouly reported three columns “two of which stand upright and the third is lying half buried in the ground”. Note that the SWP plan indicated that by the end of the nineteenth century the four columns were still standing. 346 The two standing columns are thinner, ca. 53 cm in diameter at the thickened edge.

347 On this mosque, see the recent article by H. Taragan, “Doors that open meanings: Baybars’s Red Mosque at Safed”, in M. Winter and A. Levanoni (eds.), The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society, Leiden/Boston, 2004, pp. 3–20. Taragan focuses her discussion on the first phase of the building, not only proposing a reconstruction of its original ground plan, in her view reminiscent of Baybars’ mosque in Cairo (Taragan 2004, pp. 5, 14), but mainly dealing with the portal, its components and symbolism (Taragan 2004, p. 15ff). Among others, Taragan refers to the use of muqarnas decoration, clearly influenced by Damascene and Allepan architecture (Taragan 2004, p. 18ff).

85

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m of the Hebrew University,348 a worn tether was found next to the southern entrance to the eastern hall (Fig. 1.5: 5). This seems to indicate that some of the walls were provided with stone tethers, in a similar way to the arrangement at Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ (Fig. 9.4: 8).

Following the above, it is more than plausible that in its first constructional phase, Kh«n al-A¯mar consisted of barrel-vaulted halls surrounding the open courtyard. The vaulting most probably resembled that in Jalj−liya, where masonry ribs rhythmically reinforced and also embellished the halls. The use of barrel vaulting would be in line with the architectural standards of kh«n-building of the period.

Finally, we should also take into consideration Bays«n’s role in the transportation of snow by the bar»d during the Maml−k period.349 Special arrangements for ice storage are known to have been established in later Iranian inns,350 and perhaps should be sought for at Kh«n alA¯mar, should the site be excavated.

Dating Evidence Foundation Inscription (Fig. 1.6)351 Inscribed on a white slab in a tabula-ansata style. The inscription carried three lines in Mamluk naskhī, complemented by those in the two “handles.” Originally set in the lintel, it was found lying at the gate area, where it was later reported as damaged and partly missing (see below). Apparently the inscription was never transferred to the Rockefeller Museum, and its whereabouts are not known.

As for the source of the popular name of the kh«n, Mayer (1932b, p. 96) suggested that “we shall be safe in assuming that it is not the colour of parts of the building, but that of the soil which gave the caravanserai its name.” Despite some of the characteristics it has in common with other early fourteenth century kh«ns, Kh«n alA¯mar stands out mainly due to the cross-vaulting over the halls, a feature more common in later examples (see discussion in Chapter 4). A close examination of the remaining portion of the eastern hall allows a new assessment of the original appearance of the circumscribing halls. The 1.60 by 1.20 m piers engaged in the western wall, despite appearing integral with the original building, are in fact late additions. They were inserted by subtly removing some of the original facing, except for the pier adjacent to the remaining arched opening leading to the courtyard, where the seam is clear. Most of all, that pier blocks part of the early voussoirs (Fig. 1.4: 1–2).

A report dated February 5, 1926 says “it was cut on a limestone lintel broken into 2 pieces measuring about 90×55×250 cm and 90×55×170 cm respectively. It was registered as an antiquity in Gazette no. 81 [of the Department of Antiquities] of 15:12:1922.” According to a later report and photograph (Fig. 1.6: 2) dated February 1, 1932, the inscription was damaged. The report reads: (1) the inscription is on a huge lintel partly broken and it is lying loose at the gate; (2) Government property; (3) Hard stone (Mizzeh Hulu [sic!]); (4) Measurements: 2 m. long×75 cm. wide×50 cm. thick; (5) length of lines = 1.40 m. in broken condition/height of lines = 19 cms./height of letters= 18 cms.; (6) No ornaments were noticed; (7) Unsafe. Transportable.

On the other side of the hall the workmanship also suggests late intervention. A low wall, most likely remaining from the original construction, supports the springing of the vaults, as well as the curtains between them (Fig. 1.4: 3–4). This wall, functioning as a shelf, is reminiscent of the walls in Jalj−liya (Entry no. 6), which bear barrel vaultings (Fig. 6.5: 6–7).

None of these measurements seems to match the information given by J.A. Jaussen (Jaussen 1923, pp. 100–101), who published the inscription for the first time. According to his description, the two broken parts added up to 3 m long and 60 cms wide.

Further evidence for the existence of an earlier vaulting system in Kh«n al-A¯mar can be drawn from the finding of a molded bracket in limestone (Fig. 1.5: 4), inserted on the outer facing of the eastern hall, obviously in a late constructional phase. This kind of bracket is found elsewhere (including Jalj−liya) and is usually connected to masonry ribs, used to reinforce the vaulting fabric.

The inscription, together with an English translation, was published once again in M. Sharon’s CIAP (ii, p. 232), following van Berchem’s correction of Jaussen’s transcription. It reads: 352 ‫( اﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻧﺸﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﺮاﺟﻲ ﻋﻔﻮ‬1) ‫( اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮي اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮري آﺎﻓﻞ اﻟﻤﻤﺎﻟﻚ‬2) ‫رﺑﻪ ﺳﻼر اﺑﻦ )!( ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ‬ ‫اﻻﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ آﺎﻓّﺔ اﻋﺰ اﷲ اﻧﺼﺎرﻩ واوﻗﻔﻪ وﺣﺒّﺴﻪ وﺳﺒّﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺎدرﻳﻦ‬ ‫( ﻟﻮﺟﻪ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ وﻃﻠﺒﺎ ﻟﺮﺿﻮاﻧﻪ‬3) ‫واﻟﻮاردﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺎس اﺟﻤﻌﻴﻦ اﺑﺘﻐﺎء‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺒﻞ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﻪ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺤﺴﻨﺔ وذﻟﻚ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﺟﻤﺎدا اﻻوّل )!( ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎن‬ .‫وﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺎﻳﺔ‬

348

Credit is due to two students, Yoav Ben-Harosh and Netanel Reicher, who spotted the tether amidst the high weeds which covered most of the ruins during that winter. 349 On snow as a luxury product used for cooling fruit and beverages during the hot Levantine summers, see Z. Amar, “Like Snow in Summer”: A Luxury Product in the Land of Israel and Syria,” Cathedra 102, 2001, pp. 51–62 (Hebrew). 350 Good examples of such an arrangement are found at M«dir-i Sh«h and ‘Al»'abad. They include a shallow basin (30–40 cm deep) protected on three sides by a wall 7 to 8 meters high, adjoining a subterranean storeroom built almost completely of mud and terre pisé, which are known for their thermic qualities. This subterranean room was usually arranged as a long vaulted hall (or covered by small domes), 5 meters wide, 6 to 7 m high (Siroux 1949, pp. 131–132).

‫ وذﻟﻚ ﺑﺘﻮﻟﻰ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺑﻜﺘﻤﺮ اﻟﺴﻴﻔﻲ ﻧﺎﺋﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺎم اﻟﻤﺤﺮوﺳﺔ‬A (!) ‫ وذﻟﻚ هﻨﺪزة )!( اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻧﺎﺻﺮ اﺑﻦ )!( ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬B 351

For Kh«n al-A¯mar's inscription, see also p. 37. The transcription of the last two lines of the inscription, omitted in Jaussen’s article, was also published in RCEA, xiv, pp. 22–23, no. 5235.

352

86

Gazetteer The geographical importance of Beth She’an through the ages has been discussed elsewhere (for example, Rowe 1930).356 During the Mamluk period it was one of the stopping places for the bar»d service connecting Cairo with Damascus, and it also served as an intermediary station for the transport of snow from Syria to Cairo, a service organized during the reign of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w−n and maintained afterwards (al‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, pp. 248, 257; Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ vol. 14, pp. 425; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. 243, 256).

(1) Has ordered the construction of this blessed kh«n, the slave (who is) in need of Allah, the Exalted, who hopes for the mercy of his Lord, Sal«r b. ‘Abdallah (2) al-Malik» al-N«·ir» al-Man·−r», the governor general of all the honourable Islamic provinces, may Allah strengthen his victories. And he made it a religious endowment (waqf), and consecrated it and dedicated it for the benefit of the people who come and go. (He did this) seeking the face of Allah, the Exalted, and (wishing) to please Him. May Allah, the Exalted, accept this benevolent deed from him. It took place on 1 Jum«d« I 708 (= 17 Oct.1308)

The kh«n was still in use in 1821 when the British traveler Burckhardt stayed at the place. By the 1880’s the building was in ruins, as witnessed by Tristram (1881–1882, p. 41).

(A) And this (was accomplished) under the supervision of the needy for Allah, the Exalted, Baktamur al-Sayf», his lieutenant in Damascus, the (divinely) protected. [(B)] And this was the architectural work (handazah!)353 of the needy for Allah, the Exalted, Na·ir b. Y−suf.

Documentation

Pottery

Archival

A few pottery sherds were found in the field survey on January 27, 2001. They ranged from Byzantine (Red Slip Ware) outside the kh«n, to a Late Ottoman tobaccopipe sherd near the granite columns in the courtyard. The rest were mainly body sherds, not diagnostic.

IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no.122, ‘Kh«n el A¯mar’; includes description, map reference, bibliography, bureaucratic documents, correspondence, inspector's (N. Makhouly) reports, photos, including those of the inscription (no. 2720; 2852 has been removed)

Attribution

PEF: WS/CON/492, report no. 22, April 28, 1874, p. 5.

The foundation inscription leaves no doubt as to the patron of the kh«n at Beth She’an. Sal«r b. ‘Abd All«h was the viceroy of the sultanate at the time the kh«n was erected, during the second reign of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qalāw−n (698–708–1299–1309; CIAP, ii, p. 233; see also Jaussen 1923, pp. 102–103).354 We also know that the renowned am»r Sanjar al-J«wul» was himself involved with the building of the kh«n, as testified by alMaqr»z»’s and Ibn Taghr» Bird»’s accounts (see Citations in Literature below).

Photographic Aerial photos: Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) —PS 4 6035–6 medium format (12.12.1944). Archival photos: L.A. Mayer Collection (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem); IAA Archives/Mandate File negative nos. 2774–2775, 1344, 23.929–932, 23.955– 956; IAA Archives/Israel Inspection File, photo year 1973; Rowe 1930, pl. 10: 1–2 (no. 2 reproduced in CIAP, ii, fig. 60).

The fifth line of the foundation inscription also names the supervisor—Baktamur al-Sayf»—and the architect in charge of the kh«n’s construction—a certain N«·ir b. Y−suf (Mayer 1956, p. 112).

Recent photos: David Silverman 1998, 2001; Katia Cytryn-Silverman 2001.

The mention of Baktamur is of extreme interest. Of the am»rs from the same period named Sayf al-D»n Baktamur, Sayf al-D»n Baktamur b. ‘Abd All«h alJ−kand«r, governor of Safed between 707AH/AD1307– 1308 and 709AH/AD1309–1310, was suggested by Sharon as the best identification (CIAP, ii, p. 233).355 A close friend of Sultan al-Malik al-N«·ir b. Qalāw−n (until he decided to have him executed in 711AH/AD1311) and associated with Sal«r and Baybars al-J«shank»r (who together reinstated the Sultan in 698AH/AD1299), Baktamur’s title al-J−kand«r is also very suggestive, considering the existence of a kh«n on the Golan Heights—Kh«n J−khad«r (see Entry no. 11)— whose toponym is most probably based on its patron’s title (p. 122).

Field Work: July 11, 1998; January 24, 27, 2001; March 20, 2003. Bibliography al-Maqr»z», Sul−k II/3, p. 674; Ibn ®ajar, al-Durar, vol. 2, p. 267; Ibn Taghr» Bird», Nuj−m, vol. 10, p. 110; Burckhardt, p. 343; Irby and Mangles, p. 362; Guérin, Samarie I, pp. 299–300; SWP, II, pp. 120–121, Sh. IX; Tristram, p. 42; Baedeker, p. 258; Jaussen 1923; Rowe 1930, pp. 3, 55; Mayer 1932b, pp. 95–96; Mayer 1933, p. 196; Sauvaget 1940, pp. 3–4; Sauvaget 1941, p. 66, footnotes 265–266, 269; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. 243, 256; RCEA, xiv, pp. 22–23, no. 5235; Zori 1962, p. 154, site no. 48; al-Dabb«gh, vol. 2/6, p. 490; Saig 1977, pp. 108–110; Eisenberg 1989; Drory 1981, p. 39; Meinecke 1992, p. 102, 9B/76; Stern 1997, pp. 56–57; CIAP 2, pp. 228–233; Petersen 2001, pp. 115–117; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 8–20; Cytryn-

353

On the spelling of the word handasah with a “ ‫ ”ز‬see Chapter 2. On his patronage, see above, p.148. Muj»r al-D»n (al-Uns, ii, p. 80; Histoire, p. 225) mentions that the am»r Baktamur al-J−kand«r built a fountain – ‘Ayn al-²aw«sh» (Fountain of the Eunuch) at the northern entrance to the mosque in Hebron. 354 355

356

For various passages by Arabic authors, see Marmardji 1951, pp. 37– 38.

87

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m of the Hebrew University,348 a worn tether was found next to the southern entrance to the eastern hall (Fig. 1.5: 5). This seems to indicate that some of the walls were provided with stone tethers, in a similar way to the arrangement at Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ (Fig. 9.4: 8).

Following the above, it is more than plausible that in its first constructional phase, Kh«n al-A¯mar consisted of barrel-vaulted halls surrounding the open courtyard. The vaulting most probably resembled that in Jalj−liya, where masonry ribs rhythmically reinforced and also embellished the halls. The use of barrel vaulting would be in line with the architectural standards of kh«n-building of the period.

Finally, we should also take into consideration Bays«n’s role in the transportation of snow by the bar»d during the Maml−k period.349 Special arrangements for ice storage are known to have been established in later Iranian inns,350 and perhaps should be sought for at Kh«n alA¯mar, should the site be excavated.

Dating Evidence Foundation Inscription (Fig. 1.6)351 Inscribed on a white slab in a tabula-ansata style. The inscription carried three lines in Mamluk naskhī, complemented by those in the two “handles.” Originally set in the lintel, it was found lying at the gate area, where it was later reported as damaged and partly missing (see below). Apparently the inscription was never transferred to the Rockefeller Museum, and its whereabouts are not known.

As for the source of the popular name of the kh«n, Mayer (1932b, p. 96) suggested that “we shall be safe in assuming that it is not the colour of parts of the building, but that of the soil which gave the caravanserai its name.” Despite some of the characteristics it has in common with other early fourteenth century kh«ns, Kh«n alA¯mar stands out mainly due to the cross-vaulting over the halls, a feature more common in later examples (see discussion in Chapter 4). A close examination of the remaining portion of the eastern hall allows a new assessment of the original appearance of the circumscribing halls. The 1.60 by 1.20 m piers engaged in the western wall, despite appearing integral with the original building, are in fact late additions. They were inserted by subtly removing some of the original facing, except for the pier adjacent to the remaining arched opening leading to the courtyard, where the seam is clear. Most of all, that pier blocks part of the early voussoirs (Fig. 1.4: 1–2).

A report dated February 5, 1926 says “it was cut on a limestone lintel broken into 2 pieces measuring about 90×55×250 cm and 90×55×170 cm respectively. It was registered as an antiquity in Gazette no. 81 [of the Department of Antiquities] of 15:12:1922.” According to a later report and photograph (Fig. 1.6: 2) dated February 1, 1932, the inscription was damaged. The report reads: (1) the inscription is on a huge lintel partly broken and it is lying loose at the gate; (2) Government property; (3) Hard stone (Mizzeh Hulu [sic!]); (4) Measurements: 2 m. long×75 cm. wide×50 cm. thick; (5) length of lines = 1.40 m. in broken condition/height of lines = 19 cms./height of letters= 18 cms.; (6) No ornaments were noticed; (7) Unsafe. Transportable.

On the other side of the hall the workmanship also suggests late intervention. A low wall, most likely remaining from the original construction, supports the springing of the vaults, as well as the curtains between them (Fig. 1.4: 3–4). This wall, functioning as a shelf, is reminiscent of the walls in Jalj−liya (Entry no. 6), which bear barrel vaultings (Fig. 6.5: 6–7).

None of these measurements seems to match the information given by J.A. Jaussen (Jaussen 1923, pp. 100–101), who published the inscription for the first time. According to his description, the two broken parts added up to 3 m long and 60 cms wide.

Further evidence for the existence of an earlier vaulting system in Kh«n al-A¯mar can be drawn from the finding of a molded bracket in limestone (Fig. 1.5: 4), inserted on the outer facing of the eastern hall, obviously in a late constructional phase. This kind of bracket is found elsewhere (including Jalj−liya) and is usually connected to masonry ribs, used to reinforce the vaulting fabric.

The inscription, together with an English translation, was published once again in M. Sharon’s CIAP (ii, p. 232), following van Berchem’s correction of Jaussen’s transcription. It reads: 352 ‫( اﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻧﺸﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﺮاﺟﻲ ﻋﻔﻮ‬1) ‫( اﻟﻤﻠﻜﻲ اﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮي اﻟﻤﻨﺼﻮري آﺎﻓﻞ اﻟﻤﻤﺎﻟﻚ‬2) ‫رﺑﻪ ﺳﻼر اﺑﻦ )!( ﻋﺒﺪ اﷲ‬ ‫اﻻﺳﻼﻣﻴﺔ آﺎﻓّﺔ اﻋﺰ اﷲ اﻧﺼﺎرﻩ واوﻗﻔﻪ وﺣﺒّﺴﻪ وﺳﺒّﻠﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺼﺎدرﻳﻦ‬ ‫( ﻟﻮﺟﻪ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ وﻃﻠﺒﺎ ﻟﺮﺿﻮاﻧﻪ‬3) ‫واﻟﻮاردﻳﻦ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻨﺎس اﺟﻤﻌﻴﻦ اﺑﺘﻐﺎء‬ ‫ﺗﻘﺒﻞ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﻪ هﺬﻩ اﻟﺤﺴﻨﺔ وذﻟﻚ ﻓﻰ ﻣﺴﺘﻬﻞ ﺟﻤﺎدا اﻻوّل )!( ﺳﻨﺔ ﺛﻤﺎن‬ .‫وﺳﺒﻊ ﻣﺎﻳﺔ‬

348

Credit is due to two students, Yoav Ben-Harosh and Netanel Reicher, who spotted the tether amidst the high weeds which covered most of the ruins during that winter. 349 On snow as a luxury product used for cooling fruit and beverages during the hot Levantine summers, see Z. Amar, “Like Snow in Summer”: A Luxury Product in the Land of Israel and Syria,” Cathedra 102, 2001, pp. 51–62 (Hebrew). 350 Good examples of such an arrangement are found at M«dir-i Sh«h and ‘Al»'abad. They include a shallow basin (30–40 cm deep) protected on three sides by a wall 7 to 8 meters high, adjoining a subterranean storeroom built almost completely of mud and terre pisé, which are known for their thermic qualities. This subterranean room was usually arranged as a long vaulted hall (or covered by small domes), 5 meters wide, 6 to 7 m high (Siroux 1949, pp. 131–132).

‫ وذﻟﻚ ﺑﺘﻮﻟﻰ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﺑﻜﺘﻤﺮ اﻟﺴﻴﻔﻲ ﻧﺎﺋﺒﻪ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺎم اﻟﻤﺤﺮوﺳﺔ‬A (!) ‫ وذﻟﻚ هﻨﺪزة )!( اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ ﻧﺎﺻﺮ اﺑﻦ )!( ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬B 351

For Kh«n al-A¯mar's inscription, see also p. 37. The transcription of the last two lines of the inscription, omitted in Jaussen’s article, was also published in RCEA, xiv, pp. 22–23, no. 5235.

352

86

Gazetteer Location: Northern Judean Desert

1990s, before its abandonment and eventual excavations, the kh«n was once again used as a stopover, selling drinks and souvenirs for tourists.

Referential site: Ma`aleh Addumim Other features: The remains of a Crusader fortress (Fig. 2.1) stand on top of a hill to the north of the modern road; a series of cisterns are located some 25 m west of the southwestern corner of the kh«n; a Byzantine/Early Islamic church was found during excavations within the kh«n premises (Fig. 2.4: 5).359

The recent excavations (Figs. 2.3–2.4) uncovered the remains of a pre-Ottoman kh«n, consisting of a nearly quadrangular building, ca. 42 by 42 m’ (personal communication by SOA archaeologist Ayal Aharonstam), with pillar-bearing vaulted halls surrounding the open courtyard on at least two sides (Fig. 2.4: 6). The entrance to the building was from the south, most probably built over by the Ottoman monumental gate (Figs. 2.2: 1; 2.4: 3). This can be inferred both from its basic shape—a slightly sunken gate provided with side benches—as well as from the remains of early masonry observed at the lower courses of the southern wall. In addition, parts of the southwestern corner also seem to belong to this early phase of the structure (Figs. 2.2: 5; 2.4: 1): there we find Crusader masonry in secondary use, chipped on the corners after being removed from the original contexts.362

Description Kh«n ®athr−ra, popularly known as ‘The Inn of the Good Samaritan’ because of the site’s identification with the place where the Good Samaritan took the injured man to rest (see below), is about mid-way between Jerusalem and Jericho. The site was recently excavated under the auspices of the Staff Officer of Archaeology (SOA), while conservation works were done in the the still standing late Ottoman kh«n, built over the early remains. The Ottoman kh«n was built as a single storeyed rectangular enclosure, measuring 40×18 m, 6 m high (SOA archival report from 15.5.1991). It opens into a courtyard, in the middle of which is a ca. 9 m deep cistern. Passers-by had access to water from either the well or the rectangular basin built over it (see photo in Stern 1997, p. 70). The building itself is divided into several rooms, one of which served as a prayer room, provided with a niche in the southern wall.

The general plan of the kh«n, according to this partial information, is that of a “chiostro” (cloister), as described by Mariano da Siena in 1431 (see below). The archaeological data also seems to match Medina’s (1526) description of a hostelry surrounded by stone walls and provided with a large courtyard, around which are many arches “a guisa di cappelle” (see below). Dating Evidence

The Ottoman inn underwent a series of alterations throughout the ages, adapting the building to the needs of each time.360 The alterations, a few of which can be observed in photographs ranging from the 1890’s through the 1930’s (Figs. 2.1–2), show additions to the open courtyard, tile roofing, a new gate, repairs and others. According to D. Pringle’s entry ‘Tal‘at adDamm’ in Churches of the Crusader Kingdom (Pringle 1998, p. 346), the kh«n was rebuilt in 1903 as a police station by the Turkish government, even though Stern (1997, pp. 70–71), quoting Oliphant (1882),361 suggests that the inn was already being restored in the 1880s. This testimony matches the impression given by the early photographs and postcards of the kh«n (Fig. 2.3). It was partially destroyed in 1917, during the First World War, but during the Mandatory Period it was used once again as a station, this time for road inspection. Until the

Pottery The works by the SOA at Kh«n ®athr−ra revealed a representative corpus of both pre-Islamic and Islamic pottery, yet to be published. I agreed to analyze part of the pottery collected in early 2001, during my visits to the site. Three periods stand out from the pottery reading: (1) Late Byzantine, some also typical of the transitional Byzantine-Early Islamic period; (2) Mamluk, most probably fourteenth century according, among others, to the many sherds of Relief Lead Glazed Ware, Molded Pilgrim Flasks, Handmade Ware and Cooking Ware; (3) Ottoman, mainly eighteenth-nineteenth century, including Kütahya and “Gaza Ware.” In addition, a few sherds of Early Roman Ware were also collected. Two facts are of great interest: first, the absence, at least at that stage of the excavations, of pottery dating to the Crusader period; second, the nature of the vessels found,

359

The excavations by the Staff Officer of Archaeology—Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria (henceforth SOA) at Kh«n ®athr−ra started during winter 2001, under the direction of field archaeologist Ayal Aharonstam. The excavations revealed finds dating from the Roman through the Ottoman periods. Among the finds uncovered within the premises of the Ottoman inn are the remains of a Late Byzantine-Early Islamic church, as well as a pier-bearing enclosure surrounding the courtyard, most likely the remains of a pre-Ottoman inn. As the preliminary results are yet to be published the descriptions here will be limited. 360 For further details given by nineteenth century travelers apropos the Ottoman inn, see citations below, and Stern 1997, pp. 70–71. 361 Oliphant mentioned a large group of builders and stone-carvers constructing the new hostel near the remains of the old kh«n (Stern 1997, pp. 70–71).

362

The SOA has recently published a pamphlet on this site (Jerusalem: Old City Press, 2009), following its opening as "The Museum of the Good Samaritan," which houses floor mosaics from the Gaza Strip, Judea and Samaria. In this pamphlet the inn has a Crusader date, and its measurements are 36×34 m, considerably different to those given by the excavator during the excavations. Apparently, these dimensions exclude the southern section, where the Ottoman inn is located. The possibility that it conceals the southern wing of a pre-Ottoman inn is not discussed. As for the dating, despite the site's certain use during the Crusader period, the construction of the inn should be dated to the Mamluk period, following both ceramic finds and literary evidence (see below).

89

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m She’an (the latter in the name of am»r Sal«r; see Entries nos. 17 and 1 respectively).363

mainly those dating to the Mamluk period, seems to match the services given to the temporary inhabitants of the building.

In any event, at least according to Felix Fabri’s testimony of 1483 (see below), the kh«n was already in ruins towards the end of the Mamluk period, even though passers-by still took shelter under the collapsing vaults.

Numismatic The numismatic finds are under the care of Gabi Bijovsky of the IAA. They include Islamic coins dating from the Umayyad through the Ottoman periods, as well as European mints dating to the time of the first Crusade as well as post-1187 coins. The outstanding coin of the group is no doubt a Venetian coin dating to 1382–1400, contemporary with Italian travelers such as Frescobaldi, for example, who stayed at the ‘Cane’ between Quarantana (Qarantal) and Bethany (see Citations below).

Having established the identification of Kh«n ®athr−ra as a Mamluk inn between Jerusalem and Jericho, we should consider the role of the nearby site of Kh«n alA¯mar (St. Euthymius Monastery, UTM 72130/51985; Israel grid 18195/13330; Lat 31º47,40N/Long 35º20,8E), alongside modern Ma’aleh Addumim, originally on the route to Maqām Nabī M−s« (Fig. 2.5).364

Attribution

This site, despite its apparent function as a road-inn during the Ottoman period (see Douvbdan’s testimony of 1666 below) and probably even during Mamluk times,365 cannot be considered as a genuine kh«n of the Mamluk period. It does not follow the main characteristics of this architectural category, but rather consists of a reused Byzantine/Crusader courtyardbuilding, which for a time fulfilled the purposes of a road-inn.

The dating of the early structure uncovered by the SOA team at the site of Kh«n ®athr−ra can be suggested following both the archaeological finds and the various literary sources which, when referring to the road between Jerusalem and Jericho, mention a station on the way, in the area of Adummim. The SOA suggested a Crusader dating for the inn; however, the evidence rather points to the Mamluk period. The lack of Crusader pottery in the relevant loci associated with the pre-Ottoman vaulted structure, the abundance of Mamluk wares, as well as the secondary use of Crusader masonry in the southwestern corner of the building, help with the dating.

D.J. Chitty (1932, p. 190, pl. I) was the first to suggest the existence of a kh«n at the site, but was not certain about the structure found in Area C. He wrote: “…Whether the Monastery was destroyed by Salahuddin [sic!] or by Beibars [sic!], and whether the latest buildings, with pointed arches, are monastic or belong to some khan which may have replaced the monastery on Beibars' institution of the Nebi Musa pilgrimage, is not yet clear.”

Pre-Mamluk activity at the site, as shown by both archaeological and historical evidence, seems to be related to its continuous religious importance as the place where the Good Samaritan took the wounded man to find shelter (Luke 10.30–37). Known during the Crusader period as Cisterna Rubea, the site was frequently visited by Christian pilgrims. Taking into consideration the finding of a Late Byzantine church and appended units at the site, it could be suggested that the idea of the stabulum ecclesiae (“the inn of the church”) quoted by Jerome in the late fourth century (Pringle 1998, p. 345), survived uninterruptedly into Crusader times.

Meimaris (1989, p. 19), on the other hand, was more definite in identifying the late activity as a kh«n: “In A.D. 1265–1277 the Circassian [sic!] Mamluk Baibars al Malek az-Zahir and his successor, who died in A.D. 1290, reduced the Crusader strongholds piecemeal. Sultan Baibars seems either to have destroyed the monastery in order to clear the road for the Nebi Musa pilgrimage which he instituted or to have converted it into a khan for Muslim pilgrims going to the Nebi Musa shrine.”

In addition, the importance of the road as the main artery between Jerusalem and the Jordan valley via Jericho justified the continuous upkeep of a station on the way. The finding of an Umayyad milestone at the site (RCEA, i, pp. 13–14, no. 14; CIAP, iii, pp. 104– 108), marking the 109 m»l-distance from Damascus, emphasizes its historical role.

E. Stern (1997, pp. 54–55), most probably following Meimaris, attributed the late construction to the Mamluk period. He assumed that the monastery was destroyed in 363 See also Drory 1981, p. 39, where it is already suggested that Sanjar al-J«wul» built a kh«n on the way between Jerusalem and Jericho, however without locating that enterprise as in Kh«n ®athr−ra. 364 For a thorough description of the Byzantine/Crusader site, see Y. Hirschfeld, “Euthymius and His Monastery in the Judean Desert,” LA 43, 1993, pp. 339–371, n addition to NEAEHL, ii, pp. 428–430. 365 According to personal communications by Nir Tal, former SOA field archaeologist, and the late Yizhar Hirshfeld of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, both engaged on different occasions in excavations at the site, activity at Kh«n al-A¯mar during the Mamluk period was notable, attested by the rich pottery finds. The architectural evidence of this period, on the other hand, is less clear, even though not fully analyzed.

It is not totally clear when the kh«n was erected as no direct evidence—epigraphic or historical—has been so far exposed. Yet, if the identification of the site as Qaryat al-Kathīb is accepted (CIAP, iii, p. 102), the construction can be attributed to the am»r Sanjar alJ«wul», governor of Gaza between 1311 and 1320. He is said to have built a kh«n in Qaryat al-Kat»ba (al-¶afad», al-W«f», vol. 15, p.473; al-Maqrīzī, Khi³a³, vol. 2, p. 398), in addition to the kh«ns at Gaza, Q«q−n and Beth 90

Gazetteer the thirteenth century and that around the year 1310 a fortified Mamluk kh«n was built on the site, most probably by the am»r Sal«r (n.r.). He also proposed, as did Meimaris, the connection of this inn to the Nab» M−sa pilgrimage. In his opinion, the fortification built to the north of the monastery, known as Qa·r al-Kh«n (Israel grid 1816AH/AD1336), is also related to this Mamluk activity.366 Stern surprisingly added that the complex was also used as a horse-relay station for the Mamluk bar»d, even though no written sources refer to a branch of the postal route getting even near this region. In any event, the photograph chosen by Stern to illustrate the proposed gate of the kh«n actually illustrates the Crusader Monastery (Stern 1997, p. 54; see also Fig. 2.5: 3).

Collection/Box 'Damascus' (around the 1920s). Archival photos: Middle East Centre, Oxford (MEC)/IDC, PJ45; PJ335–336 (same as Blyth), PJ2528 (same as PJ335); MEC/Loose Prints, film 155, 1/I 1371/1 (Palphot no.553), /2 G.E. Matson, Am. Col., 175x125; MEC/Blyth, Album 2, 31–32, tinted; ‘Abd al®amid’s Collection (Landau 1979, p. 68); IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files, negative nos. 11.089– 092 (6.08.1935), 483 (25.01.1928); George Eastman House, Still Photograph Archive 8/87, JDB (Fisher, C. Irving, 1847, Jordan Trip—On the Road to Jericho Near Apostles Fountain) Recent photos: David Silverman 2003. •

The confusion between the two sites is deeply rooted in local tradition, but various sources, as well as modern works, suggest that the “original” Kh«n al-A¯mar is actually Kh«n ®athr−ra.367 In ‘Abd al-®amid’s photographic collection, for example, the site documented as Kh«n al-A¯mar is that of Kh«n ®athr−ra (Landau 1979, p. 68) and not the monastery of St. Euthymius; L.A. Mayer (1932, p. 96), when discussing the name of Kh«n al-A¯mar in the case of the inn of Bays«n , identified the “southern Kh«n al-A¯mar” with the “Inn of the Good Samaritan,” i.e., Kh«n ®athr−ra.

Archival photos: IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files, negative nos. 868–871 (1.1.29), 2812; Israeli Government Press Organization (GPO) Archives— D311–003, Bonfils (01.01.1890). Field Work: February 5, 2001; February 13, 2001. Bibliography al-¶afad», al-W«f», vol. 15, p. 483; Niccolò da Poggibonsi, p. 71; Frescobaldi, p. 158; Grethenios (in Khitrowo 1889, p. 186); Mariano de Siena, p. 174; alMaqrīzī, Khi³a³, vol. 2, p. 398; Felix Fabri, pp. 211–212; Douvbdan, pp. 289–290; Buckingham, pp. 291; Robinson, p. 57; Kelly, pp. 406–407; Bovet, pp. 277– 280; SWP, III, pp. 207–209; McGarvey, pp. 232–233; Tristram, p. 103; Watson, p. 9; Johnson, pp. 261–262; Smith, pp. 153–154; Baedeker, pp. 149–150; Boddy, pp. 198–199; Chitty 1932, p. 190; Mayer 1932, p. 96; RCEA, i, no. 14, pp. 13–14; Landau 1979, p. 68; Meimaris 1989, p. 19; Drory 1981, p. 39; Stern 1997, pp. 70–71; Pringle 1998, pp. 345–346; CytrynSilverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 21–38; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, pp. 74–75.

Finally, we should cite the 1666 testimony by Douvbdan (see below), in which he refers to the fine and big monastery, mostly preserved: Incontinent que nous eusmes franchy ce mauvais pas, nous trouvasmes sur le bord du chemin un beau & grand Monastere, quï est encore fort entier, les galeries du Cloistre, les voutes & Offices basties de bonnes pierresde-taille, & une grande cour quarrée au milieu, & la porte toute ouverte, par laquelle on le void facilement.”

Documentation Archival

Citations in Literature

IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 122, ‘Kh«n el-Hatrura’: “Remains of a fortress, caves, cisterns, mosaics. ATQ/594.”//Report 1/3/1922: “Khan Hathrur has been identified by the Greeks as the House of the Good Samaritan. It is a large building with a modern front. Above the khan on top of the hill are the remains of a Crusading building with a moat around it….The fort has been identified with TOUR ROUGE built by the Templars to protect pilgrims to Jerico.”

al-¶afad», al-W«f», vol. 15, p. 483: [d. 1363] …And he is the one who built the mosque in the city of Abraham [Hebron]—may he be in Peace. He erected in Gaza a vast beautiful ¯amm«m, a madrasa and a mosque of no comparison. He ordered the kh«n li'l-sab»l in Gaza, and he ordered the lofty kh«n (kh«n al-‘az»m) in Q«q−n. And he has a beautiful and elegant mausoleum (turba) at [Jabal] al-Kabsh in Cairo. He renovated to its side a structure of great dimensions. He is the one who made Gaza into a city—he had it fortified and built a hospital (bimarist«n) in it…He erected in Gaza the a public square (mayd«n) and the palace (al-qa·r). He built the kh«n in Qaryat al-Kat»ba, the aqueduct (qan«³ir) in the Forest of Ars−f. And all his structures are graceful, solid and sound.

Staff Officer of Archaeology: old site no. 151/13, new 1009: printouts and a report from 15/5/1991. PEF Archives: see Aerial photos. Photographic •

Kh«n al-A¯mar/Euthymius

Kh«n ®athr−ra

Aerial photos: Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF)/BBAP

Niccolò da Poggibonsi, p. 71: [years 1346–1350] “chapter CXLIII, How I departed from Betany of Lazarus-When I left Bethany I kept to the valley to the northeast. And going down the valley for a mile, you

366

Unfortunately I have not been able to visit Qa·r al-Kh«n, so I am not able to verify this dating. For a different opinion on this matter, see CIAP, iii, p. 102.

367

91

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m by the Holy Spirit that this fountain should be so named, because the Sun of Righteousness, Christ our God, is believed to have often drunk thereof, seeing that He came up and down this road many times. At this fountain our guides ordered us to dismount, on hearing which we did not dismount, but threw our selves off our beasts for joy. Round about this fountain there is an ancient and ruinous building, whereof the four walls alone remain standing, which once was a caravanserai, or inn, and is called the Red House, which name also comes from the name of the desert, Adummim. We entered into this house, lighted candles, and made the place fit for us by clearing away the ordure of man and beast, whereof it was full, and putting stones to sit on and sleep on. After we had cleansed the place, we sat down, brought out the last crumbs from our scrips, and ate them. But the greater part were so weary that, as soon as they had dismounted from their asses, they threw themselves down on the ground, unable to eat, drink, or speak, and hoped for rest. Meanwhile, round about the well, there was pushing and disorder, both men and beasts striving to get at the water, for which also the sick were crying, because we were all thirsty, and the fountain was exceeding small; and many disputes arose there between us and the Saracens, because they themselves stood in front of the well-curb, and drank like cows, but would not give place to us. Having finished our eating and drinking after a fashion, we put out all the lights, and went to sleep on the ground, lying upon stones, where we fell into a deep and mighty slumber. As hunger is said to be a good cook, seeing that he maketh all food taste well, even so labour is said to be a good bed, for he maketh all places fit for sleep and resting. It was dangerous to sleep in that place—firstly, because the walls were ruinous, and stones detached from the mortar hung above our heads, threatening to fall; secondly, because of the serpents and scorpions, which lurk in ancient walls and beneath stones, more especially in places where water is; thirdly, because of the lice from the sheep, asses, and other beasts, more especially certain vermin called Pharaoh's lice, which swarm on the ground all through the wilderness, as will be told on page 247 [of Felix Fabri's book, K.C.S.], and which were running about on the ground here also; fifthly, because of the hardness of our couch and, sixthly, because of the Saracen thieves who kept us company. But notwithstanding all these dangers, we cast away all care from us, and slept most bravely. Our guides told us that they meant to awaken us before dawn, but it chanced otherwise, for they also were weary like ourselves -albeit they had toiled less-and both they and we slept till sunrise. At this fountain David refreshed himself when he came thither weary from Jerusalem with his men, as is told in 2 Sam. xvii.”

find an inn after the Saracen fashion [at ®awd al‘Azariya, KCS]; beside it is a beautiful fountain. Descending for a distance of four miles, you come to an ascent, and at the top of it is a house, where Saracens dwell, and they are very wicked; and the place is called in our tongue the red Tower; and it is so called because of the blood shed there…” Frescobaldi, pp. 158–159: [year 1384] “[After leaving Jericho] …E quella sera labergamo a un Cane [at Khirbat al-Mafjar?]368 che è appiè del monte della Quarantana, e quivi fummo male ricevuti. L’altra mattina al fare del giorno ci avviamo verso il monte della Quarantana, dove Iddio digiunò quaranta dì e quaranta notti, e in quello luogo fu tentato dal dimonio; e dal monte della Quarantana a Gerico ha miglia sei o circa… E la sera n’andamo ad albergo a un Cane, che è tra questo luogo [Quarantana] e Bettania.” Grethenios (in Khitrowo 1889, p. 186): [year 1400]”… Depuis là [the kh«n after Bethany, supposedly ®awd al‘Azariya] le chemin est pénible à travers les montagnes; il y a un khan sur ce chemin.” Mariano de Siena, pp. 174–175: [year 1431] “A dì primo di giugno fummo tutti cacciati fuori, e in sul vespero montammo ad asimo per andare al fiume Giordano, che è di lungi da Gerusalemme trenta miglia buone. Vuolsi portare da mangiare, e da berre per tre di, perchè non si trova nessuno bene per via. Anco si vuole portare zuccaro ed altre cose da confortare, perchè vi sono di grandissime caldane, ed alcuna volta vi periscono delle persone. La prima volta vi perì un prete da Monte Fiascone; nol potemmo soccorrere con niente. E così la sera andammo albergare in un chiostro, ch’è ridotto di pecore, capre, vacche e camelli, ed ivi stemmo fra loro sterco e altri bestiolini. Sono dodici miglia da Gerusalemme: chiamasi Terra Rossa.” al-Maqrīzī, Khi³a³, vol. 2, p. 398: [d. 845AH/AD1442] “and he [Sanjar al-J«wul»] erected the lofty kh«n at Q«q−n, the kh«n at Qaryat al-Kath»b, the aqueduct at the Forest of Ars−f and the kh«n rasl«n [?] in the red land (¯amr«') of Bays«n… Felix Fabri, vol. 1, pp. 211–212: [year 1483] [on the return to Jerusalem] “…So about midnight, after many fatigues and a steep climb, we came to a fountain springing out of a hillside, which I think to be that which is called the Fountain of the Sun in Josh. xviii.,369 perhaps because it stands over against the rising of the sun, and is warmed by his rays, or it may be that it was preordained 368

Khirbat al-Mafjar is ca. 2 km north of Jericho, today part of the Palestinian Authority (UTM grid 73268/53045; Israel grid 19365/14350; Lat 31º53’N/Long 35º28’10E). Various Western sources refer to an inn close to Qarantal, built in the typical pattern of a kh«n, especially the fourteenth century sources Niccolò da Poggibonsi, (1346– 1350, pp. 74–75), Frescobaldi (1384, pp. 158–159) and Ignace de Smolensk (1389–1405, in Khitrowo 1889, pp. 152–153). Already in Hamilton’s publication of the Umayyad palatial complex at Khirbat alMafjar (Hamilton 1959, p. 4), the author suggests the existence of a kh«n or guest-house, “like the one at the western Qa·r al-®ayr”, north of the complex. 369 It seems that Fabri mixed up this fountain with ®aw± al-‘Azariya (see entry), also known as ‘Ayn Shams.

Medina, p. 42: [year 1526] “Da questo luogo [Monasterio di S. Sabba] ce ne ritornammo à Betania per la medesima via ch’eravamo venuti. Nel mezo del camino è una hosteria (murata di sassi, e calcina) come un gran cortile; intorno alla quale sono molti archi a guisa di cappelle dove hanno ricetto li viandanti quando piove e si assicurano greggi, e cavalcature di nó essere

92

Gazetteer divorate da’leone, & altre silvestri fere, che in quella parte sono…”

erected upon the spot where the inn, mentioned in the narrative, is supposed to have stood.”

Douvbdan, pp. 289–290 (on the monastery of Euthymius): [year 1652] “Incontinent que nous eusmes franchy ce mauvais pas, nous trouvasmes sur le bord du chemin un beau & grand Monastere, quï est encore fort entier, les galeries du Cloistre, les voutes & Offices basties de bonnes pierres-de-taille, & une grande cour quarrée au milieu, & la porte toute ouverte, par laquelle on le void facilement. On dit que les Chrestiens l’avoient fait edifier en ce lieu, pour y mettre des Religieux, avec quelques fortifications, pour y entretenir des Gardes qui veillassent à la seureté des chemins: mais à present il est tout desert & inhabité, à cause des Arabes voleurs qui ne font que voltiger & brigander par tous ces lieux, lors qu’ils en trouvent l’occasion. Saint Ierosme dit que c’est ce lieu de sang & de carnage que Nostre Seigneur vouloit entendre en la Parabole de ce pauvre homme, qui descendant de Ierusalem en Iericho, tomba entre les mains des voleurs, qui le depoüillerent, & le navrerent tellement de coups & de playes, qu’ils le laisserent sur la place demy-mort, & qu’il est appellé Adomim & Maledomin, qui signifie l’ascendant ou la montée des rouges, à cause du fang qui y estoit épanché & des meurtres & assassinats qui s’y commettoient ordinairement.

Kelly, pp. 406–407: [year 1841] “The night now came on with giant strides, and it was soon so dark that we could not advance another step without danger: Suleiman therefore looked about for a place where we could remain a few hours till the moon rose. The spot where we happened to be just then was not a very inviting place to remain in, by reason either of its ancient or its more recent history. It was so-called the Valley of Murder, the reputed scene of the event related in the parable of the Good Samaritan, and where, from time immemorial, till our own days, frequent robberies and murders had been committed. However, as it was not expedient to pursue our way in the dark, we were forced to overcome our scruples, and to follow Suleiman’s guidance to some old ruins on a height near the valley. Such a bivouac [the resting at night of soldiers (or others) in the open air, instead of under cover in camp] as ours that night it will hardly ever be my lot to make again—under the ruins of what was probably a Christian convent [Euthymius Monastery?], destroyed by the Bedouins, before us Jericho, the Jordan, and the Dead Sea, with the Valley of the Murder on the one side of us, and the naked, leafless height, called the Mount of Temptation, on the other… I had not long closed my eyes, when Giovanni waked me, and told me to follow him, for he had something to show me. He led me through massive heaps of ruins, on the other side of which a multitude of wild pigeons had taken up their abode… Lots were drawn to determine which of the party should be let down into the vault, and the lot fell upon a very young man, who seemed very willing to undertake the job. The rest making a rope of their girdles, tied him fast, and let him down; the vault must have been deep, for it took six long girdles to find the bottom.”

“Il adiouste qu’il y avoit autrefois un petit hameau, qui est à present ruyné (il parle de son temps) & une forteresse pour loger des soldats destinez à la garde & seureté des passans, qui est iustement ce que ie viens de dire de ce Monastere, & d’uvne petite forteresse à demy ruynée, qui est un peu plus loin, sur le faiste d’une petite colline, qui poutroit bien estre la mesme, & que le Monasteire avoit esté basty sur les ruynes, & à la place de ce hameau.” Buckingham, pp. 291: [year 1816] “We remounted, and quitted this encampment at one o'clock, though the dangers that were talked of during our entertainment, as likely to beset us in the way, were sufficient to have deterred persons who were not very firmly bent on their purpose from proceeding. In half an hour, going now more easterly, we came to a very narrow pass, cut through the hill, in a bed of hard rock. There was here an old fort, which had once guarded this passage, but was now deserted, and close by were the ruins of a large square building belonging to it. This is too far distant from Jerusalem to be the Anathath spoken of by Josephus, as the country of Jeremiah, that place being fixed at twenty furlongs, whereas this is at least from twelve to fourteen miles. It corresponds more accurately with the position given to Ephraim, in D'Anville's map, or even to Adommin, a little to the southward of it; but of these no details are given by which we could ascertain to which, or whether indeed to either of them, this site might be assigned; nor did we learn that it had any name by which our conjectures might have been assisted.”

Bovet, pp. 277–278: [year 1858] “Nous arrivons à un khân en ruines, c’est la seule construction, même ruinée, que j’aie remarquée depuis Béthanie, sur toute la route de Jérusalem à Jéricho. Les Orientaux appellent khân ce que nos écrivains nomment d’ordinaire caravansérail: c’est l’auberge de l’Orient, auberge sans lit et sans cuisine, où le voyageur ne trouve qu’un abri contre les rayons du soleil ou la fraîcheur de la nuit. J’aurai occasion de parler ailleurs de ce que sont les khâns dans les villes; dans les campagnes, c’est un simple hangar; on en trouve en assez grand nombre dans les divers pays de l’Orient—et en Grèce même, à peu d’exceptions près, ce sont encore les seules auberges. La Palestine en avait jadis, mais, sur ce point comme sur tant d’autres, elle est aujourd’hui en décadence; on n’y trouve plus que les ruines de ces hôtelleries primitives. …”Le khân où nous nous arrêtons est sur la hauteur, dans un site pittoresque et d’où la vue s’étend assez au loin. Près de là est une antique citerne qui n’est pas encore entièrement dégradée. Ce khân est justement à moitié chemin entre Jérusalem et Jéricho, c’est-à-dire à trois heures de marche de chacune de ces deux villes; on peut supposer que c’était l’étape, le relai peut-être, et probablement le

Robinson, p. 57: [year 1830] “About three hours from the city, there are the ruins of a convent and Khan,

93

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m seul, entre ces deux grandes cités. Qui sait si ce n’est point là l’hôtellerie où le Samaritain compatissant conduisit le voyageur? En tout cas, c’est sur cette route que Jésus prononça cette admirable parabole…”

and at last she stretched out her chubby hand to stroke his shaggy coat. The road to Jericho is still considered unsafe, as it was in the time of the Good Samaritan; for there are a great many robbers prowling about, so we had a Bedouin on horseback to take care of us.”

McGarvey, pp. 232–233: [year 1879] “About half way to Jericho the road crosses the saddle of a high ridge in passing from one wady to another, and here is the traditional site of the parable of the Good Samaritan. On the right-hand side of the road there is a perpendicular overhanging rock, with a shallow cavern excavated in its side, which affords the only shade in the vicinity, and furnishes a favorite lunching-place for travelers. Across the road, on the north, are the ruins of an old khân, 150 feet square, with two immense cisterns near the centre. One of these is caved in, but the other still holds water, and from it the animals of passing caravans are watered. On a high hill, a short distance to the northeast of this khân, are the ruins of an old fortification, strongly built, with a deep ditch around it cut in the natural rock. It was built to make secure for travelers a road which has been more noted for the depredations of robbers than any other road leading from Jerusalem. It was on this account that the scene of the parable of the Good Samaritan was located on this road.”

Johnson, pp. 261–262: [published in 1892] “… About ten miles from Jericho we came to the first building that we had found by the way. It is a substantial stone structure, with shelter for man and beast, called the Kahn [sic!] of the Good Samaritan, because it is supposed to stand at the place of the inn where the Good Samaritan brought the wounded traveler. The buildings were erected by the Russians to accommodate pilgrims who go down to the Jordan, and in the spring, when most of the Russian pilgrims go down, are kept in good order; but we found no one to welcome us, and a dead horse was lying in the court. Hence, we sought a less offensive place to eat our noonday lunch, and chose the shade of a huge rock, where we got along very comfortably, except for the scarcity of water.” Smith, pp. 153–154: [years 1893–1894] “… when about 12.30 we came in sight of the half-way house to Jerusalem—the so called Good Samaritan Inn, or Khan Hadrûr—past which we had ridden without stopping, on our way to Jericho, two days before. This locality is supposed to be the same as “the going up to Addumim” (Joshua xv. 7).

Tristram, p. 103: [published in 1881] “The road from Bethany to the Jordan Plain winds for three hours down valleys, ranking the sides of countless round-topped hills, crowded one behind another—the wilderness of Judea … After two hours' journey the road to the north end of the Dead Sea and to the great Mohammedan place of Pilgrimage, Nebi Musa (where they place Pisgah and Moses' grave), branches off to the right, and soon after, nearly half-way down, is the ruined Khan Hadhrurah, where every caravan halts, the traditional inn of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. There is, however, nothing in the buildings which testifies to an existence more remote than the Crusades, or Saracenic times. A few minutes' walk brings us to a strong square redoubt, now in ruins, Talat ed Dumm, and which is evidently a Crusading castle built to command the road to Jericho.”

… Such a place may well have been the scene of the incident, immortalised by Our Lord in the famous and pathetic parable of the “Good Samaritan;” for, a wilder and more desolate spot does not exist, in any part of the road. The present khan or inn is not, however, the inn to which the Good Samaritan conveyed the wounded and half-dead Jew. One has only to look at the inn itself and at the walls enclosing it, to see that it is quite a modern building. It is, in fact, a guard-house, at which a small picket of four Turkish infantry soldiers is stationed, to keep order and to perform protective duties to passing pilgrims and to the peasantry; while, at the same time, it serves as a welcome place of rest and refreshment for caravans and pilgrims on the way up to or down from Jerusalem.

Watson, p. 9: [year 1890] “After leaving Bethany, the road became very rough and steep; we went over bleak hills and through rocky defiles; no houses, no trees, all so wild and desolate. This was the road along which the Good Samaritan was travelling when he found the poor man lying on the wayside, robbed and wounded. You remember how tenderly he bound up the poor man's wounds, and, placing him on his own beast, he brought him to the inn. We rested at this little inn for an hour or two, during the hottest part of the day; and, while we were there, some Russian pilgrims came to rest, too; and they had a great big, brown, shaggy bear with them. The sun was very hot, and the poor bear seemed quite exhausted, and so thirsty. In Palestine the water is often very scarce, and you have to buy it, and these pilgrims had very little money; so we bought some water, and watched the poor bear drink one bucketful after another. Margaret's eyes grew bigger and bigger, with surprise,

We were not, however, the only travellers to halt for a mid-day rest; for, round the door of the khan, there were gathered several Fellahin and Bedawin, evidently shepherds and camel-drivers. As we passed inside the khan, they closely eyed our horses and gave us a friendly salaam; and Joseph, I suppose, told them volubly and proudly who we were! Well inside, we sought the welcome shelter of the low and sloping roof which adjoined the front wall, and which, supported on arches, left the northern side quite open to the large, walled, open courtyard, in which a few camels and donkeys were wondering about at their own sweet will. Chairs were quickly set for us by one of the soldiers, and a table produced; while, another soldier set to work to prepare coffee, over a small charcoal fire burning at the back of the inn door…”

94

Gazetteer Baedeker, pp. 149–150: [1898 edition] [From Jerusalem to Jericho] “The route now descends the Wâdi el-®ô±, a somewhat barren valley. After 25 min. we leave to the right the small Wâdi es-Sidr (for the ‘sidr’ tree, see p. 152). After 12 min. a small valley called a‘b el-Meshak. Lies on the left. In 23 min. more we reach the Khân ®a±r−r, which has been newly erected and lies about halfway to Jericho. Good water and, in the season, refreshments may be obtained here. This district is quite deserted, and tradition localizes the parable of the Good Samaritan here (St. Luke x. 30–37). Above the khan is the ‘hill of blood’, Tel‘at ed-Dam, with ruins of a mediaeval castle. The name, which is probably due to the red colour of the rock, has led to the supposition that the spot is the ‘going up to Adummim’ (Joshua xv. 7; xvii 17). After 20 min. more a path to the right leads to the Khân el-A¯mar [in this case clearly St. Euthymius monastery, KCS], which was probably once a castle for the protection of the road.”

who listed the site as one of the inns catering to the Cairo-Damascus road, as well as the bar»d route. On a British aerial photograph dating to 1945 (Fig. 3.1: 1–2) a rectangular building is seen standing on a mound south east of Tell al-As«wir; this is probably the structure visited by Stern. Notwithstanding his identification, no clear remains of an ancient kh«n are visible in the field. The exposed remains of the rectangular structure, as examined in 1999 during a visit to the site, mainly consist of modern concrete rubble, probably part of later additions to an earlier structure. The building’s orientation (southwest-northeast) is also not in line with the standard layout of kh«ns of the Mamluk period (see discussion in Chapter 4). Dating Evidence Pottery According to the Mandate file, sherds dating to the Iron Age, Roman and Islamic periods were collected at the site. Yehuda Neeman, in his publication of the Maanit Map, listed pottery sherds dating to the Middle Bronze Age 1 and 2, Late Bronze Age, Iron Age 1, Persian, Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman.

Boddy, pp. 198–199: [published in 1900] “We approach the Inn of the Good Samaritan, the ‘half-way house’ of this wild gorge, where nearly all travellers, both in going down and in returning, stay to rest. Here the horses had water and a good feed of barley. Water was poured over the wooden wheels lest the iron tires should slip off, through the shrinkage caused by this tremendous heat. Two Bashi Bazouk gendarmes are here to protect travellers. The Khân-keeper and his assistant are the other inhabitants. At the back of the Khân there is a great courtyard sufficient to enclose hundreds of camels or laden asses brought in for the night. On a hill top a little further east are the ruins of a still older Khan,370 the place to which the man that fell among thieves would be brought by that neighbourly Samaritan, if the parable was, as we may believe, also a narrative.” 3. Kh«n al-As«wir

The absence of Mamluk pottery is noteworthy, even though the proposed area of the kh«n was apparently not included in Neeman’s field survey. Attribution Despite the fact that no archaeological or historical evidence attests the existence of a kh«n at the vicinity of Tell As«wir during the Mamluk period, the strategic position of the site on the main Cairo-Damascus road, as well as the existence of a kh«n during the Late Ottoman period,371 suggest it may have already catered to travelers and traders at that time. Although not being mentioned by al-‘Umar» (al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248), ‘Ayn al-As«wir could have served as a station on the bar»d route (Fig. 3.1: 3). Its distance from Q«q−n is in line with that between ²»ra, and Q«q−n, also bridging the distance between Q«q−n and Fa¯ma, possibly to be identified with Mu‘«wiya (UTM grid 6971/6009; Israel grid 15955/21500). The strategic importance of the site is illustrated by the fact that Baybars, in his preparations to conquer Caesarea and Ars−f, encamped near the springs of As«wir, from where he set out to attack Caesarea on the night of Jum«d« I 9th, 663/February 26th, 1265 (al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, I/2, p. 526).372

‫ﺧﺎن اﻻﺳﺎور‬

UTM grid: 68970/59585 Israel Grid: 15195/20975 Lat N/Long E: 32°28’52”/35°1’16” Altitude: 66 m Location: Hadera Region Referential site: ‘Iron Junction River: ‘Iron Spring: ‘Ayn Arubot/‘Uy−n al-As«wir

Documentation

Other features A rectangular birka still stands at the site, not far from the road.

371

Kh«n As«wir is mentioned among the three inns along the Damascus-Cairo highway—together with Jalj−liya and Qalansuwa— which were looted by some of the Jabal N«blus leaders in 1800. Supplies were stored at these places by the mutasallim by orders of the central authorities, in anticipation of the Ottoman armies' return from fighting against the French in Egypt (Doumani 1995, p. 19). On a Late Ottoman dating for the remains in situ, see NEAEHL, v, p. 1734. The concentre remains most probably relates to refurbishing of this building. 372 For further reference to ‘Uy−n al-As«wir by al- Maqr»z», see Amitai 2005, p. 63, note 8.

Description The existence of a Mamluk kh«n southeast of Tell alAs«wir (Tel Esur, see NEAEH, v, pp. 1732–1734; Yannai 2006) was suggested by E. Stern (1997, p. 94), 370

He is probably referring to the Crusader fortress.

95

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m kh«n built at this station, which in fact substituted that of Y«s−r, now off the main route (see passage below).374

Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 10,‘elAsawir, Tell’: “Artificial mound. Circumf. 910 pac. 15 m. high. Traces of wall and loose stones on slopes, foundations near spring; E. semicircular, foundations, Roman roof tiles.”

Recent photos: David Silverman 1999.

In 1596 Bayt Dar«s was a village in the nā¯īya of Gaza (Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977, p. 146, Z77), but by that time it is not clear if the kh«n was still in use. Stern believes that by the fifteenth or sixteenth century the road had shifted westwards, making Bayt Dar«s's location irrelevant to travellers (Stern 1997, p. 97). His note on the lack of references to a road-inn at this site by the many travellers crossing the region during the Mamluk and Ottoman periods seems to confirm his view. In any case, by the nineteenth century no remains, or even recollection, of the Mamluk road-inn at this site is mentioned by Victor Guérin (Judée, II, p. 81).

Field Work: January 15, 1999.

Documentation

Bibliography

Archival

Doumani 1995, p. 19; Stern 1997, p. 94; CytrynSilverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 39–41.

IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 28 ‘Beit Dar«s’. No reference to a kh«n or similar structure.

4. Bayt Dar«s

Field Work: November 29, 1998. No remains of a kh«n or of a similar building are visible in what was once the village of Bayt Dar«s.

Photographic Aerial photos: Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)—PS 19 6017–6018 small format (26.01.1945); IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files (08.08.1923).

‫ﺑﻴﺖ دراس‬

UTM grid: 6594/5112

Bibliography

Israel Grid: 1195/1255

al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 247; al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ vol. 14, p. 424 (translated into French by GaudefroyDemombynes, p. 242); Sauvaget 1941, p. 66, footnote 265, 267, 268; Meinecke 1992, p. 185, no. 9C/402; Khalidi 1992, p. 87; Stern 1997, p. 97; CytrynSilverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 43–45; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, p. 77.

Lat N/Long E: 31º43’/34º40’ Altitude: unknown Location: Malakhi Region Referential site: Qiryat Malakhi Description

Citations in Literature

Bayt Dar«s is an abandoned village between Qiryat Malakhi and Ashqelon in the southern coastal plain of Israel (Fig. 4.1). Its development during the Mamluk period took place to the detriment of Y«s−r (see Entry no. 22), which it replaced as a relay station between the stations of Jit»n/Jiya (UTM grid 652/500; Israel grid 112/115) and Qa³ra/Gadera (UTM grid 668/522; Israel grid 128/136). Unfortunately no remains of any of these kh«ns have ever been reported, but archaeological work may eventually reveal traces on the periphery of their respective villages.

al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘rif, p. 247: [d. 749AH/AD1349] “…On the route from Gaza to Damascus one arrives as Jit»n— and this is a bar»d station—then arrives at Bayt Dar«s— and there, there is a kh«n built by N«·ir al-D»n alKhaznad«r al-Tankiz» —and in Y«s−r there was an older one [kh«n] but it was too distant and its removal was beneficial...” 5. ®aw± al-‘Azariya

Dating Evidence

UTM grid: 71505/51780

The best testimony for the existence of a kh«n at Bayt Dar«s is that of al-‘Umar». According to his list of bar»d stations, Bayt Dar«s catered to the route from Gaza to Damascus, following the station of Jit»n. N«·ir al-D»n, an am»r of Tankiz and at some time also a khaznad«r (treasurer, perhaps even under Tankiz himself),373 had a

Israel Grid: 17560/13125

‫ﺣﻮض اﻟﻌﺰرﻳﺔ‬

Lat N/Long E: 31°46’27”/35°16’13” Altitude: 470 m Location: Northern Judean Desert Referential site: al-‘Azariya

373

The kh«n at ²»ra (see Entry no. 19) is also attributed by al-‘Umar» to a maml−k of Tankiz named ‘N«·ir al-D»n’, here a daw«d«r (secretary) and not a treasurer. While the possibility that al-‘Umar» was referring to the same person should not be dismissed, the equivalence should be approached with caution as the name was rather common. In any event, the fourteenth century historian Ibn Kath»r (d. 774AH/AD1373) referred to a N«·ir al-D»n al-Daw«d«r in the service of Tankiz, replaced before

735AH/AD1334 by the am»r Shams al-D»n ®amza (Ibn Kath»r, alBid«ya, vol. 14, p. 197), 374 Sharon (CIAP, ii, p. 229) dates the building of this kh«n to 1325, but does not give his source.

96

Gazetteer Spring: ‘Ayn al-®aw±, also known as ‘Ayn Shemesh375 and The Apostles' Fountain.

Attribution Baedeker’s guide to Syria and Palestine (1898) suggested that the kh«n at al-‘Azariya, together with the building enclosing the spring, were built in the sixteenth century (see below). Niccolò da Poggibonsi’s testimony, dating the kh«n to the mid-fourteenth century (see below) and describing it as being built “after the Saracen fashion,” contradicts that dating. Unfortunately, da Poggibonsi’s classification does not necessarily categorize the kh«n as of Mamluk origin. On the other hand, the finding of a few pottery sherds dated to the “Middle Ages” seems to refer to activity at the site before the Ottoman period.376

Description The kh«n at ®aw± al-‘Azariya is located below the Arab village of that name (Fig. 5.1: 2), east of Bethany. The site has never been explored, but remains of the building are still found in situ, to the southeast of a well. This well is also known as the “Apostles’ Fountain” (Fig. 5.1: 5) or ‘Ayn Shemesh, considered as a landmark between the lands of Judah and Benjamin. The building is mentioned by Y. Finkelstein and Y. Magen in their report on the survey of the hill country of Benjamin, under the entry on `Ein ®aud [sic] (Finkelstein and Magen 1993, p. 363, site no. 459). They merely describe it as “an abandoned Turkish building, probably a kh«n,” without further details.

By combining the literary and the archaeological evidence, a twelfth to early fourteenth century range for the erection of the kh«n at al-‘Azariya can be securely suggested.

The archaeological remains (Fig. 5.1: 1) seen during this research consist of a rectangular courtyard building, built on a gentle slope and partly hewn into the rock. The original entrance to the inn is located on its broad side facing the road and the venerated fountain. The interior layout is not clear, as most of the structure has collapsed and the rubble conceals the otline. However, remains of a barrel vault are seen against the slope (where two rooms/niches are hewn into the rock), suggest that this wing consisted of a broad elongated hall. The eastern wing, on the other hand, seems to have included narrow halls, with their short side facing the courtyard.

Documentation Archival Staff Officer of Archaeology: site no. 120/13, ‘Ein Haud.’ Description (in Hebrew): “Apostles’ Well”, of Byzantine date, today blocked. The masonry is a base for an upper structure, probably dating to the Middle Ages or the Ottoman period. Much restoration work was done on this building. To the southeast of the well is an abandoned Turkish structure, probably a kh«n.” Periods ascribed: Iron Age II-III, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman. Field Work: October 19, 2006.

The southern wing was built over by a double-storeyed structure (Fig. 5.1: 3), whose first level has partly remained standing to full height. It doubtless represents the later phases of the complex, for its orientation and building technique do not follow the rest of the remains. It is noteworthy, nevertheless, that the builders made use of the available material, as the facing is a mixture of bossed stones, undressed mansonry, and smooth blocks. The second storey, whose roof has collapsed, seems like an even later addition, and should be considered as the last building phase. Its style (mainly of the arches) is reminiscent of sites datable to the nineteenth century. Finally, it is worthwhile mentioning the likeness between the cross vaulting techinique of the ground storey (Fig. 5.1: 4) to that seen in Khān al-A¯mar at Baysān (Fig. 1.3: 5). In the latter, it has been shown that the cross-vaults were a later addition to the fourteenth century inn, previously barrel vaulted. In the present case the cross vaulting is original.

Bibliography Niccolò da Poggibonsi, p. 71; Felix Fabri, pp. 194–195; al-N«bulus», al-®aq»qa, p. 135; Howe, pp. 290–291; Bovet, p. 277; Khitrowo 1889, pp. 185–186; Baedeker, p. 149; Finkelstein and Magen 1993; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 46–51. Citations in Literature Niccolò da Poggibonsi, p. 71: [years 1346–1350] “chapter CXLIII, How I departed from Bethany of Lazarus … When I left Bethany I kept to the valley to the northeast. And going down the valley for a mile, you find an inn after the Saracen fashion; beside it is a beautiful fountain. Descending for a distance of four miles, you come to an ascent, and at the top of it is a house, where Saracens dwell, and they are very wicked; and the place is called in our tongue the red Tower; and it is so called because of the blood shed there…”

Dating Evidence

Grethénios (in Khitrowo 1889, pp. 185–186): [year 1400] “Le chemin de Jérusalem au Jourdain se dirige vers l’orient estival. Dépassant Béthanie, à l’endroit où le Christ se tenait, on descend jusqu’au khan en pierre

Pottery According to Y. Finkelstein and Y. Magen (1993, p. 363), nine pottery sherds were collected: one datable to the Iron Age II period, one Roman, the rest to the “Middle Ages” and Ottoman periods.

376

According to the nomenclature found in most of the survey reports published by the IAA (unfortunately not very suitable with regard to the Islamic period), “Middle Ages” generally refers to the period following the “Early Arab” period (ca. the seventh to the eleventh centuries) and predating the Ottoman (from the sixteenth century).

375

Baedeker rejects the identification of ‘Ayn al-®aw± with ‘Ayn Shemesh. See bibliographical notes below.

97

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m the honorable Prophet Musah—may he be in Peace…”

polie précédé d’une fontaine qui est surmontée d’une voûte; on dit que c’est là que Marthe & Marie rencontrèrent le Christ…”

Howe, pp. 290–291: [year 1853] “Leaving these scenes of peculiar interest [at the village of Bethany], we had before us a long, steep and rocky descent, where, in many places, the ancient chariot track is seen cut through the ledge, and in about half an hour more we arrived at the bottom of a deep and narrow valley, at the entrance of which is an old ruined Kahn [sic!], and near at hand a fine fountain of water, called “the Fountain of the Apostles,” because tradition asserts that Jesus and his disciples often resorted thither.”

Felix Fabri, vol. 1, pp. 194–195: [year 1483; not clear if once again on Kh«n al-A¯mar/®athr−ra, or on the kh«n at ®awd al-‘Azariya] [on the way from Jerusalem to the Jordan River] “…When we came lower down it was dark, and we came to a great vaulted house, having round about it within a cloister like a monastery, deserted and empty. Near this house we dismounted from our asses, that we might rest therein for a little while, and we entered therein, carrying lights to seek for a place wherein to rest, but found none, for that the house was ruinous and full of filth and vermin; so we came out again and lay down upon the earth in front of the house, separated into our several companies, while our Saracen guides also separated themselves from us and rested a little higher up…

McGarvey, p. 231: [year 1879] “If, on leaving Jerusalem by St. Stephen’s gate, and crossing to the Garden of Gethsamane, we pass along the right-hand side of that inclosure, we are on the road to Jericho. It passes along the front of the Mount of Olives, gradually ascending, winds around its southern slope about 100 feet below its summit, and crosses a depression which connects that mount with the Mount of Offense. The road then descends about 100 feet, curves to the left to pass the head of a gorge, ascends again along the southern slope of the southeastern spur of the Mount of Olives, winds around to the eastern side of this spur, and passes by Bethany, which it leaves on the left. This village is called by the Ar’abs el Azarîyeh, a name derived from Lazarus. The village consists of 30 or 40 miserable hovels, inhabited only by Ar’abs. Its most conspicuous object is part of an ancient tower built of drafted stones, the origin of which is not known. Churches and monasteries were erected here at an early period, but they have all perished. The traveler is led down a flight of 26 stone steps, all leading underground through the solid rock, to behold the tomb whence Lazarus was called from the dead. There is nothing visible which resembles a Jewish sepulcher, and if the cavern in which Lazarus was buried is still in existence at all it is far more likely that it is one of many caverns outside the village to the south and southeast that in the very heart of the village itself.”

“…Now, that house beside which we had wished to rest had once been an inn of the Eastern fashion, for they build great houses beside the highways, with many stables below and chambers above, for man and beast to rest in, and the house stands with its gate open, without any inhabitant or any furniture; and when strangers are passing by, they can enter therein, and rest in the shade, and eat whatever food they bring with them: for there is neither man nor woman cook therein. Indeed, the camels who bear burdens have certain stages, beyond which they will not go, but rest at the end of them, and at these places there usually stand such inns as these for man and beast to rest in. In the East a man will find no inns beside these empty rest-houses, wherein is nothing save what a man brings into them; and it seems as though the Eastern inns had always been rest-houses of this sort, wherefore we read in Gen. xlii. about the brethren of Joseph, that when they were in the inn, one of them opened his sack to give his ass provender; also in Exod. iv. the Lord sought to kill Moses in an inn. Moreover it was in an inn of this sort that the Lord was born (Luke ii.). So we set out from that inn, and. were glad that we had left the place, because we should have passed the night there in jeopardy because of the attacks of the Saracens. Meanwhile the moon had arisen, and at a great pace we went down the dangerous road, down glades and steep rocks…”

Baedeker, p. 149: [1898 edition] “Beyond Bethany our route ascends a hill. On the left, 7 min. from the village, is the so-called Stone of Rest…To the S. the village of Abu Dîs is visible. After 7 min. more, we descend into the Wâdi el-®ô±, or valley of the watering-place, so named from the ®ô± el-‘Azarîyeh, which we reach in 1/4 hr., the only well between this and the valley of the Jordan. The small basin contains leeches, and the water is not very good. [in small print] A handsome building once enclosed the spring, and there was a khân here, both probably built in the 16th century. Since the 15th cent. the well has been called the Apostles’ Spring, as it was assumed that the apostles must have drunk of its water on their journey. Its identification with the `sunspring’ of En-Shemesh (Joshua xv. 7) is doubtful.”

Al-N«bulus», al-®aq»qa, p. 135: [year 1693] “And at al‘Azariya—said al-®anbal»—is buried al-‘Ayzar b. H«r−n—may he be in Peace. Afterwards we travelled until we reached the kh«n on the road. The honorable q«±» and us, together with the rest of the group, stopped at this fajj377 al-‘am»q. And we ate from the provisions we had. And the Supreme Allah provided [us] with grapes and provisions. Then we travelled and reached 377 In al-®aq»qa it reads fay’, i.e., “a place of afternoon-shade” and also, “a place on which the sun does not come” (Lane I/6, pp. 2468–2469), which does not make much sense when followed by al-‘am»q. Fortunately, the expression is also found in al-N«bulus»’s Ri¯la when describing the road to Nab» M−s«, but there it reads fajj ‘am»q instead, i.e., a deep road between two mountains (al-N«bulus», Ri¯la, p. 48).

98

Gazetteer 6. Jalj−liya378

‘Awn (ca. 1504), the kh«n, the cross-vaulted building (J«mi‘ al-‘Umar»), in addition to the cistern and the village well (Figs. 6.2: 1, 3). Apart from technical descriptions and brief historical commentaries, Petersen’s article provides plans, sections, proposed reconstructions and photographs, all very useful for the study of these buildings (Fig. 6.4). However, some of his conclusions with regard to the khān's reconstruction, must be reconsidered.

‫ﺟﻠﺠﻮﻟﻴﺔ‬

UTM grid: 68385/5935 Israel Grid: 14540/17350 Lat N/Long E: 32°9’15”/34°56’54” Altitude: 30 m Location: Southern Sharon Plain Referential site: Jalj−liya

The kh«n in Jalj−liya is a square building measuring 56×54 m (Figs. 6.2: 2; 6.4: 1–2). It consists of a continuous barrel-vaulted hall surrounding an open courtyard, with a single gate on the east. According to some photographs dated to the Mandate period (1926), two cross-vaulted rooms flanked the gateway, most likely topped by a guardroom (Fig. 6.3: 1, 4).380

379

River: Qana (al-Qan«h) (south of the kh«n), one of the tributaries of the Yarkon River (al-‘Awj«’) Description The kh«n of Jalj−liya is located in the village of the same name, not far from the modern city of Kfar Saba in the Sharon Plain, 4 km south of Qalqiliya.

Considerable portions of the southern and northern wings have survived, together with the central portion of the western wing (Fig.; 6.7: 2). The eastern side is mostly heavily damaged,381 apart from the remains of a tower/minaret that topped the entrance to the kh«n (Figs. 6.3: 1; 6.6: 5–7).382

The region of Jalj−liya has been one of great importance for land communications since the Roman and Byzantine periods (Fig. 6.1). It served as an important crossroads for the Imperial route coming from the south and bifurcating north to Caesarea and east to N«blus. Archaeological evidence indicates that during that time a road-station was placed at the site of Nab» Yam»n (4 km northwest of Jalj−liya, UTM 68209/56175; Israel grid 14490/17600) and milestones were systematically aligned on these roads. Secondary routes connected this area to Q«q−n, Legio (Lajj−n/Megiddo), as well as to Samaria (Roll and Ayalon 1989, fig. 140). Due to their importance as longitudinal and latitudinal routes, most of these preIslamic roads persisted into the Islamic period. Under the Mamluks they acted as both postal and commercial routes.

The continuous hall opens on to the courtyard through five or seven openings (the latter figure according to the reviewed reconstruction by the author; see Fig. 6.7: 3), one in the center of the western wing, and a two or three on both the northern and the southern wings (Fig. 6.6). The pointed vaulting springs directly from the walls (Fig. 6.5: 3–7) and is reinforced at intervals by masonry belts (‘ribs’), mostly having suffered depredations, springing from molded brackets about 50 cm wide (Fig. 6.5: 3–5). A line of well-dressed stones, projecting some 5 cm out of the bearing wall, marks the springing of the vaulting, best seen in Fig. 6.5: 7. The easternmost opening on the southern side leads to a cross-vaulted bay, integral with the rest of the hall. There the rear wall shows signs of rebuilding, but it is not clear if this points to a mi¯r«b or rather to the blocking of an original side opening to the kh«n, as proposed by Petersen (1997, p. 110, mistakenly attributing it to the northern wall). Petersen’s proposal is architecturally viable, but it contradicts one of the main features of the Mamluk kh«ns of the region—the single opening. A prayer area, on the other hand, is characteristic, and could also justify the use of cross vaulting at that specific spot.

The kh«n at Jalj−liya has been surveyed on various occasions, first by the Survey of Western Palestine in the late nineteenth century, which described it as “a ruined khan” (SWP, II, p. 288), by the Department of Antiquities during the Mandatory Period, by the Department of Conservation and Restoration of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in 1994, and finally by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem during 1996 for its Medieval and Ottoman Survey of Palestine. To date the kh«n has not been excavated, and despite the preservation works undertaken in 1994 by the Israel Antiquities Authority, the site is in a progressive state of decay (Fig. 6.7: 2). The 1996 survey of the village of Jalj−liya published by A. Petersen (Petersen 1997) includes information on the three main sites at that village—the mosque of Ab− al-

380

According to local testimony from Ms. ‘Abd al-H«d», whose house is right across the street from the kh«n (personal communication, July 2002), as late as the 1960s a water installation could be found in the middle of the courtyard, where local farmers would water their cattle. Unfortunately no signs of its existence can be found in situ due to the deep rubble and high weeds covering the site. It is also not traceable in the early aerial photographs (Fig. 6.2: 2). 381 The damage to the eastern wing most probably occurred during the paving of the Qalqiliya-R«s al-‘Ayn road, which took place in 1942. See Mandatory File, reports S3720 onwards, with special attention to S3872, which mentions the damage to the birka at the Mosque of Ab− al-‘Awn, but does not mention that to the kh«n. 382 A notable example of a gateway topped by a minaret is Kh«n Y−nus (see Entry no. 23).

378

The writing of this entry started in 2000 as an essay, prepared under the supervision of R. Kana‘an, then junior research fellow at Wolfson College, Oxford. Since then the research on this structure has been expanded and updated. See forthcoming article by the author “Tankiz’s kh«n li’l-sab»l in Jalj−liya: A Reappraisal,” in R. Amitai and A. Levanoni (eds.), The Mamluk Sultanate: Political, Military, Social and Cultural Aspects, following lecture presented at the international workshop by the same name in Haifa, April 4th, 2006. 379 Also named al-Ashqar (Ishqar in the Survey of Palestine map of January 1946).

99

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m al-W«f», vol. 10, p. 432), provides the best historical evidence:385

The surviving walls measure ca. 1.6 m and rise to ca. 5 m. They are faced by dressed limestone in grayish and creamy tones (Fig. 6.5: 2), and have a core of rubble amalgamated in mortar (Figs. 6.5: 1; 6.6: 1). Rubble was also used for the vaulting system (Fig. 6.5: 1,3). Ashlar was used, but only survives over the gateway area, in what is recognized as the base of a minaret (Figs. 6.4: 5; 6.6: 5–7). The building seems to have been singlestoreyed, apart from a guardroom over the entrance, as was common among the rural kh«ns of the Mamluk period. The roof was reached by means of a staircase, reconstructed by Petersen, according to remains in situ, on the southeastern corner of the courtyard. The outer walls of the building were reinforced by buttresses set at regular intervals (Fig. 6.4:2, 6.7: 1). They are ca. 50 cm wide, rising to most of the building’s height and ending in a sloping top.

… he [Tankiz] erected a rib«³ at al-Quds, and rebuilt al-Quds and provided it with water and brought it into the ®aram via B«b alAq·«, and built two bathhouses and an extremely beautiful qaysariyya (mal»¯a il« al-gh«ya), and built at ¶afad a hospital known by his name, a kh«n and others, and in Jalj−liya is a charitable public kh«n (kh«n al-minna li’l-sab»l)386 attributed to him, of extreme beauty (fi gh«yat al-¯usun)…

Tankiz’s connection to the kh«n at Jalj−liya has given rise to the idea that the inscription in his name and with his blazon, found at the Ottoman sab»l at Maq«m Nab» Yam»n (UTM Grid 6821/5618; Israel grid 1449AH/AD1760)387 in secondary use (Fig. 6.6: 4–5), might have been transferred from the kh«n when that building fell into disuse (Mayer 1933, p. 220; Kenney 2004, p. 321.388 The four-line inscription, with intersecting lines 2 and 3, reads:

The general impression given by the plan and construction technique is that the building was conceived in one single stage and no noteworthy alterations were undertaken (apart from that in the south). The plan is in line with that of Late Ayyubid-Early Mamluk kh«ns in Syria, such as Kh«n al-‘A³ni built before 1234 (Pl. IV: 7; Sauvaget 1939, pp. 54–55, fig. 7) and Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh erected in 1291 (Pl. I: 3; Sauvaget 1940, pp. 1–3, fig. 2), whose halls are continuous and barrel vaulted, in contrast to later types in which cross-vaulting became more common (see Chapter 4).383

Tankiz’s

blazon

[‫اﻟﺨﺎن؟‬/ ‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ اﻣﺮ ﺑﺘﺠﺪﻳﺪ هﺬا اﻟﺤ]وض ؟‬1) ‫[ ﻟﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮى اﻻﻣﻴﺮى اﻟﻜﺒﻴﺮ‬cup] ‫( اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﻤﻘﺮ اﻻﺷﺮف ا‬2) ‫[ دﻟىﺎﻟﻤﺜﺎﻏﺮى اﻟﻤﺮاﺑﻄﻰ اﻟﻜﺎ‬cup] ‫( ى اﻟﺴﻴﺪى اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﻌﺎا‬3) ‫( ﻓﻠﻰ اﻟﺴﻴﻔﻰ ﺗﻨﻜﺰ ﻧﺎﺋﺐ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﻨﺔ اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻔﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﺸﺎم اﻟﻤﺤﺮوس ﻋﺰ ﻧﺼﺮﻩ‬4) (1) In the name of the most merciful God. Ordered to renew this blessed ¯/kh-- (2) His Most Noble and High Excellency, our Lord, the Great Am»r (3) the Master, the Learned, the Just, the Warden of the Marches, the Warrior at the Frontiers, the (4) Viceroy Sayf al-D»n Tankiz, Governor of the Noble Sultanate in Damascus, the protected, may his victory be glorious.389

As for decoration, it seems that most of the building’s architectural ornamentation has been plundered, as is testified by the missing facing which framed the openings into the halls (Fig. 6.6: 1–4). One of the best historical sources for the kh«n at Jalj−liya—the chronicler alNu‘aym» (d. 927AH/AD1520)—refers to the building as one of extreme beauty (fi gh«yat al-¯usun). It would not be surprising if the author was thinking of a rich ablaq decoration, as was common in contemporary architecture.384

385

Sharon (CIAP, ii, p. 229) dated the kh«n to around 1325 (no reference), when, according to him, the kh«ns at Bayt Dar«s and ²»ra were also erected. On Tankiz's patronage, see discussion in Chapter 3. 386 The interpretation of the term sab»l is somewhat problematic. In alFarâ’id, for example, J.G. Hava gives a fairly common translation: “Road, path. Means of access. Public fountain.” But the term kh«n li ‘lsab»l is sometimes also applied to “charitable kh«ns,” most probable deriving from the verb sabbala which means “To allow a[ny] th[ing], To dedicate a[ny] th[ing] to pious uses (Hava 1986, p. 308). Here I am following Sauvaget’s translation of the foundation inscription from Kh«n Inqir«t«, where the expression “h«±« ‘l-kh«n al-sab»l” was translated “ce caravansérail public.” (Sauvaget 1941, pp. 64–66) Sauvaire translation of al-Nu-‘aym»’s “bi Jalj−liya kh«n al-minna li-'lsab»l” was “le khân public d’el menneh.” (Sauvaire 1894, p. 315) On the term sab»l, see also discussion in Chapter 2, p. 12. 387 A holy site for Muslims and Jews, consisting of a turba and a prayer hall, today adapted to Jewish use only. Abutting on the side wall of the sanctuary is a sab»l (public water fountain), to the right of which the above-mentioned inscription can be found, embedded into the masonry. 388 The relocation of inscriptions was not uncommon during the Islamic period. Two commemorative inscriptions of the Ayyubid period (Hawari 2007, p. 194, nos. 3 and 18), for example, referring to renovation works on the walls of Jerusalem, have been found out of their original context. The first was set at Qubbat Y−suf, a small monument near the Dome of the Rock, dated 1092AH/AD1681 (Natsheh 2000, pp. 936–939), the second near the mi¯r«b of the Mamluk mosque at the Citadel (today housing the Tower of David Museum). Another illustrative example is that of an Umayyad milestone found at B«b al-W«d on the road to Jerusalem, marking the eighth m»l from Jerusalem. It was doubtless transferred to this site from its original position, somewhere near the village of Newe Ilan (CIAP, ii, pp. 6–7). 389 Translation following Mayer 1933, p. 219. See also publication in RCEA, xv, p. 131,no. 5808.

Dating Evidence Apart from an architectural typology pointing to an early Mamluk context, the kh«n in Jalj−liya is clearly dated by the sources. In his account of the year 741AH/AD1341 (see Citations in Literature below), Ibn Taghrī Birdī listed the kh«n at Jalj−liya as one of the buildings erected by Tankiz al-®us«m» al-N«sir», governor of Damascus from 712AH/AD1312 to 740AH/AD1340. Al-Nu‘aym», in his al-D«ris fi t«r»kh al-mad«ris (following al-¶afad», 383 Petersen (1997, p. 111) associated the kh«n at Jalj−liya with Kh«n al‘Azz«m in Ramla (on al-‘azz«m see Lane, I/5, p. 2038), based on their geographical proximity and similar measurements, despite admitting their altogether different plans (see below, note 426). He also referred to the similar use of narrow buttresses with sloping tops (in fact common in the Levant since the Crusades, see Burgoyne 1987, p. 228), as well as to the masonry type, but failed to refer to the reinforcement ‘ribs’, a feature seen in some of the early Mamluk kh«ns in the region. 384 E. Kenney, in her PhD thesis (2004, p. 323) recently published by the Chicago Studies on the Middle East (Chicago, 2009), writes that “all in all, this khan presents a paradoxically humble impression, in light of its illustrious patronage” (Kenney 2004, p. 323). The reconstruction suggested here presents the opposite conclusion.

100

Gazetteer As the translation by Mayer shows, one of the words in the first line is defaced, allowing two different interpretations—¯aw± (a water tank),390 and kh«n. These two proposals were mainly based on the space left before the next word, which would imply the existence of two additional letters, but no more.

also mentions a “pavilion” on the river al-‘Awj«’, where ®us«m al-D»n L«j»n took up residence after confronting Kitbugh« in Mu¯arram 696AH/AD October-November 1296 (Ab−’l-Fid«, Memoirs, p. 27). Even though most of the passages above seem to refer to R«s al- ‘Ayn, modern Rosh Ha‘Ayn (Antipatris, UTM 68265/55305, Israel grid 14360/16790), scholars have not been unanimous regarding the location of markaz al‘Awj«’. While Gaudefroy-Demombynes (p. 242, footnote 10) wrote “El `Awjâ, auj. Qala‘a ras el ‘aïn au nord de Ludd”, Popper, in his translation of Ibn Taghr» Bird»’s chronicle, placed the stop at the site of Jalj−liya (Popper 1955, map 13). Hartmann (1910, p. 692), on the other hand, believed al-‘Awj«’ should be located at Qal‘at R«s al ‘Ayn (Hartmann 1910, p. 696; Sauvaget 1941, p. 35, footnote 150).

The two options are plausible: perhaps an earlier water tank was replaced by the Ottoman sab»l and the inscription reused, perhaps it was placed to the east of the sanctuary, where a well is still to be found. It could also be a reference to a water tank at Jalj−liya itself, like the water-reservoir mentioned by D.C. Baramki (Mandate Record Files, file no. 73, document ATQ/689) in June 19, 1942, “next to an ancient cylindrical well.” (Fig. 6.1: 1, no. 3) On the other hand, it could have been removed from the kh«n at Jalj−liya. With reference to the first possibility,391 it is worth noting an inscription found at Qalansuwa by K.A.C. Creswell in 1919. The inscription is engraved on a slab of stone and records the construction of a cistern (¯awd) by the am»r Qaw·−n, active towards the end of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s third reign and briefly during two of his sons’ reigns. The inscription, integrally preserved, has little in common with the one under discussion; both the terminology and the workmanship is much finer, while the text is more comprehensive.392 Nonetheless, the use of the term ¯awd, the heraldic blazon, the geographic location and the contemporary date might help us to agree that the inscription at Nab» Yamin might in fact refer to a ¯awd. In addition, the use of the term tajd»d, i.e. renewal, could not refer to the kh«n in Jalj−liya, whose structure does not present any signs of rebuilding or alterations. Of course one could ask why al-¶afad» and al-Nu‘aym» did not refer to this additional monument by Tankiz, but maybe, in view of the monumental structures listed, they did not think it worthy of mention (Mayer 1933, p. 219).

Al-‘Umar» writes “and [al-‘Awj«’] is removed from the road; it would be useful if it was shifted from its place” (al-‘Umar», al-Ta`r»f, p. 247). That remark is interesting, because while R«s al-‘Ayn lay on the line coming from Ludd northwards, Jalj−liya would be slightly off to the east (see map). Of course it is more than possible that Tankiz’s kh«n did not cater to the bar»d and therefore would not be mentioned in al-‘Umar»’s list, but this seems neither logical nor economical for that institution, at that time looking for reasonable solutions to the great cost of the royal mail. Al-Qalqashand» (d. 1418), writing at a time when the bar»d was already in decay, copies the information from al-‘Umar», most probably indicating that at least in what concerns the area under discussion, there were no changes during his time (Qalqashand», ¶ub¯, p. 379; Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1923, pp. 242–243). Nor were there changes during Khal»l al-§«hir»’s time (d. 872AH/AD1467; Khal»l al-§«hir», Zubda, p. 119). Some seventy years later Q«ytb«y stopped at Jalj−liya (Ibn alJ»‘«n, p. 95; Devonshire 1922, p. 30), but that does not necessarily infer that his party stopped at the khān, though we know it functioned at least until the early nineteenth century.393

Having established the patron and approximate date of the kh«n at Jalj−liya, and recognized its vital position on the route from Ludd northwards (Fig. 6.1), it is hard to understand its absence in the account of the bar»d by al‘Umar», who instead mentions the station of al-‘Awj«’ after passing Ludd and before al-²»ra (al-‘Umar», alTa‘r»f, pp. 191–192). In fact, a relay station, not necessarily a kh«n, must have stood at al-‘Awj«’ as early as the 1260s; Ibn al-Fur«t, for example, tells that in 664AH/AD1266 Baybars sent a detachment of the army to al-‘Awj«’, while he himself set off to visit Hebron and Jerusalem (Ibn al-Fur«t, vol. 1, p. 84, vol. 2, p. 108). AlMaqr»z», writing on Baybars’ advance towards Y«f« in 666AH/AD1268, mentions his departure from al-‘Awj«’ (al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, Selections vol. 1, p. 564). Ab−’l-Fid«

Documentation Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 73 ‘Jalj−liya, el-Kh«n’; map reference, location; ownership; sketch of the village. Sherd collection no. 1284 referred to in the Mandate File was not found. Inspection reports: H.64 from 16.6.1926; S.212 from 1927; Jm.1206 from 17.8.1943. IAA Archives/Conservation Files: ‘Kh«n Jalj−liya’, conservation report and plans, 3.Aug.94 (in Hebrew).

390

According to Lane, I/2, p. 670, “A watering-trough or tank, for beasts and camels, generally constructed of stones cemented and plastered with mud, and made by the mouth of a well; and any similar receptacle for water; a place in which water collects, or is collected.” 391 In my forthcoming article I once again discuss this inscription, and bring a close-up photograph in which the ‫ ح|خ‬seems to be followed by a ‫و‬. 392 For a brief discussion on this inscription and references see Richards 1986, pp. 81–82.

Photographic 393

Kh«n Jalj−liya is mentioned among the three caravansaries along the Damascus-Cairo highway—together with Qalanswa and ‘Ayn alAs«wir—which were looted by some of the Jabal N«blus leaders in 1800. Supplies were stored at these places by the mutasallim by orders of the central authorities, in anticipation of the Ottoman armies' return from fighting against the French in Egypt (Doumani 1995, page 19).

101

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Spring: west of the ancient town of J»n»n

Aerial photos: Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)—PS 3 5122 small format (11.12.1944); Sky Balloon for IAA (2006); Yuval Nadel (19.01.2007); Ilan Arad (10.12.2007).

Description J»n»n, identified with the biblical Einganim (Joshua 19:21; Le Strange 1890, p. 464), lies on an important crossroads 43 km north of N«blus, bordering the northern Samaria Mountains and the southern Jezreel Valley. The routes from Lajj−n/Megiddo to the west and from N«blus to the south met at J»n»n, from where they continued either north to Safed, or turned east towards the Jordan Valley. Such a strategic location was no doubt suitable for a kh«n. Unfortunately no building in the town of J»n»n or surroundings has ever been identified as the Mamluk kh«n, or rather as the Ottoman fortress which succeeded it in 972AH/AD1564 (see below).

Archival photos: IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files, negative nos. 1204, 69/26, 70/26 (n.d.), 30.160–161 (17.08.1943). Recent photos: Petersen 1997; David Silverman 1998– 2008; Katia Cytryn-Silverman 2002–2008. Field Work: July 24, 1998; July 31, 2002; April 1–3 2006; April 13, 2007; November 20, 2007. Bibliography al-¶afad», al-W«f», vol. 10, p. 432; Ibn Taghr» Bird», Nuj−m, vol. 9, p. 158; al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 1, pp. 125–126; Quatremère, vol. 1b, p. 256; Sauvaire 1894, p. 315; RCEA, xv, p. 131, no. 5808; SWP, II, p. 288; Hartmann 1910, p. 696; Mayer 1933, p. 219; Meinecke 1992, p. 185, no. 9C.406; Petersen 1997, pp. 108–111; Petersen 2001, pp. 177–179; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 52–62; Kenney 2004, pp. 319–330; CytrynSilverman 2006, p. 73.394

The little available information concerning the Mamluk kh«n’s appearance is supplied by the fourteenth century Coptic historian al-Mufa±±al b. Ab− al-Fa±«’il, in his alNahj al-sad»d wa’l-durr al-far»d f»m« ba‘d Ta’r»kh Ibn al-‘Am»d (see below). According to his account, later repeated in al-Maqr»z»’s Sul−k,396 the kh«n was a structure of great beauty, provided with a number of shops, a bath, as well as a public water tank (¯aw± sab»l).

Citations in Literature al-¶afad», al-W«f», vol. 10, p. 432: [d. 764AH/AD1363] “…[Tankiz] built a beautiful hospital (b»m«rit«n) in ¶afad, and part of it [¶afad] is endowed to its benefit; and he built a rib«³ in Jerusalem and two ¯amm«ms and markets (qay«sara), and in Jelj−liya is a beautiful (mali¯) kh«n, of charitable purpose, I suppose, attributed to him.”

As for the layout after transformation into an Ottoman qal‘a, Evliya Çelebi states that it measured “a thousand paces in circumference” [perhaps ca. 300 square m], that it had two gates which immediately sets its plan apart from that of a Mamluk kh«n—facing north and south respectively, chambers for guests apparently provided with hearths, a water basin “ten by ten paces” in the courtyard, and a mosque in the middle of the courtyard—an element also found at Kh«n al-Tujj«r in its Ottoman phase—with a minaret covered by a lead roof (Çelebi, p. 35).

Ibn Taghr» Bird», Nuj−m, vol. 9, p. 158: [year 741AH/AD1341] “…[Tankiz] built a beautiful hospital (b»m«rist«n mal»¯) in ¶afad; and he built a rib«³ in Jerusalem and two ¯amm«ms and markets (qay«sir), and in Jalj−liya is a beautiful (mali¯) kh«n attributed to him.”

The English traveler Scholz, writing in 1821, states that parts of the walls were still standing. Over the gateway there were “sentences from the koran … in alto-Relievo in Neski characters, recommending to the rich to take care of the poor” (Scholz, p. 65).

Al-Nu‘aym»: see above. SWP, II, p. 288: [published in 1882] “A large mud village in the plain, with a ruined mosque, and a ruined khan. It is supplied by a well on the west.”

UTM grid: 716/593

Whether this gateway and the related inscription were remnants from the Mamluk structure is hard to tell, especially considering that even after transformation into a fortress, the building still provided visitors gratis “a loaf of bread and a bowl of soup, as well as a tallow candle light to each hearth.” (Çelebi, p. 35)

Israel Grid: 178/207

Attribution

Lat N/Long E: 32º27’/35º17’

According to the Arabic sources (al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248; Mufa±±al, p. 376; al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, II/2, p. 489), the kh«n at J»n»n was erected in 740/1339–1340 by the am»r ²«j«r al-Daw«d«r (d. 742/1341–1342, on him see Chapter 3),397 who served during al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad

7. J»n»n395

‫ﺟﻴﻨﻴﻦ‬

Altitude: unknown Location: Samaria Referential site: J»n»n 394

396

Note that in this publication the kh«n was mistakenly attributed to 710AH/AD1310. 395 J»n»n or Jin»n—the spelling varies in the different sources, see Citations below.

al-Maqr»z» copied the information either from al-Mufa±±al or from a common source. 397 Daw«d«r means “the bearer and keeper of the royal inkwell.” See D. Ayalon, ‘Daw«d«r’, EI2, ii, p. 172.

102

Gazetteer b. Qal«w−n’s third reign.

Sul−k II/2, p. 489; Khal»l al-§«hir», Zubda, p. 117, 119 al-‘Uthm«ni, p. 483; Mühimme Defteri, vol. 6, no. 240 (Heyd 1960, no. 56, pp. 104–105); Pesenti 1615, p. 43; Rocchetta, pp. 116–117; Çelebi, pp. 34–36; Thevenot, 1686, p. 216 (=1665, p. 432); Scholz, p. 65; de Saulcy, I, pp. 82–83; de Saulcy, II, pp. 357–358; GaudefroyDemombynes, pp. 243–244, 253, 256; Sauvaget 1941, p. 23, footnote 104, 66, footnote 267; Meinecke 1992, p. 183, no. 9C/394; Stern 1997, p. 121; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 63–70; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, p. 77.

398

The kh«n of J»n»n catered to the bar»d (Fig. 7.1), but besides that it was also a profitable enterprise, as testified by al-Maqr»z» who writes that the profits were high at that kh«n (see below). J»n»n was the second location where ²«j«r al-Daw«d«r set up a building on the route of the bar»d, in addition to the renewal of the relay station at Qa³ra between Gaza and Ludd, where he constructed a public well (bi’r sab»l) and other buildings (al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, pp. 247–248).

Citations in Literature

During the Ottoman period, the kh«n assumed a new function: in 1564 it became a fortress in which some fifty soldiers were stationed (Mühimme Defteri, vol. 6, no. 240, see Citations below). Rocchetta (Rocchetta, p. 117) saw this structure, attributing it to Mu·³afa P«sha, i.e., Lala Mu·³afa P«sha (d. 988AH/AD1580; on him see J.H. Kramers, EI2, vii, pp. 720–721), the famous Ottoman commander under Selim II.399

al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248: [d. 749AH/AD1349] “… J»n»n—and this (station) is on the ¶afad route, and ²«j«r al-Daw«d«r built a kh«n there, a beautiful structure of great advantage, no other [kh«n] on the road surpasses it, is better fortified, of greater benefit or more beautiful…” (repeated in al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ 14, p. 425) al-Mufa±±al, p. 376: [wrote in 759AH/AD1358] “In this year [740/1339–1340] ²«j«r ad-Daw«d«r built a kh«n in the way-station of Jin»n in al-Sh«m, where there were shops, a bath and a sab»l [¯aw± sab»l].”

According to Scholz’s testimony the building was destroyed sometime during the late eighteenth century, but considerable remains were still to be seen. Nonetheless, by the late nineteenth century nothing seems to have remained. The Survey of Western Palestine does not report any remains of the kh«n or fortress, nor does the Baedeker guide, which only mentions “Accommodation in private houses.” (Baedeker, p. 262).

al-‘Uthm«n» a, p. 483: [written between 774– 778AH/AD1372–1376] “… and then Jin»n, an ancient town as well, and there is a public kh«n of great importance, one will hardly ever come across one of such a beauty and amount of water; and there [J»n»n] is a big market therein… And in Jin»n is a relay station [markaz] for the bar»d on the road between al-Sh«m and Egypt [though?] one hardly ever sees the messengers [albar»d»yya]; and every day many merchants and travelers march past Jin»n.”

Documentation Archival The archival material on J»n»n found at the IAA archives (Mandate Record Files) and at the SOA contains no information on the kh«n.

al-Maqr»z», Sul−k II/2, p. 489: [d. 845AH/AD1442] “In this year [740/1339–1340] the building of the kh«n by ²«j«r ad-Daw«d«r in J»n»n in the way of Syria was completed. A public water-tank [¯awd m«’ li’l-sab»l] into which the water flowed operated there, as well as a bath and a number of shops in which one could buy whatever the travelers might need; and the profits there were high.”

Photographic Aerial photos: (of the town of J»n»n) Kedar 1991, pp. 202–203—Australian Air Force, AINN—1902 A (09.07.1918); German Air Force P37; Milner 25.11.1989; Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) PS 4-S 4520–4522, PS 18-S 7455–7456 (26.01.1945).

Mühimme Defteri, vol. 6, no. 240 (Heyd 1960, no. 56, pp. 104–105): “9 Reb»‘ I 972 (15 Oct. 1564) If the stone caravanserai which is [located] within it (the village) were repaired, if forty mounted musketeers and ten fortress-soldiers (¯i·«r eri) were [stationed] and if those who are Begs of Lajj−n took up their residence there, the above-mentioned sanjaks would greatly prosper and the road to Egypt and Jerusalem would become safe and secure.” … “I have therefore ordered that the caravanserai mentioned in the report become a fortress and forty mounted musketeers and ten fortress-soldiers (¯i·«r eri) be enlisted with the above-mentioned amount of timars from the said surplus” … “I have commanded that when [this firman] arrives the said caravanserai be repaired…”

Field Work: J»n»n is located within the limits of the Palestinian Authority, and the site could not be visited by the author. Bibliography al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248; Mufa±±al, p. 376; alQalqashand», ¶ub¯, vol. 14, pp. 425–426; al-Maqr»z», 398

Noteworthy is al-Maqr»z»’s description of the bar»d station that functioned at J»n»n during Baybars’ time. He reported that, while traveling incognito, Baybars found there only lame horses covered with sores (al-Maqr»z», Sul−k I/2, p. 577; Sauvaget 1941, p. 23, footnote 104). On J»n»n’s role in the pigeon postal service, as well as in the snow transportation, see al-‘Umar», Ta‘r»f, pp. 255, 257, al-Qalqashand», Sub¯ 14, pp. 438, 443; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. 253, 256–257. 399 Despite his disputed personality, Lala Mu·³afa P«sha is also known for his many architectural projects of a public nature, such as mosques and utility buildings constructed in the regions where he resided as governor (J.H. Kramers, EI2, vii, p. 721).

Pesenti, p. 43: [year 1612] “…All’alba dúque inviandoci, & cavalcando per pianure, & colli di molta fertilità a mezzo il camino intorno vedessimo à piedi d’un monte la

103

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m ‘Izz-edd-d»n bin esh Sheikh Mu¯ammed er Rif«‘i. Beside him the ancestors of the Ter«b» Oghl− [chieftains?] are buried within.

Città di Nain… & seguitando a mezzo giorno arrivassimo a Gienin Castello, ove riposassimo in una bella pianura, apresso ad un fonte il resto del giorno. verso la sera véne l’Emir rscotitor del Cafarro, & fece comandamento, che tutta la Caravana si riducesse ad’allogiar al solito nel Cane; s’ubedî, & quì si restò tutta la notte…Questo [Gienin] è il peggior luogo che si passi, & il piu grosso Cafarro, che si paghi in tutto questo viaggio, essendone patrone un Arabo crudele.”

“The sheikh and em»r of the Ter«b» Oghl− [tribe] lives in the fortress of Jen»n. He invited the humble writer to the Government House, situated in the qa·aba of the Ter«b» Oghl− [territory], across the mountains west of Jen»n.” Thevenot, p. 216: [=1665, p. 432]: [year 1657] “Having pass’d Sebaste you are out of Samaria, which terminates there, and pursuing your Journey, you come to lodge at Genny. They say, that in this place our Saviour cured the ten Lepers. There is a Mosque there still, which was formerly a Church of the Christians; the Han where you lodge is great, and serves for a Fort, having close by it a Fountain and a Bazar where Provisions are sold. The Soil is fertile enough, and produces plenty of Palm-Trees and Fig-Trees. There is a very great Caffare tobe [sic, to be] payed there.”

Rocchetta, pp. 116–117: [year 1599] “E dopò haver caminato un poco più avanti arrivammo in una Villa detta Emir, dove si pagò il Caffaro; che fù di tari dodici di Sicilia per ciascheduno, il qual pagato, passammo più avanti, & ad hore 23. arrivammo al Castello Genim di mediocre habitatione, anticamente detto Gilim, il quale è posto à piè del monte Effraim, poco discosto da Torbeo, dove dieci leprosi gridanoro dietro à Christo, il quale havendo loro comandato, che si mostrassero à Sacerdoti, restarono mondati dalla lepra. Ivi era una bella Chiesa; la quale adesso occupata da Turchi, e vi è un Cane commodo, e molto antico, fatto da Mustafà Bassà.”

Scholz, p. 65: [year 1821] “In Dschenin, there are many ruins which appear to be chiefly of the times of the Saracens: the most important is a khan, built five or six hundred years ago, and destroyed about fifty years ago. It consisted of four parts, the court yard, the dwellings, the seraglio [sic] and the mosque. Part of the walls are still standing, with the great gateway, over which sentences from the koran are carved in alto-Relievo in Neski characters, recommending to the rich to take care of the poor.”

Çelebi, pp. 34–36: [year 1649] “It was built in the year [blank] by the Sul³«n [blank] of Egypt.400 Later on it was enlarged under the Ottomans, so that it became a strong fortress. It belongs to the private Imperial waqfs in Jabal ‘Ajl−n, which have been set down in writing at an early date… The Governor is its mutwvelli. A warden with a garrison of two hundred soldiers lives in it. It is a small, yet strong, rectangular, flourishing fortress, situated on a raised terrace, measuring thousand paces in circumference. Yet it has no ditches. Its two gates face south and north respectively. From within it is fully occupied with guest-chambers. In its very centre rises a lovely mosque with a well proportioned minaret covered with a lead roof. It is a delightful mosque. In its inner court is a huge water-basin ten by ten [paces]. Out of the revenue of the building the travellers receive freely a loaf of bread and a bowl of soup [for each person] as well as a tallow candle light to each hearth [uj«q]. (Should, however, a distinguished person arrive, then the traditional table [sim«³-i Mu¯amadi] would be set, and he would be treated for three days as a guest.) As a rule, a nosebag of barley and fodder is given for every horse. It is a well-endowed waqf.

de Saulcy, I, pp. 82–83: [December 20th, 1850] “A khan, even more than usually dirty, receives us for the night. All its approaches are peopled with lookers-on, inquisitive but civil and inoffensive… I trust my bitterest enemy may never be condemned to pass a night in the khan of Djenin.” de Saulcy, II, pp. 357–358: [February 26th-27th, 1851] “… it is five o’clock when we arrive in this attractive village, which we find even more muddy and filthy than on our former visit. We resume our lodgings in the same khan, where our moukris with their animals have already established themselves, so that we are all huddled together, and in the midst and confusion of a host of travellers, whose close propinquity will leave us little hope of rest or sleep.

“On both sides of the arches of the high road are one hundred masonry-built shops, with iron gates at both ends. South of the suburb of the fortress a flourishing townlet of one hundred houses stretches over an ascending slope. It has a mosque and a public bath. Near the caravanserai seven date palms rise to a considerable height, similar to those found in the oases of Egypt. Amidst them, under a white dome, is the shrine of Sheikh

“…We had prepared ourselves for a fearful night, but it has far exceeded our expectations. The smoke, the vermin, and the incessant jingling of the bells of the mules huddled together in the khan, rendered all rest impossible…” 8. Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya'q−b UTM grid: 74560/65615

400

St. H. Stephan, who translated the text from Turkish, believed the sultan to be Baybars, mainly because he held half of the town of J»n»n, together with half the town of N«blus and 120 horses, all granted by alMalik al-N«·ir Y−suf of Aleppo, the last Ayyubid ruler of Damascus (Çelebi, Travels, p. 35, footnote 5), naturally before Baybars became sultan. On the grants by al-Malik al-N«·ir Y−suf to Baybars and the Ba¯riya following his peace treaty with Aybak, see Thorau 1992, pp. 52, 57.

Israel Grid: 20970/26950 Lat N/Long E: 33°01’45”/35°37’28” Altitude: 75 m

104

‫ﺧﺎن ﺟﺴﺮ ﺑﻨﺎت ﻳﻌﻘﻮب‬

Gazetteer Location: Upper Galilee, Hazor Region

14 m), and three oblong chambers to the north. All these open onto the courtyard, and are provided with windows opening to the outside, trapeze-shaped inside (ca. 85–90 cm at the base, narrowing to ca. 40 cm at the top; Figs. 8.3:6; 8.4: 5), narrowing to rectangular openings outside (ca. 75 by 95 cm; Fig. 8.3: 8–9). The vaulted hall also opens into the entrance passageway (Fig. 8.3: 3), which due to its narrow span (90 cm) should not be interpreted as a stable. On the other hand, the massiveness of the walls, together with the particular construction technique used to reduce some of the thrust on the walls (blind constructive arches amidst the lower courses of the walls, Fig. 8.3: 6), suggests that a second storey, most probably a guard-room as usual in many of the Mamluk kh«ns, stood over the vaulted hall.

Referential site: Kibbutz Gadot River: Upper Jordan River Description Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b stands to the east of the bridge of this name (Fig. 8.2: 1–2), north of the Sea of Galilee.401 It consists of a terraced rectangular building (ca. 70×64 m) built of basalt blocks and provided with cells and halls of varying sizes surrounding an open courtyard, ca. 50 square meters. Considerable portions of the building are missing: the southwest corner was razed when a late nineteenth-early twentieth century (?) double-storied structure was erected at the site;402 the eastern portion of the southern wing, as well as most of the eastern wing, has collapsed, and of the northern wing only the enclosure wall remains (Figs. 8.1: 3; 8.2: 3–4; 8.4: 9). Their layout, nevertheless, can be followed on an aerial photograph dated to 1948 (Fig. 8.1: 1), which also shows various additions attached to the western and southern wings (Fig. 8.3: 2). A ground plan showing the present remains at the site was prepared by Z. Sharon of Kibbutz Gadot and sketched by the IAA, under the auspices of the regional survey undertaken by Y. Stepansky in the early 1990s (Fig. 8.1: 3).

To the north of the hall are three elongated rooms, the further two interconnected (Fig. 8.4: 3–7), in a way not recorded in any of the rural kh«ns known in Syria. A pair of round arches connects these two rooms (Fig. 8.4: 6), whose height cannot be estimated due to the deep layer of accumulations over the original ground level. In addition, the southernmost of the pair has a pair of arched niches, also uncommon among Mamluk kh«ns in the region. To the south the courtyard is lined by elongated vaulted chambers. Remains of six are visible, including a fragmentary prayer room (7 by 5 m) with a white limestone mi¯r«b in the back wall (Fig. 8.5: 3). Considering its axial position, it is possible to reconstruct this wing as composed of eleven rooms, also a novelty among the rural kh«ns of the period.

At present, access to the kh«n is by a passage on the west side (5.5 m), flanked by the modern structure to the right and the vaulted hall to the left (Fig. 8.3: 1). Remains of a smoothed basalt surface protrude at the outer edge of the passage, probably the threshold of the original gate. This passage leads into the courtyard, in the middle of which once stood a basin enclosed by a square basalt construction, supported on four marble columns (see below Burckhardt, p. 316; Guérin, Galilée I, p. 342; Porter, p. 116). In addition, the remains of a 2.5 m wide cemented wall (?) stand in the southwestern corner of the courtyard (Fig. 8.5: 8). Stepansky suggests that it was used as a trough, but the cementing over the original masonry makes identification and chronological attribution difficult.

Of the eastern wing, only one room remains (8.3 by 6.8 m according to Stepansky, forthcoming; Fig. 8.4: 8). It is located at the northeastern corner of the kh«n, and opens onto the courtyard by a lintel-bearing opening. However, the irregular masonry around this opening points to a late construction. In fact, the negative of an arch and the filling over it show that this chamber was originally part of the northern wing, blocked off into a private cell. The remains of the northern wing are less clear. According to the aerial photograph and the negative of an arch on the outer wall of the northeastern room (Fig. 8.4: 8), it is possible to reconstruct a vaulted area in this wing as well (not marked on the IAA’s plan). This layout brings to mind Guérin’s remark that “the vaulted galleries which surround it have collapsed…” (Guérin, Galilée I, p. 342) Perhaps the eastern wing also consisted of a vaulted hall.

The western wing is the best preserved section of the building (Figs. 8.3: 3–6; 8.4: 3–7) and is also noteworthy for its massively constructed walls (ca. 3 to 4 m). It is composed of a vaulted hall on the south (6 by 401

On the name of the kh«n, which corresponds to that of the bridge crossing the Upper Jordan river to its west, see Mayer 1933, pp. 128– 131. I would like to thank M. Hartal, Golan district archaeologist for the Israel Antiquities Authority at the time of my field research, for meeting my husband and myself at the kh«n. He also referred me to Y. Stepansky, who generously allowed the use of his ground plan, to be published in Mapat Rosh Pina, site no. 112 (Stepansky, forthcoming). Stepansky provided me with the unfinished text of his entry, also kindly agreeing to read the draft of my text and contributing important commentaries and additions. 402 According to Stern, who collected valuable information regarding the modern history of this site, the new structure was used as a hotel, apparently erected by order of the Turkish Sultan. It seems it also played an important role in the transportation of wheat from the ®awr«n to both Palestine and Lebanon (Stern 1997, p. 101). Notwithstanding Stern’s dating, Stepansky dates the structure to the Mandatory period, ca. 1935. See Stepansky, forthcoming.

The singularity of the kh«n’s ground plan in relation to the earlier rural kh«ns of the region is immediately evident. First, the compartmentalization seen in the southern wing is absent in the examples studied. Second, the interconnected rooms on the northern part of the western wing are unique. The terraced construction, following the site’s topography (Fig. 8.4: 9), is found also in the sixteenth century addition at Kh«n al-Tujj«r (see Entry no. 21), even though it is not clear if the

105

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m In 1477 Sultan Q«ytb«y crossed the Jordan River at Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b. Ibn al-J»‘«n writes (Ibn al-J»‘«n, pp. 90– 91; Devonshire 1922, p. 28):

Mamluk core at that site was also terraced. It is noteworthy that the Mamluk Kh«n al-Tujj«r and Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b were built in the same period and by the same patron (see below).

And [the noble retinue] stopped at [Jisr Ya‘q−b], by the river bank which links to Birkat Qadas. And the am»r Bard» Bek held a great banquet. And between this station (ma¯a³³a) and Damascus are six relay stations (burud): al-Murayj [Burayj!], Sa‘sa‘, al-Uraynba, alQunay³ra, Na‘r«n and Jisr Ya‘q−b. (Ibn al-J»‘«n, p. 91; Devonshire 1922, p. 28)

The exceptional layout can not be totally explained as a result of a multi-phased construction. Apart from the late structure on the southwest, the plastered walls, and the feeders and iron rings in the southern wing, most of the surviving portions of the structure seem to belong to the same constructional phase.

The above episode reported by Ibn al-J»‘«n, even though not specifically referring to the kh«n, is very likely to have taken place at that building. From his testimony, the additional role of this station, together with alQunay³ra, as catering to the postal route, is clarified. Khalīl al-§«hir», writing in 857AH/AD1453, does not list either station as serving the bar»d (Khalīl al-§«hir», Zubda, p.120), what could lead one to believe that this official function was only added some fifteen years after their erection by Ibn al-Muzalliq.404

The building's masonry is mixed. It ranges from medium-sized (20–26 cm) basalt blocks to larger dressed stones in secondary use. Limestone was also used, but mainly to enhance selected architectural elements such as the outside-looking windows (Fig. 8.4: 4–5) and the mi¯r«b, as well as to compose the ablaq decoration around some of the openings (Figs. 8.3: 3; 8.5: 1). Most of the blocks carry undressed surfaces, while a few display tight but random chiselling. As for the ornamentation, the main element is ablaq decoration. It is found in some of the remnants of the original building phase, such as the window frames facing outwards (Figs. 8.3: 8–9). This combination of dark gray and cream colors, so common in Mamluk architecture, can also be observed in other parts of the building, but in a degenerated way due to later repairs. It is found at the northwestern corner of the enclosure wall (Fig. 8.4: 1), at the entrance to the vaulted hall (Fig. 8.3: 3), at the archways of the southern rooms (Fig. 8.5: 4– 5), and is best represented in the contrasting white mi¯r«b set in the dark gray qibla wall (Fig. 8.5: 3).

On its importance during the Ottoman period we learn from official documents dating to 985AH/AD1557, referring to forty-five families caring for the postal horses stationed at the site (Heyd 1960, p. 127; Stern 1997, p. 101). Despite being described by the Italian pilgrim Rocchetta as in ruins already in 1599, the kh«n was most probably refurbished—or at least partly—during the seventeenth century to accommodate Turkish soldiers stationed at the bridge for toll-collection. In the early nineteenth century, as related by Ali Bey (1816, see below) it was still being used as a station guarded by soldiers of the Pashalik of Damascus), but towards the mid-nineteenth century, according to Kelly (traveled in 1841), it was ruinous and in destitute condition. According to his testimony, in the previous year three hundred soldiers had died at the kh«n of cholera and were subsequently thrown into the Jordan River.

Attribution While the Bridge of the Daughters of Jacob was first constructed in the mid thirteenth century403 to facilitate the crossing of the Jordan for those traveling on the Cairo-Damascus route, the kh«n erected at its eastern end dates to the mid-fifteenth century.

Apparently it was only at the end of the nineteenth century, before the double-storeyed building at the southwestern corner was erected, that the kh«n recovered some of its previous dignity. The Englishman J. Leslie Porter described it as functioning, and the “ranges of vaulted chambers, still habitable, and capable of affording shelter to passing travellers, and even large caravans” (see below).

According to al-Nu‘aym» (al-D«ris, vol. 2, p. 290; J. Sourdel-Thomine, ‘Djisr Ban«t Ya‘ª™b’, EI2, ii, p. 555; Petersen 2001, p. 182) the kh«n was erected by a wealthy merchant known as Ibn al-Muzalliq (d. 848AH/AD1444). In 1465 the Russian merchant Basilius (Khitrowo 1889, p. 248; Stern 1997, p. 100) passed by and reported that this was a large structure.

Today the site is much decayed, fenced-off with barbed wire, and still flanked by minefields. It is found useful by the nearby farmers, who until recently allowed their cattle to roam in the kh«n’s premises.

403

It is not totally clear when the bridge was first erected. It certainly already existed in 664AH/AD1266, when Baybars brought there siege machines (majān»q) from Damascus to lay siege on Safed (al-Maqrīzī, Sul−k, I/2, p. 546; see also Petersen 2001, p. 182). During the Crusader period the crossing point at the Upper Jordan was located at the ford to the south of Mezad ‘Ateret (Qa·r ‘Atra). The historian al-Dabb«gh (1974, ii, p. 58) attributes to al-§«hir Barq−q the renewal (one of them) of this bridge (no reference), perhaps based on al-Maqrīzī, Sul−k, III/2, pp. 617, 946. But al-Maqrīzī locates the renewed bridge in the Ghawr, on the route to Damascus, so perhaps he is actually referring to Jisr alMaj«mi‘ (see below, footnote 417). The bridge of Ban«t Ya‘q−b, together with the route associated with it, became increasingly important due to Safed’s rise as one of the Mamluk provincial capitals in Bil«d al-Sh«m. See J. Sourdel-Thomine, ‘Djisr Ban«t Ya‘ª™b’, EI2, ii, p. 555; Hartal 1989, p. 14.

404 The meeting at this bridge, on Monday, 16 Ramadan 842/2 March 1439, between the amir Nā·ir al-Dīn Mu¯ammad bin Manjak and a courier (s«‘») of Ināl al-Jakam» (during the revolt of Taghrī Birmish, viceroy of Aleppo), does not imply that at that stage this location was already an official markaz of the barīd (Ibn Taghr» Bird», Nuj−m, vol. 7, p. 61).

106

Gazetteer Documentation

sassosa, e piena di fango, con una discesa di 4. miglia in circa, così sempre scendendo, alla fine arrivammo al Ponte del Patriarcha Giacob verso hore 23 dove ritrovammo un Cane assai mal’in ordine, onde fu di bisogno di riposarci quella notte appresso la ripa del fiume Giordano, il quale passa sotto detto Ponte.”

Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no.122, ‘Khan Banat Ya'qub’: “Ruined caravanserail.” IAA Archives/Israel Administrative Inspection Files: site no. 22534/0 (previous 20–26/98/2). Surveyed by Yossi Stepansky. Report says “Kahn [sic!] from the Mameluke or the Ottoman periods, pottery from the Ottoman period.” In Hebrew “…Scattering of flint tolls and Ottoman pottery.” Aerial photos: Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)—Avraham Balatita Collection, IIA-25; 34.2.26 (02.09.1948).

Biddulph, p. 1349: [year 1600] “…At the foot of this Mountayne there is an old Cane, where usually Travellers lodge: but it being not yet noone, we resolved to travell eighteen miles further, to the Sea of Galile. At the foot of this stony Hill hard by this Cane, there runneth a pleasant River, which divideth Syria from Galile. And over this River there is a faire Bridge, the one end whereof is out of the Holy Land, the other in it. This River is called Iordan, the head whereof commeth from Mount Lybanus, and maketh three Seas…”

Archival photos: L.A. Mayer Collection (Dept. of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem).

Al-N«bulus», Ri¯la, p. 6: [year 1689] “and we walked on this [path] up to the kh«n, and crossed the bridge [Jisr Ya‘q−b] which is over the river.”

Recent photos: David Silverman 1998; 2004.

Al-Bakr» al-¶idd»q», al-Khumra, after Weigert 1993: [year 1710] “… we came close to the bridge of Ban«t Ya‘q−b… and we are next to a kh«n. “

Photographic

Field Work: July 12, 1998; June 3, 1999; August 21, 2004.

Ali Bey, p. 261, (Fig. 8.2: 2): [year 1807] “The country is more open upon the other side of the height [Lake Houle], which we descended by a gentle slope across cultivated fields, and arrived at the bridge of Jacob, Cantara Yacoub, upon the Wad Jourdan, or river Jordan, at one in the afternoon. This bridge, still in good preservation, notwithstanding its antiquity, is built of stone, on three pointed arches, with an ancient fortress at its western extremity, which was then occupied by a detachment of the guards belonging to the Pacha of Acre, whose government extends to this place. About sixty paces distant from the eastern end of the bridge, is another Khan, guarded by a detachment of the troops of the Pacha of Damascus. These two garrisons, though composed entirely of Turks, are as little friendly to each other, as if they belonged to different nations and sovereigns! Such is the independence of the Pachas, and the anarchy which exists in the Ottoman empire.”

Bibliography Al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris vol. 2, p. 290 (French translation in Sauvaire 1895, ii, p. 262); Rocchetta, pp. 99–100; Biddulph, p. 1349; al-N«bulus», Ri¯la, p. 6; al-Bakr» al¶idd»q»,405 al-Khumra, after Weigert 1993; Ali Bey, p. 261; Burckhardt, pp. 315–316; Kelly, p. 340; Guérin, Galilée I, p. 342; SWP, I, 234; Porter, pp. 115–116; Khitrowo 1889, pp. 248–249; Mayer 1933; Stern 1997, pp. 100–101; Petersen 2001, p. 182; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 71–82. Citations in Literature Al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 2, p. 290: [d. 927AH/AD1520] “…and he [Shams al-D»n ibn alMuzalliq] built lofty inns (kh«n«t) in Qunay³ra, Jisr Ya‘q−b, al-Minya, ‘Uy−n al-Tujj«r, on the route between Syria and Egypt. And he spent over a hundred thousand din«r on their erection. Inside each of these inns there is water. They are told to be of extreme beauty, in a way never surpassed by any king or caliph…”

Burckhardt, pp. 315–316: [year 1812] “At thirteen hours is the bridge over the Jordan, called Djissr Beni Yakoub (in Arabic)… The bridge is of a solid construction, with four arches: on its E. side is a Khan, much frequented by travellers, in the middle of which are the ruins of an ancient square building constructed with basalt, and having columns in its four angles. The Khan contains also a spring. The Pasha of Damascus here keeps a guard of a few men, principally for the purpose of collecting the Ghaffer, or tax paid by all Christians who cross the bridge. The ordinary Ghaffer is about ninepence a head, but the pilgrims who pass here about Easter, in their way to Jerusalem, pay seven shillings. The bridge divides the Pashaliks of Damascus and Akka. On the west of it is a guard-house belonging to the latter. Banias (Caesarea Phillippi) bears from a point above thee bridge N. by E.”

Basilius the Merchant, in Khitrowo 1889, pp. 248–249: [years 1465–1466] “…Nous arrivâmes à Cham un Mardi, à la fête de la Présentation au Temple. Il y a trois jours de Cham au Pont de Jacob. Un très grand caravansérail s’élève près de ce pont, & c’est là qu’on se repose. Ce pont traverse le grand fleuve qui, de la Mer du Pont, coule dans la Mar de Tibériade.” Rocchetta, pp. 99–100: [year 1599] “… Havendo dunque veduta, e contemplata quella santissima Terra per quello spatio di tempo che ci fù concesso, ci posimo in camino tutti a piedi, caminando per una strada molto 405

Mu·³af« b. Kam«l al-Dīn b. ‘Alī al-Bakrī al-¶iddīqī, Syrian mystic and traveler (d. 1162AH/AD1749). On him, see EI2, i, pp. 965–966.

Kelly, p. 340: [year 1841] “The bridge over the Jordan is 107

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m called “The Bridge of the Daughters of Jacob,” from a tradition which I could not sufficiently understand to take interest in. The river is here about fifty yards wide, and runs with considerable rapidity. As this is the high road from all parts of Palestine to Damascus, there is a perpetual thoroughfare. A few Arab tents are scattered about the valley, and the horses are grazing on the slopes above. Two or three miserable huts stand on the bridge, and a khan on the bank beyond it: a number of loose stones about this building, spoke ill for its solidity. A dead horse is stretched at the entrance, while two are fast corrupting within the area. The ruinous and destitute condition of these places affords striking evidence of the weakness and vices of the Ottoman rule, as their vast dimensions and solidity of structure do of the efficiency and magnificence of that of their founders. No element in the Mussulman character is more remarkable, or more unfavourable to natural property, than the indifference to the progress of decay, the unwillingness to repair the ravages of time. Even when a little attention or a little expense would prevent a building or an establishment from falling to ruin, nothing is done to arrest the march of destruction. If an edifice be shaken by an earthquake, it is abandoned,—it is seldom or never raised again on its foundations; a ruined building, like a felled oak, remains in the dust for ever. Even in the populous parts of some of the great cities of Syria the heaps of ruins which have been left in the pathways by successive earthquakes have not been removed. A few hours’ labour would clear the wrecks away, but the passengers prefer to clamber up and down the piles of stones and fragments rather than to displace them.

there is but one over the Upper. The name of the latter, as I have already said, ia remarkable—“the Bridge of Jacob's Daughters … The bridge in its present state is modern, of Arab or Turkish origin, as is shown by its pointed arches, rough masonry, and by the roughlypaved roadway without parapets. At its western end, on the bank, is a little tower of still later origin, loopholes for musketry, constructed, doubtless, for defence, perhaps also to shelter government officers who, when the road is safe, collect a toll from passengers. On the eastern bank of the river, a hundred yards or so above the bridge, is a large khan, now in part ruined and overgrown with thorns and thistles. I passed it twice, and found no occupants either in it or in the tower. The khan has a spacious open court with a handsome square reservoir in the centre, having a fragment of a marble column at each corner. There are round the court ranges of vaulted chambers, still habitable, and capable of affording shelter to passing travellers, and even large caravans. As it stands on the main road from Damascus and the Hauran to the whole of Western and Southern Palestine, it is still much frequented, and doubtless has been so from a remote period. Traces of a Roman road exist on both sides of the bridge, and I have on more than one occasion travelled along it up the southern spurs of Hermon to the plain of Bashan and Damascus.”

9. Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘

‫ﺧﺎن ﺟﺴﺮ اﻟﻤﺠﺎﻣﻊ‬

UTM grid: 74070/61265 Israel Grid: 20335/22550

“In the preceding year three hundred soldiers had died at the khan, above-mentioned, of the cholera, and were thrown into the Jordan; for which reason the consular agent at Safed gravely advised me not to drink of the water without first putting an onion into it.”

Lat N/Long E: 32°37’26”/35°33’49” Altitude: 235 m Location: Eastern Lower Galilee Referential site: Kibbutz Gesher

Guérin, Galilée I, p. 342: [year 1863] “A dix heures douze minutes, je fais halte au Djisr Benat Ya’koub, “pont des filles de Jacob”. Ce pont, construit en pierres basaltiques, repose sur trois arches ogivales et semble de fabrique musulmane. Il est précède vers l’ouest d’une petite tour ronde très dégradée, qui sert de poste à quelques douaniers.

Rivers: Tabor and Jordan. Description Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ is located beside the bridge of this name (Fig. 9.1: 2–5), which throughout the ages has connected the banks of the Jordan River at one of its narrowest straits,406 14 km north of Beth-She’an. Although presently fenced off as a military zone, the remains of the kh«n have been exposed by archaeological excavations undertaken by the IAA.407 Beforehand, only the quadrangular outline, with its protruding water tower and northern buttresses, was

“Au delà du pont, vers l’est, un pavé, formé de larges blocs basaltiques, conduit à un vaste khan aux trois quarts détruit, et bâti également avec des pierres basaltiques de moyenne dimension. Les galeries voûtées qui l’entouraient sont écroulées. Au centre de la cour on observe les restes d’un petit basin rectangulaire, qu’ornaient jadis quatre colonnes, une à chacun des angles de ce réservoir.”

406

On this bridge, ca. 70 m long and over 10 m above water level, see Petersen 2001, pp. 186–187 and Muqari and Gal 2005, p. 196. 407 The excavations took place during 1994 (licence no. A-2217), 1996 (license no. A-2419), 1998 (two seasons, license nos. A-2951 and 2984) and 1999 (license no. A-2992), under the direction of Z. Gal and A. Muqari. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for giving me access to the site in the course of the excavations, as well as to the access to the excavated material (mainly pottery) stored in Jerusalem. I am also most grateful to Y. Schaeffer, head of the IAA Dept. of Conservation, who made his department’s study and report on the site available for research.

SWP, I, p. 234: [published in 1881] “It was a square building, similar to Khân Jubb Yùsef, but is now in ruins, the walls standing only a few feet above the ground.” Porter, pp. 115–116: [published in 1889] “Strange to say, as there is but one bridge over the Lower Jordan, so

108

Gazetteer visible (Fig. 9.1: 1), together with the various structures added to the site during the Late Ottoman-Mandate period. Those include the Customs House on the northeastern side of the kh«n (built in 1904; Fig. 9.3: 1), the British Pillbox on the southeast corner (Fig. 9.3: 7), and the various annexes of Old Kibbutz Gesher (founded in 1934), partly erected directly over the remains of the kh«n.

been decorated in ablaq style, as evident from the remaining intercalated rows of basalt and limestone still in situ (Fig. 9.3: 6). On the other hand, the ablaq decoration of the narrow openings on the western side of the courtyard (Fig. 9.3: 8–9) seems to result from a post-Mamluk rearrangement of that wing. Guérin writes in the nineteenth century: …Il avait été construit avec des pierres basaltiques de dimension moyenne et régulièrement taillées. Celles que l’on observe aux portes sont alternativement blanches et noires, celles-ci calcaires, celles-là basaltiques, selon la méthode d’ornementation chère aux Arabes.

The excavations—which in fact performed rather a cleaning of modern debris than a stratigraphical dig (Gal and Mokary 2005, p. 197)—exposed a ca. 60 m square structure of dressed basalt stones (Fig. 9.2). It was originally composed of four L-shaped vaulted halls (6 to 7 m wide)408 surrounding an open courtyard (ca. 40 m square), in the midst of which are the remains of a water installation (10 m square, Fig. 9.4: 4). The vaulted halls are separated from each other either by rooms or passages. On the east is the single entrance to the kh«n (2.4 m wide), facing the river side to the east. The passageway is flanked by two rooms. On the entrance's axis, on the west side, there is a small room, of similar dimensions of the room flanking the entrance. On the northern side, the two halls are separated by a passage giving access to the water tower, opposite which, on the southern side of the courtyard, is a similarly sized prayer room. Gal and Muqari have detected the base of a staircase leading to the roof on the northwestern corner of the courtyard.

(5) The finding of a marble plaque (locus 127, basket 1175; not illustrated), probably used for inlay, suggests another means of building decoration applied at the kh«n; (6) Still with regards to stonework, the prayer room is a good example of chromatic enhancement. The qibla wall and mi¯r«b are lined with white limestone (Fig. 9.4: 1), in great contrast to the regular dark grey basalt around it; (7) All the common areas, from gateway to courtyard, are paved, while the halls and rooms, according to the excavators, had beaten earth floors (Mokary and Gal 2005, p. 199); (8) The courtyard is surrounded by low platforms with built-in stone loops, to which beasts of burden could be tied (Fig. 9.4: 8);

The archaeological remains of the kh«n point to its mostly continuous use since mid-fourteenth century through the Late Ottoman period. Clear evidence of this can be seen in the material finds (see below) but also in some of the architectural features. The partition walls erected inside the oblong halls, for example, were built in an altogether different technique to that of the original Mamluk structure (see below), and were aimed at dividing the halls into smaller units (Fig. 9.4: 2–3). The water tower, on the northern side, was renovated as a typical Ottoman structure (Fig. 9.4: 5–6).

(9) The water supply from the river was secured by means of a tower on the northern side of the building. The water was directed into the tower by a long tunnel, and reached from within by means of a deep shaft (Fig. 9.4: 6);409 (10) The northern wall, abutting the water tower and the sudden slope into the river bed, is reinforced by five slanted buttresses (Fig. 9.4:7), in a style also seen at the Tankiziyya in Jerusalem, in the White Mosque in Ramla, as well as in the kh«n in Jalj−liya. This, however, had been in vogue in the region since the Crusader period (Burgoyne 1987, p. 228).

As to Kh«n al-Jisr’s original features, the following are of particular note: (1) The enclosure wall is 1.5 m thick; it consists of a basalt ashlar facing, with a core of rubble in mortar;

Dating Evidence

(2) The building makes use of secondary material, such as the granite shaft placed horizontally in the gate’s threshold (Fig. 9.3: 3–4);

Epigraphic A Mamluk epitaph (Fig. 9.1.6) dating to 25 Rab»‘ II 708/12 October 1308 (CIAP, iv, pp. 215–216) was found during the 1996 excavations, under the floor of the Ottoman water tower. The inscription, written in Mamluk naskh» on a limestone slab 0.45×0.40 m, is associated with the tomb of a certain ‘Uthm«n b. ‘Abd al-Rash»d b. ‘Uthm«n al-Badl»s, also known as al-Is‘ird».

(3) The use of combing in one of the dressed basalt stones flanking the gateway passage (Fig. 9.3: 5) is worth noting. This technique, probably still echoing Crusader workmanship, is seen in further Mamluk structures (see Chapter 4), but usually in white limestone; (4) The eastern façade of the building seems to have 408

409

None of the vaults has survived, except for some springings (Fig. 9.4: 2–3).

For a full description of the water tower, see Muqari and Gal 2005, pp. 201–202.

109

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m It records his death by drowning.410

returned to normality, as shown not only by the numismatic findings, but mainly by the large number of tobacco-pipes recovered.

411

Pottery

The IAA excavations at Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ yielded a vast amount of pottery sherds, unfortunately all from unstratified contexts.

Others Apart from pottery, a series of architectural pieces, glass fragments, stone implements (mortars, pestles, weights), metal artefacts (buttons, rings, copper bells, horse-shoes, etc.), beads and others were collected during the excavations. They have not been analyzed, but are mostly remnants of the Ottoman phases of the kh«n.

The pottery includes a wide range of wares, glazed and unglazed, dating from the ca. twelfth century through modern times.412 The Mamluk and Ottoman periods are best represented, both by locally manufactured wares, and by Syrian and Egyptian imports.

Attribution

Apart from fragments of tablewares, storage jars, lamps and many tobacco pipes, a considerable number of sugar pots were found during the excavations. Considering the importance of the region in the manufacture of sugar (Kareem 2000, p. 14; Stern 1999; p. 22),413 Kh«n alJisr’s key role as a distribution point would seem natural.

Despite lacking a foundation inscription, the kh«n at Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ can be clearly fixed by a passage in alQalqashand», where he dates its erection to 741AH/AD1340.414 In fact, most of the information found in al-Qalqashand»’s Sub¯ is repeated from al‘Umar»’s al-Ta‘r»f,415 in which he writes that a new station (markaz mustajid)416 had been erected at the Us«ma Bridge.417 This was done, he says, to facilitate the crossing of the Jordan, even though it added some distance to the journey between Bays«n and Irbid.

Numismatics A hundred coins were found during the excavations and were studied by Ariel Berman (2005). Apart from one sixth century coin, all the coins are datable to Islamic periods, up to the early twentieth century. The preMamluk coins are few, two of the ninth century, one of the thirteenth. On the other hand, sixty-two of the coins are attributable to the Mamluk period, starting from the fourteenth century onwards. The earliest of the identifiable coins (locus 509, basket 3009) is dated 735AH/AD1333, corresponding to the reign of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w−n. Berman also noted that most of the Mamluk coins fall in a mid-fourteenth to midfifteenth century range, suggesting a probable decrease in activity during the second half of the fifteenth century.

The importance of its location as a road station is nevertheless older than the mid-fourteenth century, and is attested by the finding of a Roman milestone at the site (ATQ/279). In fact, one of the memos included in the Mandate File (March 1925) referring to Jisr alMaj«mi‘ reads: …Built probably in Roman days it was repaired and renovated several times till it received its present shape… 414

Sharon (CIAP, ii, p. 229) dates Kh«n al-Maj«mi‘ to 1365, notwithstanding his reference to al-Qalqashand» who dates the renewal of this markaz to 741AH/AD1340. 415 A significant difference between the two accounts, nevertheless, is that in al-‘Umar»’s al-Ta‘r»f (pp. 248–249) the date only appears later on, referring to the establishment of the new route by the viceroy of Syria (after Tankiz) the am»r Al³unbugh« (al-‘Al«'», d. 742AH/AD1342; on him see al-¶afadī, al-Wāfi, vol. 9, pp. 208–209; Mayer 1933, pp. 62– 63), rather than to the erection of the new station at Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ itself. 416 On the problems posed by this passage in al-‘Umar», see also Chapter 2. 417 Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ was also known as Jisr Us«ma during the Islamic period. According to Petersen, it was named after Us«ma al-®alab», an am»r of ¶al«¯ al-D»n, who rebuilt it. Petersen also claims that in 664AH/AD1266–67 the bridge was repaired by Jam«l al-D»n b. Nah«r al-Mihmand«r al-¶«li¯», during the reign of Baybars (Petersen 2001, p. 186), based on Ibn ‘Abd al-§āhir (Rawd, p. 246). Nevertheless, alKutub» (d. 764AH/AD1363; ‘Uy−n al-Taw«r»kh, part 20, p. 340), Ibn Kath»r (al-Bid«ya wa'l-nih«ya, vol. 13, p. 287) and Ibn Taghr» Bird» (Nuj−m, vol. 7, p. 141) clearly refer to the bridge built over the Jordan (Nahr al-Shar»a) in 664 as being located between D«miya (Lat N 32º6’/Long E 35º32’60”) and Qar«wa (Qar«r« in Ibn Kath»r), which should be identified with no other than Jisr al-D«miya/Adam Bridge, and not with Jisr al-Maj«mi‘. On Jam«l al-D»n b. Nah«r, who was also responsible for the erection of Baybars's kh«n in Jerusalem, see CytrynSilverman 2009, p. 153, note 32. Another possibility is that sultan Barq−q was the one involved with the building or rebuilding of this bridge. Al-Maqrīzī (Sul−k, III/2, p. 946) wrote: “and [he] built [or rebuilt] a bridge over the Jordan river in the Ghawr, on the route to Damascus. Its length [is] 120 cubits, and [its] breadth 20 cubits” (same information in Sul−k, III/2, p. 617). The length, as mentioned by alMaqrīzī (ca. 72 m if we round up the cubit to 0.6 m; on the varying figures for the dhir«‘, see EI2, ii, pp. 231–232) is apparently very close to Jisr al-Maj«mi‘'s actual measurements (see above, footnote 406).

The scarcity of sixteenth century coins is also noticeable, and may reflect an occupational gap following the Ottoman conquest. By the eighteenth century, however, activities at the kh«n seem to have 410

The details of this inscription differ from those found in the doctoral dissertation (Cytryn-Silverman 2004, pp. 86–87), which followed Sharon's previous reading (dated March 14, 2002) of the name of the deceased as ‘Uthm«n b. ‘Abd al-Barr b. Sayyid ‘Uthm«n al-Badl»s», and the date as 15 Rajab II 708/2 October 1308), provided by the excavators. The inscription was first published in 2005 (see Sharon 2005), where the date already appeared in its corrected form 25 Rab»‘ II 708AH/AD12 October 1308, but the name still followed Sharon's early reading. 411 I would like to thank. Z. Gal and A. Muqari for making the pottery, together with other material finds, available for analysis. Thanks also to Ayala Lester, Curator of the IAA in charge of the Islamic Collections, for giving me access to the store rooms in Romema, Jerusalem (now moved to Beth Shemesh). 412 Two sherds found in locus 128 (basket 1138) might be datable to the Early Islamic period. 413 Sugar manufacture was one of the agricultural branches that saw much growth during al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s reign, enjoying the tax exemptions provided by the sultan. Together with the sugar produced in Egypt, it became an important export to Europe, where it was regarded as a high quality product. It is said that “[t]he sultan himself and his Mamluk am»rs were greatly involved in the sugar industry” (Levanoni 1995, p. 147; on the sugar trade during the fourteenth century see also Ashtor 1983, pp. 23–24, Stern 1999, pp. 22–25).

110

Gazetteer The activity at Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ seems to have peaked during the second half of the fourteenth, until the fifteenth century, as suggested by the numismatic evidence. The apparent decrease in activity in the late fifteenth century through the sixteenth seems to reflect the decay of the bar»d system during the Late Mamluk period, as well as some instability in the commercial life of the region, following the Ottoman conquest. In any event, the excavations of the site did not indicate actual physical decay. On the other hand, the nature of the layout was changed during the Ottoman period, making it a rather compartmentalized building.

2004. Bibliography Al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248; al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ vol. 14, p. 425 (Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1923, p. 243); SWP, II, p. 116; Guérin, Galilée I, p. 133; Tristram, p. 64; Baedeker, p. 259; Stern 1997, p. 64, Petersen 2001, pp. 186–188; Mokary and Gal 2005; Berman 2005; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 83–93; Sharon 2005; CIAP, iv, pp. 214–215; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, p. 73– 74. Citations in Literature

Documentation

al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248: [d. 749AH/AD1349] “…Then from Dhar‘»n to Bays«n, and from there to alMaj«mi‘—and this is a renewed station which I [al‘Umar»] advised [on its renewal], and this (station) is at the S«ma Bridge, and it is of great advantage due to the great distance between Bays«n and Zu¯ar. And there was an old route from Bays«n to Irbid via ²ayba; and this was extremely difficult and the traveler on his way between Bays«n and ²ayba had to plunge into the stream (of the Jordan) where there was a ferry (ma‘diya) for the horsemen leaving the horses aside and those had to cross (the river) by swimming. And there were difficulties in that, especially during the rise of the river and the extreme cold…”

Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 115, 'Jisr el Maj«mi‘': Memo with historical information (27.3.25). Inspection reports: 10.2.28, Makhouly, “A large square building with traces of vaults beneath; it is in ruinous state”//9.8.29, Makhouly “A village of small size and poor masonry; it has traces of an Arab khan and Roman mile stone”//23.7.32, Baramki “…The old khan in the vicinity is very much ruined”//1.12.32, Makhouly “The khan now is in ruins except few vaults where [sic!] turned into living rooms. Two broken shafts were noticed among the ruins”… “Transported Roman Milestone to Jerusalem”//23.1.45, Makhouly “But the ruined khan has suffered serious destruction. Of its vaults practically nothing remains except two on the eastern side; and even those were restored and used by the Customs. On the north side a vaulted room furnished with shooting slots from E & W projects from the main building. Other remaining walls were levelled and their material used by Gesher settlement for building purposes”//10.4.46, Makhouly “But the khan or hostel is in really ruinous condition; one projecting square tower and few parts of vaults on N and E sides are…. in existence. Three vaulted rooms on E side abutting on the wall of the khan were built by the Turks and now used as Customs house.”

al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ vol. 14, p. 425: [d. 821AH/AD1418] “…de là à Al-Majâmi‘; c’est, dit le ta‘rif, un poste recent près du pont de Sâma, dont j’ai indiqué l’emplacement en l’année 741 (1340); elle facilite la route, car il y a une grande distance entre Baïsan et Zahar. Le chemin passait jadis par Taybat Ism et Irbid et était très difficile, car entre Baïsan et Taybat Ism le voyageur devait pénétrer dans le Chariya (Jourdain), où il y a un bac pour les cavaliers, mais non pour les chevaux; ceux-ci doivent passer à la nage. Il y avait là des difficultés qu’on ne saurait décrire, particulièrement à l’époque de la crue du Chariya et des grands froids, à cause de la force du courant et de l’àpreté des berges que ne pourrait point même couper l’aile du vautour…”

IAA Archives/Israel Inspection Files: site no. 3737/0; 23249/0 (S); 23248/0 (W); location 2032–2254/2034– 2256. Permits, correspondence, publication, photographs (also found in the Mandate Record file).

Recent photos: David Silverman 1996, 1999; Katia Cytryn-Silverman 2003, 2004.

Guérin, Galilée I, p. 133: [year 1863] “A onze heures dix minutes, après avoir traversé successivement deux autres oueds, mais peu considérables et à sec en ce moment, je parviens avec mon guide au Djisr Medjamia’. J’y trouve mon drogman, qui s’y est rendu par une voie plus directe et qui a dressé ma tente et la sienne près les ruines d’un ancien khan fortifié, aujourd’hui tombant en ruine et abandonné. Il avait été construit avec des pierres basaltiques de dimension moyenne et régulièrement taillées. Celles que l’on observe aux portes sont alternativement blanches et noires, celles-ci calcaires, celles-là basaltiques, selon la méthode d’ornementation chère aux Arabes. Autour d’une cour intérieure, actuellement encombrée de débris, régnait une galerie carrée à deux étages [?], dont les voûtes sont en la grande partie écroulées.”

Field Work: February 4, 1999; March 20, 2003; June 3,

McGarvey, p. 353: [year 1879] “About seven miles

Photographic Aerial photos: Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) PS 19 680 large format (26.01.1945); IAA Archives/Mandate Record File (18.01.1923). Archival photos: Mandate Record File, mainly of bridge, but also of Roman milestone (2049, 10.07.1931); L.A. Mayer Collection (Dept. of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, The Hebrew University) ‘Eretz Israel’ 2nd book, nos. 3–5.

111

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Description419

south of the Lake of Galilee is the only bridge across Jordan which is now in use. It is called Jier [!] Mejamî’a (Mejamî’a bridge), and is the crossing-place for caravans from Beisan’, Nab’lus, and all the region south of those places, to Damascus. After crossing here, the road follows the Jordan Valley for a few miles, and then turns up into the hills… A short distance from it on the western bank is a dilapidated khan, which once answered the double purpose of a halting-place for caravans and a military post for the protection of travelers. Just below the bridge there is an almost perpendicular descent of the river, with a fall of 10 or 12 feet. The current is fearfully rapid, and is lashed into foam by projecting rocks. Above, there is a deep, still water and a broad channel.”

Kh«n Jubb Y−suf is a rectangular building, some 47×34 m, oriented northwest—southeast; it consists of vaulted halls and cells surrounding an inner courtyard (22×16 m). The building was first published by the Survey of Western Palestine (SWP, I, p. 234), which described the structure as “in very good repair” at the end of the nineteenth century (see below). It was almost a century before the site again attracted archaeological attention: in the 1980’s it was surveyed by the British School of Archaeology as part of their Medieval and Ottoman Survey of Palestine, publishing it with an up-dated plan, together with a study on Kh«n al-Tujj«r (Lee et al. 1992, figs. 42, 56). Later G. Kahaner420 added interesting information on the kh«n and on its surroundings.

Tristram, p. 64: [year 1881] “A ruined khan invites a halt before crossing the bridge, which, though on a Roman site, is evidently of later date, and though without a parapet, and with a pavement sadly dilapidated, is a boon to Bedouin and European alike.”

The kh«n is accessed from the northern side,421 through a slightly off-center entrance (Figs. 10.2: 3–4; 10.3:1–2). The gateway leads to a courtyard through a corridor ca. 17 m long, divided into two sections by an ashlar-built pointed arch (Figs. 10.3: 8–9; 10.4: 1–2). The first section is cross-vaulted (Fig. 10.3: 3) and is flanked by a pair of barrel-vaulted rooms (Fig. 10.2: 1, Rooms 1–2422; Fig. 10.3: 3–7); the second is barrel-vaulted and flanked by two additional rooms adjacent to the courtyard (Fig. 10.2: 1, Rooms 5–6, Fig. 10.4: 3–4). These two pairs of rooms differ in size, shape, vaulting direction and construction technique. These differences help in interpreting the various building phases.

SWP, II, p. 116: [published in 1882] “A bridge of one large pointed arch and three small ones, is still passable; near it is a ruined khân, or 'hostel', a large square building with vaults beneath, still in a good state of preservation.” 10. Kh«n Jubb Y−suf

‫ﺧﺎن ﺟﺐ ﻳﻮﺳﻒ‬

Room 1 is a broad rectangular room, with a pointed barrel-vault perpendicular to the axis of the building. The room is ventilated by two slit-windows, not centered in their respective walls but positioned near the western corner. The northwestern wall has two quadrangular niches of different sizes, most probably used for storage.423 The most interesting feature in this room is the pillar abutting on the southwestern wall. It post-dates the construction of the barrel-vault and, to judge from its offcenter position, was not a part of the original plan. The massive proportions of this pillar suggest that it was not built simply to create a niche as proposed by Lee et al., or a fireplace as suggested by Kahaner, but rather to support a heavy superstructure, here the square tower whose remains are still visible in the upper storey (Figs. 10.2: 2; 10.4: 7). The weight of this tower, most probably a minaret, might have put pressure on Room 1’s vault.

UTM grid: 73730/64535 Israel Grid: 2006/2583 Lat N/Long E: 32°55’39”/35°32’15” Altitude: 219 m Location: Upper Galilee, Hazor Region Referential site: Kibbutz ‘Ami‘ad Other features: The kh«n lies 72 m southwest of a cistern traditionally identified as the pit into which Joseph was thrown by his brothers and therefore named Jubb (pit) Y−suf (Fig. 10.9: 3). The site is surrounded by a few other architectural features, mentioned in the sources and mostly still traceable (Fig. 10.1: 3, from Kahaner 1995, pp. 21–23). It includes a birka to the north of the kh«n and the tomb of Shaykh ‘Abd All«h.418 Kahaner interpreted the heaps of stones next to Jubb Y−suf the “House of Jacob.”

419

The following text was originally written as a tutorial essay in 2000, during my stay as a visiting student at the Oriental Institute, Oxford University, under the tutoring of J. Raby. Changes have been made to reflect new information. 420 Kahaner (= Kohl) is a member of Kibbutz ‘Ami‘ad where the kh«n is found. Kahaner has devoted much time to the study of the site, publishing it in a booklet (Kahaner 1995), and lately also in an article in Ariel (issue 154, 2002, pp. 25–32, in Hebrew). 421 The building is oriented northwest-southeast. 422 Numbering by the author [KCS], to facilitate the description of the different units. See ground plan, Fig. 10.2: 1. 423 These niches led Lee et al. to the conclusion that “these spaces were probably used for the keeping of animals” (1992, p. 94). It seems that they would be slightly too cramped for stabling animals, and it is more plausible that these rooms were used either as offices or accommodation by the administration of the kh«n.

418

According to G. Kahaner (on him, see footnote below), the tomb of Shaykh ‘Abd All«h was mentioned for the first time by Pococke in 1745 (Kahaner 1995, p. 22). But in a fact the tomb was mentioned earlier: ‘Abd al-Gh«ni al-N«bulus» described it in 1101AH/AD1689, followed by al-Bakr» al-¶idd»q» twenty years later (1122AH/AD1710). Perhaps it figures even earlier, if the tomb mentioned by Rocchetta in 1599 as that of Joseph’s mother and sister (see below, Citations in Literature) refers to the same structure.

112

Gazetteer Room 2, on the other side of the corridor, leads to an inner room (Fig. 10.2: 1, Room 3; Fig. 10.3: 5) of almost identical dimensions and with a vault also oriented eastwest. Both rooms have slit-windows facing north and small quadrangular niches sunk in the walls. The inner room has an additional window-slit facing northeast.

reminiscent of the ribs at the kh«n at Jalj−liya (see Entry no. 6), built during the governorship of Tankiz in Syria, between 712AH/AD1312 and 740AH/AD1340.425 Of special interest is a small opening (28 cm wide) near the ground, which apparently led to the outside of the kh«n (Fig. 10.6: 6, 9). It was most probably used for drainage, in a similar way as at the kh«n at Qu³ayf« (see Chapter 4).

All the entrances to these three rooms were narrowed by later partitions, now mostly collapsed (Fig. 10.3: 3, 6).

The prayer room (Room 8) measures 5×5.5 m and is located at the end of the longitudinal axis of the building, a feature not uncommon in kh«ns of the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods in Syria.426 The back wall is marked by a sunken rounded niche—the mi¯r«b (Fig. 10.7: 2–6), which stands out for its masonry work in dressed limestone slabs. The niche head radiates from a central semicircular stone, recalling the work at the water trough next to the entrance to Turbat Berke Kh«n in Jerusalem, for example (Burgoyne 1987, p. 113) dated 792AH/AD1390, or at the mi¯r«b in the assembly hall of the later al-Muzhiriyya Madrasa, dated 885AH/AD1480– 81 (Burgoyne 1987, p. 584, pl. 62.9). The masonry abutting on the mi¯r«b’s frame is of coarse limestone, still plastered in parts. Finally, both side walls of the room are interrupted by a pointed archivolt: that to the east opens to Room 9 (Fig. 10.7: 8), the one to the west is a blind arch (Fig. 10.7: 7), for the sake of symmetry.

The rooms flanking the barrel-vaulted section of the corridor vary in shape and size. Room 5 to the west is a reversed L-shaped space and was most probably used as a passage to the outer mosque (Room 4). Its entrance is topped by a slanted ogee arch (Fig. 10.4: 3), also seen in the opening to Room 6 (Fig. 10.4: 4). Noteworthy is the direction of the barrel vaulting in rooms 5 and 6, orientated north-south, in the same direction as the corridor’s vaulting. A later opening was broken between rooms 6 and 2. The outer mosque (Room 4) is a broad space topped by a pointed barrel vault. It was accessed from the outside through a courtyard (Figs. 10.2: 1; 10.5: 1–4) sitting on top of a cistern (see below), but also from inside the kh«n via Room 5 (Fig. 10.5: 6, 8). The mosque’s mi¯r«b is a sunken rounded niche, topped by a slanting pointed arch facing the entrance (Fig. 10.5: 7). The niche is made of poorly cut masonry; the voussoirs do not match, while the keystone is off-center. It undoubtedly looks like a later insertion, even though it is not clear if it replaced an earlier niche. In the northeastern corner of Room 4 is a small extension with a slit window (Fig. 10.5: 9) that opens into Room 1 (Fig. 10.3: 7).

Room 9, measuring 4×5 m, seems to have been a dependency of the small prayer room, and the entrance from the courtyard is clearly a later addition (Fig. 10.7: 6). The eastern wing (Fig. 10.8: 1, no. 10) is well preserved and has collapsed only at the entrance. It is accessed from the courtyard through an arched opening (Fig. 10.7: 2) and is ventilated by four window-slits—two facing the courtyard, one at the southern end, and one on the opposite side, blocked by later additions (Fig. 10.8: 4–6). This wing is occupied by a long hall (6×35 m), which extends all the way north, being separated from Room 3 by a thick wall. The side of this wall facing Room 3 displays the type of ablaq work seen around the courtyard and on the outer walls (Fig. 10.3: 5).427 The construction style of the pointed barrel vault repeats that on the extension of the western wing—reinforcement ribs, ca. 50 cm wide, section the vault every 4.20 to 4.40 m (Fig. 10.8: 5).

At the southeast end of the corridor, just before it enters the courtyard, a staircase leads to the second storey/roof (Fig. 10.4: 5). A shallow square niche faces it on the opposite side of the corridor (Fig. 10.4: 3, left). Slanted ogee arches as in Rooms 5 and 6 top both features. Having reached the open courtyard, one faces three wings: a now mostly destroyed L-shaped “western” wing (no. 7); a small prayer room and adjoining space east of it (Rooms 8–9), and an oblong “eastern” wing, today subdivided by partition walls, but originally a single unit (no. 10). The “western” wing is mostly ruined, but the layout is clear. The outer wall is partly visible (Fig. 10.2: 5–6), including the seam between its northern edge and the back of the outer mosque (Room 4). In addition, the negative of the collapsed vault is clearly visible on the masonry of the northern side (Fig. 10.6: 1–2). The original entrance to this wing has not survived, while the opening abutting on Room 8 seems to be a later addition (Fig. 10.6: 10).424 This opening leads to the southeastern extension of the western wing, which has survived to its full height (Fig. 10.6: 3–5). There both the slit-window (Fig. 10.6: 7) and a reinforcement rib supporting the barrel vault survive (Fig. 10.6: 4–5). The latter is

425

Lee et al. compared this technique to that used at Kh«n Mirj«n in Baghdad, but also to Gothic architecture (1992, p. 88). A. Petersen, in the publication of the survey at the village of Jalj−liya referred to its use at Kh«n al-‘Azz«m in Ramla (see above n. 383), skipping Jubb Y−suf— a far more important and relevant comparison. In Ramla the ribs appear in a hall divided into bays by means of pillars bearing cross vaults, while in Jalj−liya and Jubb Y−suf they reinforce the barrel vaulting structure, which is supported by massive walls. 426 See the Ayyubid kh«n at Q«r« (Sauvaget 1939, pp. 53–54, fig. 6) dated to the second half of the twelfth century, and the post-station near B«lis in Syria, dated to the fourteenth century (Sauvaget 1941, pp.61– 62, fig. 14). 427 The ablaq work can also be seen on the inner walls of Rooms 1 and 2.

424

The ablaq work is missing around the arched opening and the voussoirs are of poor masonry.

113

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m (1) He identified the northern portion of the building as a later addition, most probably added between 1674 and 1759 (Kahaner 1995, p. 19);429

As for the kh«n’s upper level, it seems that the construction concentrated on the northeastern corner, over Rooms 1–3. The photographs (Figs. 10.1; 10.4: 6) show the standing remains—an asymmetrical corner room and a small squared cell, both domed—as well as imprints of a long collapsed structure. The latter relates to the two now freestanding windows facing outside the kh«n (Fig. 10.2: 3–4) and most probably corresponds to additional rooms or a hall.

(2) He held that the current form of the outer mosque was most probably contemporary with the northern addition, the mi¯r«b and the passage to the cistern having been added at that time; (3) In his plan, unlike Lee et al. (1992), the northernmost window-slit of the eastern wing is marked;

The only other structure for which there is clear evidence in situ is the square construction on top of room 1 (Fig. 10.4: 7). To judge from the pillar added to Room 1, one can deduce that it was of considerable height, apparently a minaret. This conclusion can be supported by the location next to the mosque, as well as by the 1839 sketch by Dauzatz (Fig. 10.9: 2; Lee et al. 1992, fig. 41; Kahaner 1995, p. 20). This illustration, although far from realistic (note the three towers on the left, for example), does suggest the existence of a tower over the mosque area.

(4) He reconstructed Room 9 (east of the prayer room) as devoid of any opening to the courtyard. (5) On the other hand, he reconstructed the side entrance to the western wing as original, and not as a late addition as suggested by the present analysis. The following discussion aims to hone some of Kahaner’s conclusions, as well as to revisit others. Mainly, it offers further evidence for a possible reconstruction that differs slightly from that proposed by Kahaner.

The Cistern An underground cistern, 8 m square and today ca. 2 m deep (Fig. 10.8: 8–9), lies to the northwest of the building, facing the outer mosque. It has never been excavated, but according to historical sources, it was hewn out of the rock. The roof, made of basalt slabs, is carried by four round arches springing from eight piers. An opening, slightly off-center, allows the drawing of water from the roof, which functioned as the mosque’s little courtyard.

The Original Construction An attempt to reconstruct the original building is made in Fig. 10.9: 1.430 Kh«n Jubb Y−suf, in the original plan, was 39 by 34 m, accessed through the ashlar-built arch which today stands in the middle of the gateway. The first row of rooms (nos. 1–3) did not exist and the roof was without any super-structure. The halls surrounding the courtyard were symmetrically arranged, despite their different interior planning. The entrances to the western and eastern wings faced each other, while the only opening on the southern side was to the prayer room (no. 8). The present openings (to the extension of the western wing and to room no. 9) are late additions.

Today the cistern is dry,428 but once its water, which could reach 130 m3, most probably sprang from the aquifer under the site. It was probably due to the earthquakes which affected the region that the aquifer stopped supplying water to the cistern and to the pit on top of the hill (Kahaner 1995, pp. 16, 19).

For light and ventilation, the building was provided with a number of slit-windows, facing both within and without the kh«n. The outward-facing windows were positioned on the northern and southern sides. The western and eastern wings both had a window at their respective southern ends, while the western wing was provided with a window to the north, later blocked. Room 6, to the east of the gate, also had a window, again blocked by the later addition to the north. A pair of inward-facing windows in the eastern wing allows the symmetrical reconstruction of the eastern side. An exception to the window system is Room 9 to the east of the prayer room, whose sole source of light and ventilation is the passage between the two rooms.

The Corral A roughly built corral (Fig. 10.2: 1) abuts on the eastern wall of the kh«n. This structure consists of three coarse walls delimiting a trapezoid-shaped area. The longest side is ca. 30 m long; the shortest was built in continuation with the kh«n’s façade and measures 16 m. The corral clearly post-dates the kh«n’s construction phases, and its absence on the SWP ground plan of 1875 provides with a terminus post quem for its erection (Kahaner 1995, p. 20). Building Stages In his discussion on the architecture of the kh«n at Jubb Y−suf, Kahaner (1995, pp. 14–20) referred to some of the building’s architectural features, resulting from different construction phases:

The whole façade of the building, including the areas today concealed by Rooms 1–3, was decorated by alternate courses of black basalt and white limestone (ablaq), as seen in the courtyard and the outer walls of the southern and eastern wings. The gate, on the other 429

These dates refer to Michael Nau’s testimony and to the earthquake of 1759. See below. 430 Thanks to R. Piperno-Beer, draftswoman at the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for helping me adapt the original plan.

428

Kahaner reports that at the end of summer it is still possible to see some water at the bottom of the cistern (Kahaner 1995, p. 16). During my field trips to the site in both summer and winter the cistern was always dry.

114

Gazetteer Horin 1952)432 and caused great damage to that city and many other places, might have had consequences at Kh«n Jubb Y−suf as well. But apart from some retouches, it seems that no activities of great significance can be identified.

hand, stood out because of its monochrome limestone ashlars (Fig. 10.3: 8), dressed in a tight chiseling as observed in other kh«ns of the Mamluk period (Fig. 10.4: 2; see discussion in Chapter 4). The building preserved this basic shape at least until 1674, when the traveler Michael Nau visited the site and described an inscription at the entrance. As no commemorative inscription is seen today on the façade, one assumes it was either removed by the time the northern additions were made, or that it is still concealed behind them (Kahaner 1995, p. 19).

The Last Construction Phase It is hard to guess when the last repairs were made to the building. To which stage should the confusing of the ablaq work on the courtyard walls be assigned, for example (Fig. 10.7: 1)? Though Lee et al. believed that “some of this unevenness was clearly integral to the original construction of the kh«n…” and that “…this cannot be explained as restoration or rebuilding” (Lee et al. 1992, p. 81), it is more likely that such repairs took place at a late date. The partition walls, the new passages, the corral—all seem to belong to the last phase of occupation of the site, post-dating the PEF visit in 1875 (SWP, I, p. 234) but no doubt before 1889. In 1889 J. Leslie Porter comments:

The Second Phase The next construction phase lies sometime between 1674 and 1759, between Michael Nau’s account and before the 1173AH/AD1759 earthquake that affected the whole of Syria and Palestine (Taher 1996, p. 98). The northern rooms and cross-vaulted gateway area may be related to this phase. This is the kh«n al-N«bulus» mentions in 1689 and describes as ‘«mil al-bin«’ (well-built; see below).

The building is comparatively modern, but being now used as a goat and cow house by the local Arab tribes, and never cleaned out, its open court and adjoining rooms are filled to the depth of several feet with filth and rubbish. It is one of the most abominable restingplaces I ever entered... (see below).

The Third Phase Following the earthquake of 1759, and most probably after the making of Jacotin’s map of 1799 (which refers solely to the Puits de Joseph and not to the kh«n), some reinforcement might have been necessary to prevent the tower from collapsing. This might have been the reason for the building of a pillar in room 1, exactly at the spot where the minaret base sits. Maybe this area of the building, more than others, preoccupied the inhabitants; first, because of the tall structure it had to carry, second, its location next to the water cistern which, quite likely, might have made this portion vulnerable to water infiltration.

Jubb Y−suf The discussion on the kh«n at Jubb Y−suf would be incomplete if some thought is not given to the site of Joseph’s Pit.433 Pilgrims and travelers have doubted this location for centuries, claiming the right place to be in Samaria (Biddulph, p. 1349; Baedeker, p. 293). However, these hesitations did not take away from the holiness of the Galilean site, visited by pilgrims from all religions during most of the Middle and Late Islamic period. Even then, the location of the venerated well, within the premises of this Galilean site, seems to have shifted through the ages.

The building on the second storey might also have been added at this time, probably to provide accommodation for the government representative sitting at Jubb Y−suf, and not exactly for “wealthier travellers” as suggested by Lee et al. (1992, p. 82). Ali Bey, traveling in the region in 1807 (see below) visited the kh«n and reported “a detachment of Mogrebin soldiers from Acre” as stationed there. Burckhardt, writing in 1812, describes the kh«n as “falling rapidly into ruin”, again noting that it was “inhabited by a dozen Moggrebyn soldiers, with their families, who cultivate the fields near it” (Burckhardt 1822, p. 238).431

Today the site of Jubb Y−suf is identified with a pit on top of a hill east of the kh«n, topped by a domed structure (Fig. 10.9: 3). The construction is not dated, while the inscription embedded in one of its spandrels is a late insertion by an Indian pilgrim, dated 1318AH/AD1900 (Fig. 10.9: 4). The first good description of the cistern and complex around it is that by Alquilante Rocchetta, who visited the site in 1599. He wrote:

The second storey figures in an illustration dated to 1817 (Fig. 10.9: 2), which was copied by Taylor in 1839. This engraving, which is full of inaccuracies, does not reflect the decaying state of the kh«n as described by Burckhardt.

In questo mentre io andai col Vescovo mio camerata in un claustro molto antico, doue entrãmo per una porticella verso Aquilone [north]. Questo claustro è 432 On this earthquake, see also M. Vered and H.L. Striem, The Safed Earthquake of 1.1.1837 and its Implications on Seismic Risk Evaluations in Israel, report prepared for the Israel Atomic Energy Comission—Licensing Division (IA-LD-1–105), April 1976. I would like to thank D. Levitte of the Geological Survey of Israel, expert in geological mapping and prospecting, hydrogeology and engineering geology, for making this report available. 433 For references to this site in various Arabic sources, see Le Strange 1890, pp. 465–466; Marmardji 1951, p. 43.

The earthquake of 1837, whose epicenter was near Safed (Amiran 1950–1951, p. 231; Amiran 1952, p. 52; Ben431

Apparently these soldiers were not performing their job very successfully as the roads were still “terrorized” by robbers. See the description by the English traveler James Silk Buckingham, dated 1816, below.

115

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Finally, an illustration prepared in 1827 for Léon de Laborde’s Voyage de la Syrie (Fig. 10.5: 3; Laborde 1837, pl. LX, no. 128), shows the venerated well with a broad mosque at the back, a pointed arched door and a high wall to the left. This is a precious pictorial testimony to the kh«n’s physical state before the earthquake of 1837, but mainly to the original site of Joseph’s Pit, thus relocated to the present site not before 1827.436

quadro, & hà per ogni verso circa 20. passi [?]; e nel mezzo è la Cisterna, dove fu posto il Patriarcha Gioseppe da suoi fratelli (…) Dico dunque dalla parte di dentro esser larga quasi quanto è la maggior parte del claustro, & è sotto terra da 10. braccia in circa, fatta a volta cõ archi di mediocre grandezza per sostengo della lamia [?] e del pianno di sopra. La sua bocca è coverta da una cupoletta di legname, sotenuta da 4. colonnette di marmo, dalle quali adesso ve ne sono tre sole, e l’altra dimostra esser stata presa, il suo collo è di fabrica, col suo traverso, nal quale non è nè corda, nè fecchio, ond alcuni indiscreti hanno fatto alcuni buchi intorno al collo per potervi più commodamnte prender l’acqua, che viene da certi acquedotti (Rocchetta, p. 102).

Dating Evidence Epigraphic According to d’Alquié, who visited the site sometime in 1670, an Arabic inscription, which he did not read, crowned the entrance archway (d’Alquié, p. 81). This inscription was either removed or concealed after the northern addition to the kh«n was appended to the original façade.

Rocchetta describes a square cloister with an entrance facing north. Under this cloister was the cistern where Joseph was cast by his brothers; its dimensions were as large as those of the cloister itself (!). The cistern was ca. 7 m deep (?), and roofed by medium sized arches that supported the [roofing] slabs and the upper level. A wooden dome, supported by four marble columns, covered the opening of the cistern.

Still surviving, nevertheless, is the shallow recess over the mi¯r«b facing the kh«n’s entrance, where a naskhī inscription was originally carved on a thin layer of plaster, little of which remains. Only the first letters are still visible, but not identified (Fig. 10.7: 6). The inscription’s recess is shaped as an oblong cartouche with cusped finials, similar to the inscriptions flanking the entrance corridor at Kh«n Y−nus (Fig. 23.4: 5–6).437

Kahaner (1995, p. 10), interpreted Rocchetta’s text in a different way. He believed that was referring to a cloister located on the hill to the east, around the present site of the well.

Pottery

The main difficulty with Kahaner’s identification stems from Rocchetta’s further comment that “Vicino la detta Cisterna verso Levante [i.e., to the east] sono alcune rouine di fabrica poste sopra una collineta ch’erano case de’figliuoli del Patriarcha Giacob” (Rocchetta, p. 102).434 It is clear that the cistern could not have been located on the hillock.

According to Mandate Record File (IAA Archives; sherd collection nos. 1070 and 1082) the pottery then collected was “Mamluke, Arabic, glazed, Arabic, painted.” The sherds are no longer extant in the Rockefeller Museum storerooms. Attribution

D’Alquié’s435 description from the 1670’s places the well and the domed structure above it at the corner of the kh«n and thus seem to identify "Joseph's Pit" with the cistern underneath the mosque. He wrote (1670, p. 81):

The absence of a commemorative inscription or a clear reference to the patron in the sources makes the dating of the kh«n at Jubb Y−suf a primarily speculative issue. It was dated to the second half of the fifteenth century by the PEF surveyors, who wrote:

…Ce puits est au coin d’un Khan, qui se nomme aussi le Khan de Ioseph, du nom de ce favori de la Providence. Il est couvert d’un petit Dôme appuyé sur quatre petites colomnes de marbre; Il y a à present de l’eau dans le fond qui n’est pas extrémement bas. Vis-à-vis il y a une petite Mosquée qui tient au Khan, & en fait le coin…

… it was built on the great Damascus road at the same date as khan Minyeh, Khan at Tujjar and others. (SWP, I, p. 234)

The British School of Archaeology team avoided speculation, and wrote diplomatically: “Kh«n Jubb Y−suf was only one of the several kh«ns built along this highway in Maml−k times.” (Lee et al. 1992, p. 72)

Burckhardt, who visited the site of the well in 1812, also identified the holy cistern, writing: …it is in a small court-yard by the side of the Khan, is about three feet in diameter, and at least thirty feet deep [ca. 9 m]. I was told that the bottom is hewn in the rock: its sides were well lined with masonry as far as I could see into it, and the water never dries up, a circumstance which makes it difficult to believe that this was the well into which Joseph was thrown. (…) Joseph’s well is held in veneration by Turks as well as Christians; the former have a small chapel just by it, and caravan travellers seldom pass here without saying a few prayers in honour of Yousef. (Burckhardt 1822, p. 318)

G. Kahaner is more forthcoming and suggests it was built in the 1460’s, either under the patronage of Sultan Khushqadam (865–872AH/AD1461–1467)438 or his 436

For a further discussion on the original site of Joseph’s pit, see Petersen 2001, p. 190. 437 Martin Buber, undergraduate student in Archaeology in his first year at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, detected the recess during a field trip to the kh«n (June 3rd, 2004). It had passed unnoticed in my previous visits to the site, as well as by Kahaner and even the draftsmen of the British School of Archaeology during their architectural survey (see Fig.10.9: 4). 438 Kahaner mistakenly attributes these years of rulership to Sultan ºn«l (r. 857–865AH/AD1453–1461; on him see M.C. ¦ehabeddin Tekinda¿, 2 EI , iii, pp. 1198–1199). E. Stern , in his Caravansaries, Roads & Inns

434 “Near this cistern, towards the east, is some ruined masonry located on a hillock, once the house of the sons of the Patriarch Jacob.” 435 Same as Michael Nau? See Röhricht 1890 (1989 edition), p. 272.

116

Gazetteer successor Q«ytb«y (872–901AH/AD1468–1496). He bases the dating on Jean Adorno’s description of the kh«n in 1470 (see Citations in Literature), and the statement that it was recently built (Kahaner 1995, p. 18). In another paragraph dealing with the kh«n’s dating, however, Kahaner suggests that it might have been built in the second half of the thirteenth century, based on some of its architectural features, but “in the lack of additional evidence, the probability of such dating is rather low.” In any event, Kahaner believed Kh«n Jubb Y−suf did not function as a regular road-station, but rather as part of a holy complex (Kahaner 1995, pp. 5–6).

relatively early dating would also explain an otherwise illogical proximity to Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b and to Kh«n Minya, both built in the mid-fifteenth century by the merchant Ibn al-Muzalliq (see Entries nos. 8 and 16). Despite the above, several consistent arguments point rather to a fifteenth century dating: (1) Adorno’s comment in 1470 that the kh«n was “recently built;” (2) Bertrandon de la Broquière’s description of the site from 1432, with no mention of the kh«n (Wright 1848, p. 300);

Kahaner’s indecision is well based. The ground plan and construction style of the original building have more in common with twelfth through fourteenth century examples such as Ayyubid Kh«n Q«r« dated to the second half of the twelfth century (Pl. IV: 5; Sauvaget 1939, Fig. 6)439 and Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh dated 690AH/AD1291 (Pl. I: 3; Sauvaget 1940, Fig. 2), than to the nearby fifteenth century Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b, or to the proposed plan by Muqari and Gal (see Entry no. 21) of the fifteenth century Kh«n al-Tujj«r.440 While up to the late fourteenth century the typical ground plan is one of vaulted galleries surrounding an open courtyard, as in Kh«n Jubb Y−suf, from the fifteenth century onwards there is a tendency to the compartmentalization of parts of the building. But as the ground plan alone does not suffice to date the building—reuse of a ground-plan style is always a possibility—two technical features help with the dating.

(3) the lack of any reference to a kh«n at Jubb Y−suf in al-‘Uthm«ni’s description of the province of Safed, written between 774–778AH/AD1372–1376 (Lewis 1953). Al-‘Uthm«n» does refer to the other inns in the region; (4) the comment by the SWP that Kh«n Minya (built in the first half of the fifteenth century, see entry no. 16) had a plan similar to that of Kh«n Jubb Y−suf, which seems confirmed by the remains seen on a 1945 aerial photograph of that site (Fig. 16.1: 1c). This would show the continuance of the typical fourteenth century ground-plan style also into the fifteenth. Documentation Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 122, ‘Kh«n Jubb Yusuf’: ATQ/544, The file includes the “State Domain Parcel History Sheet”, bibliography, photographs, and N. Makhouly’s report dated January 28, 1935 which reads: “The site was inspected by me, yesterday. It was found that a big portion of the eastern outer wall of the khan measuring about 18 ms. Long by 5 ms. high has actually collapsed. The remaining parts of the wall on either side of the fallen one are also in danger of collapsing unless the necessary repairing will take place at once.”

The first diagnostic element is the vaulting technique. The consistent use of barrel vaulting at Jubb Y−suf is typical of kh«ns of the Ayyubid and Early Mamluk periods, up to the mid-fourteenth century. Second, the arched ribs which section these vaults, all made in dressed stones, seem to further relate to the construction technique of the period, as attested by the similar use at Jalj−liya (see discussion in Chapter 4). The above could lead to the conclusion that Kh«n Jubb Y−suf was built sometime during the fourteenth century, and would thus match Ibn Ba³³−³a’s description of 1325 in which he mentions the existence of a z«wiya at the location (Ibn Ba³³−³a, Travels, vol. 1, p. 85).441 This

IAA Archives/Inspection Files: (IAA site no. 3656/0) survey permits, 1935 photographs (see below). PEF Archive: PEF/SW/265/1, “Kh. Jubb Yusef, Foundations of walls/rock cut cistern Ruined Khan near. Situation On tell close to khan on E side.”

in Israel, continues this chronological error while adding: “Some are of the opinion, mainly based on the building style, that it was built ca. 1310, during the days of am»r Sal«r [viceroy of Egypt]” (Stern 1997, p. 102). As Stern does not provide any bibliographic reference, the reasons for his attribution of Kh«n Jubb Y−suf to Sal«r are not clear. It should be noted that Sal«r died that very year, in 24 Jum«da I 710/19 October 1310; al-Maqrīzī, Sul−k, II/1, p. 97. 439 Also Ayyubid examples such as those published by Sauvaget 1939, figs. 2–7. 440 Creswell’s note on the masonry work at Kh«n Jubb Y−suf, as well as at Minya and Kh«n al-Tujj«r, with reference to his discussion of Qal‘at Ibn Ma‘«n is worth mentioning: “Conder [in the SWP] suggested the fifteenth century as the probable date, and he states that similar masonry is found in the great kh«ns on the Damascus road, such as Kh«n atTujj«r, Kh«n Minya, and Kh«n Jubb Y−suf. This is not the case; the masonry of the last two is inferior and I believe late, and that of the two buildings at Kh«n at-Tujj«r rusticated. A fourth, Kh«n al-A¯mar at Bais«n , is dated I Gum«d« I, 708 (17th Oct. 1308)…” (Creswell, MAE II, p. 152, footnote 9). 441 See discussion on Ibn Ba³³−³a’s use of the term z«wiya in Chapter 2.

Photographic Aerial photos: Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)—PS11 6098–9 large format (04.01.1945); Idan Shaked 1999. Archival photos: Mandate Record File (also in the Inspection File), negative nos. 7570, 7574 (1934), 9267—9271 (27.01.1935). Recent photos: Lee et al. 1992; Kahaner 1995; David Silverman 1998, 2001, 2003; Katia Cytryn-Silverman 2002, 2004, 2006. Field Work: July 11, 1998; January 24, 2001; November 25, 2002; March 20, 2003; June 3, 2004; July 3, 2006.

117

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m shewed us with marble Pillars, was in Galile; not neere Dothan nor Shechem where Iosephs Brethren kept their Fathers Sheepe. But by others of better iudgment, we understood that this also was called Iosephs Pit, or Well, because it was built by one Ioseph, not Ioseph the sonne of Iacob, but some other. but the ignorant people which travell that way, are apt to beleeve any thing that is told them. About ten miles from this Well, we came to a Cane, called by the Moores Minium, but by the Turks Missia, hard by the Sea of Galile, where we lodged all night, having travelled that day by computation six and thirtie miles.”

Bibliography Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, p. 62; Biddulph, p. 1349; Pesenti, p. 37; Rocchetta, pp. 101–103; d’Alquié 1670, p. 80; Thevenot, pp. 214, 216; al-N«bulus», Ri¯la, p. 6; alBakr» al-¶idd»q», al-Khumra, after Weigert 1993; Ali Bey, p. 261; Burckhardt, pp. 317–318; Buckingham, p. 475; Laborde, p. 67, pl. L; Guérin, Galilée I, pp. 346– 348; SWP, I, p. 234, 368; Porter, p. 115; Baedeker, pp. 291, 293; Vilnay 1956, p. 257; al-Dabb«gh, vol. 2/6, 1974, pp. 177–179; Khalidi 1992, p. 459; Lee et al. 1992, pp. 72–94; Kahaner 1995; Stern 1997, pp. 102– 103; Petersen 2001, pp. 189–191; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 94–121; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, pp. 71–72.

Rocchetta, pp. 101–103: [year 1599] “Dieci miglia più in là fũmo avisati che andassimo sopra di noi, p esservi sospetto di ladri, i quali habitavano in certe ville poco discosto [distant] dalla strada, e piacque in sõma al misericordiosiss. Sig. che arrivãmo senza alcuno disaggio in una pianura detta Dotaim ad hore 18. dove havendo ritrovato alcuni Arabi, che pretendevano il Caffaro, fù di bisogno fermarci alquãto fino che ci accordãmo In questo mentre io andai col Vescovo mio camerata in un claustro molto antico, dove entrãmo per una porticella verso Aquilone [north]. Questo claustro è quadro, & hà per ogni verso circa 20. passi; e nel mezzo è la Cisterna, dove fu posto il Patriarcha Gioseppe da suoi fratelli; che così per antichissima traditione si tiene da tutte le Natione così Christiane, come infedeli, è piena d’una bella acqua, & abbódante, benche quando vi sù posto il Santo Patriarcha, fosse secca, vacua. Hor mentre ci stauamo godendo [enjoying] quella Cisterna, ecco arrivare molti Armeni, & altri Christiani Orientali, che venivano nella nostra Carovana, li quali spogliatisi ignudi, prědevano di quell’acqua con certi secchi di cuoio (che cosi s’usano per tutti quelli paesi molto commodi per lo camino) e gli uni spandevano a gli altri, lavandosi da capo a’ piedi per divotione, e memoria del sacro misterio in quel luogo adoperato.

Citations in Literature Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la, p. 62: [year 1325] “From Tiberias we went to visit the well into which Joseph was cast—Peace be on him—in the courtyard of a small mosque, next to which is a z«wiya.442 The well is large and deep and we drank some water from it. It was rain water, but the guardian told us that there is a spring in it as well.” Adorno, p. 323: [11 October 1470] “Nous quittâmes à l’heure de vêpres la mer de Galilée et nous arrivâmes ce soir-là dans un ville sise sur une montagne appelée maintenant Jebehosep et autrefois, je crois, Sichen ou Sychar. Nous fûmes logés à l’extérieur de la ville, à un jet de pierre de celle-ci, dans un très beau fondouk, tout en marbre, récemment construit. Sur la route, à la porte du fondouk, se trouve la fontaine de Jacob, où une femme samaritaine donna à boire au Seigneur Jésus. L’eau en est absolument parfaite. Le puits est revêtu ou fait de marbres polis et la margelle merveilleusement ornée de marbres sculptés. Les Maures vénèrent ce puits qu’ils considèrent comme sacré et ne permettent pas aux chrétiens de s’en approcher. Nous y allâmes donc de nuit en silence et nous pûmes difficilement étancher notre soif tante cette eau, que nous buvions aussi par dévotion, était excellente. Il y a dans ce bourg le tombeau du bienheureux patriarche Joseph, dont les ossements ont été, comme il l’avait ordonnée, rapportés d’Égypte par les fils d’Israël. C’est aussi là que fut enlevée Dyna, fille de Jacob, mais les deux fils de Jacob se vengèrent ensuite cruellement des habitants de la ville.”

2 Essendo questa Cisterna tanto famosa, & appresso tutti in gran riverenza, non voglio lasciaare per maggiormente accrescer ne’ fedeli la divotione, di minutamente descriverla. 3 Dico dunque dalla parte di dentro esser larga quasi quanto è la maggior parte del claustro, & è sotto terra da 10. braccia in circa, fatta a volta cõ archi di mediocre grandezza per sostengo della lamia e del pianno di sopra. La sua bocca è coverta da una cupoletta di legname, sotenuta da 4. colonnette di marmo, dalle quali adesso ve ne sono tre sole, e l’altra dimostra esser stata presa, il suo collo è di fabrica, col suo traverso, nel quale non è nè corda, nè fecchio, ond alcuni indiscreti hanno fatto alcuni buchi intorno al collo per poterui più commodamnte prender l’acqua, che viene da certi acquedotti.

Biddulph, pp. 1349–1350: [year 1600] “About seven miles from Iacobs Bridge, our Guide brought us to a Well, adorned with marble Pillars, and covered with stone, which hee said to have beene the Pit whereinto Ioseph was put, when his Brethren sold him to the Ishmalites. But it seemed to us incredible: first, because that was a drie Pit, and this is full of sweet water. Againe, Iacob dwelt at Hebron twelve miles beyond Ierusalem, and his Sonnes kept Sheepe in Shechem. And that drie Pit whereinto they put Ioseph was at Dothan (which we saw afterwards) and this Pit which they

4 Lontano un tiro d’archibuggio dalla Cisterna è una Moscheta piccola, & rouinata, & dentro vi sono due sepolture di fabrica rustica, rilevate nel pavimento, e dicesi esservi la madre, & sorella di Gioseppe. 5 Vicino la detta Cisterna verso Levante sono alcune rouine di fabrica poste sopra una collineta ch’erano case

442

Note that this passage with reference to the z«wiya is absent in both of Gibb’s translations (Ibn Ba³³−ta, Selections, pp. 58–59; Ibn Ba³³−ta, Travels, p. 85).

118

Gazetteer de’figlivoli del Patriarcha Giacob, ove dimoravano per cura de’loro armenti, dal qual luogo si vede molto bene il mare di Tiberiade, ò Genezareth, che gli stà alcune miglia di sotto verso Mezzo giorno.”

within... I climbed up onto the kh«n’s roof, and started to read that [Joseph’s] story [in the Qur’«n ]... At some distance we observed a dome, said to have [the body of] al-Shaykh ‘Abd All«h...

Thevenot, p. 214 [=1665, p. 432]: [year 1657] “…about five a Clock in the Morning, and half an hour after, came to a Castle called Eunegiar, which is square, having a Tower at each corner; close by it there is a Han, which appears to be pretty enough, and is also square: It was at this Castle (as they say) that Joseph was by his Brethren sold to an Ishmailite Merchant; the Pit or Well, whereunto they had put him first, is still to be seen, but we went not to it, because it was quite out of our Road. This Castle is commanded by a SousBasha, and there we payed a Piastre of Caffare a piece, of which one half goes to the Sous-Basha, and the other to the Arabs.”

“At the edge of the well, at some distance, is a large birka, from which the travellers enjoy its waters...” Ali Bey, p. 261: [year 1807] “We halted at a quarter past nine in the morning, in another Khan called En Nebi Jousouf, that is, of the prophet Joseph, where I found a detachment of Mogrebin soldiers from Acre, and a very fine cistern containing excellent water. Forty paces distant to the west of this Khan, are the ruins of an ancient cistern, in which tradition relates, that the sons of Jacob placed their brother Joseph, before they sold him to the merchants, who carried him to Egypt.” Burckhardt, p. 319: [June 22d, 1812] “…At two hours [from Szaffad] and a quarter is Khan Djob Yousef (in Arabic), or the Khan of Joseph’s Well, situated in a narrow plain. The Khan is falling rapidly into ruin; near it is a large Birket. Here is shown the well into which Joseph was let down by his brothers; it is in a small court-yard by the side of the Khan, is about three feet in diameter, and at least thirty feet deep. I was told that the bottom is hewn in the rock: its sides were well lined with masonry as far as I could see into it, and the water never dries up, a circumstance which makes it difficult to believe that this was the well into which Joseph was thrown. The whole of the mountain in the vicinity is covered with large pieces of black stone; but the main body of the rock is calcareous. The country people relate that the tears of Jacob dropping upon the ground while he was in search of his son turned the white stones black, and they in consequence call these stones Jacob’s tears (in Arabic). Joseph’s well is held in veneration by Turks as well as Christians; the former have a small chapel just by it, and caravan travellers seldom pass here without saying a few prayers in honour of Yousef. The Khan is on the great road from Akka to Damascus. It is inhabited by a dozen Moggrebyn soldiers, with their families, who cultivate the fields near it.”

ibid., p.216: [=1665, p. 433]: “About four hours Journey from Menia, you see the Pit or Well of Joseph, into which he was let down by his Brothers; there is no water in it, the mouth of it being very narrow, but the bottom indifferent wide, and may be six fathom deep. It is covered by a Dome standing on four Arches, to three of which so many little Marble-Pillars are joined, as Buttresses for the Dome; the place of the fourth Pillar is still to be seen, and it appears to have been not long agoe removed. Close by this pit there is a little Mosque adjoining to an old Han. Two hours journey from that Pit you cross over Jacob’s Bridge, which the Arabs call Dgeser Jacoub…” d’Alquié, pp. 80–81: [year 1667] “De cette plaine où nous vîmes ces pauvres Arabes, & qui n’est pas loin du païs de Tobie, nous ne fûmes pas long-temps à nous rendre à celle de Dothaim, qui ne me semble pas éloignée de Saphet de plus d’une lieuë & demie. Nous y allâmes visiter le puits où l’on tient que Ioseph fut jetté par ses freres, & d’où ils le retirerent pour le vendre à des Marchands Ismaëlites qui passoient par là pour aller trafiquer en Egypte. Ce puits est au coin d’un Khan, qui se nomme aussi le Khan de Ioseph, du nom de ce favori de la Providence. Il est couvert d’un petit Dôme appuyé sur quatre petites colomnes de marbre; Il y a à present de l’eau dans le fond qui n’est pas extrémement bas. Vis-à-vis il y a une petite Mosquée qui tient au Khan, & en fait le coin. Il y a au dessus de la porte une inscription Arabe, mais la pluye qui nous incommodoit fort me fit perdre la curiosité de la lire.”

Buckingham, p. 475: [February 13th, 1816] “While I was occupied in taking a hasty survey of these remains, and our guides were enjoying their noon-meal with the Bedouins settled amid these ruins, a small party of travellers arrived from the northward, and halted here for the same purpose as ourselves. On my return to the spot where they were all assembled, I found them warmly engaged in converstion on the news from Damascus, and the dangers of the road. These men, it appeared, were residents of Tiberias who had set out from their own homes two days before to go to Damascus, in order to make some purchases, for which they had taken a sufficient sum of money with them. They were originally six in number and all armed, and they had travelled in safety as far as the Bir-yusef [footnote on the reason for the name]. During their halt there, howerver, they were attacked by a party of superior numbers, among whom, they said, were several soldiers, but, as they believed, no Bedouins.

al-N«bulus», Ri¯la, p. 6: [year 1689] “It [Jubb Y−suf] is three far«sikh from manzil Ya‘q−b. Afterwards we visited the tomb of Shaykh ‘Abd All«h, over which is a fine dome. And the tomb is on the edge of the road. On the other side of the road is a birka of wide dimensions. There is a well-built kh«n in which the fearful put their trust. And over Jubb Y−suf is a fine dome, and nearby is a pleasant mosque…” al-Bakr» al-¶idd»q», al-Khumra: [year 1710] “...until we arrived at the kh«n next to this handsome well... “We halted at this kh«n, but it was too small to have us 119

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m “The result was, that they were stripped both of their money and arms, and some of those who were welldressed, had their clothes taken from them,but no lives were lost, though two of the party who at first made resistance, were so severely beaten, that they were obliged to leave them behind on the road.”

renferme une bonne et grande citerne, s’approvisionnent d’eau les caravanes qui passent.

où

“A quelque distance au nord, un réservoir, à moitié comblé et construit avec des matériaux peu considérables, affecte une forme carrée et mesure 38 pas sur chaque face. L’eau que les pluies y accumulent tarit d’ordinaire en été.

Laborde, p. 67: [year 1827] “Tibérias (Planche L, 129), Puits de Joseph (tradition) dans la cour d’une mosquée près de Tibérias. A trois heures environ, après le pont du Jourdain, on trouve un khan à coté duquel est une mosquée, et en avant, au milieu d’une petite cour, un puits que l’on dit être celui où Joseph fut descendu par ses frères. Il est plein d’eau, circonstance peu favorable à la tradition; mais on asure que les pluies on amené cet état exceptionnel et qu’ordinairement il est à sec. Nous n’opposons aucun argument, décidés désormais à tout admettre sans discussion.”

“A l’est-nord-est de ce même khan, s’élève une colline voisine, aux flancs rocheux et sur le sommet de laquelle on remarque une vieille citerne hors d’usage depuis longtemps, qui, d’après une tradition évidemment erronée, serait celle où Joseph aurait été jeté par ses frères avant d’être vendu à des marchands ismaélites qui se rendaient en Égypte. Cette tradition, comme je viens de le dire, ne repose sur aucun fondement sérieux, et elle doit être rejetée, puisque la Bible nous apprend que ce fut à Dothaïn que Joseph éprouva de la part de ses frères ce traitement inique…”

Kelly, pp. 336–337: [year 1841] “Turning away from the consecrated lake, we fixed our eyes on the end of my day’s journey, the towering city of Safed. About an hour from the lake, we came to the great caravan road from Jerusalem to Damascus, and a little off from this to a large khan, in which there is a well-known tradition, as the pit into which Joseph was cast by his brethren before they sold him to the Ishmaelites. In all probability the legend establishing this locality has no better foundation than most of the others in the Holy Land; but I cannot help remarking, that I do not attach the importance assigned by others to the circumstance of its distance from Hebron, at that time Jacob’s dwelling-place. We know that Joseph’s brethren were feeding their father’s flock at Shechem; and when Joseph came thither, “wandering in the field, he inquired after his brethren, and a man told him, They are departed hence, for I heard them say, Let us go to Dothan.” If there be any good reason for calling this place Dothan, to me it does not seem at all strange, that in the pastoral state of society which existed then, and still exists unchanged, Jacob’s sons had driven their flocks to a pasture ground two days further on. It happened, just as if to afford a striking illustration of the scene supposed to have taken place here, while we were loitering around the khan, a caravan of merchants came up on their way from Damascus to Egypt; and the buying and selling of slaves, white or black, being still a part of the trade between these places, I had no doubt that if I had offered my servant for sale, they would have bought him and carried him to Egypt, where perhaps he would have risen to be a grand vizier.”

SWP, I, p. 234: [published in 1881] “Khân Jubb Yûsef: to the east-north-east is the well in which Joseph was (traditionally) thrown in. “…It was built on the Great Damascus road at the same date as khan Minyeh, Khan at Tujjar and others. It is still in very good repair, and is used as a resting place by the merchants on the road. Long vaults for stabling animals with small dwelling rooms and places for prayer are the principal points in the building. “Near this khan on a hill to the ENE is a cistern which is traditionally that in which Joseph was thrown by his brothers.” Porter, p. 115: [published in 1889] “On an upland plain a few miles from the site of Capernaum is a half-ruined khan, rejoicing in the name of Khan Jubb Yusef (“the Caravansary of Joseph's Well”), so called from a tradition that here Joseph was put into a well by his brothers, and afterwards sold to the company of Ishmaelite merchants who were on their way to Egypt. The real spot was at Dothan, nearly forty miles farther south; but there is this semblance of truth in the tradition attached to the place, that there is a deep well, and the caravansary is on the great road leading from Damascus to Egypt; and in all probability the Ishmaelites crossed the Jordan by the ford where the bridge now stands, and travelled southward along this road. The building is comparatively modern, but being now used as a goat and cow house by the local Arab tribes, and never cleaned out, its open court and adjoining rooms are filled to the depth of several feet with filth and rubbish. It is one of the most abominable resting-places I ever entered. It was a scorching day, however, with no shade outside, and the whole neighbourhood swarmed with Arab flocks and herds and sheperds, and a large caravan besides from the Hauran was resting close to it; so, having fastened up our horses, we climbed to a small upper chamber, which was fortunately empty, and there partook of our mid-day meal. It was with some difficulty our servants kept out the Arabs and the leaders of the caravan, who are always insolent and always dirty. They

Guérin, Galilée I, p. 346–348: [year 1863] “A huit heures trente minutes, après une descente légère, je parviens au Khan Djoubb Yousef, à côté duquel je fais dresser ma tente, sans pousser plus avant ce jour-là, à cause de la violence du rhamsin, dont l’haleine brûlante enflamme l’atmosphère. “Ce khan, actuellement abandonné et tombant en ruine, mesure 60 pas de long sur 46 de large. Les murs en sont très épais et ont été bâtis avec des pierres de moyenne dimension, les unes calcaires, les autres basaltiques. Il

120

Gazetteer deemed it safer not to attempt force, for though they were numerous, our servants were determined and well armed; we were, therefore, permitted to remain alone, while our friends glared at and cursed us from without. Such is life in the by-ways of Palestine. There is no security for peaceful travellers. The words of Jeremiah seem to be fulfilled, “Spoilers are come upon all high places thorugh the wilderness…No flesh shall have peace” (xii. 12).”

the southern wall still stands to full height. This wall is marked by a sunken mi¯r«b, whose original decoration no longer exists (Fig. 11.1: 5, 7). A few courses of the walls help to delineate the room’s layout, a square 6.40×6.35 m. The mi¯r«b is rounded, 3.80 m wide, ca. 1 m deep, and slightly over 2 m high. The roofing technique of these rooms seems to have been crossvaulted, even though the related springings could be part of late construction work.

Baedeker, p. 293: [1898 edition] “This khân derives its name from a tradition current among old Arabian geographers to the effect that the pit into which Joseph was thrown by his brethren was situated here, and the pit is actually shown. The tradition was probably based on the assumption that the neighbouring ¶afed was identical with the Dothan of Scripture (Gen. xxxvii. 17), but this is erroneous: comp. Gen. xxxvii. 14 (see p. 262).”

The gateway leads to a large courtyard, ca. 50 m long×43 m wide (Fig. 11.3: 1–2), surrounded by barrel-vaulted halls, a pair on each side. Of these halls, four preserve their original roof to full height (Fig. 11.1: 1): that to the south of the prayer room on the east wing (Fig. 11.2: 1– 3), the two halls on the west wing (Fig. 11. 3: 2–5), and the westernmost at the northern wing (Fig. 11.4: 1–4). The halls at the southern wing are also mostly preserved, amidst modern additions. The modern works include the building of arcades in the middle of the halls, in order to bridge the breadth of the room and support flat roofs (Fig. 11.2: 5–7), as well as the renovation of the southern wing’s outer walls (Fig. 11.2: 8). Alterations and additions can also be followed at the eastern portion of the northern wing (Figs. 11.1: 1; 11.4: 1, 5).444

“From Khân Jubb Yûsuf to Bâniyâs, direct, 10 hrs. We first proceed N. along the direct route from Acre to Damascus viâ Jisr Benât Ya‘k.ûb (p. 303).” 11. Kh«n J−khad«r (®anot Or¯a)

‫ﺧﺎن ﺟﻮﺧﺪار‬

UTM grid: 76648/64720

Thanks to the symmetry of the original plan, and the preservation of at least one of each pair of halls, it is possible to reconstruct the Mamluk kh«n (Fig. 11.1: 2). The halls of the eastern wing were ca. 16×5.20 m (inside measurements), accessed by 3.50 m wide arched openings. The halls on both northern and southern wings were ca. 25.5×5.30 m, also accessed by 3.50 m wide arched openings. Finally, the western pair of halls was much longer, measuring nearly 28.5×5.30 m. Their openings were also wider, ca. 5.50 m.

Israel Grid: 22975/25950 Lat N/Long E: 32°55’31”/35°50’54” Altitude: 635 m Location: Southern Golan Referential site: Moshav Yonatan Description Kh«n J−khad«r is located on the Golan Heights, on a secondary route connecting the south of the Sea of Galilee with Damascus. The kh«n faces the tell by the same name, where excavations in 1968 and 1969 revealed remains of a Roman settlement dated to the first century A.D., as well as remains of Byzantine through Late Islamic building activity (NEAEH, ii, pp. 521–523; IAA Archives/Israel Inspection File, see below).443 In addition, remains of a square structure, still preserved to ca. 4 m high, stands at the foot of the tell, ca. 120 m east of the kh«n (Fig. 11.4: 6–7). This structure has been identified as the remains of a tower, but M. Hartal, IAA senior archaeologist, considers it as a flour-mill (personal communication, June 1999).

The above plan shows similarities between Kh«n J−khad«r and Kh«n al-‘A³ni (ca. 1234, around 42×42 m, Pl. IV: 7), and Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh (1291, 51×43 m, Pl. I: 3) in Syria (see Chapter 4), pointing to an early Mamluk dating of the building under discussion. Late activities at the kh«n445 changed the ways of access to the various spaces, also adding partition walls and new units to the structure. The openings to the three halls in the southern portion of the kh«n, for example, were blocked (Fig. 11.2: 3–4, 9). Today the southeastern hall, at the back of the prayer room, can only be reached from outside the kh«n (Fig. 11.2: 1). The late partition walls compartmentalizing the halls are seen in both the northern and western wings. The best preserved is in the western wing/southern hall, separating the roofed area from the collapsed space (Figs. 11.2: 10– 11; 11.3: 3–4). This addition most probably occurred after the collapse, as it fits the surviving portion. The

The kh«n consists of a rectangular structure (ca. 67×60 m), built of basalt masonry, directed east-west (Fig. 11.1: 1–3). It is accessed from the east, through a gateway 9.5 m long. A pair of rooms flanks this corridor; on the north the room shows late repairs (Fig. 11.1: 4, 6), even though its original squared plan, 6.40×6.60 m, is still clear. The room to the south of the gateway is mostly collapsed, but

444

Three of the corners of the kh«n have collapsed and left to decay. The late inhabitants most probably used them as ways of access or as small yards. 445 Schumacher mentions the establishment of a Beduin village at Tell J−khad«r already in 1884 (Schumacher, HaGolan, p. 164). Some activity might have also taken place at that time at the kh«n.

443

Most of the archaeological remains found at the tell were removed following the construction of an IDF base at its summit (IAA Archives/IAA Inspection File: report by D. Urman, 6.2.1975).

121

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m monograph on Mamluk heraldry, listed five maml−ks who bore the title (Mayer 1933, pp. 16–17) — Almalik (d. 747AH/AD1346),447 Al³unbugh« (d. 742AH /AD1342), Aydamur al-Zardkāsh, Qar«sunqur (d. 728AH/AD1328), Q«z«n (?), Qumar» (d. 747AH/AD1346) and Qu³l− Kh«t−n (d. before 733AH/AD1332). Two others were added by Yadin in his discussion on the inscriptions from J«mi‘ Iskandar in Safed (Yadin 1964, p. 116)—Sayf al-D»n Balab«n (d. 707AH/AD1306), Governor of Safed in 699 (on him, see al-¶afad», W«f», vol. 10, p. 178), and Sayf al-D»n Baktamur (d. 711AH/AD1311; on him, see al-¶afad», W«f», vol. 10, pp. 124–125), Governor of Safed between 707 and 709. Baktamur has already been mentioned in this Gazetteer, in connection with Kh«n alA¯mar/Bays«n (Entry no. 1, p. 87). According to that kh«n’s foundation inscription, a certain Sayf al-D»n Baktamur—perhaps Sayf al-D»n Baktamur b. ‘Abd All«h al-J−kand«r—supervised the construction work for the am»r Sal«r, dated to 708AH/AD1308.448

same activity can be seen on the opposite side of the wing (Fig. 11.3: 5–6). Finally, modern enclosed units were built inside the courtyard, abuting on both the western wing and the southeastern corner. In addition, a small squared cell was appended to the outside of the northeastern corner (Figs. 11. 1: 1; 11.3: 2; 11.4: 5). Today the site is abandoned and decaying. It is partly fenced off with barbed wire, even though local farmers have used the western vaulted hall for dog breeding back in 2002, for example. To the east of the kh«n the barbed wire is marked with signs indicating a mine field, remains of which can be seen on Fig. 11.1: 1 (left) after exposure. Dating Evidence Epigraphic Three pieces of naskhī inscriptions kept at the Golan Museum at Qatzrin are said to originate from either the Kh«n or Tell J−khad«r. Two portions are believed to belong to the same inscription (inventory nos. 87–6345 and 87–6375) while the third appears to be from a different inscription (87–6219). They are all carved in local basalt.

Of the other j−kand«rs in the list, Almalik deserves special attention (on him, see al-¶afad», W«f», vol. 9, p. 214; Mayer 1933, pp. 59–60; Drory 2005, pp. 75–80). A maml−k of Mongol origin, he was taken as booty at the battle of Elbistan (Abulustayn; 675AH/AD1277). Almalik moved through a series of posts in a short period of three years, including that of governor of ®ama (742AH/AD1342), viceroy of Egypt (744AH/AD1344) and governor of Safed (746AH/AD1345). Almalik was strangled to death in 747AH/AD1346, after imprisioned in Alexandria by orders of al-K«mil Sha‘b«n. He was buried in Cairo (Mayer 1933, pp. 60–62; Burgoyne 1987, p. 308; Drory 2005, p. 79).

Slab no. 87–6375 measures 30×30×27 cm, and is unfortunately very worn (not illustrated; IAA Photographic Archive, negative no. 122270). Slab no. 87–6345, on the other hand, is in better condition, having preserved most of the last line of the inscription (ca. 9 cm high), and some of the previous line (Fig. 11.4: 9). The last line reads: ...‫ وذﻟﻚ ﻓﻰ ﺷﻬﺮ ﺟﻤﺎدى‬... 446

... that in the month of Jum«d«..

Almalik’s name is connected with a series of constructions, among them449 his mosque in Cairo (719AH/AD1319–1320; Creswell 1959, II, pp. 270–272) and his madrasa in Jerusalem (741AH/AD1340), the latter erected while he was still serving al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad. But more interesting evidence which might shed some light in the quest for Kh«n J−khad«r’s patron is found in his projects in the Egyptian Darb al-®«jj. AlSuy−³» reports that Almalik, in the days of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w−n (in 1331?), built a birka with reservoirs for rain water (ma·«ni`) at Nakhl in the Sinai Peninsula (Tamari 1982, pp. 472–473; Drory 2005, p. 77). Two other structures are believed to have been built by this same am»r on the Darb al-®«jj; the first was Ajr−d (to the northwest of Suez, at the entrance to Sinai; Drory 2005, p. 77), one of the major stations on the Egyptian route, the other the kh«n in Azlam, on the Syrian route (Tamari 1982, p. 472, footnote 16; Drory 2005, p. 77). In

Slab no. 87–6219 (Fig. 11.4: 8) is 24×40×21 cm big and preserves the beginning of the last two lines of an inscription. The last line is ca. 8 cm high, thus differing from the previous one by almost a centimeter. The wording is not clear. Attribution Following the excavations of the medieval village at Tell J−khad«r, D. Urman suggested a thirteenthfourteenth century date for the kh«n, concurrent with stratum I at the tell (NEAEH, ii, p. 522). This range would also suit the architectural plan of the building, comparable to other thirteenth-fourteenth century rural inns in Syria (see Chapter 4). It has been suggested (Vilnay 1970, p. 108) that the name J−khad«r is derived from the title j−kand«r, meaning ‘the bearer of the polo-sticks’. This was one of the many offices filled by the maml−ks at court, usually recognized by a blazon of two polo-sticks. Mayer, in his

447

On this Turkish name, sometimes spelled ªlmalik, ªl-Malik and others, see Mayer 1933, p. 60, note 1. 448 Baktamur was also responsible for the erection of the citadel in Jerusalem in the name of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad (Meinecke 1992, II, p. 108, 9C/8). 449 See Meinecke 1992, II, pp. 124, 138, 158, 187, 200 (Nrs. 9C/88, 172, 27, 417; 16/19–20). The kh«n referred to on p. 120, Nr. 9C/68 as at ‘Ar«q al-Manshiya might be located elsewhere (see below).

446

This inscription has been published by Sharon in CIAP, iii, p. 241, who surprisingly associated it with Kh«n al-‘Aqaba (Fīq), even though the museum's card indicate otherwise. I would like to thank the staff of the museum for making this inscription and the next available, together with their respective archival information.

122

Gazetteer Ajr−d, according to Tamari, Almalik's patronage should be identified with a fortified structure, 60×60 m, next to which Q«n·−h al-Ghūrī built a burj in 915AH/AD1509 (Tamari 1982, p. 489).450

(®adashot Arkheologiyot) dating to 1968—1969. The first mainly related to the tell, only noting that “to the west of the road are the remains of a Medieval kh«n.” The second report had the kh«n dated to the Mamluk period, concurrently with the village found at the tell.

Almalik was also engaged in works on the route between Gaza and Ludd, as witnessed by two inscriptions inserted on the façade of the demolished shrine of Shaykh A¯mad al-‘Urayn» at ‘Ar«q-al-Manshiya (Qiryat Gat). The first inscription, published by Mayer in 1932, commemorates the erection of a kh«n by Almalik in 717/1317, and was clearly transported to ‘Ar«q al-Manshiya from another site. It will be discussed in connection with the kh«n in Khirbat al-Sukkariya (see Entry no. 19). The second inscription published by Mayer in the following year in his Saracenic Heraldry, does not refer to a particular structure (Mayer 1933, p. 62). Tamari suggested that this latter inscription was brought to ‘Araq al-Manshiya all the way from Nakhl (Tamari 1982, p. 473, footnote 19), but the distance is too great and it seems more plausible that it also originated in the kh«n mentioned in the first inscription.451

In 1969 the southwestern foot of the tell was excavated by D. Urman, then the Golan district archaeologist (excavation license no. K-2/1969). His work revealed remains dating to the Roman period, as well as to the Byzantine and Early Islamic (seventh-eighth centuries). His upper layer (stratum A), was dated to the twelfththirteenth century (®adashot Arkheologiyot 33, 1970, p. 12), where he placed the erection of the kh«n. This date was later corrected in his publication of 1985.453 Photographic Aerial Photos: Survey of Israel, 4075, 491 ‫אמ‬ (09.10.1995) Archival photos: See Vilnay 1970, pp. 108–109 for pictures dating to the 1960s. Recent photos: David Silverman 1999, 2002, 2008.

Whatever the origin of these inscriptions, it seems that Almalik was quite occupied with improving the service on some of the main routes crossing the Mamluk sultanate. While three of the above examples—Nakhl, Ajr−d and Azlam—are connected to the pilgrimage to Mecca, one should not forget that the Egyptian route also served the connection between Egypt and Arabia, and ultimately to India and the Far East. Kh«n J−khad«r, if built by this same patron, could have had a double function: connecting caravans to Damascus and at the same time to the Darb al-®«jj al-Sh«m».

Field Work: June 3–4, 1999; February 9, 2002; December 12, 2008. Bibliography Schumacher, HaGolan, p. 164; Vilnay 1970, p. 108; Kochavi 1972, p. 276, no. 106; NEAEH, ii, pp. 521–523; Stern 1997, p. 63; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 122–130; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, pp. 72–73. Citations in Literature So far, no specific reference to Kh«n J−khad«r has been found.

It is thus tempting to suggest a first half of the fourteenth century dating for the kh«n, and to associate Kh«n J−khad«r with either Baktamur or Almalik. They were both engaged with road works, and directly involved with the erection of kh«ns on the Syrian route. They were active at the time of two notable am»rs— Sal«r and al-J«wul» respectively, themselves important kh«n-builders.

12. Khisf»n

‫ﺧﺴﻔﻴﻦ‬

UTM grid: 7635/6384 Israel Grid: 22650/25075 Lat N/Long E: 32°51’22”/35°48’40”

Documentation

Altitude: 434 m

Archival

Location: Southern Golan

IAA Archives/Israel Inspection Files: Correspondence452 and reports—Sh. Gutmann and A. Druks’ survey reports

Referential site: Ramat Magshimim River: Sayl Khisfin

450

The site was surveyed in April 1949. According to Jomier, the surveyors could take good measurements only for the northeastern portion of the building, due to the scanty architectural remains. The rest of the plan should not be considered as more than a proposal. See Jomier 1950, p. 33, footnote 1. 451 It is worthwhile mentioning the existence of a site designated Bi’r alJ−khad«r (Israel grid 1205.1273), between Bayt Dar«s and Y«s−r in southern Israel. This site appears in the Mandate Files (File no. 38), which describes it as: “Walls, cisterns, foundations.” Due to its proximity to two Mamluk kh«ns, it seems likely that this site also saw the activity of one of the j−kand«rs in question. 452 Part of the correspondence deals with the whereabouts of the numismatic finds from Urman’s excavations. To date, the ca. 80 coins recovered, part of which are evidence for the Mamluk dating of the village, have gone astray.

Description Khisfīn is located on a crossroad east of the Sea of Galilee (Fig. 12.1: 2), from which two main routes departed, one going northeast, passing through Kh«n J−khad«r, and another heading east, crossing Jisr alRuq«d and reaching Naw«, itself a crossroad and local administrative center during the Mamluk period (al‘Umar», Ta‘r»f, p. 228; al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯, 14, pp. 453 D. Urman, The Golan: A Profile of a Region during the Roman and Byzantine Periods (BAR/IS 269), Oxford 1985.

123

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m 108-109; Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1923, p. 65).454 From Naw« one could continue north to Damascus or connect to the Syrian Darb al-®ajj towards Mecca.

I suggest otherwise: the term ribā³, as used by ‘Im«d alDīn al-I·fah«nī, should be understood within an eastern context, given that most of al-I·fah«nī's upbringing and learning took place in the eastern lands of Islam (he only moved to Syria when he was in his late thirties). In twelfth- thirteenth-century Mashriq, as well as Anatolia, road-inns were commonly termed ribā³āt, which at that stage had lost their early meaning as a fortification at the frontier.

Towards the end of the nineteenth century both Oliphant (1885, pp. 87–89) and Schumacher (Jaulân, p. 184) referred to a fortified building on the outskirts of Khisf»n. Schumacher located it at the western end of the village and named it al-ªal‘a/al-kûlàh (i.e., qal‘a for fortress, stronghold). Due to its fortified character, he suggested it was used as a kh«n (Schumacher, Jaulân, p. 185). In a personal communication during a field trip in 1999, M. Hartal, then IAA district archaeologist of the Golan Heights, also suggested the use of Khisf»n as a kh«n, but pointed out how few remains could be seen at the site, hidden in the rubble of later structures.

In the light of this twelfth century reference there can be little doubt that by then a road station was erected at Khisf»n. And that is not surprising: both Khisf»n and Afīq (or Fīq, early Apheqa) were already important stations in the central Golan Heights during Roman times (the region was then called Gaulanitis) and became part of the al-Jawl«n district after the Islamic Conquest.457

According to Schumacher’s schematic ground plan (Schumacher, Jaulân, fig. 79; Fig. 12.1: 1), the building at Khisf»n consisted of a rectangular structure ca. 40×48 m (according to Oliphant, ca. 49×62 m), with halls surrounding an open courtyard and accessed from the southern side by a gate 3.5 m wide. The plan also shows walls varying from 2 to 3 m thick, and covered halls c. 6 m wide, indicating a rather massive structure (see also NEAEH, ii, p. 586).

During ‘Abd al-Malik’s caliphate these towns’ importance as stations was further heightened; in an effort to improve the routes of the bar»d, ‘Abd al-Malik not only marked them with milestones, but also built a new road leading from the south of the Sea of Galilee to the region of Khisf»n, where it met the pre-existing Roman/Byzantine network (Elad 1999, pp. 78–79). Two of these milestones—marking the 52nd and 53rd m»l from Damascus—were found in 1968 in the vicinity of F»q (Elad 1999, pp. 33–38), while an inscription commemorating the construction of a mountain pass leading to F»q was discovered in 1961 in the waters of the Sea of Galilee, close to Tzemach, at the southern tip (CIAP, i, pp. 103–104).

Attribution No clear archaeological or epigraphic evidence has been found so far to support the identification of the fortified building at Khisf»n as a kh«n. Still an important piece of information has come down to us through al-Nu’aymī (al-D«ris, vol. 1, 572), quoting Ab− Shāma's (d. 665AH/AD1268, on him see EI2, i, p. 150) Raw±atayn, in its turn quoting the twelfth century historian ‘Im«d al-Dīn al-I·fah«nī (d. 597AH/AD1201; on him see EI2, iii, pp. 1157–1158).455 According to the latter, the Ayyubid amīr ¶«rim al-D»n Qaym«z al-Najm» (d. 596AH/AD1198–99), governor of the southern ®awr«n, built a rib«³ at Khisf»n and Naw« (Cohen and Talshir 1999, p. 120, footnote 75).456

The mountain pass and the town of F»q continued to serve the road to Damascus during the later Islamic period, as is attested in various literary sources (Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1923, p. 119, footnote 1; Elad 1999, p. 73) and by the erection and continuous use of a kh«n on the mountain slope (see Chapter 3; CIAP, iii, pp. 215–216). It seems very plausible, therefore, that the road-inn at Khisf»n connected the Ayyubid kh«n at ‘Aqabat F»q (610AH/AD1213),458 and the Mamluk Kh«n J−khad«r (see Entry no. 11) further to the northeast. The question is whether the building documented by Schumacher and Oliphant is the original ribā³ or whether they saw a renovation or even reconstruction dated to the late Ayyubid or Mamluk periods. Its inclusion in this catalogue should further future historical and archaeological discussion.

Cohen and Talshir interpreted the term rib«³ either as a fortification or an institution for ¶−fīs, in a way succumbing to the difficulties of the changing terminology (see Chapter 2 on Terminology). They even suggested that Khisf»n “was a state fortification with military goals” and that “it is possible that the term [ribā³, KCS] hints to the fact that the building was populated by ¶−fī warriors, known to have been part of ¶alā¯ al-Dīn's regiments” (Cohen and Talshir 1999, p. 121, footnote 75 (continued).

Documentation Archival

454

For a thorough discussion on the geography and history of Khisf»n, see al-D«ris, vol. 1, 572-574; Cohen and Talshir 1999. 455 I was not able to find the quoted passage in Ab− Shāma's Kit«b alRaw±atayn fī Akhb«r al-Dawlatayn, Cairo, 1998–1999. 456 ¶«rim al-D»n Qaym«z al-Najm» served as ¶ala¯ al-D»n’s ustad«r (majordomo), and took part in the siege of Kawkab (Belvoir) in 584AH/AD1188. After the siege, the Sultan granted him the castle, which he held until his death in 596AH/AD1198–99 (CIAP, ii, p. 238). ¶«rim al-D»n Qaym«z was also responsible for the erection of a bridge (or bridges, qan«³ir) between Khisf»n and Naw« (one of them apparently Jisr al-Ruq«d; Cohen and Talshir 1999, p. 121, footnote 76).

IAA Archives/Israel Inspection Files: File does not mention any Islamic ruins. Field Work: Site’s vicinity toured on June 3, 1999, 457 On the early Islamic traditions relating to the town of F»q, see Elad 1999, pp. 73–75. 458 A special report on this Ayyubid kh«n will be prepared by the author.

124

Gazetteer guided by M. Hartal of the IAA.

though neither the remains in situ (Fig. 13.2: 3), the archival aerial photographs, nor G. Schumacher's sketch, allow this informations to be confirmed. If indeed the gateway was located on the south, it faced a rectangular room on the other side of the courtyard, as in Kh«n Jubb Y−suf and probably in Kh«n Minya (see Entries no. 10 and 16). The latter is also orientated south-north, and has a small prayer room next to the gateway. Perhaps a similar arrangement could be expected at Kh«n alLajj−n, even though the two structures have no geographical or chronological relation.

Bibliography al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 1, 572; Oliphant 1885, pp. 87–89; Schumacher, Jaulân, pp. 184–186; NEAEH, ii, p. 586; Cohen and Talshir 1999, pp. 120–122; CytrynSilverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 131–134. 13. Kh«n al-Lajj−n

‫ﺧﺎن اﻟﻠﺠﻮن‬

UTM grid: 7048/60615

Attribution

Israel Grid: 16725/21980

The chronicler al-Nu‘aym» (d. 927AH/AD1520), quoting from the writings of shaykh Shih«b al-D»n ibn ®ajj», supplies the name of the founder of Kh«n alLajj−n—Shaykh Am»n al-D»n b. al-Ba·· al-T«jjir, who died in 731AH/AD1330–1331 (al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 2, p. 233; Sauvaire 1895, pp. 275–276, footnote 22). This merchant, according to al-Nu‘aym» who quotes the early fourteenth century Damascene chronicler ‘Alam al-D»n Q«sim b. Mu¯ammad al-Birz«l» (d. 739AH/AD1339; on him see F. Rosenthal, EI2, ‘Birz«l»’, i, pp. 1238–1239), spent all his money on charitable deeds. He was also responsible for the erection of the kh«n at al-Muzayrib in the ®awr«n, a mosque, a minaret, a tomb, as well as other buildings.

Lat N/Long E: 32°34’25”/35°10’30” Altitude: 130 m Location: Yizre’el/Esdraelon Plain Referential site: Kibbutz Megiddo River: Qayn» 459 Springs: ‘Uy−n Qayn», ‘Ayn N«·ir and ‘Ayn al-Si³³ Layla Description Kh«n al-Lajj−n is near the ancient village of al-Lajj−n, today the site of Kibbutz Megiddo, south of Tell Megiddo (Fig. 13.1: 1, 3). This village, inhabited until the 1948 War, has a long history going back to Roman times, though the few remains still in situ date to the village’s late phase (M.A. Bakh»t, EI2, ‘Ladjdj−n’, v, p. 593; Khalidi 1992, pp. 336–337).

Al-‘Uthm«n», writing between 774 and 778AH/AD1372–1376, refers to the kh«n at Lajj−n as a kh«n sab»l (on this term, see Chapter 2), meaning that even though the building was a private initiative by a wealthy merchant, it kept its usual charitable nature (al‘Uthm«n», p. 483).

The kh«n consists of a quadrangular building, ca. 65×55 m; a central open courtyard ca. 35×30 m is surrounded by enclosed spaces (Fig. 13.1: 2, 4–5).460 The structure has never been excavated, even though the walls of one of the rooms in the middle of the northern side (12×7 m) are preserved up to almost two meters high (Figs. 13.1: 5; 13.2: 4–6). The remains of this room show the construction material used, as well as the structural type of the building. The walls are of roughly dressed limestone blocks, which vary in size from 25 to 70 cm wide. These blocks are set in rows, also varying in height (from ca. 30 to 40 cm high), and cemented with mortar and rock splinters. These walls supported a vaulted ceiling (probably barrel vaulting), still visible in a picture from the IAA Archives dating to April 1927 (Fig. 13.2: 1–2) and depicted in Ch. Wilson's composition on the Galilee and the north of Palestine, published in 1880 (Fig. 13.2: 2). At that time, considerable parts of the kh«n seem to have been still exposed. By 1945, according to an aerial photograph taken by the Royal Air Force in 1945 (Fig. 13.1: 2), most of the kh«n was already concealed.

Kh«n al-Lajj−n seems to have hosted Sul³«n Q«ytb«y on his travels in Greater Syria, even though the chronicler Ibn al-Ji‘«n, who documented that journey, did not specify the place where they spent the night (Ibn alJi‘«n, pp. 93–94; Devonshire 1922, p. 30). It seems plausible that they stayed at the kh«n. In 945AH/AD1538 the kh«n was mentioned as one of the locations where the protection-money tax was collected from the villagers (M.A. Bakh»t, EI2, v, p. 593). The building was still in use by the end of the seventeenth century, when the English traveler Maundrell saw it and described it as “a good kane” (see below). Nevertheless, by the mid-nineteenth century, according to Guérin’s testimony and others, the kh«n was already in ruins. Documentation Archival

According to an inspection report from 1966, the kh«n was accessed from the middle of the southern side, even

IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 122, ‘Kh«n el Lajj−n’, Description: “Ruins of caravanserail. Vaulted masonry on N.” Inspected in 1927, 1945–46 by N. Makhouly.

459

Tributary of River Kishon. The report dated November 1966 describes the courtyard as measuring 50×50 m (IAA 5079/1). Petersen, on the other hand, states that the whole enclosure measures ca. 30 m per side (Petersen 2001, p. 201), but this is not confirmed by the field survey.

460

IAA Archives/Israel Inspection Files: site no. 2721/0.

125

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m al-‘Uthm«n», p. 483: [wrote between 1374–1376] “alLajj−n is an ancient town… and there is a ma·³abat alSultan’, and a public kh«n (kh«n sab»l) where the travellers take shelter.”

Report November 1966 (then site no. 5079/1) says: “courtyard 50×50; northern structure 12×7; standing walls 1.5–2 m.” PEF Archive: WS/CON/20, RE Camp Umm el Fahm, 10.10.72, p.5: “Besides this [temple of Abu Amr?], and the discovery of a ruined khan, and of a building apparently of large extent, and probably from a capital and other indications originally Roman the plan being now entirely lost nothing of any importance has been noted.”

Çelebi, p. 34: [year 1649] “…The plain stretching to the south of this village [D«¯i] is called Merj ibn ‘Amir [Plain of Esdraelon]. The road to Egypt passes through it. Kh«n el Lejj−n is visible from here. Yet we went from ‘Ain et Tujj«r for seven hours through a plain with flourishing villages.” Maundrell, pp. 76–77: [Monday, March 22, 1697] “…In three hours and a half from Kishon we came to a small brook, near which was an old village and a good kane called Legune: not far from which we took up our quarters this night. From this place we had a large prospect of the plain of Esdraelon, which is of a vast extent, and very fertile, but uncultivated; only serving the Arabs for pasturage. At about six or seven hours distance eastward, stood within view Nazareth, and the two Mounts Tabor and Hermon.”

Photographic Aerial photos: Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem) - PS 19 6030 large format (26.01.1945); PEF/Riley, Israel 12. 28, 33–34, Israel 13. 15, 19–20 (20.10.1990); Yuval Nadel (22.06.1998) Archival photos: IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files, negative no. 244 (19.04.27) Recent photos: David Silverman 1998 Field Work: November 13, 1998; February 1, 2007.

Guérin, Samarie II, p. 233: [year 1863] “Au sud [from Tell Megiddo] et à un faible distance, on voit les vestiges d’un vaste khan, d’origine arabe trèsprobablement, et Presque entièrement démoli.”

Bibliography Al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, II, p. 233 (translated into French in Sauvaire 1895, pp. 275–276); al-‘Uthm«n», p. 483; Çelebi, p. 34; Maundrell, p. 76; Guérin, Samarie II, p. 233; SWP, II, pp. 64–66; Wilson, Galilee, pp. 23, 24 (illustration); McGarvey 1881, p. 306; Porter, p. 209; Baedeker, pp. 262–263; Schumacher 1908; Meinecke 1992, p. 157, 9C/272; Khalidi 1992, pp. 334–337; Raban 1999, p.105 (no. 168, Hebrew); Pringle 1998, p. 3; Petersen 2001, pp. 201–202; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 135–141; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, p. 75.

SWP, II, p. 65: [published in 1881] “Along the stream, south of the mound, there are four small mills, and a good masonry dam is built across the stream. South of this are remains of a good-sized Khân, close to the road.” Wilson, Galilee, p. 23: [published in 1880] “We pursue our way, still keeping close to the western hills, and in rather more than an hour reach the Khan el Lajjûn; but the khan has long been in ruins. An old bridge here crosses an important affluent of the river Kishon. In the valley and on the hill on the north side of the stream there are some ancient ruins.”

Citations in Literature al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, vol. 2, p. 233: [d. 927AH/AD1520] (translated into French in Sauvaire 1895, pp. 275–276) “ Il construisit aussi à el Mozayreb, dans de Hawrân, un khan d’une grande utilité pour les voyageurs se rendant en Égypte. J’ai vu écrit de la main du hâfez Chéhâb ed-dîn ebn Hedjdjy, qu’il construisit aussi le khân d’el-Lâdjoûn, à l’entrée (litt. à la tête) du Wâdy ârah, en face du banc du sultan (mastabat essultân).”461

McGarvey, p. 306: [published in 1881] “… A stream of water, a tributary to the Ki'shon, runs across the northern edge of the valley, and is crossed on an ancient stone bridge built for the thoroughfare mentioned above. Three mills are propelled by the stream where it reaches the level of the Plain of Esdra'elon. The principal ruins are those of a very large and strongly-fortified khân, a short distance south of the bridge, whence the place takes its modern name Khân el Lejjûn'.”

461

The term ma·³aba is not entirely clear in the present context. Dozy gives three meanings, the first that of a platform on which the Sultan sat; the second that of an “edifice magnifique où s’assemblent les soldats” (a fortress?), and finally that of a plank attached to a wall, a bench (Dozy, I, p. 831). More appropriate are two of the meanings given by Lane (I/3, p. 1686): a “square, flat-topped pile of earth, raised for the purpose of passing the night upon it”, or rather “a hospice for strangers, or a place in which the poor and the beggars assemble”. In any case, Sauvaire’s translation of the term as ‘banc’ does not seem suitable. We should bear in mind Lajj−n’s long use as a station on the road from Egypt to Syria as well as its religious importance for Muslims in containing a domed sanctuary, believed to be the Mosque of Abraham (al-‘Uthm«n», p. 483; Marmardji 1951, pp. 189–190; Le Strange 1890, pp. 492–493). In addition, we know of its specific use during al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s time, some seventeen years before the kh«n was erected (Dh− ’l-Qa‘da 712AH/ADMarch 1313), when the

Porter, p. 209: [published in 1889] “Looking over the plain from this point, and observing the pass through the long range of hills, and the remains of the caravansary on the line of the ancient road to Egypt, some of the most momentous events in Jewish history were called up to my mind.” Baedeker, pp. 262–263: [1898 edition] “From Jenîn to ®aifâ (12 1/2 hrs.). The road skirts the brow of the hills towards the N.W., keeping in view the mountains of Sultan is known to have stopped at this place on his way from Syria to the ®ij«z to perform pilgrimage (Ab− ’l-Fid«, Memoirs, p. 63).

126

Gazetteer Galilee. It passes (1 hr. 5 min.) Yâmîn on the left, (1/2 hr.) Sîlî, and (35 min.) Taanach with ruins… The road next leads to (25 min.) a small valley between the villages of Salâm and Selâfeh and to (50 min.) the ruined Khân el-Lejjûn (beside a mill), where it intersects another broad road. A bridge here crosses an important arm of the brook Muḳa³³a‘ (Kishon). The ruins on the hill to the N. of the brook are insignificant. Near the khân rises the basalt hill called Tell el-Mutesellim …The spring at Lejjûn contains bad water.” 14. Kh«n al-Lubban462

one had a door added in that direction sometime after 1935, but one again blocked in modern times (Fig. 14.3: 5). The vaulted halls are built in different architectural styles; that to the south (19.10×5.25 m) is a remnant of an earlier barrel vaulted hall surrounding the courtyard (Figs. 14.1: 6; 14.3: 6–7), while that to the north (16.20×6.80 m), inaccessible from the courtyard (Fig. 14.3: 3–5), is of later construction and shows a tripartite plan, based on cross-vaulted bays. The southern hall is accessed from the courtyard by two arched openings, now partly blocked (Figs. 14.1: 6; 14.3: 6). The southern hall no longer displays the original layout: the addition of a partition wall immediately to the west of the westernmost archway created a corner chamber (Fig. 14.3: 7), accessible from the gate chamber; and the blocking of the passage into the eastern wing, now mostly collapsed (Hawari 2001, Fig. 21), turned the southern hall into a long selfcontained unit. The corner room to the southwest was also provided with a small rectangular window facing the southern hall and placed high on the partition wall, in addition to the double window opening onto the kh«n’s façade (Figs. 14.1: 2; 14.2: 3a; 14.3: 8).

‫ﺧﺎن اﻟﻠﺒﻦ‬

UTM grid: 71240/54938 Israel Grid: 1738/1628 Lat N/Long E: 32°3’28”/35°14’41” Altitude: 580 m Location: Samaria Referential site: Ma‘aleh Levonah Spring: A spring still flows into a pool to the west of the kh«n (Fig. 14.3: 9).

The northern tripartite hall opens onto the façade by means of a door, and was also once connected with the northernmost of the gate chambers (the narrow passage is now blocked). The back wall has three small windows (Fig. 14.2: 3b), corresponding to the three vaulted bays.

Other features: Accumulations found SE of the kh«n are believed to be remains of a mosque. Description

That the present building is the result of different architectural phases is evident from the asymmetry and additions described above, and can be easily detected throughout, also due to the different masonry applied. M. Hawari described the differences at the entrance to the kh«n (Fig. 14.2: 3a), for example, as follows: “The main, west, façade is largely built of small, finely dressed limestone ashlars, with distinctive cement ribbon-pointing still surviving in the south part. The remains of four courses of larger masonry in the lower part of the façade on both sides of the main gateway probably belong to an earlier phase of construction.” (Hawari 2001, p. 11, Fig. 7)

Kh«n al-Lubban (Fig. 14.1: 1, 3) is located in Samaria, ca. 25 km south of N«blus. The site was surveyed by the Medieval and Ottoman Survey (MOS) of the British School of Archaeology in 1998, under the direction of M. Hawari. The survey report, which was published in 2001, is the main basis for the following description, given the site was not visited due to security concerns.463 The kh«n (Fig. 14.1: 5–7) consists of a square building, ca. 32 m per side, with two vaulted halls, a corner chamber, and two gate chambers around an open courtyard, in a notably asymmetric layout (Fig. 14.2: 1). The main entrance (2.73 m wide, 3.90 m high) is on the west side (Fig. 14.1: 4), facing a spring with a pool (Fig. 14.3: 9), and consists of a segmented double arch. A pair of chambers flanks a barrel-vaulted gateway (7.40×4.80 m; Fig. 14.3: 2). These chambers are cross-vaulted and accessible from the gateway, as well as from the corner units to the north and south. The northern gate chamber has a window facing the courtyard (partly blocked by a post 1935 structure; Fig. 14.3: 2–3), while the southern

The clear distinctions in the masonry are also seen on the exterior of the northern wall (Fig. 14.2: 3b; Hawari 2001, Fig. 12), as well as on the upper part of the southern wing’s back wall (Fig. 14.1: 5, rear), where a seam stands out over the lower course of stones. 464 It is thus possible, following the “medium-sized dolomite blocks set in lime mortar” (Hawari 2001, p. 12) used in the original building, to reconstruct the layout with much accuracy (Fig. 14.2: 2): the kh«n was accessed by a single gate on the west, leading to the courtyard past a barrelvaulted passage. This passage was flanked by two chambers, which according to Hawari, each had a window opening onto the courtyard but were without any

462 In the Mandatory Archive at the IAA the site is referred to as ' Kh«n al-Lubban'/‫ﺧﺎن اﻟﻠﺒﻦ‬, a similar spelling to that found in al-N«bulusī, al®aqīqa, p. 320. Nevertheless, the site's name most probably derives from Lub«n (‫)ﻟﺒﺎن‬, which stands for the Hebrew levonah, i.e., frankincense, olibanum. That is in line with the site's identification with the Biblical Levonah, on which Guérin wrote a few lines: “Ce village d'El-Lebben à cause de son nom et de sa position, a été identifié, non sans raison, avec l'antique Lebonah...” (Guérin, Samarie II, p. 165) 463 I would like to thank Yehonathan Granit, student at the Institute of Archaeology, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for providing me with a valuable set of photographs taken by him in June 25, 2008.

464

The topography of the site, rising towards the north, caused the roof of the southern wing to be on a level with the street. That justifies the existence of back walls on both the southern and eastern sides. See Fig. 14.1: 5

127

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m openings to the outside of the kh«n.465 The courtyard was surrounded by a continuous barrel-vaulted hall, with two arched openings on each side, as in Kh«n al-‘A³ni (Sauvaget 1939, fig. 7) and Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh (Sauvaget 1940, fig. 2).

identification as a road-station is not clear.466 Kh«n alLubban, displaying a standard Mamluk layout, seems the best candidate. Following this identification, it is possible to add the information provided by Giorgio Gucci, traveling with Frescobaldi, with reference to the price of lodging at that place: three ducats and seven grossi (Frescobaldi, Visit to the Holy Places, p. 155).

No mi¯r«b was detected in the southern wing, strengthening Hawari’s identification of some accumulations to the southeast of the kh«n, across the road, as the ruins of a mosque (Hawari 2001, p. 11).

The building was still in use during 1697, according to Maundrell’s testimony (see below), but was reported as in ruins in the mid-nineteenth century. It was renovated during the late Ottoman period and used as a police station (Fig. 14.1: 2) until the Six Day War (1967).

A quadrangular structure abutting on the southeastern corner of the kh«n seen on one of the 1935 photographs of the site (Fig. 14.1: 5, far left), was not discussedby Hawari. It is neither possible to determine its measurements, nor its date, but due to its position, at the weak spot of the kh«n it can be suggested that it might have been a corner tower, a typical element in many of the rural inns in the region. Its dating, however, can not be determined.

Documentation Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 122, 'Kh«n el Lubban'—“Ruined caravanserial.” Inspected in 27.05.30 by Baramki who wrote “A ruined old building, condition—satisfactory.” See photos.

Attribution

Staff Officer of Archaeology: No file available.

In its current appearance Kh«n al-Lubban is the result of a series of architectural interventions that modified much of the original layout. Some of the late additions are modern (see footnote 465), others datable to the Ottoman period, when some of the features seen at the kh«n became part of the traditional architecture of Palestine. The segmented arch of the gateway, the double-window opening to the south of the façade, as well as the rectangular windows, all point to a late dating. Unfortunately, no inscription, documentation or literary evidence allows a more specific dating of this phase.

Photographic Archival photos: MEC/loose prints, film 160, 1/1392/1 or 5[=PJ4424] “The Judean Hills on the way to Samaria, no. 12, by Owen Tweedy, 1931 [most probably Kh«n alLubban on bottom center]; IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files, negative nos. 12.105–113 (09.12.35). Recent photos: Yehonathan Granit 2008. Field Work: Site not visited. Bibliography

On the other hand, most of the kh«n’s original features are detectable due to their particular masonry, as described above. The exact dating is not evident from the remains in situ and only proper excavations, together with the literary sources, would enable us to place them in a safe chronological framework. Having said that, there is enough comparative material belonging to the architecture of rural inns in Bil«d al-Sh«m to allows a general Mamluk dating for the original construction.

Possibly Frescobaldi, pp. 161–162 and Gucci in Frescobaldi, Visit to the Holy Places, p. 155; Rocchetta, pp. 122–123; Çelebi, p. 54; al-N«bulus», Ri¯la, p. 14; idem, ®aq»qa, pp. 320–321; Maundrell, p. 84; Robinson 1837, p. 165; Wright 1848, p. 436; Spencer 1850, pp. 409–410; Howe 1854, p. 246; Fullerton 1872, pp. 240– 241; Guérin, Samarie II, p. 164; SWP, II, pp. 286, 324, Sh. 14 (Mq); Baedeker, pp. 250–251; Boddy 1900, p. 132; Stern 1997, p. 124; Hawari 2001, pp. 7–20; CytrynSilverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 142–150; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, p. 75.

If a Mamluk dating is accepted, Kh«n al-Lubban might be the very cane on the road between Jerusalem and N«blus referred to in Frescobaldi’s Viaggio, dated December 2nd, 1384 (see below). In fact, four medieval structures described as road-stations stand on the road between Jerusalem and N«blus: al-B»ra (Israel grid 17050/14585), Khirbat Bi’r Zayt (Israel grid 1682/1525), Lubban and S«wiya (Israel grid 17575/16635). The first was certainly in use during the Ottoman period but apparently post-dates the Mamluk period. Kh«n al-S«wiya was not erected before the seventeenth century. Khirbat Bi’r Zayt, on the other hand, has been attributed to the Mamluk period, but its

466

Khirbat Bi’r Zayt is located within the limits of the Palestinian Authority and is not included in the present survey. The site is mentioned in Kochavi’s survey (1972, pp. 173–172), who illustrates and describes the “kh«n” as a 32 by 30 m’ structure, composed of two vaulted halls set in an “L”, facing an open courtyard. Kochavi dated the building to the Mamluk period, following the pottery collected at the site. Recent excavations, undertaken by the Palestinian Institute of Archaeology of Birzeit University (Nashef 2000a, b; Nashef and Abd Rabu 2000), neither confirmed its use as a kh«n, nor a Mamluk dating for its erection. Nor could they confirm an attribution to the Frankish period as proposed by D. Pringle, mainly due to the lack of finds typical of that period. In any case, use during the Mamluk period could be confirmed. Nashef’s suggestion that it “served as the administrative center of a local feudal lord” (Nashef 2000a, p. 27) is anachronistic.

465

The two rooms appear on Hawari’s reconstruction as if provided with windows to the courtyard, even though photographs dating to 1935 found in the Mandatory File (Fig. 14.1: 5 and 7) show that the southern room had no window then.

128

Gazetteer this name standing in “a delicious valle”. Maundrell, who qualifies it thus, says, “either the Khan or the village mark the side of an ancient Lebonah, mentioned in Judges xi.19.”

Citations in Literature possibly Frescobaldi, pp. 161–162: [year 1384] “…Poi altra mattina a dì II di Decembre ci partimo da Gerusalem tenendo verso Damasco, e quella sera albergamo ad un Cane che è per lo cammino. L’altra mattina ci partimo tenendo verso Vabalus [Nablus?], il quale è grosso Castello in Sanmarìa presso laddove fu il Castello, dove la Sanmaritana diede belere dell’acqua a Cristo…”

Spencer, pp. 409–410: “[April 1849] Continuing our onward progress, almost due north [after having passed Bethel/Beitin and Ain Yebrud on the way to Nablus], we had the mountains of Ephraim a little way to the left, and reached Sinjil at eleven. Traversing a fine broad valley between hills of stony, barren summits, at a quarter past twelve we arrived at Khan Lubban. The Khan itself is in ruins; but in its vicinity is a fine fountain of water; and to the north-west on a hilly slope of the village of Lubban. A little to the right is the deserted site of Shiloh…”

Rocchetta, pp. 122–123: [year 1599] “Et havendo caminato così frettolosamente da un hora, e mezza [from Nablus to Jerusalem], uscimmo da quel pericoloso passo, e ci ritrovammo tra certi campi coltivati pieni di molti alberi d’olive, e seguendo il nostro camino giungemmo ad un Cane, dove non ritrovammo nessuno; avanti del quale è una fontana con canali di pietra che mandano acque in abbondanza, seguitammo il nostro camino, passando tra boschi, e colline tutto rimanente del giorno…”

Howe, p. 246: [year 1853] “… At three o’clock, P.M., we reached the ruined khan and fountain of Lubban, where we rested a short time, and watered our horses.”

Çelebi, p. 54: [year 1649] “…Then follows the villages of ‘Aqraba, Y«n−n (?), S«wi(ye); in fact, all of them are situated in these valleys. In the hill-country there are (another) forty flourishing, inhabited villages, with mosques, and surrounded by olive groves, fig and mulberry-tree plantations. Yet the villages mentioned are only those which we passed on our way. All of them belong to the district of N«blus. We passed them within six hours, and reached the ascent of el-Kh«n (‘Aqabet el-Lubban). There is a spacious caravanserai at the foot of a huge, lofty mountain, with no inhabited places around. Climbing it, we experienced a thousand difficulties before we reached the top. It is an exceedingly difficult and stony pass…”

Fullerton, pp. 240–241: [year 1871] “The road we now travelled continued on the plain, but it lay at the foot of a high ridge, on which stood the large village of Lebonah. My dragoman, about half-an-hour previously to reaching the ruined khan, had pointed out to me the way to Shiloh, which lay about twenty-five minutes off the road…” Guérin, Samarie II, p. 164: [year 1863] “…Cette source [A'ïn Lebben, ‫ ]ﻋﻴﻦ ﻟﺒّﻦ‬est recueillie sous une voûte, à quelques pas d’un khan, d’origine arabe probablement, qui consiste en quatre longues galleries voûtées regnant autour d’une cour centrale et dont les assises inférieures seules sont debout. Il avait été bâti en partie avec de belles pierres de taille provenant de constructions antérieures, et mêlées à des matériaux moins réguliers et de moindre dimension.”

al-N«bulus», Ri¯la, p. 14: [year 1689] “…And on our way to Bayt al-Maqdis, we reached ‘Aqabat alLubban… There was a kh«n and a reservoir of water. We stopped to rest for an hour…”

SWP, II, p. 286: [published in 1882] “…the fine spring in the ruins of Khan Lubban. The place is recognised as the ancient Lebonah (Judges xxi, 19), as it is probably the Beth Labban of the Talmud, from which wine was brought to Jerusalem. (Mishnah Menachoth ix. 7) Marino Saluto mentions it as Casale Lepna.”

idem, ®aq»qa, pp. 320–321: [year 1693] “and we continued until we got to Kh«n al-Lubban…name of a village there [where] we stopped…” Maundrell, pp. 84–85 [1812 edition, p. 106]: [Wed, March 24, 1697] “From Jacob’s Well our road went southward, along a very spacious and fertile valley. Having pass’d by two villages on the right hand, one called Howar, the other Sawee, we arrived in four hours at Khan Leban, and lodged there. Our whole stage to day was about eight hours; our course variable between east and south. Kane Leban stands on the east side of a delicious vale, having a village of the same name standing opposite to it on the other side of the vale. One of these places, either the kane or the village, is supposed to have been Lebonah mentioned in Judg. 11.19, to which both the name and situation seem to agree.”

Baedeker, p. 250: [1898 edition] “From -‘Ain el®arâmîyeh we ascend the well-cultivated valley to the N. To the left, after 1 /4 hr., appears the ruin of EtTell…The foot path on the right descends rapidly, the better road on the left leads in 20 min. to the large dilapidated Khân el-Lubban, near which rises a good spring.” Boddy, pp. 132–133: [published in 1900] “Along the stoney valleys of Ephraim we journeyed for hours, scorched by the fierce sun, on and on, until I thankfully hailed the sight of a halting place, though a very primitive one. It was the Khan-el-Lubban (Lebonan). The ruined khan had a rough roof or verandah of brushwood, under which I was eager to creep, so as to be out of the blaze, and recline on the matted diwân. In front of us, at the `Ain, the Bedawîn women quarrelled as they were filling their water jars, and shepherds

Robinson, p. 165: [year 1830] “A little beyond Bir two roads meet; that on the right, conducts to Nablous. At eight hours from Jerusalem are the ruins of a caravansary (Khan Leban), so called from a village of

129

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m complex. It was originally accessed from an opening on the southern wall, but that too is no longer visible. This opening led into an open courtyard, ca. 22 m square, surrounded on three sides by three elongated halls. Those to the east and west were apparently similar in size (ca. 6 m wide), while the hall on the northern side was much narrower (ca. 4 m).

watered their flocks, and wandering Arabs their various beasts.” 15. L−biy«, al-Kh«n

‫ اﻟﺨﺎن‬,‫ﻟﻮﺑﻴﺎ‬

UTM grid: 72935/62980 Israel Grid: 19230/24290

According to the records of the SWP, the kh«n had two storeys, but no remains confirm this testimony.

Lat N/Long E: 32°46’50”/35°26’48”

The proposed ground plan diverges from the basic layout of most of the Mamluk kh«ns studied here (see Chapter 4). This is due not only to the lack of a fourth wing flanking the entrance, but mainly to the construction as a complex, also protecting the water supply. But such discrepancies can be easily explained: the plan of Kh«n L−biy« seems to be a practical response to the natural demands made by the site, where water was scarce and the bedrock often exposed. It is also quite possible that the complex is actually the result of a multiphase construction.

Altitude: 230 m Location: Eastern Lower Galilee Referential site: Giv‘at Avni, near Kibbutz Lavih Description The remains of the kh«n at L−biy« are 2 km east of what was once a village by the same name—today a forest planted by the Jewish National Fund (JNF/KKL)—and ca. 2 km south of the Horns of ®i³³»n. The ruins, which are within the borders of cultivated fields, are mostly covered with earth and weeds, and are fenced off with barbed wire from the dirt road running parallel to road 77 (Golani-Poriah Junction).

Dating Evidence Pottery A thick layer of earth and vegetation covers the site. The few sherds spotted were not indicative.

The visible remains consist of two to five courses of irregular basalt blocks of the northern and western foundation walls ca. 1.5–1.7 m wide (Fig. 15.2: 2–4).467 An underground cistern, whose vaulted roof has mostly collapsed (Fig. 15.2: 5), is located on the southwestern side of the site. According to field measurements, which due to the tall growth and stone heaps should be taken with reservation, the building is ca. 43 by 51 m.468 The cistern was also measured, being 4.20 m wide and 8 m long.

Attribution The dating of Kh«n L−biy« is especially problematic. Apart from the British surveyors of the Mandate Department of Antiquities, who referred to “al-Kh«n” as a Mamluk structure, no historical or archaeological evidence can be cited to support this attribution. A horse relay station functioned in this area already during the reign of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad, as attested by al-‘Umar»’s list, in which ®i³³»n—where the tomb of Shu‘ayb is found—figures as the last stop before the provincial capital of Safed (al-‘Umar», Ta‘r»f, p. 248; Qalqashand», ¶ub¯, p. 426; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, p. 244).

It is only through the aerial photographs of the site dating to 1945 (Fig. 15.1: 1), together with some notes recorded in the Mandate Record Files at the IAA, that a general layout of the structure can be proposed, but again with much reservation (Fig. 15.1: 2). Accordingly, the kh«n at L−biy« consisted of a rectangular complex composed of two adjoined units, whose enclosure wall was reinforced on the western side by at least three buttresses. The unit to the south enclosed the abovementioned cistern and, according to one of the reports found in the Mandatory file (see Archival Documentation), a second cistern and a birka. These are no longer visible, but seem traceable in the 1945 photograph. The second cistern might be identified with the rectangular-shaped sunken area immediately to the side of the first cistern, while the birka might be concealed in the southeastern corner of the enclosure. The surveyors of the Palestine Exploration Fund reported that at the time of their visit the birka was already a “ruined masonry birkeh.”

Notwithstanding the above, it seems that the kh«n at L−biya post-dates the early 1370s, given the silence not only of al-‘Umar», but mainly of al-‘Uthm«n» in his Ta’r»kh ¶afad, dedicated to the by-then governor of the provincial capital, ‘Alamd«r al-Ma¯mud» (g. 772– 775AH/AD1371–1373, on him see al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, III/1, pp. 191, 216).469 Al-‘Uthm«n» does mention the kh«ns in al-Lajj−n and J»n»n, and would most likely have noted that at ®i³³in if it had already existed (al‘Uthm«n», p. 477). The kh«n is perhaps mentioned before the seventeenth century, when the French traveler Thevenot described his

The kh«n itself is located on the northern side of the

469

According to al-Maqr»z», the am»r ‘Alamd«r al-Ma¯mud» (I was unable to find his proper name) was empowered governor (n«’ib) of Safed on Rama±«n 1, 772 AH (AD 26 March 1371), during the reign of al-Ashraf Sha‘b«n (r. 764–778AH/AD1363–1377; on him see P.M. Holt, 'Sha‘b«n', EI2, ix, pp. 154–155) and was replaced by Qu³l−bugh« al-Man·−r» in 775AH/AD1373.

467

See inspection report dating to February 1946. These measurements are notably in line with Guérin’s description of the kh«n. See Citations in Literature below.

468

130

Gazetteer journey from Tiberias. His party remained in the open fields of Sabbato (Kafr Sabt) instead of staying at the Castle called Aain Ettudgiar, as they were afraid of some insult or humiliation (see Citations in Literature below). From there (Kafr Sabt) they continued the next day, and half an hour later (!) they arrived at another Castle, called Eunegiar, “which is square, having a Tower at each corner.” Despite the resemblance between the two toponyms—Aain Ettudgiar and Eunegiar—the first castle might have been the kh«n at L−biy«, while the second, whose toponym is apparently a contraction of ‘Ayn J«r (“the flowing spring”), match the site of `Ayn al-Tujjar to the southwest (see below, Entry no. 21).

Citations in Literature Thevenot, p. 214 [=1665, p. 482]: [year 1657] “We parted from Tiberias about two in the Afternoon, and about seven a Clock at Night, arrived at a Village called Sabbato [Kafr Sabt], near to which we lay abroad in the open Fields [“dans la plaine à la belle étoille], for our Monks would by no means have us to Lodge at the usual place, which is the Castle, called Aain Ettudgiar, that is to say, the Merchants Well [“fontaine des Merchands”], as being afraid of some Avanie. Next day, Saturday the eleventh of May, we left that bad Inn about five a Clock in the Morning, and half an hour after, came to a Castle called Eunegiar, which is square, having a Tower at each corner; close by it there is a Han, which appears to be pretty enough, and is also square: It was at this Castle470 (as they say) that Joseph was by his Brethren sold to an Ishmailite Merchant; the Pit or Well, whereunto they had put him first, is still to be seen, but we went not to it, because it was quite out of our Road. This Castle is commanded by a Sous-Basha, and there we payed a Piastre of Caffare a piece, of which one half goes to the Sous-Basha, and the other to the Arabs.

Documentation Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 122: 13.12.21 (J. Ory) “About 2 kilos. East of Lubieh, close to the present road Tiberias-Nazareth and to the North of Tellet el Heimeh—a natural hill covered with large basalt blocks; the building is raised [sic] to the foundations; there is a birkeh and 2 cisterns cut in the rock with round hollowed doorstones; the khan was built on the ancient road which runs southwards close to it.”; 23.08.23 (P.L.O. Guy) “Lubieh, (24 1/2 dunams). Actually El Khan, on road between Lubieh and Tiberias. Little of the Khan remains, but sufficient to establish its plan and position and these are of interest. There is also a rock-covered hillock which may be of megalithic origin”; 10.07.35 (N. Makhouly) “The arches were demolished. About 100 m. west of it there are two cisterns”; 11.05.42 (N. Makhouly) “No change”; and 21.02.46 (N. Makhouly) “See P.E.F. Memoirs Sheet VI. Only the foundations of a small caravansary from the Mamluke time are traceable. No vaults are standing. At the S.W. corner remains of subterranean vault plastered for use as water reservoir are existing.”

Burckhardt, p. 336: [June 28th, 1812] “We left Tabaria two hours before sun-rise. There are two direct roads to Nazareth; one by Kefer Sebt and El Khan, the other by Louby. We took a third, that we might visit some spots recorded in the New Testament.” Guérin, Galilée I, p. 185: [year 1863] “A midi quarantecinq minutes, j’arrive au Khan Loubieh. Sauf les arasements du mur d’enceinte, ce khan arabe est entièrement détruit; il mesurait 52 pas des long sur 40 de large [ca. 39.6×30.5 m]. A côte, une autre construction attenante est elle-même renversée; près de là aussi est une vaste citerne dont les voûtes sont écroulées.” SWP, I, p. 394: [published in 1881] “Foundation walls of a Khan of small masonry; arches below, pointed and groined, seem to show it was originally of two stories, one of which is covered up. It measures sixty feet [ca. 18 m] square [?]. There is also a ruined masonry birkeh.”

IAA Archives/Israel Inspection Files: site no. 3652/0: grid 1924–2429/1926–2431 (no reports on the kh«n). Photographic Aerial photos: Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)—PS 19 6129 large format (26.01.1945).

Baedeker, p. 286: [1898 edition] “From Kafr Kennâ the route leads to the E. through the broad, fertile, and wellcultivated Wâdi Rummânneh, a side-valley of the plain of Ba³³ôf (p. 276). After 50 min. ²ur‘an is seen to the left. In 3/4 hr. we pass the ruins of Khirbet Meskana, and turn due E., and in 20 min. more see Lûbiyeh on the right. In April, 1799, the French under Junot fought heroically against the superior forces of the Turks near Lûbiyeh. We next reach (23 min.) the ruins of Khân Lûbiyeh, cross the caravan route (to the N. rises the Korn ®attîn, see p. 285), and traverse a hilly tract to the E. to (1 hr. 25 min.) the hill above Tiberias, which we reach in 3/4 hr. more.”

Archival photos: IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files, negative nos. 11.082–085, vaulted cistern 10.872 (taken on 07.08.1935) Recent photos: David Silverman 1999; 2004. Field Work: May 21, 1999; October 26, 2002; August 21, 2004. Bibliography Thevenot, p. 482, 1686, p. 214; Burckhardt, p. 336; Guérin, Galilée I, p. 185; SWP, I, p. 394; Baedeker, p. 286, 290; al-Dabb«gh, vol. 2/6, p. 425; Khalidi 1992, pp. 526–527; Stern 1997, p. 125; Petersen 2001, pp. 202– 203; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 151–157; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, pp. 75–76.

470 It is clear that Thevenot interchanged the term han with castle. For the transformation of road-inns (kh«n/kh«n«t) into fortifications (qal‘a/qil«‘) from the sixteenth century onwards, see Chapter 2, p. 17.

131

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m 16. Kh«n Minya, ®anot Minim

registered in the Mandate Record File (no. 318/ATQ/2883), dated October 5th 1920, states that most of the kh«n’s masonry was taken during construction work on the Tiberias-Rosh Pina road. In the aerial photograph by the Royal Air Force in 1945 (Fig. 16.1: 1), little remains of the kh«n, even though the outlines are still visible. Further damage was done in 1963/1964 during the laying of the National Water Carrier when a water reservoir was built north of the kh«n’s northern wall.

‫ﺧﺎن ﻣﻨﻴﺔ‬

UTM grid: 7373/6398 Israel Grid: 2005/2527 Lat N/Long E: 32°51’35”/35°31’50” Altitude:—192 m Location: Lower Galilee, Kinerot Referential site: Atar Sapir (Mekorot)

In October 1988 a small salvage excavation was conducted at the southeastern section of the kh«n, prior to works planned by Mekorot. The excavation was directed by Y. Stepansky of the IAA, who published a brief article (Stepansky 1988–1989) in the following year. Later, part of the excavated area was obliterated by the laying of a pipe and the paving of an asphalt path (Fig. 16.2: 4).

Springs: ‘Ayn al-T»n; ‘Ayn Sheva (Tabgha) Description Kh«n Minya is located ca. 400 m north of Khirbat alMinya, 14 km north of Tiberias on the Sea of Galilee. Its position on the route connecting Cairo and Damascus, together with the nineteenth century belief that New Testament Capernaum, or Bethsaida, should be sought for in this area, justifies the many literary references found for this site (see below). Today it is within the secured premises of the Sapir Site of Mekorot (Israel Water Company), and can only be visited by authorization and previous arrangements (Fig. 16.1: 3).471

Stepansky opened five excavation areas (A-E; Fig. 16.5), of which Area A stood out for revealing important architectural features (Fig. 16.6; Stepansky 1988–1989, p. 73). Area A was in line with the visible remains of the southern wall (Fig. 16.2: 2–3, 5–7), and aimed at exposing further details of this building section. Areas B and C were mechanically opened as narrow trenches immediately to the south of the kh«n. Neither trench yielded any architectural finds, and reached bedrock ca. 3 m deep. Areas D and E were also opened by tractor, to the north of A. They revealed remains of a wall running north-south, which according to its angle in relation to the southern wall, post-dates the kh«n’s construction phase.473

Despite being only a short distance from ‘Ayn al-T»n (Fig. 16.2: 1), the kh«n most probably depended on a source further north, apparently coming from Tabgha, due to ‘Ayn al-T»n’s brackish water. According to the SWP Memoirs, the kh«n consisted of a rectangular basaltic structure (192 feet long by 165 feet wide, i.e., 58×50 m) accessed by a handsome gate in the center of the southern side. A few chambers were still standing during the Survey’s visit, which also noted the resemblance in plan to Kh«n Jubb Y−suf.

The excavations in Area A (Fig. 16.3: 1, 4) exposed the continuation of the ca. 2 m thick southern wall (locus 1), the gate (locus 3), the prayer room (locus 2) and a larger room divided into two units (loci 6 and 7).

Unfortunately most of the kh«n has vanished, except for small sections of the southern side (Fig. 16.2: 2–7). Considerable portions of the enclosure wall can be seen in an undated photograph found in Creswell, L.A. Mayer and in the IAA Archives (Fig. 16.1: 2). Another photograph, also undated, was published in the 1999 issue of the Hebrew journal Ariel.472 This is a detail of the southwestern corner of the kh«n, from around the same time that Mayer’s photograph was taken.

The excavations at the gate were of limited scope (Fig. 16.4: 1), since Mekorot did not intend to build in that area. But enough was exposed to show that the gate was 3 m wide, built in limestone, in contrast to the basalt blocks of most of the construction. The limestone blocks of the bottom course on the eastern side of the gate bear drilled holes, usually found on panel-covered surfaces. No equivalent of such an architectural decoration in a kh«ns is known to date. It is likely that these blocks were brought from the Umayyad palace at Khirbat alMinya, where drilled blocks are still exposed in the socalled “throne room” in the southern wing of the palace. Unlike Kh«n Minya, the excavations at the palace revealed fragments of the marble veneer that once covered the walls.474

It seems that the main damage to the kh«n’s structure occurred in the early twentieth century. A letter 471

I would like to thank Mondi Rosenthal, head of the Visitors’ Center at Atar Sapir (Fig. 16.2: 5) at the time of my research, for his attention and contributions during my visit, at which time he showed me the remains of the kh«n and briefed me on the development of the Sapir Site since 1963. 472 I would like to thank Y. Stepansky, IAA inspector and surveyor of Tiberias and Eastern Galilee until 2005, for bringing this photograph to my attention. See G. Barkay and E. Shiler (ed.), HaKineret VeSvivata BaMasoret HaNotzrit, Ariel 139, 1999, p. 84, even though the author of the article mistakenly attributed the ruins to the area of Tabgha. I also wish to express my appreciation for Stepansky's prompt collaboration, making all the archaeological material available, including his plans and photographs. Having dealt with both Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b and Kh«n Minya, his evaluation is of great importance for this little explored archaeological field.

473

The remains of this wall are also traceable on the 1945 aerial photograph (Fig. 16.1: 1). They can be seen on the left side of the courtyard, and are probably related to the structure marked in blue in (c). 474 Apropos secondary use, Stepansky believes that a marble capital found at the kh«n during the excavations (Fig. 16.4: 7) also originated from the palace (IAA Archives/Excavation Files/‘®annot Minim’).

132

Gazetteer The prayer room (locus 2) is a rectangular space 4×6.25 m, apparently accessed from the gateway to the west (Fig. 16.4: 5). The main feature in this room is the mi¯r«b, built in dressed limestone, in contrast to the dark gray of the walls and floor, which are completely paved with square basalt slabs (Fig. 16.4: 2–4). Stepansky’s findings thus confirm the SWP’s observation that “basaltic stone was principally used in the construction, and white limestone was employed as ornament” (see below).

(2) the gateway, ca. 3 m wide, was flanked by a pair of chambers. That to the east was used as a prayer room; there seem to have been two or three rooms to (3) the east of the prayer room. The core of their outer wall remains (Fig. 16.2: 2–3). The southern wing to the west of the gate also seems to have been compartmentalized (Fig. 16.1: 1c); (4) the east wing seems to have been an “Lshaped” vaulted gallery, resembling Kh«n Jubb Y−suf and thus confirming the impression of the surveyors of the SWP. The western wing might also have consisted of a vaulted gallery, as no clear partition walls can be traced from the photographs;

To the east of the prayer room is a broader room, divided—perhaps at a later stage—into two smaller units. According to Stepansky (IAA Archives/ Excavation File), both rooms were disturbed on the western side (Fig. 16.3: 4). To the north of room 7, Stepansky opened a further locus in order to expose the northern face of the southern wing. To achieve this, the excavator had a 3 m deep trench opened by tractor, which in addition to the wall also exposed remains of a later unit abutting on it (locus 8; Fig. 16.3: 2–3).

(5) traces of a chamber are found on the opposite side of the main gate. Such a layout is seen elsewhere, not only at Kh«n Jubb Y−suf but in a number of kh«ns in Syria dating to the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods (see Chapter 4);

One of Stepansky’s most important findings was uncovered in the southwest corner of room 7. There the excavator dug a 2.30 m deep trench in order to reach the foundations of wall 1. At that point he found a seam on the wall, showing that it had been technically built in two stages (Fig. 16.4: 8; Stepansky 1989–1989, pp. 73– 74). Given that the seam coincided with the outer corner of the prayer room, and that the latter’s eastern wall was as wide as the enclosure wall (over 2 m wide), the excavator suggests that at first the kh«n was a narrower structure, ending at the eastern wall of the prayer room.

(6) a water basin or well seems to have stood in the courtyard, in the north-south axis. This is suggested by the round-shaped imprint on the ground, as seen in the aerial photograph of 1945;

If Stepansky’s interpretation is correct, the first constructional phase might perhaps even belong to an early kh«n. Already in 1960 Grabar, Perrot, Ravani and Ayalon, in their publication of their soundings at Khirbat al-Minya, suggested that an earlier kh«n might have existed beneath or in the vicinity of the present Ottoman [sic] kh«n, in which case the site of Khirbat alMinya would provide all the components usually found around the Umayyad ‘Palaces’, which include agricultural fields, a bath, as well as a kh«n (Grabar et al. 1960, p. 241).

Among the various items found during the excavations, the appearance of a stone tether is of great interest (Fig. 16.4: 6). It resembles those found at Kh«n alA¯mar/Bays«n (Fig. 1.5: 5) and Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ (Fig. 9.4: 8), and indicates the existence of special facilities for tying up beasts of burden.

(7) in view of the resemblance to Jubb Y−suf as indicated by the SWP and the aerial photograph, it is also possible to suggest the location of a flight of steps just north of the prayer room. This would explain the reduced length in relation to the side room (Fig. 15.6), as well as its narrow northern wall.

Dating Evidence Pottery A small collection of pottery was recovered during Stepansky’s excavations and included fragments dating from the Mamluk to the Ottoman periods. Two of the baskets recovered from locus 2 (the prayer room) came from sealed contexts (underneath the paving slabs) and contained sherds dated to the Mamluk period.

However, considering that the remains east of the prayer room are an integral part of the nearly symmetrical plan of the kh«n, and that the proposed plan (Fig. 16.1: 1c) is in line with most of the Mamluk kh«ns of the region, Stepansky’s first phase should most probably be interpreted as a technical phase of the same Mamluk construction. The thickness of the eastern wall of the mosque, in turn, could be explained by suggesting a heavy superstructure, a tower or perhaps even a guardroom over the entrance block (see Chapter 4).

Also noteworthy is the appearance of sherds of Rashaya al-Fukhar (including a complete jug), which together with the tobacco-pipes, testify to activity at the site during the Late Ottoman period (Stepansky 1988–1989, p. 75).475

The excavation finds, combined with the photographic data, permit some general observations: (1) Kh«n Minya consisted of a rectangular enclosure, whose walls were reinforced by corner towers of square shape, and at least two sloping buttresses (as in Kh«n Jalj−liya) on the southern wall (Fig. 16.1: 2);

475

Y. Stepansky has given the author permission to examine the pottery which will be published in a joint article, which will also provide further details of Stepansky's excavations. A report on the pottery of the site will be prepared by the author, together with Y. Stepansky and published as soon as possible.

133

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Kh«n Minya held a weekly market, similarly to Kh«n al-Tujj«r. It is not clear when this practice started (Saig 1977, p. 116). In any case, by that time most of the kh«n was already in ruins, even though it was still marked on Jacotin’s map of 1799.

Numismatics A coin dated to the eighteenth century was found in the mosque fill (Stepansky 1988–1989, p. 75). Attribution During the early Mamluk period the route alongside the Sea of Galilee was of secondary importance. There are few passages referring to Tiberias, then a small and ruined village, or to Minya, despite the reuse of the Umayyad palace (Grabar et al. 1960, p. 242) for sugar manufacturing, from the twelfth century until at least the fourteenth century,476 or later as indicated by a few literary sources.477

Documentation Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 122, ‘Khan Minya, Kh. el Khan’. “Remains of caravanserail.” Letter no. 318/ATQ/2883 (05.10.1920) by P. Ernst Schmitz to the Director: “The Pioneers charged with the consolidation and reparation of the Tiberias-Rosh Pina road took away already all the stones of Khan Minieh near ‘Ain Fine (Fatgha) so that these ruins disappeared entirely from the face of the earth.”

Sometime in the first half of the fifteenth century, before 1444, a kh«n was erected to the north of the palace. The chronicler al-Nu‘aym» (d. 927AH/AD1520), writing on the al-Muzalliqiya Turba in Damascus, tells that its owner—Shams al-D»n Ibn al-Muzalliq—built the kh«n at Minya, together with those in Qunay³ra, Jisr Ya‘q−b, and ‘Uy−n al-Tujj«r (see Entry no. 21). It is consequently noteworthy that the kh«n was still not specifically mentioned by Ibn al-J»‘«n in his account of Q«ytb«y’s journey to Syria, even though Minya figures as one of the stopovers (Ibn al-J»‘«n, pp. 50, 91; Devonshire 1922, pp. 6, 28).478

IAA Archives/Israel Inspection Files: site no. 3652/0. License for salvage excavation, dating to 11.08.1988, no. 1592, granted to Nisim Najar; letter dating to November 18th, 1988, from Zvi Maoz (IAA district archaeologist) to Arieh Omar (Mekorot Water Company). The letter reports on the results of the excavations and demands further archaeological works at the site, ahead of the expected irreversible damage from the laying of the Mekorot water pipe. License to Y. Stepansky, no. 1604 (1988) followed the above correspondence. Renewal in 1989, no. 1652.

In a M.A. dissertation on the bar»d during the later Middle Ages, Saig (1977, pp. 115–116) argued that Kh«n Minya was also used as a royal postal station in between Bays«n and Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b during the Late Mamluk period, following the need to divert the official route from the Jordan Valley to a safe inner road. Clearer, however, is Minya’s role as a post station during the Ottoman period. According to a firm«n dated to 985AH/AD1577, forty five households were established at that place, each responsible for the maintenance of post-horses (Heyd 1960, pp. 126–127; Petersen 2001, p. 222). But since the kh«n itself is not mentioned, one is again left to wonder if the document referred to the village or specifically to the kh«n.

PEF: Document PEF/WS/268/2 (last page of 5th block) “Khan Miniyeh, 192 ft long N & S, length 365 1/2 …” Photographic Aerial photos: Dept. of Geography (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem)—PS 11 6026, large format (04.01.1945). Archival photos: Bodleain Library, Bedford 1866, pl. 32; Mandate Record File, negative no. 9378 (1935) and same as in L.A. Mayer Collection (The Hebrew University) 2nd book, ‘Eretz Israel’, no. 11 and, Creswell Archive (Bodleian Museum, Oxford); IAA Archives/Israel Excavation File ‘Kh«n Minya’.

During the seventeenth century travelers still stopped at Minya, as documented by Biddulph in 1600 and d'Alquié in 1667 (see below, Citations in Literature), by the Karaite Jew Moshe Yerushalmi in 1654–1655 (Saig 1977, p. 116), as well as by the Russian monk Arsenius Suchanov, who spent a night at the kh«n in 1649 (Stern 1997, p. 131).

Recent photos: Stepansky 1988/89; David Silverman 2002. Field Work: November 25, 2002. Bibliography al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, p. 290; Biddulph, p. 1349; d’Alquié, pp. 84, 95; Thevenot, p. 216 (=1665, p. 433); Ali Bey, p. 260; Burckhardt, p. 319; Buckingham, p. 466; Irby and Mangles, p. 291; Bedford, pp. 68–69, pl. 32; Wilson, Recovery, p. 350; Guérin, Galilée I, p. 215; SWP, I, p. 394; Wilson, Galilee, pp. 66, 73, 75–76; McGarvey, p. 322; Tristram, p. 79; Porter, pp. 97–98; Baedeker, p. xvi; Boddy, p. 63; Clermont-Ganneau 1900, p. 249; Avi-Yonah 1933, p. 180; Vilnay 1956, p. 355; al-Dabb«gh, vol. 2/6, pp. 362–366; Saig 1977, pp. 115–117; Stepansky 1988–1989, pp. 73–75; Stern 1997,

476

This dating has been suggested according to the material evidence— mainly the pottery—collected from the three soundings opened at the western wing of Khirbat al-Minya in 1959 (Grabar et al. 1960, pp. 236– 240) and during the renewed excavations by the Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, in 2005 and 2005 (under the direction of M. Rosen-Ayalon, G. Solar, and the author). 477 Petersen mentioned that Khal»l al-§«hir» (wrote in 857AH/AD1453; Zubda, p. 44), did refer to Minya, together with Nazareth and Kafr Kanna, as “villages big enough to be considered as towns” (Petersen 2001, pp. 222, 240), but did not mention a kh«n. 478 It is also not clear on which grounds al-Dabb«gh (Bil«duna Filas³»n), attributed this kh«n to Tankiz, i.e., to the first half of the fourteenth century (al-Dabb«gh, vol. 2/6, p. 363, n.r.).

134

Gazetteer “Life of Saladin”.479 West of the spring are the ruins which Robinson, the learned American traveller, identifies with Capernaum…”

pp. 130–131; Petersen 2001, p. 222; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 158–170. Citations in Literature

Guérin, Galilée I, p. 215: [year 1863] “A l’ouest-sudouest et au bas de la même colline est un khan arabe à moitié ruiné, qui offre extérieurement la forme d’un grand rectangle soutenu par de nombreux contreforts. A l’intérieur, il est très dégradé, et quelques familles de fellahs s’y sont installées. Ce khan a été construit très probablement avec des matériaux provenant des ruines dites maintenant, à cause de cette circonstance, Kharbet Khan el-Minieh, “ruines du khan d’El-Minieh.”

al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, p. 290: [d. 927AH/AD1520] “…and he [Shams al-D»n ibn al-Muzalliq] built lofty inns (kh«n«t) in Qunay³ra, Jisr Ya‘q−b, al-Minya, ‘Uy−n al-Tujj«r, on the route between Syria and Egypt. And he spent over a hundred thousand din«r on their erection. Inside each of these inns there is water. They are told to be of extreme beauty, in a way never surpassed by any king or caliph…” Biddulph, p. 1350: [year 1600] “…About ten miles from this Well [Jubb Y−suf], we came to a Cane, called by the Moores Minium, but by the Turks Missia, hard by the Sea of Galile, where we lodged all night, having travelled that day by computation six and thirtie miles.”

SWP, I, p. 394: [published in 1881] “This is a ruined khân on the great Damascus road, similar to Khân Jubb Yûsef and Khân et Tujjâr. It is now in ruins, and is not used. There are still a few chambers round the courtyard, showing it to have been very similar in plan to Khân Jubb Yûsef. It faces due north and south, and is 192 feet long, by 165 feet east and west. The entrance was by a handsome gate in the center of the southern side. Basaltic stone was principally used in the construction, and white limestone was employed as ornament.”

d’Alquié (Michael Nau?), p. 84: [year 1667] “Nous marchions toûjours dans le desir de découvrir où pouvoit estre Capharnaum, de la mer de Galilée, dans un Khan nommé Elmeniéh, nous trouvâmes des Arabes qui nous donnerent satisfaction, …” Ali Bey, p. 260: [years 1803–1807] “In the middle of the northern shore, there is a Khan, or large house, already in ruins, which serves as a lodging for travellers; the ruins serve to prove that it was built of black porous lava, like that with which this coast is covered. There are several plantations of rice in the neighbourhood.”

Porter, pp. 97–98: [published in 1889] “At the northern end of ‘the land of Gennesaret’ a gray cliff impends over the lake, and a little hill, now partially cultivated in terraces, rises above it. At the base of the cliff is a copious fountain, overshadowed by a large fig-tree, and hence called Ain et-Tineh, ‘The Fountain of the Figtree’. Near it are mounds of stones and rubbish, now mostly overgrown with brambles, thistles, and rank grass, but evidently marking the site of a very olde town of considerable size. Not far distant to the west is a large caravansary in ruins, called Khan Minyeh. It was built a few centuries ago as one of a long series on the great road from Damascus to Jerusalem and Egypt. The stones of the old town were no doubt used, as has been the case in many another part of the country, as ready materials for the building of the caravansary. Over a large area between the caravansary and the lake are traces of very ancient foundations and irregular heaps of rubbish.”

Burckhardt, p. 319: [June 22nd, 1812] “Beyond Tabegha we came to a ruined Khan, near the borders of the lake, called Mennye (in Arabic), a large and well constructed building. Here begins a plain of about twenty minutes in breadth, to the north of which the mountain stretches down close to the lake. …” Buckingham, p. 466: [year 1816] “From this [Magdala] we entered upon a more extended plain, the hills retiring from the lake on the left; and continuing our course in a straight line across it, so as to leave the beach at some little distance on our right, we reached, in half an hour, a place called Khan-el-Munney. There are remains of a large Saracen khan, or caravansera, here, from which the place derives its name and near the same spot we observed several large mill-stones, now broken.”

17. Q«q−n

Irby and Mangles, pp. 291–292: [May 26, 1818] “…We were detained by rainy weather at Safot until the afternoon of the twenty-eighth, when we proceeded for Tiberias, but only reached an old ruined khan, about two miles to the north of the village of Majdala by the lake's side, that night. Here we were dreadfully bitten by a red sort of vermin which is the annoyance of camels in this country; it was soft like a maggot.”

‫ﻗﺎﻗﻮن‬

UTM grid: 68780/58215 Israel Grid: 1497/1964 Lat N/Long E: 32°21’35”/34°59’20” Altitude: 30 m Location: Sharon Plain

Wilson, Recovery, p. 350: [published in 1871] “…A short distance north of the spring is Khan Minyeh, almost a ruin, though inhabited by a few Arabs. The Khan was doubtless built for the convenience of travellers to Damascus, and is at least as old as the twelfth century, being mentioned by Bohaeddin in his

479 Bah«’ al-Dīn ibn Shadd«d, Sīrat al-Sul³«n al-Malik al-N«·ir ¶al«¯ al-Dīn Abī Muμaffar bin Ayy−b b. Sh«dhī (Life of Saladin, 1137–1193 A.D.), edited by C.W. Wilson, The Library of the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society, v. 13, London, 1897, p. 155. The passage reads: “…a place called Minya”, probably referring to the remains of the Umayyad palace instead.

135

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Q«q−n is also mentioned in al-‘Umar»’s list of bar»d stations (al-‘Umar», Ta‘r»f, p. 248), later copied by alQalqashand» (¶ub¯ 14, p. 425; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, p. 243), as well as in the list of the postal-pigeon mail (al-‘Umar», Ta‘r»f, p. 255; al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ 14, p. 438; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, p. 253) and of the stopovers catering to the transport of snow from Syria to Egypt (al-‘Umar», Ta’r»f, p. 257; al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯, 14, p. 443; Gaudefroy-Demombynes, p. 256). However, none of these passages refer to J«wul»’s kh«n.

Referential site: Tulkarem River: Yakon Description The village of Q«q−n, abandoned since 1948, is located on a hill overlooking the coastal plain, ca. 5 km north of ²−lkarm/Tulkarem (Fig. 17.1: 2). The village developed mainly during the Crusader period, when a castle was erected at the top of the hill; it retained its importance during the Mamluk period as the center of the ‘amal (district).

The foundations of an enclosure measuring 8×7 paces (ca. 12.2×10.7 m) found close to Bi’r al-Kh«n are believed to belong to the tomb of al-J«wul» (?; see Mandate Record File), even though his official tomb is in Cairo, in the same funerary complex as Sal«r’s.483

Apart from the remains of the castle, rebuilt by Baybars during the second half of the thirteenth century, few of Q«q−n’s constructions remain visible. Among those which have disappeared is the Mamluk kh«n, which according to al-Maqr»z», was erected in the early fourteenth century (see below).

Documentation Archival

An aerial photograph dating to 1918 (Fig. 17.1: 1) shows remains—unfortunately not very clear—of the Mamluk kh«n, on the southern side of the road crossing Q«q−n. Despite the poor quality of the photograph and the angle at which it was taken, the kh«n’s measurements could be estimated as about 50 m per side, placing it among the middle sized inns of the region.

IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 151, 'Qaqun, al-Kh«n'. Letter no. 509, dating to 22.7.47: “Further west is Bir el Khan, south of school which is said to have been built in the remains of el-Khan.” Letter dating to August 1922 refers to the site believed to be al-J«wul»'s tomb. Field Work: July 25, 1998; December 27, 2003. Bibliography

According to an inspection report dating to 1947 found in a Mandate file at the IAA Archives, a boys’ school was built during the Mandatory period over the remains of the kh«n. The existence of a well named Bi’r al-Kh«n south of the school, also inspected by the Mandatory staff, supports the inspector’s identification. The school building (Fig. 17.2: 1) still stands today, within the premises of Yakon Sports Center. The building, which served as a school also after 1948, has recently been used as storerooms for the Center. Despite the structural changes to the property in the immediate vicinity of the school, where, among others, a swimming pool was added, the site was never excavated.480

al-‘Umar», Ta’r»f, pp. 248, 257; al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯, 14, pp. 425, 438, 443 (Gaudefroy-Demombynes, pp. 243, 253, 256; al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, II/3, p. 674; alMaqr»z», Khi³«³, vol. 2, p. 398; Ibn Taghr» Bird», Nuj−m, vol. 10, p. 110; Mayer 1933, p. 197; SWP, II, pp. 152– 153, 195; Quatremère 1b, Appendix, pp. 254–256; Sauvaget 1941, p. 22, footnote 101; 35, footnote 150; 66, footnotes 265, 267; Pringle 1986, pp. 58–71; Khalidi 1992, pp. 559–560; Meinecke 1992, p. 129, no. 9C/114; Stern 1997, p. 146: Petersen 2001, pp. 251–252; CytrynSilverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 171–174; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, p. 77.

Attribution

Citations in Literature

The kh«n at Q«q−n can be clearly associated with the patronage of the am»r Sanjar al-J«wul», governor of Gaza from 712AH/AD1313 to 720AH/AD1320.481 Sanjar al-J«wul» was also responsible for the erection of the kh«ns at Gaza, Ludd (not certain; see note 213), and apparently was also involved with the building of Sal«r’s kh«n at Bays«n.482

Maqr»z», Sul−k, II/3, p. 674: [d. 845AH/AD1442] “Year 745AH/AD1344 …The am»r ‘Alam al-D»n Sanjar alJ«wul», proficient in Sh«fi‘» jurisprudence, died on a Thursday, the eighth day of Rama±«n…and he [built] a madrasa on Jabal al-Kabsh, in the vicinity of the Mosque of Ibn ²−l−n, and a mosque in the city of Abraham [Hebron]—may he be in Peace—a mosque in Gaza, a m«rist«n (hospital) and a kh«n [in Bays«n, and a kh«n] in Q«q−n…”

480

The construction work that took place at the site was not subject to any kind of supervision by professional archaeologists. In a personal communication in January 2004, E. Yanai, senior archaeologist of the IAA, pointed out that the Sports Center at Q«q−n was erected prior to the conversion of the Department of Antiquities into the Israel Antiquities Authority, when laws of enforcement of archaeological preservation had yet to be elaborated. 481 Sharon (CIAP, ii, p. 229) dated the kh«n at Q«q−n to ca. 1315 (no reference). 482 J. Drory (1981, p. 39), when listing the buildings erected by Sanj«r al-J«wul», also mentioned a kh«n on the way from Jerusalem to Jericho, believing it to be most probably the kh«n at Ma‘aleh Edumim (Kh«n al-

Ibn Taghr» Bird», Nuj−m, vol. 10, p. 110: [d. 874AH/AD1470] “…and he [Sanjar al-J«wul»] is ·«¯ib [patron] of the mosques in Gaza and in Hebron, and the A¯mar). For the identification of Sanj«r’s kh«n with Kh«n ®athr−ra, see entry above. 483 On Sal«r and Sanjar’s funerary complex in Cairo, see Creswell, MAE, II, pp. 242ff.

136

Gazetteer kh«n in Bays«n and the kh«n in Q«q−n.” 18. Qaryat al-’Inab, Ab− Gh−sh

place immediately after the fall of the Crusaders, but during the Mamluk period, when the inn was renovated. Being the only fully preserved monument at the site, the Crusader church was the first to be studied, beginning with mid-nineteenth century documentary studies such as De Vogüé’s.485 But it was not before the beginning of the twentieth century that the area east of the Crusader church was first examined. In 1902 the Benedictine monks, granted rights to the Crusader church, carried out structural work in order to build their convent. The findings, then still unidentified, were documented by the Comte de Piellat, who was preparing the plans and sections of the church, as well as copying the frescoes still adorning its walls. No archaeological work was carried out at that time, but two important finds came to light—a milestone from the time of ‘Abd al-Malik (Fig. 18.1: 4; De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 13; CIAP, i, pp. 4– 5) and a Byzantine capital in secondary use, inscribed with an angular Arabic inscription (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 13; CIAP, i, pp. 6–7).486

‫ ﻗﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﻌﻨﺐ‬,‫أﺑﻮ ﻏﻮش‬

UTM grid: 6991/5214 Israel Grid: 1603/1349 Lat N/Long E: 31°48’20”/35°6’10” Altitude: 725 m Location: Judean Mountains Referential site: Ab− Gh−sh Springs: ‘Ayn al-Balad and ‘Ayn al-Kanissa Description The kh«n at Ab− Gh−sh is located at the village of the same name, 13 km west of Jerusalem, on the route leading to Jaffa. The site has a long history, both for its strategic position and for its water sources, attracting settlers as early as in Prehistoric times (NEAEH, i, pp. 4–5; De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 9, footnote 1). At the top of the hill the Biblical settlement of Qiryat Ye‘arim developed from the Late Bronze Age onwards, and is said to have housed the Ark of the Covenant for twenty years during David’s reign (I Samuel 6:21–7:2; II Samuel 6: 3–5). During the Roman period (ca. second half of the second century) the site played an important role as a station on the Cursus Publicus between Jerusalem and Diospolis (Lydda) (De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 48–55), and was provided with a water reservoir constructed by the Tenth Legion at the source down the hill. An inscription on one of the walls, reading Vexillatio leg(ionis) X Fre(tensis), testifies to their presence at the site (Fig. 18.1: 3).484 During the Byzantine period activity was limited to Dayr al-Azhar at the top of the hill. At that stage no sanctity was associated with the site of the water source, which was later identified by the Crusaders as the New Testament Emmaus. During the Early Islamic period an inn was erected near the source, providing shelter, water and prayer facilities for those using the road. In addition to the inn, literary evidence points to a fortified military station—®i·n al-‘Inab (Y«q−t, Mu‘jam, vol. 2, p. 265; De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 10–11, footnote 4; Le Strange 1890, p. 453; Marmardji 1951, p. 54)—standing at the top of the hill, but not yet archaeologically identified.

Relevant archaeological work east of the Crusader church was begun only in 1944 (permit no. P-328/1944), following the need to connect the medieval vaulted hall (south of the village mosque) to the convent premises, and to lower the ground level of the area between them (5.50 to 6 m above the hall’s level), which caused frequent flooding into the hall (Fig. 18.1: 1; De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 15). Fathers R. De Vaux and A.-M. Stève conducted the excavations, whose final report was published in 1950 (Fouilles à Qaryet el-‘Enab—Ab− Ġôsh, Palestine). The excavations started from the north, between the village mosque and the modern convent (Areas IA-C, IIA-B; De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 62–66). The main features studied were (Fig. 18.2: 1) the surviving portion of the inn’s single gate seen at IC (Fig. 18.1: 5–8), estimated as ca. 1.9 m wide; the springing of three consecutive vaults at IIA (Fig. 18.2: 6), as well as the corresponding square pillars which received their thrust at IIB (Fig. 18.2: 5), all belonging to an arcade that surrounded the inn courtyard. The partition walls delimiting rooms IA and B are later additions to the bays, once separated by pillars, belonging to a late phase of the building. The stone paving exposed at room 1B (Fig. 18.2: 2–3) is also associated with a later phase, as it is higher than the original floor level.

The long history of the site was crowned by the erection of the Crusader church at the site of the water source (Fig. 18.1: 2). The Roman reservoir was re-used for the crypt, the Early Islamic inn for accommodation, and an open reservoir east of the inn was transformed into a vaulted hall.

485

Apart from the church documentation published in his Les églises de la Terre Sainte, Paris, 1860, pp. 340–344, De Vogüé also represented France and the Latin Church in 1873 before the Ottoman sultan in Constantinople. De Vogüé managed to obtain the rights to that church, to compensate for the Greeks getting the rights to the ruins of the Crusader church of St. George at Lydda (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 12). 486 The angular Arabic inscription, referring to a certain ‘Ub«dah, patron of a mosque [reading uncertain] at Qaryat al-‘Inab, has been dated by M. Sharon to the second half of the eighth century, not later than 150AH/AD767 (CIAP, i, p. 6). R.P. Jaussen was the first to publish this inscription in 1904 (in B. Gariador, Bulletin Archéologique du Comité des Travaux Historiques, pp. 499–500, pl. LXIII), dating it to the midninth century (see also RCEA, ii, p. 99, no. 541).

After the abandonment of the Crusader church the site returned to its role as a road-station. This did not take 484

On the reservoir and Roman presence, see De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 41–48.

137

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 100–101).488

No longer traceable are the remains east of IA-IIA, enclosed by the village mosque erected sometime in the late Ottoman period. Originally, this consisted of an oblong unit which connected the inn with a second open reservoir to the east (Fig. 18.7: 1), but later the space was used both for a double-bayed mosque (roofed by domes on pendentives) and for a broad corner chamber (Fig. 18.7: 2; De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 66–67, 108– 109). Unfortunately it was not possible to access the mosque and examine these features.

Rooms VD and IVC-E are structurally different from the others, showing no signs of corner pillars or vaulting. The excavators interpreted them as flat-roofed units, IVC and D being of similar dimensions (2.95/2.75×3.25 m), VD narrower, while IVE was not completely exposed. To the west of these rooms are remains of walls of various thicknesses and facing in different directions, interpreted by the excavators as belonging to a prayer room (De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 70–72). The massive pillar uncovered at VIIA was interpreted as supporting the mosque’s minaret.

At the southern section of the exposed building the excavations paid special attention to a series of rooms abutting on the western wall of the vaulted hall (VIA-C; Figs. 18.3–18.4). They were all cross-vaulted, as shown by the protruding pillars found in the corners of all four rooms, by some of the voussoirs still in situ, as well as by the imprint of the pointed arches seen in some of the rooms (Figs. 18.4: 1, 3–4; 18.5: 2). The partition walls between these rooms, although seeming to be later additions due to the difference in masonry, were proved original (Fig. 18.4: 3, 8): De Vaux and Stève had the partition wall between VIB and VIC removed, and its foundation was clearly related to, and at times even a base for, the corner pillars (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 58). Also of importance was the transformation of room VIA to a passage into the vaulted hall to the east. Originally of similar characteristics to the other rooms— similar dimensions, plaster floor, no windows (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 58)—room VIA had to be lowered by 90 cm and approached by a few steps to deal with the lower level of the hall (Fig. 18.5: 2–3).

A series of pillars of different sizes faced the eastern and southern units discussed above (Figs. 18.3: 1; 18.4: 9). They created a gallery, apparently contemporary to that in the northern section of the inn. The courtyard, at the center of which stood a circular basin fed by a channel running east-west,489 was originally paved; remains of this pavement have survived only at IVA (Fig. 18.3: 1). The same scheme probably existed to the west as well, but most of this area, except for a small portion to the southwest, was covered when the modern convent was built. Fortunately enough, Piellat registered all the architectural remains found in situ in his plans of the convent, including those of the western enclosure wall (De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 61–62, Pl. V). The small cistern in III (Fig. 18.6: 8–9) is a modern installation, whose top is a square-shaped construction making secondary use of Byzantine, Early Islamic and Crusader material. The cistern itself is cylindrical in shape, 1.65 m in diameter and 2.80 m deep.

To the south De Vaux and Stève’s work uncovered five additional rooms (VID, VD, IVC-E; Fig. 18.3: 3–7) abutting on the original wall, which has survived to 2.70 m high (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 18). This southern wall presents two stages, the first 1.03 m thick, contemporary with the rooms, the second reaching 1.44 m on the western side and pierced by a window-slit originally looking into room VID.487

The various activity stages at the site can be best followed in the barrel-vaulted hall (7.50×14.25 m) to the east (Fig. 18.5: 1). The vaulted hall was erected on the site of an open cistern (8.75×14.25 m, 2.50 m high), masonry of which is still visible in the outer southeastern corner and on the inner side of the eastern wall. On the outside it is possible to discern the different bossed ashlar masonry used respectively for the cistern and for the vaulted hall (Fig. 18.6: 6–7); on the inside, the excavators not only pointed out the cistern’s masonry which reached to the height of 2.50 m, but also exposed its original floor level and hydraulic plaster covering (Fig. 18.5: 9–11; De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 30–31).

Room VID is architecturally related to VIA-C, but is accessible only through VD. It has a higher floor level, due to the existence of a small vaulted chamber (2.80×2.10 m, 2.60 m high) under it (Fig. 18.3: 6) and not to the raising of the floor, as in IB. The excavators suggested that this chamber was originally used as a cistern, connected with the adjacent open cistern through an opening in the eastern wall. It was originally coated all around, but the floor was later broken up and filled with stones and pottery sherds; the opening was blocked, and two vertical ducts added. At this stage— associated with the site’s later phase when the open cistern went out of use—the underground chamber became a cess-pit, connected with latrines on the ground level and apparently with those of an upper storey (De

488

In a recently published report on the 1973–1974 excavations in Tiberias, D. Stacey (2004, pp. 12–13) refers to De Vaux and Stève’s interpretation of this corner room while also redating the pottery assemblage. Stacey believes that “the ‘cistern’ was a latrine from the outset, or that its conversion into one occurred soon after the caravanserai was built.” While agreeing with Stacey’s reassessment of the dating of the pottery layer found at the bottom of this chamber (see also Cytryn-Silverman 1996, p. 47, note 57), it seems that there is no other explanation for the opening between the underground chamber and the vaulted room, as well as the overall plastering of the cell, other than for its original use as a cistern. 489 This system can be followed from the northern wall of room VIC all the way to area III (Fig. 18.1: 1); it certainly channeled the water from the Roman reservoir at the water source to the kh«n’s open cistern (De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 35–37), also supplying the courtyard’s central basin.

487

The excavators attributed the second stage of this wall to the Crusader period (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 23).

138

Gazetteer Since the hall’s construction—including an oven niche in the eastern wall (Fig. 18.5: 10–11) and a small water basin attached to the northern (Fig. 18.5: 5–6)—the walls were thickened, openings, niches and windows either cancelled or added, the roofing reinforced or redone (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 108). The first significant change followed the collapse of the vaulting after the Crusader period, justifying the narrowing of its span, the addition of a “reinforcement-rib” to the ceiling (Fig. 18.6: 1–3, 5), and the thickening of the walls from less than a meter to 2.85 m thick.490 But even this vault partly collapsed early in the twentieth century. The latest modifications took place recently (2002), when the Benedictine monks transferred their ceramics workshop to this hall (Fig. 18.6: 1–2), added a new opening to the southeastern corner (leading to what was once outside the kh«n’s premises), and installed a window at the back of the oven niche (Fig. 18.5: 10).

(Fig. 18.7: 2). The bays of the northern gallery were blocked into small cells, the floor slightly raised as attested in room IB, the mosque moved towards the north to abut on the gallery in IIA. In addition, the walls of the vaulted hall were thickened, the vault’s span narrowed, and a reinforcement-rib added, all this following the vault’s collapse after the Crusader period.

In summary, the excavations at the inn of Qaryat al‘In«b identified three construction phases;

The Early Islamic assemblage discussed by De Vaux and Stève (1950, pp. 119–132) originated from the “filter” layer at the bottom of VID, which, they held, was transformed into a cesspit during the Crusader period. Accordingly, the authors dated the pottery from the ‘filter’ to the eleventh century, the latest instance at which the vessels could still have been used for their original purpose (considering the kh«n was probably abandoned following the Crusader conquest in 1099). De Vaux and Stève admit, nevertheless, that part of the material, which includes both unglazed and glazed vessels of various categories, could also go back to the tenth or even the late ninth century.491

Dating Evidence Pottery The pottery repertoire from the kh«n at Qiryat al-‘Inab is representative of the late eighth—ninth centuries, and the twelfth to fifteenth centuries. The Early Islamic pottery is well represented by a few sealed assemblages. The Crusader and post-Crusader material, on the other hand, came solely from unstratified contexts (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 110).

(1) The earliest (Fig. 18.7: 1), datable to the Early Islamic period (see below), consisted of a courtyardbuilding (28×32 m and 4.65 m high) surrounded by open galleries and provided with a circular basin at the center. The basin was fed by the source to the west by means of a channel running east-west, finally flowing into an open cistern, east of the inn. A second cistern, which fed a public fountain, abutted on this cistern. In addition, a series of small rooms opened into a narrow “L”-shaped courtyard in the south-southeastern section of the building, behind the galleries. An additional cistern, of small proportions, was found underneath room VID, in the southeastern corner. This early inn was also provided with a mosque in the southwestern corner, as well as a staircase, most probably leading to the rooftop.

The post-‘Abbasid pottery, as already noted, came from unstratified contexts. Unable to distinguish between the Crusader and Mamluk pottery, especially as the categories discussed were long-lived, De Vaux and Stève treated the twelfth to fifteenth century material as a single unit:

(2) The second phase is connected with the erection of the Crusader church, when the water source became concealed in the crypt. Most of the early Islamic features of the inn remained, even though alterations had to be made to match the new arrangements for the water supply. The main alteration was the conversion of the open cistern to the east of the kh«n into a vaulted hall where, among others, a small water basin and an oven for baking bread were provided. The alteration of the water-supply system was further echoed in the changes seen in room VID and its small underground chamber: the opening connecting it to the previous cistern was now blocked, the hydraulic plaster at the bottom broken up, while a new “absorbent” layer of pottery was added, indicating its use as a cess-pit. The finding of a vertical pipe leading from an upper level indicates the existence, at least during this stage, of an upper storey.

(1) Handmade vessels decorated with geometric patterns (Fig. 18.8: 1; Céramique peinte à décor géométrique, De Vaux and Stève 1950, pl. F) have a long chronological span, and recent research has made it clear that they go back to the twelfth century, perhaps even the eleventh. The type became popular mainly during the Mamluk period, but continued up to modern times; (2) The unglazed wares in Fig. 18.8: 2 are also mixed;

491

The most important categories discussed are the local polychrome glazed bowls in buff clay (Céramique à email polychrome, De Vaux and Stève 1950, Pl. A), slip-burnished cups, starting to appear already in the Byzantine period but becoming popular mainly in the Islamic period (Céramique lissée, De Vaux and Stève 1950, Pl. B: 1–13) and finally Buff Ware, a diagnostic group of the Early Islamic period, whose chronological range is still much discussed (Céramique blanche ou à engobe blanc, De Vaux and Stève 1950, Pls. C and D). Despite the excavators’ dating of the pottery assemblage to the tenth-eleventh centuries, a late eighth-ninth century range seems more suitable, especially if we consider the complete absence of molded and barbotine-decorated vessels and some glazed types among the Buff Ware sherds. On the dating of Ab− Gh−sh’s early Islamic assemblages, see also footnote 488.

(3) In the last building stage major changes were made 490

By comparing the building technique used in the hall’s post-Crusader vault, the excavators were able to date the vaulting at the entrance vestibule (IC) to the later stage of the inn. The technique is mainly characterized by the tooling of the limestone blocks, as well as their standard height of ca. 25 cm (Fig. 17.6: 3–4).

139

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m and Stève 1950, p. 23).494

(3) The glazed wares are easier to sort (Fig. 18.8: 3), but categories such as the monochrome glazed bowls (Céramique sans décor), or even some examples of the slip-painted wares (Céramique à peinture d’engobe sous glaçure transparente), unless analyzed in person, can easily be misinterpreted.

Perhaps the most representative assemblages came from accumulations found in the underground chamber at VID, which revealed three phases: the top level consisted of blocks collapsed from the vaulting; under this was a layer of bones and pottery dated to the twelfth-fifteenth centuries; and finally, a thick layer covered the lowest level, including pebbles and stones, as well as a great amount of late eighth—ninth centuries pottery (see above).

(4) A few molded slipper lamps were published (Fig. 18.8: 4, nos. 1–2, 6, 8, 13–15) and their dating is more conclusive. They can be divided into two groups, the first decorated with calligraphy, the second with geometric designs. This type of lamp has been discussed elsewhere (Avissar 1996, pp. 194–195; CytrynSilverman, ‘The Pottery from Herod’s Gate’, forthcoming), and dated according to designs and hand style. While calligraphy and arabesques have been associated with pulled-up handles (Fig. 18.8: 4, nos. 2, 15) and dated to the Ayyubid period, geometric designs appear in slipper lamps with folded degenerated handles, and are related to the Mamluk period.

While the pottery evidence allows a general dating of the kh«n’s activity phases to the Early Islamic, Crusader and Mamluk periods, construction techniques and written evidence narrow the range. The kh«n’s erection can be placed in a late eighth to a mid-ninth century context, as attested by the use of pointed arches in a technique first seen at the underground cistern in Ramla (172AH/AD789), as well as by the apparent application of the 54 cm-unit, seen at the Nilometer in Raw±a (247AH/AD861–862) and the mosque of Ibn ²ul−n (263AH/AD876–879). The finding of an angular Arabic inscription, epigraphically datable to the mid-ninth century,495 further strengthens this conclusion.

Numismatics Only two coins were recovered during the excavations, both related to the Mamluk period. One of them is illegible, while the second was minted during al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qalāw−n’s reign (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 110).492

The first phase came to an end during the Crusader period, when the church was erected to the west of the inn in 1141. The Crusaders maintained the building, making a few changes to adapt it to their needs. Their activity seems to have come to an end in 1187, following ¶al«¯ al-D»n’s victory at ®i³³»n.

Others Glass and metal finds were also published, but they were mostly fragmentary and inconclusive (De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 147–151). Noteworthy though is a fragment of a decorated strip of copper found at the top of IVD, whose surviving medallion contains the figure of a seated drinker. The excavators attributed this fragment to the beginning of the thirteenth century, according to the ajouré decoration technique applied to the piece (De Vaux and Stève 1950, fig. 37).

The dating of the Mamluk kh«n, on the other hand, can be best suggested by cross-checking the pottery results with a few literary passages referring—or possibly referring—to Qaryat al-‘Inab.496 (1950, pp. 109–118). Accordingly, De Vaux and Stève suggested that the inn, after a long abandonment, was reoccupied during the early fourteenth century, until the end of the fifteenth. This dating can be further confirmed by the finding of a coin related to al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w−n’s reign, unfortunately found in an unstratified context.

Attribution In order to date the archaeological remains exposed during the excavations, De Vaux and Stève undertook a series of soundings. Of these, that carried out in room VIC stood out, both for revealing a channel running parallel to the northern wall and originally connecting with the open cistern (Fig. 18.4: 5),493 and for the representative ceramic finds collected, dating from the third century through the fifteenth (De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 20–21, fig. 4). Such a range, also seen in room VD, led the archaeologists to the preliminary conclusion that the structure was built over accumulations of the Late Roman-Byzantine period. From the depth of the walls and their associated pottery they concluded that the structure already existed during the tenth-eleventh century and that it definitely post-dated the Byzantine period, while pre-dating the Crusader church (De Vaux

Following the testimony of Jacques Le Saige de Douai dating to 1518, the year this traveler visited the site (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 109), De Vaux and Stève concluded that the kh«n was already in ruins at the 494

The excavators proposed that a Roman structure—an inn or relay station—might have existed at the site, thus explaining both the preIslamic findings and the irregularity of the Early Islamic—and consequently also of the Mamluk—layout of the inn (De Vaux and Stève 1950, p. 52). 495 M. Sharon dated this same inscription to the mid-eighth century. See footnote 486. 496 Apart from some Western and Arabic sources doubtfully relating to the kh«n at Qaryat al-‘Inab, De Vaux and Stève mainly referred to some local Islamic traditions associated with legends of Nab» ‘Uzayr (Esdras) and of Jeremiah, usually referring to Jerusalem but at least once connected with Qaryat al-‘Inab (De Vaux and Stève 1950, pp. 114– 116). On these legends, deriving from “the Paralipomena of Jeremiah” or “The Rest of the Words of Baruch,” generally connected to the legend of the “Seven Sleepers,” see G. Vajda, EI2, iv, ‘Irmiy«’, p. 79.

492

The whereabouts of these coins is unknown. According to Gabi Bijowski, numismatist of the IAA to whom I express my gratitude, they were never registered at the then Department of Antiquities and are not traceable. 493 See footnote 489.

140

Gazetteer beginning of the sixteenth century. The absence of diagnostic material dating to the Ottoman period such as tobacco-pipes, Gaza Ware, Turkish imports and others suggests that it was never renovated.

the Well of water where they drank together; and afterwards, about nine of the clock in the morning we arrived at the Castle of Emaus, which is the place where these two Disciples knew our Lord, in breaking the Bread: It is a place quite ruined, where there are some marks of an old Castle, and a Chappel whereof one half is thrown down; one of our Monks apparelled in an alb and Stole, read there in the same place where the House of Cleophas stood, the Gospel on that Subject.We dined close by on the side of a Well, where having taken leave of the Monks who had accompanied us so far to see that place, we parted about ten of the clock, taking the way of Ramah to go to Jaffa, and there take water for Acre, that from thence we might go to Nazaretyh.”

Documentation Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 152, ‘Qaryat el ’Inab’. Includes correspondence, excavation preliminary reports, list of findings, bibliography, plans, maps and photographs. Photographic Archival photos: Mandate Record File, photos from excavations (1944).

The following passages refer to the village of Ab− Gh−sh but offer no information on the kh«n:

Recent photos David Silverman 1998, 2002.

Buckingham, p. 172: [year 1812] “Descending now on the eastern brow of these hills, we came at one o'clock to the village of Abu-Gosh, so called from its lord, an Arab chief in great power here. A caphar was again demanded of us by a party of about twenty men, who sat by the way-side armed to enforce it. It was accordingly paid, and soon afterwards the chief himself, a fierce redbearded man of about forty, coming to accost us, demanded our paper of protection, It was shown to him, and he said, that as he held himself responsible for our safe passage through his terrritory, which lay between that of the Pasha of Acre and the Pasha of Damascus, he must keep this paper to certify that we had so passed safely through his hands…

Field Work: In addition to many visits, two field-trips (November 15, 1998 and December 7, 2002) were made for the express purpose of this research. Bibliography Possibly Daveiro, p. 201; possibly Thevenot, p. 207 (=1665, pp. 414–415); Buckingham, p. 172; maybe Scholz, p. 65; Guérin, Galilée I, p. 73; De Vaux and Stève 1950; NEAEH, i, pp. 4–7; Pringle 1993, pp. 7–17; CIAP, I, pp. 3–13; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 175–191; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, p. 76. Citations in Literature Although it is generally agreed that by the sixteenth century Emmaus was identified with al-Qubayba, a few passages still seem place it in Qaryat al-‘Inab. Two of these are cited:

“In this village we saw the ruins of a Christian church, apparently once a handsome edifice, now used as a stable for oxen.” Scholz, p. 65: [year 1821] “…At Kariataneb (St. Jeremia), are the ruins of a church, which has not been used as such for these two hundred years: it is large, on the whole in good preservation, has much resemblance with a basilica, and is now used as a stable for horses.”

Daveiro, p. 201: [year 1552] Emaus “Assí da villa ou castello Emaus, como da cidade Nicopolis ha o dia de oje muy pouca memoria, sométe no lugar da casa onde esteve nosso Redemptor com os dous discipolos q~ depois foy feito igreja, a qual ogora estâ posta por terra tirando a capella, e inda está mea arruinada, na qual dizem míssa, quando la vão, alimpando primeiro o lugar, que naquelle tempo sépre está cuberto, & cheo de silvado. Iunto a esta arruinada igreja estão h−s casaes de Mouros, os quais, não dão nh−a toruação aos frades, quando la vão, antes lhe ajudã a limpar o lugar, porque os convidão. Ali junto está h−a fonte, da qual affirmão sua agua aproveitar para muitas infirmidades: & esta virtude dizem, que lhe ficou, de quãdo nosso Redéptor lavou nella os pès cõ os cõpanheiros Cleophas & outro, como naquelle tempo era costume entre os Iudeus, segundo lemos em alg−s lugares da escrittura sagrada.”

Guérin, Galilée I, p. 73: [year 1863] “Au bout de cinq heures de marche, nous fîmes halte à Kiriet el-A’nab, autrement dit Abou-Koch, que l’on prononce ordinairement Abou-Goch. C’est l’antique Kiriat-Iearim, ainsi que je l’ai montré dans la notice que j’ai consacrée à ce village. “On sait que dans cette localité est une ancienne église connue sous le nom de Saint-Jéremie… Aussi je ne la mentionne aujourd’hui que pour dire qu’après avoir, pendant près de quatre siècles, servi d’étable aux Musulmans, elle a été concédée à la France, il y a deux ans, par la Sublime Porte, ainsi que les terrains qui l’avoisinent, terrains actuellement hérissés des ronces et de broussailles ou couverts de décombres, et qu’occupait autrefois un couvent latin. Ce couvent, abandonné depuis 1489, année pendant laquelle les religieux Franciscains qui l’habitaient furent massacres par les Musulmans, a été entièrement détruit… Ce couvent, plus tard, devra avoir un bâtiment spécial destiné à la réception des pèlerins, car un certain nombre de ceux qui se rendent de Ramleh à

Thevenot, p. 207 [=1665, pp. 414–415]: [year 1663] “We parted from Jerusalem on Monday the nine and twentieth of April, about seven a clock in the morning, and went to Emaus, two leagues and a half distant from Jerusalem. We went out by the Gate of Bethlehem, and the first thing they made us observe, was about half way, the place where our Lord joyned his two Disciples Cleophas and St. Luke: Then on the left hand, we found

141

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m structure such as a kh«n. On the other hand, it is possible to associate an inscription found at the ruined maq«m of al-Shaykh A¯mad al-‘Urayn» at ‘Ar«q al-Manshiya (Qiryat Gat) and attributed by Mayer (1932, pp. 42–43, fig. 4) to Umm L«kis (UTM grid 6603/4943; Israel Grid 12030/10920), due to their proximity, with the kh«n at Sukkariya instead.

Jérusalem trouvent cette étape un peu longue, et seraient bien aises de rencontrer sur leur route, avant d’atteindre la ville sainte, un gîte sûr où ils pussent, comme à Ramleh, passer une nuit.” 19. al-Sukkariya, Khirbat497

‫ﺧﺮﺑﺔ اﻟﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ‬

The inscription was found embedded in the left side of the maq«m façade, but clearly not in situ (Fig. 19.1: 1).498 After starting with a Qur’«nic quotation (Qur’«n 25: 10; Chapter 2), it continues:

UTM grid: 66875/49480 Israel Grid: 1294/1085 Lat N/Long E: 31°34’4”/34°46’47”

‫( اﻟﻰ اﷲ ﺗﻌﺎﻟﻰ اﻟﺤﺎج‬5) ‫( اﻣﺮ ﺑﺎﻧﺸﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن اﻟﻤﺒﺎرك اﻟﻌﺒﺪ اﻟﻔﻘﻴﺮ‬4) ... ‫( وذﻟﻚ ﻓﻰ ﺳﻨﺔ ﺳﺒﻌﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ‬6) ‫ال ﻣﻠﻚ أﺣﺪ اﻷﻣﺮاء ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻳﺎر اﻟﻤﺼﺮﻳﺔ‬ ‫وﺳﺒﻌﻤﺎﻳﺔ وﺻﻠّﻰ اﷲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺳﻴّﺪﻧﺎ ﻣﺤﻤّﺪ وﺳﻠّﻢ‬

Altitude: 157 m Location: Lakhish Region Referential site: Moshav No‘am

…Ordered to build this blessed kh«n the servant yearning for God, the Exalted, the pilgrim Almalik, one of the am»rs in Egypt. This was done in the year 717 (began 16 March 1317)…

River: Shalwa Description The site of Khirbat al-Sukkariya is located ca. 4 km south of Qiryat Gat, on the road leading to Hebron via Bayt Jibr»n (Fig. 4.1). The existence of a kh«n at the site was first noted by Mandate antiquities inspector J. Ory, who reported in March 1930 on “Remains of Karawanserai.” It was on the basis of this report that Petersen mistakenly identified the remains of a wall (Fig. 19.1: 2) adjacent to the modern maq«m (identified as the tomb of a certain shaykh Ab− Ghazāla; see Mandatory File ‘Sukriya, Kh.’) as part of a medieval kh«n (Petersen 2001, pp. 288–289).

Mayer’s identification of Umm L«kis/Mul«kis as the source for the inscription is reasonable, even though al‘Umar» did not mention a kh«n at that bar»d station. But al-‘Umar» did not mention the kh«n at Bays«n either, and its remains are unquestionable. Having said that, it seems that Mayer was unaware of the finding of a kh«n at Khirbat Sukkariya.499 Mamluk activity at Khirbat al-Sukkariya is known from both archaeological and literary evidence. An inscription dated Dh− ’l-®ijja 736AH/AD July 1336 was recorded by the Department of Antiquities500 and refers to a mosque erected at the site (Fig. 19.1: 2). The village of Sukkariya,

Aerial photographs dating to 1945 (see below), 1949 and later, as well as modern satelite photographs, allow us to detect the remains of a quadrangular structure northeast of the maq«m. Unfortunately, the structure’s original plan can neither be evaluated, nor can its identification as a kh«n be confirmed beyond doubt.

498

Attribution Al-Sukkariya is first mentioned as a station on the route from Ramla by the tenth century account by the Jerusalemite geographer al-Muqaddasī, though no mention is made of a road-inn. He wrote: “From al-Ramla to either Jerusalem or to Bayt Jibrīl, or to ’Asqalān, or to al-Sukkariya, or to Ghazza, or to Kafar Sābā, by the post road, is, in every case, one stage.” (al-Muqaddasī 1906: 191–192; al-Muqaddasī 1994: 175)

The reference by the mid-fifteenth century Italian traveler San Severino to a village called Zuchara (see below) suggests its use as a stopover already during the Mamluk period. But the pilgrim does not refer to a specific 497 An in-depth study of this site, based on archaeological and literary evidence, is under preparation by the author and Jeffrey A. Blakely, of University of Wisconsin in Madison, Illinois (Cytryn-Silverman and Blakely, forthcoming). Blakely is the head of the survey of Amazia Map. He kindly guided me around the region covered by his survey in June 19th, 2008. In addition to his archaeological work, he has gathered rich literary evidence, mainly by Western travelers and pilgrims, regarding the routes crossing this area during the Middle Ages.

142

A second inscription, published by Mayer in his Saracenic Heraldry (Mayer 1933, p. 62), was embedded on the right side of the entrance. Only three lines have survived, quoting a Qur’«nic passage (Qur’«n 27: 91) and once again Almalik’s name. In addition, this inscription also bears Almalik’s blazon—a pair of polo-sticks, referring to his role of j−kand«r in his early career 499 A further site found in the vicinity of Qiryat Gat and whose remains were thought by the excavators to be those of a Mamluk kh«n is Tell Najila (UTM grid 66695/48690; Israel grid 1272 /1012; Lat E 31º30’N/Long 34º45’25”E). Tell Najila was excavated by the late Ruth Amiran and Abraham Eitan in 1962 and 1963, uncovering finds from the Chalcolithic through the Mamluk periods. The architectural remains exposed in strata Ia and Ib extended over more than one third of the tell, and measured 104×91×95×83 m’ (NEAEH, iii, ‘Nagila, Tel’, p. 1081). The building apparently consisted of rows of rooms surrounding an extensive courtyard (remains of these rooms have been exposed in the northeastern corner), accessed by a gate on the eastern side. Notwithstanding the excavators’ identification of the large structure as a kh«n, it seems more plausible, mainly in view of its architectural features and location, that it served a different function. None of the Mamluk kh«ns so far studied are placed on top of a mound, none possess such vast measurements, and they are always orientated to the four cardinal points. In addition, the building at Tell Najila is a trapeze, whose layout is not in line with the usual rectangular shape of the kh«ns in the region. This view is shared by J. Blakely. According to his readings and archaeological assessment, none of the routes reached Tell Najila, thus making the identification of a kh«n at this site even more improbable. 500 The inscription from Kh. al-Sukkariya, sometimes wrongly attributed to Kh. Sukrayr (Bene Darom; Israel Grid 12110/13640; Lat N 31º49’12”/Long E 34º41”15), is today exhibited at the al-Qasimī College at Baq‘a al-Gharbiya (IAA inventory no. 55–1121). I would like to that Ms. Ayala Lester, IAA Curator of the Islamic Collections, for making the documentation of this inscription available.

Gazetteer or part of it, was also listed in Q«ytb«y’s endowment chart for his madrasa in Jerusalem (877AH/AD1471–72; on that madrasa see Burgoyne 1987, pp. 589ff.; Petersen 2001, pp. 288–289).

Location: Southern Sharon

If Almalik’s patronage of the kh«n at Sukkariya could be proved, it would strengthen his identification as the builder of Kh«n J−khad«r in the Golan as well (see Entry no. 11 for further works by Almalik).

Description

Referential site: ²»ra River: Alexander, ca. 2 km east of the village.

Documentation Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: File no. 179, ‘Sukriya, Kh.’ Field reports dating to 1927, 1930 and 1935. Report no. S.1159 by Inspector S. Ory and dating to 26.03.1930 refers to the remains of the kh«n. Report and photograph of an Arabic inscription found at the site (negative nos. 566933–5; Fig. 19.1: 2). Unrelated to the kh«n. IAA Archives/Israel Inspection Files: site no. 899. Correspondence dating to 1955. Reference to “early kh«n.” Field Work: June 19th, 2008. Bibliography San Severino, pp. 122; La Broquière, Travels, pp. 98–99; Petersen 2001, pp. 288–289; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 192–195; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, p. 77. Citations in Literature San Severino, p. 122: [year 1458] “Mercordì ij di augusto a l’alba esso S.r Ruberto con li soy se partì, perchè più tosto non se potè partire, per la via che non era secura. Et andati ad fare collatione ad una villa chiamata zuchara, et de li andarono ad certi arbori longe viij (sic), et ripossatosi circa due hore, andarono a Gazara, circha le xxiiijo hore, molto affanati, perchè fu quel die uno aspero caldo, et la via longa più di xl miglia. Et gionti ad Gazara, trouarono il trucimano di Gazara, che li dete alogiamento; et fu fato ordine di trouare li camelli et alcune altre cosse, che gli manchauano.”

²»ra recovered its importance as a station during the Mamluk period, when a kh«n was erected under the patronage of an am»r of Tankiz (see discussion below). Unfortunately, no remains of such a building have so far been identified in the town of ²»ra, though the name of one of ²»ra’s street—B«b al-Kh«n—is a possible memory of the kh«n’s existence (Fig. 20.1).501 E. Stern suggests two possible identifications in ²»ra’s close vicinity—Khirbat Dardar (Israel grid 1519/1830) in Moshav Zur Natan, and Khirbat ®anot (Israel grid 1485/1806), ca. 2 km southeast of ²»ra, not far from road 444 coming from Jalj−liya—but neither seems a plausible option. Khirbat Dardar, visited in July 1998, consists of a rectangular building (ca. 22×36 m), whose northern façade is flanked by two towers and leads to an open courtyard, passing two vaulted rooms. While the southern and eastern portions of the building have not survived, the remains of the western wall line are still clearly visible. From the standing remains, façade style and building technique, it is difficult to relate this structure to any of the Mamluk kh«ns in the region, especially those of the fourteenth century.502

perhaps La Broquière, Travels, pp. 98–99: [traveling between 1432 and 1433] “After the valley of Hebron, we traversed another of greater extent, near to which the mountain whereon St John performed his penitence was pointed out to us. Thence we crossed a desert country, and lodged in one of those houses built through charity, and called Khan: from this khan, we came to Gaza.”

20. ²»ra

The town of ²»ra is located on the Sharon plain, between Ramla/Ludd and the Western Sharon Plain. Its importance as a road-station seems to have been established at least since Roman times, when the mutatio (relay station) Betthar was erected there to cater to the road between Antipatris/R«s al-‘Ayn and Caesarea (Pringle 1986, p. 72; Roll and Ayalon 1989, p. 140, note 61). But for most of the Early Middle Ages the role of ²»ra seems to have deteriorated, in favour of Qalansuwa, ca. 5 km to the north, which according to early Islamic sources such as Ibn Khurrad«dhbih and alMuqaddas», functioned as a station between Ramla and Lajj−n/Megiddo (Pringle 1986, pp. 41–42).

Khirbat ®anot/®«n−t« has been surveyed and excavated by the IAA on different occasions, from 1980 to 1998 (site no. 1887/0). The work, each time focusing on different areas, uncovered various aspects of the site, dating from the Early Bronze Age I to the Roman and Byzantine periods503—but never any remains of a substantial structure which could be identified as a kh«n. 501

In January 28, 2007 Anan ‘Azab, IAA district archaeologist in the Sharon Plain accompanied the author in a field trip to B«b al-Kh«n St. The aim of the trip ws to check a quadrangular accumulation in that street, spotted in a recent aerial photograph of ²»ra (http://mapa.co.il, accessed in October 19, 2006). Our examination showed that the quadrangular shape was artificially formed by garbage disposal. No further accumulation was found along this track. 502 Both outside and inside the building one finds installations hewn in the bedrock, apparently pre-dating the rectangular structure. 503 According to Pringle, surface finds have also yielded twelfththirteenth century pottery (Pringle 1986, p. 30).

‫ﻃﻴﺮة‬

UTM grid: 6845/5670 Israel Grid: 1475/1814 (?) Lat N/Long E: 32°13’49”/34°56’45” Altitude: unknown

143

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Others: In addition to the kh«n and qal‘a of ‘Uy−n alTujj«r, the site also includes a spring house located 50 m north of the kh«n; a much ruined structure not far from the kh«n’s northwestern tower, believed to have been a bath-house (Fig. 21.1: 6–7), as well as a complex of ruined rooms some 50 m southwest of the kh«n (Gal 1985, p. 74; Muqari and Gal 1998, p. 54*).

In addition, the toponym Hanuta was already in use during the early Mamluk period, as we learn from the list of territories granted by Baybars to his am»rs in 663AH/AD1265. Half of ®«n−t«, according to this list, was given to ‘Alam al-D»n Sanjar (Pringle 1986, p. 30; Amitai-Preiss 1997, p. 294, no. 14). Attribution

Description

The Mamluk dating of the kh«n of ²»ra follows al’Umar»’s testimony (see below), who attributed its construction to N«·ir al-D»n, the daw«d«r of Tankiz (r. 712–740 /1312–1340),504 even though it was finished by someone else, whose identity remains unknown.505

Kh«n al-Tujj«r is located 3 km north of Mount Tabor in a region abounding with water sources, most suitable for the erection of a stop-over. Like Kh«n Jubb Y−suf, it has attracted noticeable attention from archaeologists and historical researchers. Both sites are reasonably preserved (even though both demand immediate conservation work to avoid future deterioration) and stand on the historical route connecting Egypt and Syria. Kh«n al-Tujj«r, in addition, also catered to the route connecting the Western Galilee with the ®awr«n.506 Today the ruins of Kh«n alTujj«r still stand on the road connecting Tiberias and Afula/Kfar Tabor (route 65), and the site is easily approached.

It should also be noted that in 1333 the Jewish traveler Isaac ®elo described the town of Bytr, identified as ²»ra, as in ruins (Pringle 1986, p. 72), though it is not clear if the town's state of affairs has any correlation to the kh«n's. Field Work: Region of ²»ra visited on July 25, 1998 and January 28, 2007. Bibliography

The first archaeological work undertaken at the site of Kh«n al-Tujj«r was that of the Palestine Exploration Fund during the late nineteenth century. The researchers surveyed and measured the kh«n and the fortified structure to its northwest, and published the data in the Memoirs of the SWP, together with a proposed plan (Fig. 21.1: 3; SWP, I, pp. 394–396).

al-’Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248; al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ vol. 14, p. 425 (French translation by GaudefroyDemombynes 1943, p. 243); Sauvaget 1941, p. 66, footnotes 265, 267, 268; Pringle 1986, pp. 41–43, 72; Meinecke 1992, p. 185, no. 9C/403; Stern 1997, pp. 52– 53; Petersen 2001, p. 248; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 196–199; Cytryn-Silverman 2006, p. 77.

In the nineteenth-century plan Kh«n al-Tujj«r appears as a long rectangular enclosure, whose walls are fortified by buttresses and four round towers at the corners. The gate, situated at the northern side of the enclosure, opens into a long rectangular courtyard, surrounded by cross-vaulted galleries at the center of which is the kh«n’s well. The plan also shows the fortress to the northwest of the kh«n, a smaller structure with polygonal towers at the corners and round towers in the middle of each side, except for the eastern side where the gate is located. Between the kh«n and fortress is the spring (Fig. 21.1: 6–7), not far from the road leading from Tiberias to Mount Tabor.

Citations in Literature al-’Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248: [d. 749AH/AD1349] “…Then from there to Ludd, from there to al-‘Awj«’— that is off the road and would be better if it was removed from there—then from there to al-²»ra—and there, there is a kh«n, started by N«·ir al-D»n al-Daw«d«r al-Tank»z» and finished by someone else—then from there to Q«q−n…” 21. Kh«n al-Tujj«r, Kh«n al-S−q, Khirbat S−q al-Kh«n, Kh«n ’Uy−n al-Tujj«r, ®anot Tuggarim

‫ﺧﺎن اﻟﺘﺠّﺎر‬

It was not until 1985 that the nineteenth century map was revisited. The IAA archaeologist Z. Gal, who conducted a survey at the site in 1980,507 concluded that the long enclosure proposed by the SWP plan should be corrected into a double-wing complex, the parts having been built one against the other at two different periods (Fig. 21.2: 1; Gal 1985, fig. 4). Gal also found no evidence for the “…remains of stables at the southern end and a building containing a spring in the centre...” as described in the Memoirs of the SWP (see below; Gal 1985, p. 71). But even at that stage, before undertaking archaeological digs at the building, Gal was able to propose a plan according

UTM grid: 7261/6231 Israel Grid: 1889/2363 Lat N/Long E: 32°43’15”/35°24’40” Altitude: 150 m Location: Eastern Lower Galilee Referential site: Kibbutz Beth Qeshet River: Qeshet Spring(s): ‘Uy−n al-Tujj«r

506

On this historical route see O. Bustani, “Darb al-®awarna - Ancient Route,” in Eretz-Israel 10, pp. 191–197 (Hebrew). By the time Gal conducted his survey, Ariel Publishing House, for example, was reprinting H. Stephan’s translations from Evliya Çelebi’s Travels with a Hebrew summary and added illustrations, including the SWP plan of Kh«n al-Tujj«r (Çelebi, Travels, Hebrew summary p. 9).

507 504

On his probable identity, see page 98, footnote 373. Sharon (CIAP, ii, p. 229) dated the erection of the kh«n at ²»ra to ca. 1325, as the kh«ns at Jalj−liya and Bayt Dar«s (no references).

505

144

Gazetteer to which the southern wing of the kh«n, forming 2/3 of the whole complex (65×76 m), was the first to be built (in the fifteenth century; see Gal 1985, p. 74), with a gate on the northern side, small cells and long rooms flanking the passage, a well at the northwestern corner (and not in the middle of the building as suggested by the SWP plan), rooms to the west and east of the courtyard (6 and 12 respectively, Figs. 21.4: 7; 21.6), and two round corner towers, of which only that on the southeast remains (Fig. 21.6: 5). The mosque to the south was a later addition (Fig. 21.4: 2).508 The later addition to the kh«n itself, dated to 1581 and associated with Sin«n Pasha’s name (Gal 1985, p. 74), abuts on the northern side of the Mamluk kh«n and is some 1.5 m wider than the original structure (the seam is clear on the western side, see Fig. 21.4: 5). It increased the kh«n’s area to a rectangle measuring 115×77 m. The new gate was positioned on the northern wall, on the same axis as the earlier gate. Gal reconstructed the northern wing at that point, as composed of vaulted rooms surrounding a broad courtyard, but this was not confirmed by the IAA excavations of 1993–1994 (see below).

“dressed in an irregular pattern, leaving a projection in the middle of each stone,” as in the southwestern tower (Fig. 21.7: 3–4), “…characteristic of early Islamic architecture.” (Gal 1985, p. 69) As not much has been done with reference to construction techniques in the Levant during the Islamic period, it is hard to assume that bossed stones are indicators of Early Islamic construction. In fact, the sixteenth century northern towers of Kh«n al-Tujj«r themselves (Fig. 21.3: 3) make use of bossed stones! In 1988 a new architectural survey was undertaken at the sites of Kh«n al-Tujj«r and the ‘fort’. It was carried out by the team set up by the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (Lee et al. 1992, p. 62), concurrently with their survey at Kh«n Jubb Y−suf (see Entry no. 9). The survey added relevant data on both constructions, and offered some different ideas as to the fort’s function and dating. The ground plans show less detail than those by Gal, but in some aspects are more realistic. In the surveyors’ view, the ‘fort’ preceded the erection of the kh«n, and perhaps “once served a dual purpose too— that of housing a garrison to watch over this major road and also serving as a place of refuge for travellers in the otherwise unprotected kh«n in times of trouble.” (Lee et al. 1992, p. 60) But while raising the possibility of a simultaneous use of both structures before Sin«n Pasha’s extension was added to the kh«n,511 they suggested that the ‘fort’ may have been stripped of its facing stone for the benefit of the new kh«n nearby (Lee et al. 1992, p. 62), indicating a depredation of the ‘fort’ unlikely in the case of a structure they thought was still active. They also pointed out the various parallels to be found among Mamluk and Ottoman forts, but did not cite specific structures dating to the fourteenth or fifteenth century which might have strengthened their theory. On the other hand, they referred to A. Petersen’s article on the Early Ottoman fortifications of the ¯«jj route, in which the author places the fort of ‘Uy−n al-Tujj«r built by Sin«n Pasha in the architectural category of “large garrison fortresses of Palestine,” together with R«s al-‘Ayn (Fig. 21.8: 12) and al-Qa³rana (Petersen 1995, p. 303).512

As for the fortified structure to the northwest of the kh«n, Gal contributed a new ground plan, adding many details to the simple contour plan published by the SWP. He suggested an altogether different interpretation of its function; in his view that structure should also be considered a kh«n, but Early Islamic in date. He wrote: “The western ‘fort’ was probably built as a station “funduq“ on the post-road (berid, sic!) between Damascus and Fustat and has to be dated to the eighth to ninth centuries A.D.” (Gal 1983, p. 94; Gal 1985, p. 74)509 His reasoning for this proposal is not convincing, as it is based on a problematic comparison to Khirbat al-Minya (Fig. 21.8: 11) on the Sea of Galilee,510 as well as on its construction technique. Gal assumed that Khirbat alMinya’s “plan is identical to the ‘fort’ of Khan etTuggar” (Gal 1985, p. 69), despite functioning as a palace. But in reality the ‘fort’ has little to do with Khirbat al-Minya: their measurements are not in accordance (61×71 m against 67×73 m for the latter), the fortified walls have no similarity in building technique, and the few visible remains of the internal arrangement at the ‘fort’ do not reflect that of Khirbat al-Minya. Gal’s second assessment relates to the use of dolomite stones

Since the 1988 survey publication, little has been added regarding the ‘fort’ and until proper archaeological excavations are undertaken, the dating of the building can only be suggested following the historical evidence (see below). The kh«n, on the other hand, has been the subject of archaeological excavations by the IAA, which took place between December 1993 and June 1994 under the direction of Abdallah Muqari. The excavations were of a

508

As observed in his plan, Gal did not mark the mosque as clearly belonging to the later phase of the kh«n, but in his summary he suggested associating that structure with the mosque mentioned by Çelebi (see bibliographical notes). He wrote: “…It seems that this mosque was the building on the southern extreme of the khan. The foundations of the minarets are probably the three massive buttresses outside the southern wall of the mosque…” Gal also pointed out that the inclusion of mosques within kh«ns and forts was common during the Ottoman period, well exemplified by the case of the qal‘a of R«s al‘Ayn (Gal 1985, p. 74). 509 In their report on the excavation results at Kh«n al-Tujj«r, Muqari and Gal (1998, p. 48*) repeat that dating. 510 Which he erroneously referred to as ‘Khan Minyeh’ (Gal 1985, p. 69), a few hundred meters west of the palace and erected by the same patron as Kh«n al-Tujj«r in the early fifteenth century (see Entry no. 16).

511

The surveyors suggested that the reason for building the extension at the kh«n itself was that the ‘fort’ “was too large for the garrison required here and had thus outgrown its usefulness. Hence the radical extension of the fifteenth-century kh«n…” (Lee et al. 1992, pp. 57) 512 al-Qa³rana is located in modern Jordan, less than 40 km east of alKarak, and its inclusion in the ‘Palestinian’ category is vague. It is also not clear to which of the structures at the site of ‘Uy−n al-Tujj«r Petersen refers, as on one hand his description fits that of the ‘fort’, on the other he names Sin«n Pasha as the builder, and in that case he would have meant the extension and alterations at Kh«n al-Tujj«r. On the fortress at R«s al-‘Ayn, see Petersen 1998.

145

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m the original one, still stands, even though most of the facing has been stripped away. The archway is 3.2 m wide, and today stands 4.5 m high (Fig. 21.2: 3). A small portion of a paved path leading to the gate was uncovered, while the paving inside the gateway turned out to be in smoothed basalt. The gate still preserved one of the side benches, typical of Mamluk and Ottoman architecture. Muqari revealed remains of muqarnas decoration at this spot, but for no clear reason he associated them rather with the Ottoman mosque erected at the southern wing of the kh«n and not to the Ottoman gate itself. The clearing of the gateway passage revealed holes for the door hinges, as well as the door nails, and even an iron sheet that once covered one of the windows cut in the door of the nineteenth century kh«n (Muqari and Gal 1998, p. 50*-51*, fig. 4).

limited scope, focusing mainly on the northern wing. The works aimed at clearing up most of the rubble and revealing the walls, but did not include systematic stratigraphic analysis such as reaching ground level and digging beyond it (except for a few spots where soundings were conducted). As a result of Muqari’s work, an up-to-date plan of the renovated sixteenth century Kh«n al-Tujj«r, as well as a plan including part of the later additions, were published in a final report prepared together with Zvi Gal (Fig. 21.2: 2; Muqari and Gal 1998, p. 48*). The first feature assessed by the authors was construction technique. The use of different masonry styles helped them to identify the different construction stages, but mainly to distinguish the late additions (late Ottoman and modern) from the Mamluk and Ottoman phases. As observed in other Mamluk kh«ns, the builders of Kh«n alTujj«r, in both the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, opted for soft limestone ashlar dressed in a combed pattern,513 while the late additions were mostly made of irregular stones, usually in hard limestone (Muqari and Gal 1998, p. 48*).

The passage was flanked by six cells, part of which still stand to full height (Fig. 21.2: 4–6). The western ones were connected to three vaulted rooms built along the northern wall, which also mostly survive. To the east of the gateway were three additional vaulted rooms, where the 1993–1994 excavations revealed stone installations, perhaps ovens, provided with shafts (Muqari and Gal 1998, p. 51*).

Although the work concentrated on the northern wing, some features of the southern wing were uncovered while the “seam” area between the Mamluk and Ottoman kh«ns was cleared:

The gateway leads into a paved courtyard514 surrounded by galleries (no remains of a gallery were uncovered on the western side, most probably due to the deeper accumulation). Long cross-vaulted halls were built to the west and east (Figs. 21.3: 5–7; 21.5: 7, 10–12), both presenting two aisles of nine bays each and supported by engaged and free-standing square pillars.515 In both halls the northernmost pair of vaultings lead to round corner towers. The eastern one has practically disappeared, but the western one still stands to a considerable height, having preserved its embrasures and part of the shallow dome that once covered it (Fig. 21.3: 3–5). The outer walls of these halls were originally pierced by small windows (0.7 m wide), which were blocked off in the course of later changes in the kh«n. These changes included the subdivision of the eastern hall by placing transversal arches against the long walls (Fig. 21.5: 12), as well as the erection of partition walls along the courtyard galleries (Fig. 21.5: 8–9; Muqari and Gal 1998, p. 52*) and even steps leading to the roof or to an upper level. Such alterations were not detected in the western hall.

First, the passageway between the two wings, on the location of the original gate, revealed three stages (Fig. 21.5: 3–6): the first, most probably the original, had a limestone paving leading to the gate; the second, apparently connected to the sixteenth century alterations, consisted of steps leading to the same gate (the ground level at the gate area was by then higher due to accumulation); finally, walls were erected over these steps, at a time when the gate had already collapsed. Muqari and Gal (1998, p. 49*) dated this final stage to the end of the nineteenth century; Second, the work to the south of the gate cleared the rooms flanking the passage, revealing four units to the east of the passage, and at least three to the west (Fig. 21.4: 8–10). The westernmost is of great interest, as it was fully covered by plaster, leading Muqari and Gal to interpret it as a birka. This interpretation also relates to Gal’s previous suggestion that a well was located at the northwestern corner of the early kh«n, unfortunately an issue that could not be analyzed during the excavations due to the heaps of collapsed stones at the spot (Fig. 21.4: 4–5). The deep accumulation also prevented checking in depth the remains of the curtain wall at the same place, found to have been sectioned by seven windows overlooking the river Qeshet (Muqari and Gal 1998, p. 50*).

An important feature exposed by Muqari’s excavations is a well at the southeastern corner of the late courtyard. This well, which according to Muqari and Gal (1998, pp. 52*–54*) is still full of fresh water, was constructed with the erection of the late kh«n (Fig. 21.5: 10, no. 16) and was maintained throughout all its later stages, when further additions, including a small basin, were added to it.

The northern extension, on the other hand, was thoroughly analyzed. The new gate, on the same axis as

514

According to the results of a stratigraphical sounding conducted at the entrance to the western hall (Muqari and Gal 1998, p. 52*). 515 Due to the natural slope of the site, the eastern hall was built on a terrace (Fig. 21.5: 9–11). For a clear understanding of the topography of this site, see sections in Lee et al. 1992, figs. 27–28).

513

The tight combed pattern can be also observed on some of the limestone masonry at Kh«n Jubb Y−suf, as well as in basalt at Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ (see entries above).

146

Gazetteer The present research, in which the site was visited in 1998, 2001 and 2004, can add little to the data gathered so far. Many of the features uncovered during the excavations are no longer exposed, and the efforts made by the IAA Conservation Department to stop the structure from further decay have not been able to compensate for the negligence of the rest of the authorities.

known of its appearance due to the accounts left by the sixteenth century pilgrim Rocchetta (Rocchetta, p. 80) and by J. Thevenot (1687, p. 27). Following the information gathered from these two sources, Sauvaget suggested that the kh«n at ®asy« consisted of a complex of three buildings, one attached to the other, composing an extended rectangle (Fig. 21.6: 10; Sauvaget 1937, fig. 16). Of the few remains at the site, the inscription dating the building of the qal‘a to the reign of Sultan Sulaym«n is of great importance (926–974AH/AD1520–1566). It reads (Sauvaget 1937, p. 112):

Consequently, information regarding the southern, and earliest, wing of the kh«n remains far from satisfactory. To the plan by Muqari and Gal and to their short description of the units composing this wing, a few observations may be added: (1) Muqari and Gal used masonry style to distinguish the different phases of the northern wing, but little was done with regards to the southern wing. In fact, it is hard to ignore the different construction materials used in the surviving portions of the southernmost wall of the kh«n (Fig. 21.4: 3), which in addition is also conspicuous for its notably different angling. The lower visible courses of the central portion of the southern wall, for example, are composed of irregular basalt masonry, in contrast to the late additions in rusticated hard limestone on sections of the outer casing of the same wall. (2) Notwithstanding Gal and Muqari’s reconstruction of the kh«n (Fig. 21.2: 1–2) as devoid of a hall or cells on the south (as in the east and west), the remains of a ledge at the eastern portion of the southern wall (Fig. 21.4: 7) suggests a possible barrel vaulting, thus, as in other vaulted areas of the kh«n, explaining the absence of pillars. (1) The rectangular window on the southern end of the western wall (Fig. 21.3: 8) is of unknown date and could be part of a later repair. On the other hand, it recalls the fenestration style at Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b. (2) The three projections behind the Ottoman mosque, believed to have been the foundations of the three “graceful and lofty minarets” described by Çelebi (see below), were apparently retaining buttresses. This conclusion is based on the data gathered from a set of early twentieth century photographs in the L.A. Mayer Collection (Figs. 21.1: 4; 21.3: 1), in which two minarets still stand to a considerable height (if not to full height), adjoining the mosque’s façade. The buttresses, in turn, seem to have been necessary to support a platform on which the mosque seems to have been built, clearly seen in the abovementioned photographs. Apart from these few observations regarding the Mamluk phase of Kh«n al-Tujj«r, it may be useful to note a relevant comparison to the sixteenth century expansion work at the kh«n at ®asy« in northern Syria. This site was studied by Sauvaget and published in 1937 (Les Caravanserails Syriens du ®adjdj de Constantinople, pp. 111–117) and in 1940 (Caravansérails Syriens du Moyen-Âge, pp. 9–10).516 Although ruined, much is

... ‫ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺎن ﺣﺎن اﺑﻦ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن ﺳﻠﻴﻤﺸﺎﻩ‬... ‫أﻣﺮ ﺑﻌﻤﺎرة هﺬا اﻟﻘﻠﻌﺔ‬ ‫ ﻳﻦ وﺗﺴﻌﻤﻴﺎة‬... [‫]ﺳﻨﺔ‬ Ordered the erection (or reconstruction)517 of this qal‘a … al-Sultan Sulaym«n Kh«n, son of al-Sultan Sal»m-sh«h… [year] nine hundred and … On the basis of the archaeological evidence, Sauvaget suggested that the earliest of the buildings was a Mamluk kh«n dated to the end of the fourteenth or beginning of the fifteenth century,518 of which only one bay, formed by the large pointed arch, remains (Sauvaget 1937, p. 112; Sauvaget 1940, pp. 9–10, fig. 18). In the sixteenth century a fort (that of the inscription) and a second kh«n (with a mosque and a water basin in the courtyard) were erected. The sources further indicate that the fort accommodated the Agha,519 whose authority extended as far as Palmyra, as well as a small garrison who protected route and pilgrims from the Bedouin (Sauvaget 1937, p. 112, footnote 36). Unfortunately, the earliest sources referring to the kh«n at ®asy« reflect its appearance following the sixteenth century alterations. Even Thevenot’s account, in which he clearly describes the early kh«n to the east, “where there are several apartments more, two or three Foot raised from the ground” (Thevenot 1687, p. 27), refers to later alterations. The chimneys described as found in each of these rooms, a feature absent in the Mamluk kh«ns, seem to support that view. As long as the southern wing is not stratigraphically analyzed, little will be known about the Mamluk Kh«n alTujj«r. Was the compartmentalized plan seen on the east side reflected on the west as proposed by Gal? Or should it rather be reconstructed as a cross-vaulted long hall? Could the ledge at the southern wall be considered as the remains of an original vaulted hall at that side? Did this hall include a prayer room as in most Mamluk kh«ns? What was the original set-up of the gate area? Is the masonry in situ part of the original gate? Finally, was a well in fact located in the northwestern corner of the Mamluk kh«n as proposed by Gal in 1985 and further suggested by the finding of a plastered room in that area? relevance to our discussion as it was also extended by Sin«n Pasha (Sauvaget 1937, footnote 37). 517 On the term ‘im«ra see discussion in Chapter 2. 518 In his 1940 publication Sauvaget attributed the erection of the kh«n at ®asy« to Manjak al-Y−suf» (d. 776AH/AD1375). 519 The meaning of Agha in the context of ®asy« is not entirely clear, but most probably refers to the military commander in charge of the region. See H. Bowen, EI2, i, pp. 245–246.

516 Sauvaget also pointed out two other kh«ns that had undergone Ottoman extensions—Kh«n Shaykh−n and Kh«n ²−m«n, the former of

147

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m the kh«n (see Citations in Literature below).521

Whatever the answer should be, it is clear that this building differed from the typical Mamluk kh«ns of Palestine. On the other hand, it is worth bearing in mind that the contemporary Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b also displays an unique plan, at least partly compartmentalized, and also adapted to a similarly sloping surface.

Documentation Archival IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 179, ‘S−q el-Khan, Kh.’. Includes description, bibliography, correspondence dating to 1921, field reports from 1926 to 1947, photographs. Among the reports, that by Ory dating to 3.December 1921 is of special interest as it clearly documents the plundering of the kh«n’s fabric: “Both the Khan and Fortress are ruined. The walls though still standing were derobed of the facing masonry, which is said to have been removed by the villagers of Kefr Kama for building purposes.”

Attribution While little is known about the appearance of Kh«n alTujj«r during the Mamluk period, much can be learned about its founder and building context. Kh«n al-Tujj«r was erected under the patronage of a wealthy Damascene merchant named Shams al-D»n b. al-Muzalliq (754–848AH/AD1353–1444; see Chapter 3), who at the same time built the kh«ns at Qunay³ra, Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b and Minya (see Entries no. 8 and 16).

IAA Archives/Israel Inspection Files: sites no. 3311/0 (18880–23620/18890–23640) and no. 22821/0 (18675– 23625/18685–23635). Condition reports, photographs, most probably extracted from the Mandatory file.

Al-Nu‘aym» (d. 927AH/AD1520) writes in his al-D«ris that Ibn al-Muzalliq spent over a hundred thousand din«rs in the erection of these kh«ns, all provided with water and of extreme beauty, in a way never surpassed by a king or caliph… (see below).520

Others: Mühimme Defteri, vols. 46 and 48 (see below, Heyd 1960) Photographic

The Ottoman chapter of this site’s history is richly documented. A few firm«ns of the sixteenth century, together with European and Arabic sources, complement the architectural data supplied by the archaeological excavations.

Aerial photos: See Gal 1998; PEF/Riley, Israel 11. 25– 30, Israel 42. 30–31 (19.10.1991, ruin of kh«ns, before IAA excavations), Israel 45. 18–23. Archival photos: IAA Archives/Israel Inspection File (pictures removed from Mandate Record File); L.A. Mayer Collection (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem), Book ‘Eretz-Israel II’, nos. 12–15.

According to two documents (nos. 375 and 379) found in the Mühimme Defteri, vol. 46 (Heyd 1960, no. 64, p. 114) and dated to 989AH/AD1581, Sin«n Pasha “…had some buildings under construction at his personal expense at Sa‘sa‘a and ‘Uy−n at-Tujj«r, adjacent to those which are being constructed by the Government and financed out of tax arrears…” But to which building “by the Government” do the firm«ns refer? Should Sin«n Pasha’s construction be definitely identified with the “Late Phase” of Kh«n al-Tujj«r?

Recent photos: Muqari and Gal 1998; David Silverman 1998–2004. Field Work: July 18th, 1998; July 7th, 2001; August 21st, 2004. Bibliography Al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, p. 290; Mühimme Defteri (Heyd 1960, nos. 62, 64, pp. 110–115); Rocchetta, pp. 109– 110; Biddulph, p.1350; Pesenti, pp. 38–39; Çelebi, pp. 32–33; Thevenot, p. 214 (=1665, p. 482); N«bulus», Ri¯la, p. 7; Buckingham, p. 108; 456–457; Burckardt, p. 333; Spencer, pp. 439–440; Frith, vol. 1, “The town and lake of Tiberias’; Howe, p. 209; Fullerton, p. 269; Guérin, Galilée I, pp. 381–382; Wilson, Galilee, p. 57; SWP, I, p. 394, Sh. 6, Oi); Porter, pp. 170–171; Baedeker, p. 284; al-Dabb«gh 1974, vol. 2/6, pp. 410– 413; Heyd 1960, pp. 104–108; Gal 1983; Gal 1985, pp. 69–75; Lee et al. 1992, pp. 56–72; Stern 1997, pp. 92– 93; Muqari and Gal 1998, pp. 47*-55*; Petersen 2001, pp. 197–200; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 200– 225.

Fortunately, another pair of firm«ns from 1581 not only clarifies the above issue, but also offers a final word as to the function and dating of the ‘fort’ standing northwest to the kh«n. They refer to a “fortress capable of holding two hundred households, and [with] towers…” (Heyd 1960, no. 62, p. 112) In other words, two enterprises were launched at ‘Uy−n al-Tujj«r at the same time, one by the government and the other privately by Sin«n Pasha. Çelebi’s account, dated to 1649, confirms the above in describing the citadel constructed by Sin«n Pasha as having a double iron gate facing north and a mosque inside its premises. These features can only be found at

Citations in Literature

520

Gal and Muqari, as well as Petersen, quoting Hartmann 1918, p. 55 (Gal 1985, p. 74; Muqari and Gal 1998, p. 48*; Petersen 2001, p. 200) associate the kh«n with the Damascene merchant named al-Mizza, who died in 1438. According to al-Dabb«gh (n.r.), it was built in 843AH/AD1440 and later renewed and expanded by Sin«n Pash« in 1004AH/AD1595 (al-Dabb«gh 2/1, 1974, pp. 410–411). In the Baedeker guide the kh«n is dated to 1487, but no historical references are given (Baedeker, p. 284).

Al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris, p. 290: [d. 927AH/AD1520] “…and he [Shams al-D»n Ibn al-Muzalliq] built lofty inns (kh«n«t) in Qunay³ra, Jisr Ya‘q−b, al-Minya, ‘Uy−n al521

For a different perception of the site’s development, see Petersen 2001, pp. 199–200.

148

Gazetteer Tujj«r, on the route between Syria and Egypt. He spent no more than a hundred thousand din«r on their erection. Inside each of these inns there is water. They are told to be of extreme beauty, in a way never surpassed by any king or caliph…”

seal and sign [the register], and send [it] to My exalted Court …” Mühimme Defteri, vol. 46, nos. 375 and 379 (Heyd 1960, no. 64, p. 114): “11 ¶evv«l 989 (8 Nov. 1581) … “The Grand Vizier Sin«n Pasha has some buildings under construction at his personal expense at Sa‘sa‘a and ‘Uy−n at-Tujj«r, adjacent to those which are being constructed by the Government and financed out of tax arrears…”

Mühimme Defteri, vol. 46, nos. 246 and 380 (Heyd 1960, no. 62, pp. 110–113): “6 Ramaμ«n 989 (4 Oct. 1581) and 11 ¶evv«l 989 (8 Nov. 1581) … ‘The Cadis of Damascus, Safad and Acre, and ®asan, Beg of the sanjak of Safad, may his glory endure, have now sent a letter to My Threshold of Felicity and have reported that the place named ‘Uy−n at-Tujj«r near Mount ²−r (Tabor), through which [many] merchants pass, is a meeting-place of rebellious Bedouins and other trouble-makers and highway robbers. They descend on the roads of the Muslims who are making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Hebron and other Egyptian merchants, plunder the goods and chattels of many of them, also kill and insult many of them, capture their wives and families, and do not cease to do considerable harm. If a caravansarai (h«n) with a tower (burc) on each of its four sides (corners) is built at the said place and two or three fortress-soldiers are taken out of each of the fortresses in the Damascus region and ten men stationed in each of the fortresses in the Damascus region and ten men stationed in each [of those] tower[s], the said place will become inhabited and cultivated. By the grace of God no harm or injury whatsoever will [then] befall anyone’s property or life, the Muslim pilgrims and other wayfarers will pass along and go through safe and sound, and hence it will also be most profitable for the Public Revenue. “ ‘They have submitted a request for My imperial permission to build the above-mentioned towers with money obtained from arrears which have been difficult to collect.”

Mühimme Defteri, vol. 48, no. 409 (Heyd 1960, no. 64, pp. 114–115): “28 Ramaμ«n 990 (16 Oct. 1582) … ‘It has been reported that holding markets (baz«r) at the place named Sa‘sa‘ which is in the jurisdiction of the Cadi of Damascus and at the place named H«n-i Tücc«r (Kh«n at-Tujj«r) in the jurisdiction of the Cadi of Safad will benefit the Muslims and the Public Revenue. ‘I have therefore ordered that markets be held there on a suitable day...” Rocchetta, pp. 109–110: [year 1599] “… Seguendo dunque il nostro viaggio, salimmo alcune collinette, * à 21. hora arrivammo a certe ville chiamate Lubia, Caffar, e Seggier, parte dell quali sono bellissimi oliveti. Caminando da due miglia in circa più oltre, arrivamo a Can Oltuggiar, dove non entrammo per esservi alloggiati molti Turchi, e Mori, & ci contentammo più tosto di rimaner fuori alla campagna.” “… Lontano un tiro di balestra dal detto Cane verso man sinistra è il Castello di Sinam Bassà quanto all’ordine de’ muri, & artegliari il migliore sia stato da me veduto in tutto il viaggio. Era discosto da qui un buon miglio il santo monte Tabor, e per mia buona sorte havendo ritrovato nella mia Carovana un Christano Nostrano, che questo viaggio più volte haveva fatto, & intendeva, e conosceva per prattica tutti santi luoghi, io gli promisi dieci maidini se colà mi guidava, onde insieme con due altri prendĕmo il camino verso il detto monte, e discostati alquanto dalla Carovana, credendoci esser soli, ecco che ci vedemmo appresso una moltitudine di gĕte da 60. persone fra huomini, e dŏne, che ci seguivano per venire con esso noi nel detto monte; frà quali era una Monaca di S. Basilio, & una vecchia, che pareva impossibile, che vi ha vesse potuto arrivare…”

(no. 246) ‘Therefore My noble firman [dealing with the matter] in detail has been issued by the Finance Department (m«l»ye) to the effect that a fortress, capable of holding two hundred households, and towers (ªulle) as explained above be built at the said place and that as proposed, [money] from the old arrears be spent and used [for this purpose]. “… To cover the necessary expense for them you shall pay from the old arrears an amount of money as fixed in My above-mentioned imperial firman. You shall settle [there] peasants who are not registered or disputed (claimed) by anyone (kimesnenüñ uazılusı ve niz«‘lusi) and who come of their own free will, with the provision that they will be exempt from Sultanic impositions. You shall also assign a total of forty Janissaries (yeñi-çeri) and guards (müsta¯fıż), ten soldiers to each tower … “

Biddulph, p. 1350: [year 1600] “…And we came that day, about two of the clocke in the afternoon to a Village, called in the Arabick tongue i-nel Tyger, that is (by interpretation) The Merchants Eye, wherein there are two very faire Castles for Travellers to lodge in from danger of wild Arabs, which abound in those parts: we tooke up our lodging in the neerest Castle, which is the fairest.”

(no. 380) “… And you shall on your part appoint a trustworthy person to be clerk (k«tib). And ®asan, Beg of Safad, may his glory endure, shall be inspector (n«żır), sojourn there until the building reaches completion, and co-operate with the fief-holders [there]. And you shall register the soldiers (kul) stationed [there], their names and daily pay,

Pesenti 1615, pp. 38–39: [year 1612] “…spediti qui la caravana andava verso Ottochiar, per riposar la sera al solito, noi per desiderio di vedere le rouine della Città Tiberiade, & i famosi bagni vicini, presi doi Arabi, & Gianizeri con noi, la sciata la caravana a rinfrescarsi nel loco, ove si dice, che Giesù N.S. fece il tanto memorando miracolo di satiar con cinque pani e pesci,

149

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m tante migliaia di persone, cavalcando in riva al detto Mare, in due hore di viaggio pervenessimo alla rouinata, & quasi al tutto distrutta gran Città di Tiberiade, hora de puochissimi albergo…

“The limpid springs in front of the entrance to the fortress are called ‘Ain et Tujj«r. Beside them is a porch with benches and a few roofless houses, in the shadows of which travellers rest. The fortress is known under the name of the Spring.

“Per continuar il nostro viaggio, & unirci alla Caravana, ci convenne ascendere un móte molto faticoso, che nella sommità apriva una bella pianura, benissimo coltivata: cavalcando giungessimo all’-imbrunirsi del Cielo ad’Ottochiar, villagio puoco discosto dal Monte Tabor, & allogiati nel Cane al solito, si facessimo cucinare il pesce, che ci riusci di pretioso gusto. Riposati la notte, la mattina seguente, che fu alli ventiotto, di buon hora, havendo prima detto al Caravá bassi, che ne desse la guida, & gli Arabi, che ne códucessero alla Città di Nazarette, che è lótana, & fuor di strada da quatro hore di camino, egli subito gli fece mettere all’ordine, & noi lascianto li servitori con le robbe dietro alla Caravana, montassimo a cavallo có la guida facendo il viaggio per boschi, & monti senza strada, o sentiero & in spatio di quatro hore in circa; nel calar d’un móte, havessimo sotto gl’occhi la hora quasi disfrutta Città di Nazarette al presente habitata dai peggiori huomini del Mondo, la qual è posta sopra una collina”.

“At a distance of two hundred paces to the west of this fortress is another ancient one [as well preserved] as if it had just left the hand of the architect. It has no additional buildings (¯aw«l»si) whatever. Its gate faces east and is situated on an elevated site. It measures six hundred paces in circumference. There are eight watch-towers, yet it is not inhabited. When winter sets in, sheep and goats of the guardians of the fortress are kept there. “At a distance of a thousand paces to the south is the Jebel ²−r (TABOR).” Thevenot, p. 214 [=1665, p. 428]: [year 1657] “...Next day, Saturday the eleventh of May, we left that bad Inn about five a Clock in the Morning, and half an hour after, came to a Castle called Eunegiar, which is square, having a Tower at each corner; close by it there is a Han, which appears to be pretty enough, and is also square: It was at this Castle (as they say) that Joseph was by his Brethren sold to an Ishmailite Merchant; the Pit or Well, whereunto they had put him first, is still to be seen, but we went not to it, because it was quite out of our Road. This Castle is commanded by a SousBasha, and there we payed a Piastre of Caffare a piece, of which one half goes to the Sous-Basha, and the other to the Arabs.”

Çelebi, pp. 32–33: [year 1649] “This citadel was constructed by Sin«n P«sha, the conqueror of Yemen, in the year [year not mentioned] in order to ensure the safety of the high roads between Damascus, Jerusalem, and Cairo. It is a square, perfect fortress, built of masonry in the midst of a large, verdant meadow. It has a circumference of six hundred paces. The garrison consists of a warden and 150 men. It has a ‘double’ (iki q«³) iron gate facing north. Inside the fortress are between forty and fifty rooms for the garrison. It is the seat of a police magistrate, [situated] on the borders of the territory of ¶afad, being also an administrative subdistrict (n«¯iye). Here the territory of ¶afad ends and that of N«blus begins.

Thevenot, p. 216 [=1665, p. 433]: “Such as would go to Damascus, may lye at Aain Ettudgiar, which is a Castle about three Leagues from Nazareth, mentioned by me before in the fifty fifth Chapter; and there is a Caffare to be paid there. The next day you lye at Menia, by the Sea-side of Tiberias.” N«bulus», Ri¯la, p. 7: [year 1689] “…Afterwards we traveled and approached Takiya [hospice] ‘Uy−n (alTujj«r)… And this is a beautiful manzil from which the travellers on their way to Egypt continue from the west side, and those going to Jerusalem from the southern side.”

“The garrison of the fortress have the charge of the travelers («yendé ve révendé), pilgrims and merchants by land and sea, in order to conduct them to the places of their destination. As a rule they charge the merchants six aqče per load. They guard and protect these roads. “Inside the fortress is the Mosque of Sin«n P«sha, an artistically constructed work, with a lead roof, full of light. Its windows have light blue glass enamel fixed symmetrically with rock crystal (?). It measures eighty feet each side. The sanctuary has three graceful and lofty minarets—Praise be to the Creator, as if they were three young coquettish muezzins—and seven high domes.

al-Bakr» al-¶idd»q», al-Khumra (after Dabb«gh 1974, vol. 2/6, p. 411): [year 1122AH/AD1710] “... And inside the kh«n there is an elegantly built mosque, of extensive sides and lofty [minarets?] … This kh«n and mosque are buildings by the late Sin«n P«sh«.” Burckhardt, p. 333: [June 26th 1812] “In three hours and a quarter [from Louby], we arrived at the Khan of Djebel Tor (al-Kh«n in Arabic), a large ruinous building, inhabited by a few families. On the opposite side of the road is a half ruined fort. A large fair is held here every Monday. Though the Khan is at no great distance from the foot of Mount Tabor, the people could not inform us whether or not the Mount was inhabited at present; nor were they hospitable enough either to lend or sell us the little provision we might want, should there be no inhabitants. At a quarter of an hour from the Khan is a

“The wayfarers («yendé ve révendé) are lavishly given a loaf of bread and a tallow candle (r−ghen») for each person, and a nosebag of barley for each horse—free of charge. “On either side of the fortress is a caravanserai with eight shops. No buildings are outside, except a public bath, now out of use.

150

Gazetteer fine spring, where we found an encampment of Bedouin of the tribe of Szefeyh (¶af»¯ in Arabic), whose principal riches consist in cows. My guide went astray in the valleys which surround the lower parts of Djebel Tor, and we were nearly three hours, from our departure from the Khan, in reaching the top of the Mount.”

merchandise. We could hardly conceive of a more wild assemblage of men, women and children, horses and camels. As we rode around among the promiscuous throng, the ladies of our party excited no little of their curiosity. The old Khan presents a castle-like appearance; and from it the northern side of Tabor is full in view. We left the novel scene, pleased that this aspect of Arab life had come under our observation. Soon after leaving the Khan, we came upon an extensive Bedouin encampment …”

Buckingham, pp. 456–457: [from Nazareth to Tiberias, February 12th, 1816] “From hence our course inclined a little to the southward of east, until we reached Sook-elKhan* (* in Arabic, literally, the market or fair of the caravansera.), which we entered an hour before noon. This place is frequented for its weekly bazar on the Monday of the Christians, and, as every description of commodity in use among the people of the country is then collected here for sale, crowds of purchasers are attracted from all quarters. During the six other days of the week, it is entirely deserted, and not a creature remains even to guard the place. There are still existing here the remains of a Saracen fort in good preservation, and a khan or caravansera of the same age, but in a more ruined state: the former of these is of a square form, with circular towers at the angles and in the cetre of each wall, and is about a hundred paces in extent on each of its sides. The latter is more extensive, besides having other buildings attached to it. Over the door of entrance is an Arabic inscription, and within are arched piazzas, little shops, private rooms, &c., with one good well of water in the centre. We found assembled on the outside of these buildings, from four to five thousand persons, as well as numerous herds of cattle, Arab horsemen, Bedouins on foot, Fellaheen, or peasantry, from the neighborhood, women, and even children, were all mingled together in the gay confusion of a European fair. We turned into the Khan to water our horses, and halted for half an hour in the shade, as the heat was oppressive, the thermometer being at 92o, and the whole country parched by the long drought.”

Frith, vol. 1: [published in 1858] “The town and lake of Tiberias”: “…I follow at a smart “foot's pace” up and down those monotonous hills, until we reach the base of Mount Tabor, which rises in singularly isolated beauty to the height of about a thousand feet. Its sides are covered with stunted evergreen oak and other timber, and on the summit are the ruins of chapels (for Mount Tabor has been erroneously held to be the Mount of Transfiguration) and of Roman fortifications. The view, although very extensive, I thought had been rather overlauded by some travellers. Descending, you pass through an undulating, uncultivated, but park-like country, covered with long grass, and studded thinly with small timber: then between two ruined forts, probably Saracenic, thorugh corn-land until, as the sun is sinking in the west, far beneath you, the town and lake of Tiberias break upon the sight…” Guérin, Galilée I, pp. 381–382: [year 1863] “A une heure quarante-cinq minutes, parvenu au bas du Thabor, je prends la direction de l’est-nord-est, puis nord-est. “A deux heures quarante-cinq minutes, j’arrive au Khan et-Toudjar, “khan des marchands”. Ce caravansérail, qui date, dit-on, de la fin du XVIe siècle, affecte une forme carrée et mesure 115 pas su chaque face. Soutenu par des contreforts et flanqué aux quatre angles d’une tour ronde, il a été construit avec des pierres blanches de nature calcaire et de moyenne dimension; mais plusieurs assises parallèles de pierres noires et basaltiques ont été intercalées tout autour comme une sorte d’ornement. Au dedans de l’enceinte, on remarque une mosquée et de grandes voûtées qui tombent en ruine. D’énormes figuiers ont pris racine dans une cour déserte; une source y coule.

Spencer, pp. 439–440: “The next moring [21 April 1849], at half-past five o'clock, we left our encampment, and set out for the Sea of Gennesareth. Passing round the northerly base of Tabor, through a lovely and fertile vale, at half-past six we reached two strongly fortified khans, one on each side of the road. They are mostly in ruins now, but were formerly, beyond a doubt, posts of importance, and commanded this portion of the great caravan route between Egypt and Damascus. Passing the khans, we rode over a fertile plain, for two hours, passing some few villages, and being struck with the appearance of the wild artichoke, called khob, with its thorny, violet-colored flower in the shape of an artichoke, upon a stem five feet in height.”

“A 150 pas de là, vers le nord-ouest, sur un petit plateaux plus élevé, se trouve un second khan, également carré, et qui mesure 88 pas sur chaque face. Le mur d’enceinte est flanqué aux quatre angles d’une tour percée de meurtrières et qui, circulaire à l’intérieur, est octogone au dehors. Une tour semblable avait été bâtie pareillement au milieu de chacun des côtés. Les pierres avec lesquelles le mur a été construit ainsi que les tours sont blanches, calcaires et grossièrement taillées en bossage; elles sont entremêlées d’une espèce de cordon de pierres basaltiques, dont la couleur noire tranche avec la leur. Au dedans de l’enceinte, les différents bâtiments qui la remplissaient ont été rasés de fond en comble.

Howe, p. 209: [year 1853] “At eleven, we arrived at the Khan El-Tujjar, where we were much interested in finding a large assemblage of Arabs, from all the villages for miles around, who were here holding a kind of fair. The articles exhibited for sale were spread upon the ground, consisting chiefly of common articles of cotton cloths of European manufacture, shoes, slippers, and some very ordinary raisins, figs and other

“Tous les lundis, un marché se tient en cet endroit, où les Bédouins viennent vendre des bestiaux.” Fullerton, p. 269: [year 1871] “… Our ride [after leaving

151

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Mt. Tabor] now opened on a wilder tract. A hill-side, on which stood a formidable walled building, warned us we were on the old caravan track, and where black mail had been often levied. No one, however, was stirring about the building. Some women crossed our path, going to a well near at hand, but no other human being was in view. As we advanced beyond this part-khan part-castle, we came out upon a wide heathery mountain side, and moving at right angles with us we saw a large caravan of mules and camels on their road from Damascus to Jerusalem.”

Porter, p. 170: [published in 1889] “The road from Hattin to Tabor runs through delightful, park-like scenery. Thin forests of oak clothe the uplands on each side and the face of Tabor, which rises straight before us with its graceful rounded top and gently sloping sides. There are here and there along the path thick clumps of evergreens, holly, myrtle, and prickly oak, with quiet winding glades between, carpeted with luxuriant grass and spangled with bright flowers. About half-way from Hattin to Tabor is a large caravansary called Khan etTujjâr, “The Merchants' Khan.” There are two buildings; one a regular khan, or way-side resting place for caravans and merchants, with its open court and ranges of little cell-like rooms round it, and its stables and magazines, and tanks for water, and a mosque. The other building is fortified like a castle, with loopholed towers at the angles. Both were erected about three centuries ago by Senan Pasha of Damascus. There is a series of them extending along the great road from Damascus to Egypt on the one side, and to Aleppo on the other. I have visited many of them—Khan esh-Shikh, Sasa, Kuneiterah, Jisr Benat Yakub, Khan Jubb-Yusef, Khan Minyeh, Khan et-Tujjâr; all at about equal distances on the road from Damascus toward Egypt, and all on the same plan of commodious and secure halting-places for caravans. There are others on the leading highways through the country, as that from Damascus to Hamath on the north, and most of them were either founded or rebuilt by Senan Pasha, an enterprising and patriotic governor of Damascus in the year 1587. Khan et-Tujjâr is still occupied by a few families of Arabs, who supply passing travellers with coffee, and with barley for their horses and mules. But in none of the khans is there furniture of any kind; and as a rule the traveller will not find provisions, even the simplest. No regular charge is made by the keeper, but it is usual to give him a small gratuity on leaving.

Wilson, Galilee, p. 57: [published in 1880] “To reach the latter [Mount Tabor] from Tiberias, we ascend from the lake a thousand feet, and reach the edge of an uneven table-land, which stretches to the south almost to the very foot of the mountain… It has a few small villages, but the most interesting point is the great khan of merchants, Khan et Tujjâr, called thus from the fact that fairs or markets are held there every Monday. The buildings are not kept in repair, nor is the place inhabited, but on market-days the whole region is alive with tents and camels, horses, donkeys, sheep, goats, and cattle, men, women, and children, peasants, Arabs and Jews. There is a good deal of noise and loud talking; the barking of numerous dogs adds to the general confusion; buying, selling, and exchange go on until the day is ended, and the following morning discloses the fact that the busy crowd has dispersed. Much of the trade is what we call “barter,” but Arabs from a distance, and peasants and village-people, are able in this way to supply themselves with what they need for their tents and houses, or for their work in their fields.” SWP, I, pp. 394–396: [published in 1881] “The caravanserai of the merchants; also called S−k el Khân, ‘market of the Caravanserai.’ “This is a fine building of well dressed stones in the best style of Arabic masonry. It is now in ruins and is not used as a khân. It forms one of the line of great khâns on the Damascus road, the khân at Beisan and Khân Minia being to the south and north of it respectively.

“Khan et-Tujjâr is beautifully situated in a broad, wooded vale with rich pasturage, shade, and shelter— most grateful luxuries to the weary traveller in this land of sunshine and exhausting heat. Were it only safe from Arab marauders, it would be a good centre for pleasant and interesting excursions thorugh the whole of the Eastern Galilee. But it is not sage. The Hawâra nomads are generally found among its pastures, and they resort to its fountain to water their flocks and herds. They are given to plunder, and it is scarcely possible for an unprotected wayfarer, or even a small party, to escape their exactions, or at least their persistent demands for bakhshish, not unfrequently accompanied by threats. Within the walls of the khan the traveller is safe; but the stench of the courtyard, the dirt of the rooms, and the vermin that infest them, are perhaps even more formidable enemies to eoncounter than predatory Arabs. A great fair is held at the khan every week, and is frequented by villagers and nomads from far and near, who come to buy, sell, and barter. Many of them come to steal, and it is thus a noted gathering-place for thieves.”

“To the north west of the khân there is a fortress on a slight eminence, in which the inhabitants of the khân could protect themselves from any raid of Arabs. The towers are octagonal, and are built of well-cut stone drafter, and showing a slight rought boss. The stones are small and of white limestone, 1 foot square, and the masonry is Saracenic in character. “The masonry of the khân is not drafted, but is well dressed. The walls are strengthened with buttresses, and the towers are round. The windows are small loopholes. The interior is a mass of ruined arches, with remains of stables at the southern end, and a building containing a spring in the centre. The khân measures 360 feet long by 249 feet wide. “The fortress measures 218 feet long to the outside of the towers, and 150 feet wide. The towers are 23’4” in diameter, and the walls are about 5’6’’ thick.”

Baedeker, p. 284: [1898 edition] “… Below us [at Mt.

152

Gazetteer Tabor], to the N., lie the Khân et-Tujâr, Lûbiyeh, and the Circassian village of Kafr Kama. We descend on foot by the path by which we came up, and after 40 min. take a path to the right. On the right (4 min.) we observe a cistern with vaulting, beyond which we enter a beautiful green valley. Here we cross two other paths, and after 25 min. leave the valley, continuing to follow the broad road. In 20 min. we reach Khân et-Tujâr, a handsome building erected in 1487, but now dilapidated. On a height to the N.W. of the khân are the ruins of an Arab castle. Near them is a spring, and in the neighbourhood are Beduin settlements.”

al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248: [d. 749AH/AD1349] “…On the route from Gaza to Damascus one arrives as Jit»n— and this is a bar»d station—then arrives at Bayt Dar«s—and there, there is a kh«n built by N«·ir al-D»n al-Khaznad«r al-Tankiz»—and in Y«s−r there was an older one [kh«n] but it was too distant and its removal was beneficial…”

23. Kh«n Y−nus

‫ﺧﺎن ﻳﻮﻧﺲ‬

UTM grid: 47320/46915 Israel Grid: 8350/8410

22. Y«s−r

Lat N/Long E: 31°20’40”/34°18’10”

‫ﻳﺎﺳﻮر‬

UTM grid: 666/516

Altitude: 50 m

Israel Grid: 1254/1295 (?)

Location: Gaza Strip

Lat N/Long E: around 31°45’53”/34°44’56”?

Referential site: Kh«n Y−nis

Altitude: unknown

Description

Location: Malakhi Region

Kh«n Y−nus is located 32 km southwest of Gaza, near the historical border between Egypt and Syria. It seems to have been founded at the markaz of Salqa/Silqa, which is mentioned by al-‘Umar» (al-Ta‘r»f, p. 247) as well as by Ibn al-Fur«t (see Citations in Literature below).522 It is the southernmost of the kh«ns of southern Bil«d al-Sh«m, and departs notably from the usual contemporary layout.

Referential site: Qiryat Malakhi Description Y«s−r is a destroyed village in the inner coastal plain of southern Israel, ca. 4 km to the north of the modern town of Qiryat Malakhi. It was situated on the old route connecting Gaza and Ludd/Ramla, east of Isd−d (Fig. 22.1.1).

The history and archaeology of Kh«n Y−nus have been discussed twice, first by Sh. Tamari (1987) in his article ‘Kh«n Y−nis—Historical, Archaeological and Urban Clarifications’ (in Hebrew), and by M.F. Abu Khalaf (1983) in his ‘Khan Yunus and the Khans of Palestine’. Both authors discussed the background to the erection of the kh«n, the toponym, and patronage issues. In addition, Tamari briefly presented the results of archaeological works undertaken in October 1979 by M. Gichon and E. Shenhav (Tamari 1987, n. 15). These works, comprising two narrow sections inside the kh«n and at its gate,523 yielded little archaeological evidence, but mainly confirmed the already known Mamluk dating for the building.524 Both publications lack a detailed study of the kh«n’s architectural features, and basically adopt, without much argument, the first-hand information found in the Mandate Record File at the IAA Archives.

Although it certainly possessed a medieval kh«n, Mamluk or even earlier, no remains of such a structure have ever been reported (for the remains of an unidentified medieval structure, see Fig. 22.1:2). Attribution The kh«n of Y«s−r can be clearly dated to the Mamluk period or even earlier. According to al-‘Umar» (see below), the kh«n was no longer catering to the bar»d during al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad’s reign, having been substituted by a new kh«n built at Bayt Dar«s (see Entry no. 4). Nevertheless, the kh«n might still have functioned till later, providing for merchants and travelers on their way to Ludd. Documentation Archival

According to the Mandatory documentation and plan (Fig. 23.1: 3), the kh«n was a square structure measuring

IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: file no. 194. ‘Y«s−r’. No kh«n mentioned. Medieval pottery recorded.

522

The erection of a kh«n at Salqa is surprisingly not mentioned by alQalqashand» (¶ub¯ vol. 14, p. 424), who, while copying al-‘Umar»’s information verbatim, usually also updated facts postdating the midfourteenth century. 523 Unfortunately Tamari did not add the respective site plan. 524 From the lack of pre-Mamluk material evidence Tamari concluded that Kh«n Y−nus was erected on sterile soil, contrary traditions identifying the location with that of the Roman Jenysus (see Scholz in the bibliographical notes; also Tamari 1987, n. 15). Still, we should take into account that his conclusions are based on the results of two limited soundings and not on a thorough excavation.

Bibliography al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f, p. 248; al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ vol. 14, p. 425 (translated into French by GaudefroyDemombynes 1943, p. 242); Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 226–227. Citations in Literature

153

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m seen on most Mamluk gateways, but provides the arch with an alternative decoration scheme, enhanced by a simple molding which starts from the springing of the arch. The doorway is slightly recessed from the wallline and was originally flanked by benches (Fig. 23.2: 4, 7–8).527 It is topped by a segmented arch and separated by the tympanum by a billet molding. Immediately above this molding is a rectangular marble plaque bearing the foundation inscription (see below), flanked by a pair of heraldic lions carved in the stone blocks (Fig. 23.2: 5). Of great interest is the presence of a narrow slot over the doorway, interpreted by the Mandatory inspector as a defensive feature “for the purpose of dropping missiles.” This function was usually achieved by means of machicolations, but here this element is missing. On the other hand, in a very unusual way among Mamluk inns and defensive buildings in general—but also found at Kh«n al-‘Asal in Syria (744AH/AD1343; see Sauvaget 1940, fig. 12)— the kh«n opens outwards through three rectangular windows, placed over the gateway in a rectangular frame topped by a row of muqarnas and a simple molding. These windows relate to an upper chamber, from which place the abovementioned slit could be reached. The three-window setting in a way suggests associations with landscape windows found in both secular and religious Mamluk buildings, but here used in an altogether different role.528

280 feet [ca. 85 m] per side, with a single opening on the west.525 Unlike the typical courtyard-plan of the Mamluk kh«ns, the building displayed an annular scheme, consisting of a central block crossed by a narrow passage and surrounded by a wider lane. Unfortunately, as most of the medieval construction had already disappeared by the time the Mandatory inspectors started documenting the kh«n, it is not clear if the annular set-up was part of the original plan. Based on the present remains and on photographic and written documentation, this discussion hopes to add some information as to the building’s development, and to clarify some misinterpretations in Tamari’s and Abu Khalaf’s discussions. Starting from the kh«n’s façade, of which considerable portions are still preserved, it is crucial to cite the illustration included in The Caravan Route Between Egypt and Syria (1881) by the Austrian traveller L. Salvator, in which the whole of the western side of the kh«n is portrayed (Fig. 23.1: 1). According to this late nineteenth century depiction, prepared by the author himself on his journey to the Middle East in 1878, travelers approaching Kh«n Y−nus could see its fortified battlements from afar, strengthened by two circular corner towers and crowned by crenellations—by then partly damaged—and enhanced by a dome and a high tower flanking the arched gateway. This pictorial evidence, referred to by Meinecke in his work on Mamluk architecture (1992, p. 275, no. 25A/50) adds much to the partial information previously seen only in earlier photographs of the kh«n in A. Musil (1908, fig. 37) and H. Thiersch (1909, pp. 119–120, fig. 137). These photographs mainly depict the central section of the façade and show it before the minaret was partly destroyed by the Ottomans during the First World War and before most of the dome collapsed (Fig. 23.1: 2).526 Since then, the cylindrical termination over the veranda has disappeared (Fig. 23.4: 2), leaving only the octagonal lower storeys towering over the right side of the gateway (Figs. 23.2: 1–3; 23.3: 5); the northern side of the wall is concealed, due to modern constructions added sometime during the late nineteenth/early twentieth century (Fig. 23.2: 3); most of the crenellations have disappeared, apart from those concealing the dome’s structure (Fig. 23.2: 6).

To the north and south of the gate are considerable portions of the original western wall.529 They are set in 15 cm high headers (7 cm) and stretchers (24 to 28 cm), partly roughly cut, partly dressed in the typical combing of the period (Figs. 23. 3: 1–2). The sections immediately to the left and right of the gateway (Figs. 23. 3: 5–7) are decorated with a carved rectangular panel bearing a naskhī inscription, topped by a drop-shaped medallion—also inscribed—flanked by a pair of carved blazons (see below). On entering the kh«n one walks through a barrel vaulted passage, leading to a cross-vaulted vestibule from which both the minaret and an upper level could be reached by a staircase starting from the northern side. A short inscription tops this staircase, today complete but only partially in situ when first documented by the Mandatory inspectors (Figs. 23. 4: 3–5).530 From the upper level the minaret was accessed from an opening on the eastern side, today blocked (Fig. 23. 4: 1).

The gateway is framed by a pointed arch composed of alternate single and double voussoirs (Fig. 23.2: 5). This arrangement differs from the usual ablaq decoration

527

The flanking benches are a typical feature of Mamluk gateways. Their appearance at the gate in Kh«n Y−nus was confirmed following the finding of one such bench on the northern (left) side of the gate during soundings undertaken in 1943 by D.C. Baramki (Mandate Record File, ATQ/31, see appended document). 528 For a few examples see Burgoyne 1987, figs. 26.6 (al-ªlmalikiyya, dated 741AH/AD1340), 33.6 (al-Is‘ardiyya, dated 760AH/AD1359), 53.4 (al-B«si³iyya, dated 834AH/AD1431). 529 In 1929 ten meters of the northern stretch could be seen while the 20 m the south up to the SW corner tower, as well as 20 m from its extension towards the east, could still be seen (see appended document, 11–7-29; Fig. 23.2: 1). 530 It was later completed by the remnant slab found by the inspectors at the local mosque.

525

These measurements differ from those by G. Schumacher, who in 1886 described the building as 237 feet in length and “a width of 38 feet at the gate.” Schumacher notes that he was unable to sketch the building, as “part of the building is in possession of the Harîm of the Sheikh of Khân Yûnis, who followed us with all sorts of cursings, and would not allow a sketch to be made.” (Schumacher 1886, pp. 181–182) 526 According to Schumacher’s testimony, the dome was already partly collapsed in 1886. Schumacher describes it as follows: “The cupola has a height of 24 feet, and is spanned over a room of 17 feet square; its layers run in concentrical rows, the stones being exactly worked; just the eastern half of this fine cupola is fallen.” (Schumacher 1886, p. 182)

154

Gazetteer To the north of the passage is a double entrance to the kh«n’s mosque (B in Mandatory plan; Fig. 23. 4: 7–8), mostly preserved thanks to some reinforcement work done during the Mandatory period. The entrance consists of two doorways provided with marble lintels, over which runs a large inscription in naskhī script (Fig. 23.4: 6). The mosque consisted of an 8×10 m vaulted chamber supported by corner piers, which according to the British documentation was used until the late 1910’s as the village mosque.

a modern unit, while F (Fig. 23.5: 3–4) could be “old”, even though the residents stated they had it constructed thirty years before.534 Even the building’s central unit could be a late addition, perhaps datable to the seventeenth century when the kh«n underwent a significant transformation into a fortress. Nonetheless, the annular plan with an axial central block somewhat also recalls the thirteenth century Saljuq Alara Han on the Alanya-Konya road (Erdmann 1961, pp. 184–187, tafel XXXII; Yavuz 1997, p. 82, fig. 8), even though the axial passage and the circumambulatory lane of the latter are covered units, unlike those in Kh«n Y−nus (Fig. 23.5: 7).535

Above the mosque stood a large chamber whose dome, as already indicated, has only partly remained (Figs. 23. 4: 2, 8–9). This room had two rectangular windows opening to the outside of the kh«n, as in the chamber over the gate. But instead of muqarnas and molding as an exterior crowning, the two windows are topped by stylized crenellations (Fig. 23. 2. 6). This chamber is called “the Jâma’” by Schumacher (1886, p. 181) and as the “Upper Mosque” by the mukhtars of Kh«n Y−nus in 1929 (IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files/letters 11–729 and 22–8-29). Together with the lower mosque it was property of the awq«f, unlike the other parts of the kh«n, by then all under private ownership.531

The truth is that of the architecture of this Mamluk kh«n, described by the Egyptian historians Ibn al-Fur«t (735– 807AH/AD1334–1405; Ibn al-Fur«t, Vol.9/1, p. 181) and al-Maqr»z» (766–845AH/AD1364–1442; al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, III/2, p. 289) respectively as kh«n ‘aμ»m al-sh«’n (kh«n of great importance) and kh«n jal»l (lofty kh«n),536 we actually know very little. Dating Evidence Epigraphic

Apart from the gateway area and remaining wall sections, little of the original kh«n is left. As Tamari said in 1987 (Tamari 1987, p. 696), the main difficulty in dealing with the architecture of Kh«n Y−nus lies in the fact that most of the original construction has been obliterated, mainly due to massive residential additions made within its limits (Fig. 23.4: 10).532

For the transcription and translation of the two-part inscription on the façade, see Chapter 2. Over each part of the inscription is an inscribed drop-shaped medallion flanked by a pair of heraldic blazons. Both medallions read (RCEA, xviii, pp. 115–116, no. 791 006): ‫( ﻋ ّﺰ ﻟﻤﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻈﺎهﺮ‬1) ‫( ﺑﺮﻗﻮق‬2)

Tamari adopted the Mandatory ground plan (Figs. 23.1: 3) as the basis for his architectural reconstruction (Fig. 23.5: 6),533 without noticing that many of the units included there were in fact modern additions. In D. Baramki’s memo dated November 4, 1943 (ATQ/31, see attached document) we read that E (Figs. 23.5: 1–2) was

‫( ﻋ ّﺰ ﻧﺼﺮﻩ‬3) (1) Power to our lord the Sultan al-Malik al-§«hir (2) Barq−q (3) Power to his victory! There are two additional inscriptions, over the doorways of the mosque and above the staircase opening respectively. The transcription of the first is found in Abu Khalaf 1983, p. 186 and reads:

531

See further discussion on both mosques in Tamari 1987, pp. 698– 700. 532 Kh«n Y−nus is the sole living example in southern Bil«d al-Sh«m of a kh«n which formed the core of a new urban entity radiating from its perimeter (Tamari 1987, p. 696). On the urbanization of Kh«n Y−nus, see some of the bibliographical notes below (mainly Salvator’s, dated to 1878). As witnessed by the sixteenth century census (Hütteroth & Abdulfattah 1977), villages such as Jubb Y−suf, Minya and ‘Uy−n alTujj«r developed in the vicinity of a standing kh«n. In other cases, such as Jalj−liya, ²»ra and Q«q−n, the kh«n was erected on the periphery of already standing villages. The issue of urbanization of rural kh«ns will not be pursued in this dissertation but it definitely deserves a future indepth study. 533 Tamari dealt mainly with the kh«n’s architectural conception—and that assuming that the layout outlined by the Mandatory inspectors corresponded to its original plan—and developed a theory in which Kh«n Y−nus should be rather understood as a rib«³, to be compared with structures such as the eighth-ninth century rib«³ at S−sa in Tunisia. In his view, even if Kh«n Y−nus did function as an inn for travelers, and perhaps for the royal mail (bar»d), those were secondary functions. Following M. Gichon’s study of the Roman limes in the Negev, Tamari believed that Kh«n Y−nus in a way “inherited” the defensive role once played by Menois Castrum (Khirbat Ma‘an, ca. 2 km southeast of Kh«n Y−nus), and its plan was influenced by Roman fortresses such as that in Da‘j«niya (Fig. 23.5: 8) in south Jordan (ca. 75 km south of al-Lajj−n), whose interior planning was both axial and annular (Tamari 1987, p. 702).

534

This testimony should be taken with much caution as the inhabitants of Kh«n Y−nus tended to conceal the antiquity of their domiciles in order to prevent the inspectors from stopping their construction works which often involved the destruction of genuine portions of the building. An example of this behaviour can be found in a report by J. Ory dated March 6, 1941. There we read: “Vaulted room situated 13 meters inside the gate has recently collapsed. The cause is attributed to recent rains, but it was also alleged that it was purposely damaged by the owner Mustafa Agha, who has submitted an application for building on this site.” 535 Alara Han and a few other Saljuq kh«ns on annular plans were discussed by A.T. Yavuz in his article on Mirçinge Han in eastern Anatolia, southeast of Divri¿i, classified by the author as “Concentrically Planned Hans.” (Yavuz 1995, pp. 454–458) According to Yavuz, “[i]n the concentrically planned Hans the courtyard at the center seems to be devoted to the travellers only, there are only rooms for nightly use and eyvans for daily use.” (Yavuz 1995, p. 457) 536 For further references, see Tamari 1987, n. 29.

155

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m ‫( ﺑﺴﻢ اﷲ اﻟﺮﺣﻤﻦ اﻟﺮﺣﻴﻢ اﻧﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻤﺮﻣﺴﺎﺟﺪ اﷲ ﻣﻦ ﺁﻣﻦ ﺑﺎﷲ واﻟﻴﻮم اﻻﺧﺮ‬1) ‫وأﻗﺎم اﻟﺼﺎﻟﺔ وﺁﺗﻰ اﻟﺰآﺎة وﻟﻢ ﻳﺨﺶ اﻻ اﷲ ﻓﻌﺴﺲ اوﻟﺌﻚ أن ﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮا ﻣﻦ‬ ‫اﻟﻤﻬﺘﺪ ﻳﻦ‬

loyal am»r of the sultan, and very active in his administration (Tamari 1987, p. 702). To Tamari the erection of Kh«n Y−nus—which he repeatedly calls a rib«³—was a strategic step towards Barq−q’s overcoming of the local insurrection, and should be first and foremost interpreted as a military structure, even if declared a kh«n al-sab»l by its foundation inscription.

‫( اﻧﺸﺄﻩ ووﻗﻔﻪ اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻒ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻲ اﻟﻤﻮﻟﻮى اﻻ ﻣﻴﺮى اﻟﺰﻋﻴﻤﻲ اﻟﺴﻔﻴﺮى‬2) ‫اﻟﺸﺮﻓﻲ ﻳﻮﻧﺲ اﻟﺪوادار ﻣﻮﻻﻧﺎ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎن اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻈﺎهﺮى ﺷﻜﺮ اﷲ ﻋﻤﻠﻪ‬ ‫وأﺑﻠﻐﻪ أﻣﻠﻪ‬ (1) In the name of Allah, most gracious, most merciful, “The Mosques of Allah shall be visited and maintained by such as believe in Allah and the Last Day, establish regular prayers, and practice regular charity, and fear none (at all) except Allah. It is they who are expected to be on true guidance” (Qur’«n 9: 18).

Tamari is correct in emphasizing Kh«n Y−nus’ strategic role, due to its position on the border between Egypt and Syria on the one hand, and close to the Mediterranean coast on the other. Especially if we take into account that its erection preceded that of the burj al-²»na by Sultan Barsb«y (r. 825–841AH/AD1422–1438) by thirty eight years (Tamari 1978, p. 12), and its transformation by sultan Q«n·−h al-Gh−r» (r. 906–922AH/AD1501– 1516)541 into an octagonal qal‘a by more than a hundred and twenty years (Tamari 1978, pp. 17–18), Kh«n Y−nus was basically alone on the frontier. But that still does not classify the building as a rib«³ (a term that by this time had already impregnated with different meanings as discussed in Chapter 2), or even as a qal‘a, if the official documentation clearly defines it as a kh«n.

(2) It was erected and endowed by the highly supreme, the lord, the commander, the leader and noble mediator Y−nus al-Daw«d«r, our lord the Sultan al-Malik al-§«hir. May God reward him for his deeds and help him achieve his goal. The transcription of the second inscription has not been found but its content was referred to by Tamari (1987, n. 17). The second line apparently reads: ‫( اﻧﺸﺎء هﺬا اﻟﺨﺎن ﻟﻠﺴﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﺸﺮﻳﻒ اﻟﺴﻠﻄﺎﻧﻲ‬2)

More difficult to accept is Abu Khalaf’s interpretation of the building’s structural development. He writes (Abu Khalaf 1983, pp. 182–183):

…Erected this noble and Sultanic charitable kh«n… So far unpublished are the four inscribed medallions which decorate the octagonal minaret (Fig. 23.4: 11). They read:

…It seems clear that the gateway is of two periods. The first dates to the time of Baybars and the second to the time of Yannus [sic!] ad-Dawadar. This fact is confirmed by architectural features and historical records.

‫( )ا(ﷲ‬Allah), ‫( اﻟﻤﻠﻚ‬al-Malik- The Sovereign), ‫( اﻟﻘﻬّﺎر‬alQahh«r-The Subduer), ‫( اﻟﻮاﺣﺪ‬al-W«¯id- The Unique), four of the 99 epithets of Allah.537

The first architectural feature is the arch of the inner gate which is different from the pointed arch of the façade of the outer gateway suggesting that the façade arch has been added to an earlier gateway. Another feature is the stonework blazons on the curtain wall, and the lions on the inner relief: the lions are Baybars’ symbol…

Attribution Whereas the epigraphic and written evidence (see Citations in Literature below) leaves no doubt as to the patronage of the am»r Sharaf al-D»n Y−nus b. ‘Abd All«h al-Nawr−z (d. 791AH/AD1389), the daw«d«r,538 in the name of Sultan Barq−q (r. 784–801AH/AD1382– 1399),539 and to the kh«n’s completion in 789AH/AD1387, divergent theories regarding the building’s dating and development were suggested by Tamari and Abu Khalaf.

Abu Khalaf disregarded the fact that the heraldic felines were not the monopoly of Baybars; among the maml−ks who sported a feline for a blazon is sultan Barq−q himself. His coinage consists of a composite blazon of a feline and a chalice, relating to the inscription (Balog 1964, p. 268, no. 595, pl. XXIV):

Tamari surprisingly describes the kh«n’s dating as “undefined,” even though recognizing that it was erected under the patronage of Y−nus al-Daw«d«r (Tamari 1987, p. 695),540 and suggesting a late 1388-early 1389 date for the construction, based on the historical background of that period. According to him, the 1380s saw increasing opposition to Barq−q’s rule, culminating in an armed uprising by the governor of Gaza in late 1388—early 1389. Y−nus, on the other hand, was a

‫ﻋﺰ ﻧﺼﺮﻩ‬/‫اﻟﻤﻠﻚ اﻟﻈﺎهﺮ‬/...‫ﺿﺮب ب‬ In addition, Abu Khalaf’s architectural argumentation is weak, since composite gateways such as that in Kh«n Y−nus are not an exception. More interesting are the dynamics of patronage apparent at Kh«n Y−nus. As witnessed by the inscriptions and blazons, the building was a sultanic expression through an amiral undertaking. The appearance of Barq−q’s heraldic lions over the entrance and flanking the foundation inscription, the inscribed medallions bearing his name over the two-part inscription east and west of

537 I would like to thank ’Abd Katib for kindly protographing the minaret and its inscriptions. 538 On this post, see footnote 397. 539 See relevant bibliographical references on Y−nus al-Nawr−z»’s appointment as Great Daw«d«r (daw«d«r kab»r) of Barq−q in Tamari 1987, n. 1–3. 540 Tamari’s disregard of the kh«n’s dating is surprising as he had seen the Mandatory Records in which the date appears at least once (ATQ/2451).

541

On Barsbay, see G. Wiet, EI2, i, pp. 1053–1054; on Q«n·−h al-Gh−r» see P.M. Holt, EI2, iv, pp. 551–553.

156

Gazetteer the gate, as well as the inscription over the mosque, show a certain degree of involvement by the ruler. Tamari briefly referred to this issue when dealing with the inscription found over the opening to the staircase. In his view, Barq−q had no direct involvement with the kh«n’s building, otherwise such a major act would surely have been mentioned in his biography in Ibn Iy«s (see above; Tamari 1987, n. 17). Tamari’s argument can be generally accepted, even though the wording of the mosque’s inscription could also indicate a different pattern of patronage.

al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, III/2, p. 289: [d. 845AH/AD1442] “and he [had] a lofty kh«n outside Gaza…” Ibn ®ajar, Inb«’ al-ghumr, I, p. 390: [ca. year 1446] “… and he [Y−nus b. ‘Abd All«h al-Turk» al-Daw«d«r] built Kh«n Y−nus on the Syrian route, close to Gaza.” San Severino, pp. 158–159: [year 1458] “Mercodie xiij di septembre tre hore nandi die se partirono et andarono ad fare collatione ad uno cane ad presso ad Gazara circa x miglia, sempre per sabione. Et lì uscirono fore del diserto, nè più oltra, verso Jerusalem, se trova più sabione per quella via. Facta dicta collatione se partirono et gionsero ad gazara circha hore xxj.

Documentation Archival

“Giovedie xiiij di septembre due hore nanti die se partirono et, perchè la via non era bene sechura, non se volsero firmare in alchuno locho, anti caminarono fin ad le xxij hore. Et andarono ad alogiare ad uno cane, ove allogiarono, quando andarono l’atra volta ad Gazara, ne l’handare ad sancta Katerina, et chiamasse enane quella villa o casale al modo loro. Et trovarono per la villa arabi assay, ad li quali bisognò che facessero cortixia, cioè dessero dinari, biscotto et altre cosse havevano secho.”

IAA Archives/Mandate Record Files: File no. 123, ‘Kh«n Y−nis’. Inspection reports from 1919 through 1947; conservation reports; correspondence between local authorities and with the Department of Antiquities; short historical bakground; plans; photographs; bibliography. Noteworthy is the report dated to 27.11.19, a letter by the Mukhtars of Khan Yunis to the Registrar of Lands Gaza dated 11–7-29, and a letter dating to 4–11–43 from D.C. Baramki, Inspector of Antiquities, to the Director of Antiquities (ATQ/31; see appended document, pp. 281284).

Catalogue of Ibnül-Emin, Dahiliye, petition no. 478 (Heyd 1960, pp. 185–186): [ca. 1011AH/AD1602–3] “…The section [of the Damascus-Cairo road] from Gaza to Qa³ya, which is [covered in] six or seven days, is situated in the desert. Between [these towns] there is no inhabited place except the fortress of ‘Ar»sh. The Bedouin evil-doers always and incessantly molest and vex the travellers who pass along the road to Egypt on this side of the fortress of ‘Ar»sh, near the ruins named Kh«n Y−nis in the desert. Solely in order [to ensure] that in the[se] days of the imperial [reign of] felicity the wayfarers may pass by in tranquility, and since the imperial Treasury is in straits, I have therefore volunteered to restore the said caravanserai in the form of a fortress at my own expense, and forty horsemen and twenty foot-soldiers were enlisted from Egypt the WellProtected and stationed at the said fortress. But since the Bedouins are very numerous and the said fortress is situated on the border of the desert, forty horsemen are [too] small a number and consequently they (the Bedouins) again do not cease to cause disorder and trouble…”

Photographic Archival photos: Musil 1908, fig. 37; Thiersch 1909, fig. 137; L.A. Mayer, ‘Eretz-Israel’, 2nd Book, no. 16 (Dept. of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem); Bodleian Library, Oxford James Rennel Rodd Album, f.28v top; Recent photos: David Silverman (December 4, 1999); ‘Abd Katib (February 4, 2008). Field Work: Site not visited. Bibliography Ibn al-Fur«t, vol. 9/1, pp. 180–181; al-Maqr»z», Sul−k, III/2, p. 289; Ibn ®ajar, Inb«’ al-ghumr, I, p. 390; San Severino, pp. 158–159; catalogue of Ibnül-Emin, Dahiliye, petition no. 478 (Heyd 1960, pp. 185–186); Sandys, p. 915; Pesenti, p. 130; Thevenot, pp. 179–181 (=1665, pp. 360–362); Irby and Mangles, p. 175; Scholz, pp. 51, 52, 97; Spencer, p. 244; Howe, p. 380; Ludwig Salvator, pp. 55–64; Schumacher 1886, pp. 181–182; Baedeker, p. 143; Musil 1907, p. 57; Thiersch 1909, pp. 119–120, fig. 137; Briggs 1924, pp. 91, 117, 119; Sauvaget 1941, p. 66, footnotes 265, 267; Tamari 1987; Meinecke 1992, p. 275, 25A/50; Stern 1997, pp. 116–117; Cytryn-Silverman 2004, vol. 2, pp. 228–245.

Sandys, p. 140: [year 1610] “On the seventeenth of March we dislodged betimes in the morning, resting about noone by the wells of Feare; the earth here looking greene, yet waste, and unhusbanded. In the evening we departed. Having passed in the night by the Castle Haniones, by breake of the day they followed us to gather their Caphar; being three Madeins vpon every camell. The countrey from that place pleasant, and indifferent fruitfull. By seven of the clocke, we pitched close under the Citie of Gaza.”

Citations in Literature Ibn al-Fur«t, vol. 9/1, pp. 180–181: [d. 1405] “…Y−nus b. ‘Abd Allah al-Nawr−z» al-§«hir»… patron of a kh«n of great importance [one] bar»d distant [ca. 24 km] from Samra [?], on the relay-station [markaz] known as alSalqa…”

Pesenti, p. 130: [year 1612] “…& cavalcando pel deserto tutto arenoso [after Gaza] intorno ad’otto hore, arrivassimo a Caleones, ove è un picciol ricetto, tenuto da alcuni soldati, che ne fecero pagare mezzo Reale per 157

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m huomo, alloggiando noi alla campagna al sereno, nel restante del giorno, & della notte. Levati avanti giorno, cavalcando al solito per deserto altre otto hore di camino, arrivassimo a Laris, Castello, distante poco più di due miglia dalla Marina.”

Mahometan thinks himself authorized to demand of the infidels, especially at certain places.” Spencer, p. 244: “[29th March 1849] It was intensely hot between nine in the morning and one P.M. At eleven, A.M., we came to Refah, the ancient Raphia, which is now only a mound of ruins, covered with grass; two pillars of gray granite are still standing, and some are lying about; the Arabs call the deep well here, Solomon's, but why, I did not learn. At one, P.M., we arrived at Khan Yunis (Jonas's Inn), the ancient Yenisus, a neat town, if so I may speak of any village with mud huts, and the peculiar habits of Eastern people.”

Thevenot, pp. 179–180 [=1665, pp. 360–362]: [year 1657] “Friday the fifth of April the Wind after a great deal of Rain calming we parted from Zaka about nine a Clock in the Morning, and travelled in good way; a little after twelve of the Clock we found three fair Marble Pillars, two standing, and one lying along upon the ground, and a little after a large Well of good Water, where there are Sakis, there we began to see a very pleasant Countrey, and some Corn-land: sometime after we found a Sibil of bitter Water, which is close by Cauniones, where we arrived about three in the Afternoon; they have so many Marble-Pillars there also, that their Coffee-Houses stand all upon such… There is a very fair Castle there, with a large open place in it. The Turks lodge in the Castle, where there is a Saki of very good Water, and the Moors and Felas live in the Houses without. This Castle is commanded by a Muteferaca, who has but a small number of Soldiers with him in it; he depends immediately on Caire, from whence he has his pay, and his Soldiers are payed by the Cachef of Catie; Cauniones is in Ægypt, which here ends.”

Salvator, pp. 57–61: [year 1878] “Khanyunis (or Khan Yunas) is the furthest Syrian place in the direction of Egypt, and in some respects the last outpost of the immediate authority of the Porte, as El Harish is of that of the Khedive… “As in El Harish, the Kala constitutes the castle of the place, and is at the same time the nucleus around which the other buildings have gradually clustered. “Khanyunis is now a pleasant village, but does not at present contain more than 1000 inhabitants… “…As has been said, the principal feature of Khanyunis is its Kala…, which abuts on a broad place or square, the left side of which still shows traces of a former enclosure. On either side of the entrance is a hall, with a fragment of a pedestal. That on the left contains the modest dwelling of the governor, who lives quite alone here, with but one servant. The Kala, which is 850 years old, once formed a square, at the corners of which were circular towers, with oval cupolas, and three embrasures. The two front towers only now remain, the back wall having been quite destroyed, and the once enclosed square is now filled with a wild confusion of wretched houses, half in ruins, which serve the soldiers as a place of habitation.

“…We stayed at Gaza all Sunday the seventh of April, waiting for the Jews, who had stopp’d to celebrate their Sabbath at Cauniones.” Irby and Mangles, pp. 175–176: “[October 8, 1817] At sun-set we reached the village of Haneunis. It has a long square fortification inclosing a mosque. The approach to this place is picturesque; it is seated in a valley, and its environs are prettily laid out with gardens, trees, &c.; there is but little land turned to agricultural purposes. We remarked both the houses and inhabitants to be cleaner and handsomer than those in Egypt. “There are many marble fragments of columns, &c. which mark the site of a town of Roman antiquity.”

“In the centre of the front side is a gate with loopholes within the pointed arch, above which is a Moorish frieze crowned with lilies. On both sides of the gate, and on the broad front wall, are pyramidical battlements with tapering ends. Inside the archway is an inscription of Sultan Bargut [sic!] of Cairo, and either side is ornamented with a lion, rudely sculptured in relief. Arabic inscriptions are cut in the walls on both sides of the gate, and in the gateway itself; no regard having been paid to keeping within the stone rows. To the right of the gate, within the Kala, rises the octagonal minaret of the mosque, from which is obtained a fine view of the ruinous interior, with its labyrinth of dilapidated houses, as well as of the whole village. From here four roads can be seen diverging from Khanyunis, namely the El Harish road, the road leading to Suez viâ Akaba, the Benishaela road, and lastly, the Gaza road. At the entrances to these roads are grouped the houses of the village…

Scholz, p. 51: [year 1821] “After proceeding some leagues further you perceive the ruins of the town of Rafah, and a very large and deep cistern of the same name. The country becomes mountainous, and at the foot of the mountains is Chanus (Khan Jouness), the ancient Jenysus, the first village in Syria.” Scholz, pp. 52–53: “… In the same manner the barbarians have destroyed the remaining antiquities in Khan Jouness, and especially those in Dir Belach, which were very considerable. “…Arish has three hundred inhabitants, and Khan Jouness about a thousand. Both are fortified as protection to the frontiers, and the first is celebrated on account of the battle fought near it during the French invasion. They prosper by the trade which they carry on between Egypt and Syria: the inhabitants are remarkably rich in camels; and both demand of the Christians and Jews who pass by, the tribute called Ghafar, which the

“We now descended to complete our inspection of the Kala. In the interior the mosque, with its oval dome, has

158

Gazetteer almost gone to ruin; but the fine though simple marble pulpit still stands in good preservation. In the midst of the ruins, which have a somewhat picturesque appearance, is a house in a very dangerous condition, in consequence of a considerable portion of the mosque having fallen on it a short time since…”

height of 24 feet, and is spanned over a room of 17 feet square; its layers run in concentrical rows, the stones being exactly worked; just the eastern half of this fine cupola is fallen. In the eastern wall a neat little pulpit of pure white marble and moresque work, with marble stairs leading up to it, is yet preserved. The whole building is in a state of decay, and in a short time those splendid remains will be covered with drifting sand. A hundred yards west of the Jamâ’, and close to the road, we found remains of a circular tower building of very strong masonry, probably an old Roman watch tower; its building area dates anyhow earlier that that of the Khân. To the south of the Khân a camel is employed at a Hannâni to wind up water from a deep well with an adjacent water basin, in which ancient marble remains are built. The drinking water is of brackish taste. The village built round the Khân contains 150 huts or about 700 souls…”

Schumacher 1886, pp. 181–182: [July 1886] “Close by, to the east [of the modern Khân], rises the fine minaret and mosque, together with the ancient Khân building erected by Sultân Barkûk, built in the Arabic style of architecture, of sandstone and marble, with fair architectural details. The whole building has a length of 237 feet, and a width of 38 feet at the gate, and was flanked on each of its four corners by a round tower; a large wing added to the southern end is fallen. The “Khân” had two stories, the lower being the Khân itself, the upper evidently rooms for guests with the Jâma’. The main entrance facing west is spanned by a pointed arch, and in its bay a second gate with a segmental arch was constructed. The entrance is ornamented with lion figures, Kor’an citations and arabesques, above which on each side of the gate the name of “Sultan Barkûk” and a dedication to him is engraved. The entablature of the second story ended in a sort of ridge flower. To the right of the entrance a stairway leads to the Minaret, an octagon with an upper panel of later date, and to the left some passage must have led to the beautiful cupola spanned over the Jamâ’. It was rather hard work to climb up the fallen walls to the second story in order to explore the Jâma’, all the more as a part of the building is in possession of the Harîm of the Sheikh of Khân Yûnis, who followed us with all sorts of cursings, and would not allow a sketch to be made. The cupola has a

Baedeker, p. 143: [1898 edition] “From Gaza to El‘Arîsh, 13 hrs. From Gaza in 1 hr. 5 min. to Tell el-‘Ajûl near the Wâdi Ghazzeh, which rises near Hebron and passes near Beersheba. About 1 hr. S.E. of Tell el-‘Ajûl near Tell Jem‘a are the ruins of Umm Jerâr (probably the Gerar of Gen. xx. 1; xxvi.1). After 1 1/4 hr. Dêr elBel⯠(the ancient Dârûm; the mosque Jâmi‘ el-Khi±r stands on the site of an old chapel). We next reach (1 hr. 37 min.) Khân Yûnus, with a fine mosque of the time of sultan Barkûk. A little to the S. of Khân Yûnus is the Egyptian frontier.”

159

Gazetteer

Chapter 6 Conclusion

During the Mamluk period a series of road inns of charitable nature, al-kh«n«t li’l-sab»l, were erected on the main routes of the Sultanate to provide shelter for travelers, pilgrims and merchants, moving on their own, in small groups or in large caravans. The inns were built under the patronage of the ruling class, as well as by the rich mercantile elite.

in Syria during the third reign of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w−n (709–741AH/AD1310–1341). In terms of architecture the kh«ns were designed to serve the mercantile sector, even though they catered to an eclectic clientele. They had wide covered halls suitable to receive whole parties, including beasts of burden laden with merchandise. In the more monumental kh«ns certain areas were even specifically designated as stables for horses and asses and provided with tethers at a convenient height, while other tethers were attached to low platforms around the courtyard, allowing camels to be fastened and merchants to load them easily. It is thus understandable that the term caravansary (k«rw«nsar«y) became a common, if restrictive, translation for kh«n (and also for the Iranian and Anatolian rib«³). It appears in the western sources, in the popular speech in Iran, and eventually was also integrated into most modern languages. K«rw«ns, in Arabic q«fila, were terms used to designate groups of merchants traveling together to avoid the perils of the roads, such as robbers and natural obstacles. However, by translating the Mamluk kh«n as caravansary, much of its wide range of functions, as well as its specific architectural association, is lost.

These inns catered not only to Muslims, for whom various services (given by cobblers, farriers, physicians, and others), provisions and prayer rooms were usually made available, but also to non-Muslims. These were usually charged a fee, but it is not clear if they were entitled to all the facilities provided. Some inns are even known to have distributed money and food to the poor and needy, a strong expression of the kh«n’s charitable nature. The system by which these charitable institutions were maintained was common to many contemporary projects. It was based on waqf (endowment) property, whose profits were dedicated and immobilized, providing resources for a structure’s maintenance, staff wages, and payment for supplies and services. Part of the background for the widespread use of the waqf system during the Mamluk period stemmed from maml−k hereditary rules, in which the offspring of a maml−k were not entitled to inherit their father’s wealth. This did not leave much choice for a maml−k unwilling to have his estate seized by the treasury and his family left destitute, other than having it dedicated to charity, li’l-sab»l All«h, the members of his family nominated trustees, in this way also enjoying the benefits in practice.

The Mamluk kh«ns, despite variations in ground plans and decorative schemes, had a common architectural denominator: they all shared the same courtyard plan, in which enclosed spaces surround an open area. This basic layout was not new, and in fact is common to a wide range of Islamic architectural categories. Since the early Islamic period palaces, manor houses, border fortifications, farmhouses, colleges, lodges for mystics and pilgrims, and others, were planned around a central open courtyard. But specific characteristics help to single out the kh«ns.

In the specific case of kh«n patronage, a maml−k could simultaneously fulfill his religious duty of providing for the poor and offering hospitality, while enjoying the prestige of his patronage, including his quest for social legitimization, legally protecting his properties from confiscation by the Sultanate, providing for his progeny, and even advancing his economic interests.

The Mamluk road inns followed those of the Ayyubid period which were symmetrical, inward-turning singlestoried buildings, where barrel-vaulted halls surrounded an open courtyard, accessed through a defensive gate usually provided with an upper chamber. Some of the Mamluk kh«ns were more faithful than others to their predecessors’ concept, and displayed a vaulted cell or opening on to the hall opposite the gate, stressing the building’s axis. In addition, there was often a pair of rooms flanking the gateway. The prayer room had no standard location, but determined the kh«n’s orientation to the cardinal points. Structural changes were introduced mainly during the second half of the fourteenth century, when cross-vaulting became more systematically used.

Historical evidence demonstrates the direct involvement of Sultans, high-ranking am»rs and rich merchants in many lucrative economic enterprises of the Mamluk period, and in that respect the building of inns could have been part of their commercial vision. By offering shelter, water, basic goods and various services, the inns attracted inland trade, which in turn produced income from tax collection, eliminated middlemen and created a market for local agriculture and industry, by supplying not only travelers but also the emerging towns and villages. They also improved land values along the main routes. The process seems to have peaked during the fourteenth century, and is exemplified by the many road inns erected

The prayer room and the gate area were the main focus of decoration, which varied from building to building, while keeping to typical Mamluk aesthetic principles. Surviving examples of prayer rooms show the use of ablaq, carved

161

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m plaster, and even painting, but no standard of decoration can be defined. The same lack of standardization is found in the gates and flanking walls. Apart from two examples where ablaq dominates the façade, the builder’s decorative efforts were mainly devoted to the gate itself, even though in a very reserved fashion.

The fixing of the term kh«n to designate the medieval road inns of Syria may be related to the establishment of an architectural model during the Ayyubid period, which however was not categorically followed in Mamluk times. The architectural standardization of the Ayyubid period might also have influenced the replacement of the term funduq by kh«n, as evinced by the epigraphic evidence. With time, kh«n became almost synonymous with “courtyard building,” and was applied to various structures of different functions. It was used for the fortification at ‘Aqaba by an early sixteenth century chronicler, despite being called a qal‘a in the foundation inscription. Since the Ottoman period kh«n has been used to designate not only fortifications, but also farmhouses and even small factories, of which the only common factor is the basic ground plan. More difficult to explain, but of no less interest, is the preference in Iran for the Arabic word rib«³ to define rural inns, to the detriment of the indigenous term kh«n.

The decoration of the gates was mainly based on the choice of arches and frames, as well as on carved foundation inscriptions and occasional heraldic blazons. This reserved appearance is noteworthy, especially if compared to the late eleventh-early twelfth century inns from Iran and those from early thirteenth century Anatolia. These had, in brickwork and stonework respectively, richly decorated façades and gates. The contained appearance of the Mamluk inns, however, did not result from a lack of capability; Syrian masons had a long-standing tradition of stonework, and could carve, inlay and joggle, as they skilfully did in many of their urban undertakings. The relatively austere appearance of the kh«n was thus a deliberate choice.

The parallel use of the term kh«n for urban inns is, however, the most confusing. In fact, its use to designate at least some of the commercial hostels of the cities, in addition to funduq (fan«diq) and the Frankish-orientated fondaci, began as early as the early Islamic period and was of much wider geographical scope.

The gap between the Iranian, Anatolian and Syrian concepts is not confined to decoration. Even the largest of the Mamluk kh«ns did not compete with the architectural monumentality of Rib«³-i-Sharaf in Iran, or the series of Sultan Hans in Anatolia. Possible reasons can be suggested. First, the patronage of the Mamluk inns was mainly dominated by am»rs, whose investment would naturally be more limited than that of a Sultan. Second, while it is possible that some of the Iranian and Anatolian examples were also used as temporary residences for royal entourages, the official use of the Mamluk kh«ns was mainly restricted to catering to the royal mail (bar»d), and that only in the case of inns located on the bar»d routes. The stationing of government soldiers at some of the Mamluk inns is a late phenomenon, dating from the early Ottoman period onwards. This new function sometimes involved some architectural reorganization, and in general the buildings were redefined as qal‘a.

The architectural layout of the urban kh«ns differs from their rural counterparts, especially in their compartmentalization, the usual second storey, natural lack of defensive elements due to their location within the city, and others (see Chapter 2, pp. 34f.; 40). An architectural, archaeological and historical survey of the urban mercantile institutions of Mamluk Syria, similar to that undertaken for this present research, would be desirable. Such a survey would include the kh«ns, funduqs and wak«las, in a way that would clarify the dynamics of trade during that period, and the needs of the mercantile class as reflected in the specialized architecture. In addition, a study of other road facilities such as wells, bridges and watchtowers, as well as their respective patronages, would show more of the degree of governmental involvement in road development and maintenance. One can hope that further and clearer information on the stations of the bar»d will also come to light and that future excavations will be dedicated to more fully exposing and preserving the kh«ns of Bil«d alSh«m.

In summary, the rural inns of the Mamluk period differ both architecturally and functionally from those of Saljuq Iran and Anatolia; they mostly followed the Ayyubid tradition. They are invariably called kh«ns in both the epigraphic and literary evidence, and in this they also vary from the earlier examples, denoted rib«³, kh«n or funduq, according to geographical and chronological factors. K«rv«nsar«y does not appear in official writings, but among Western writers became a popular designation of road inns in general.

162

Bibliography

Abbreviations

Primary Sources—Arabic and Persian

CIA, Alep—E. Herzfeld, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, Pt. 2: Syrie du Nord, Inscriptions et Monuments d’Alep, 3 vols., Le Caire, 1954–56.

Ab− ’l-Fid«', Memoirs The Memoirs of a Syrian Prince. Translated by P.M. Holt, Freiburger Islamstudien - Band IX, Wiesbaden 1983.

CIA, Jérusalem—M. van Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, Jérusalem I-II (“Ville,” “®aram”), Cairo, 1922, 1927.

Ali Bey, Travels Travels of Ali Bey in Morocco, Tripoli, Cyprus, Egypt, Arabia, Syria, and Turkey, between the years 1803 and 1807, vol. 2, London, 1816.

CIA, Égypte—M. van Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, Pt. 1: Égypte, I, Fasc. 1–4, Paris/Cairo, 1894.

al-‘Asqal«n», ®usn al-Man«qib

CIA, Syrie du Nord—M. van Berchem, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, Pt. 1. Syrie du Nord, Le Caire, 1909.

Sh«fi‘ b. ‘Al» al-‘Asqal«n», Kit«b ¯usn al-man«qib alsirriyya al-muntaza‘a min al-s»ra al-§«hiriyya. Edited by ‘A.‘A. al-Khuway³ir, Riyad, 1976.

CIAP—M. Sharon, Corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (CIAP), Leiden, 1997-

al-Bakr» al-¶idd»q», al-Khumra al-Bakr» al-¶idd»q», al-Khumra al-®as»ya fi ‘l-Ri¯la alQuds»ya, extracts translated into Hebrew by G. Weigert, “Eigtheenth Century Travel Diary: From Damascus to Jerusalem,” Cathedra 68, 1993, pp. 49–56, 198 (English summary).

Dozy—R. Dozy, Supplément Aux Dictionnaires Arabes, Deuxiéme Édition, 1927. EI—Encyclopaedia of Islam, First Edition, 1913–1936. EI2—The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, 1960– 2002.542

Çelebi Evliya Tchelebi's Travels in Palestine (1648–1650). Translated by St.H. Stephan, Jerusalem, 1980.

EIr—Encyclopaedia Iranica EQ—J.D. McAuliffe (ed.), Encyclopaedia of the Qur’«n, Leiden, 2001Hava—J.G. Hava, al-Far«’id Dictionary, 5th edition, Beirut, 1982.

Ibn ‘Abd aμ-§«hir, Raw± Mu¯y» al-D»n b. ‘Abd al-§«hir, al-Raw± al-§«hir f» s»rat al-malik al-§«hir. Edited by ‘A.‘A. al-Khuway³ir, Riyad, 1976.

Arabic-English

Lane—E.W. Lane, An Arabic—English Lexicon, London/Edinburgh, 1863 (2 Books) and Beirut, 1980 (8 Parts).

Ibn Ba³³−³a, Ri¯la Ri¯lat Ibn Ba³³−³a (known as Tu¯fat al-Nuμμ«r f» Ghar«’ib al-Am·«r wa-‘Aj«’ib al-Asf«r), Beirut, 1964.

NEAEH—The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 4. vols., Jerusalem, 1993.

Ibn Ba³³−³a, Selections

Qur’«n—The Meaning of the Holy Qur’«n, edited by ‘Abdullah Y−suf ‘Al», Beltsville, 1997 (9th edition).

Ibn Battúta, Travels in Asia and Africa 1325–1354. Translated and selected by H.A.R. Gibb, London, 1963.

RCEA—É. Combe, J. Sauvaget and G. Wiet (eds.), Répertoire chronologique d’Épigraphie arabe, 18 vols., Cairo, 1931–1991.

Ibn Ba³³−³a, Travels Ibn Ba³³−³a, The Travels of Ibn Ba³³−³a, A.D. 1325 – 1354. Translated and revised by H.A.R. Gibb, Cambridge, 4 vols., 1958, 1962, 1971, 1994.

SWP—C.R. Conder and H.H. Kitchiner, The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, 3 vols., London, 1881– 1883.

Ibn al-Fur«t Mu¯ammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ra¯»m Ibn al-Fur«t, Tarikh alduwal wa‘l-mul−k, vols. 7-9, Edited by Qus³an³»n Zuraiq and Najla ‘Izz al-D»n, Beirut, 1936-1942. Ibn al-Fur«t, Selections Mu¯ammad ibn ‘Abd al-Ra¯»m Ibn al-Fur«t, Ayyubids, Mamlukes and Crusaders, Selections from the T«r»kh al-

542

Full references to EI2 articles appear in the body of the text. The main articles appear alphabetically in the list of Modern Studies below.

163

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m duwal wa-al-muluk. Translated by U. and M. Cameron Lyons, historical introduction and notes by J.S.C. RileySmith, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1971.

Khal»l al-§«hir», Zubda Ghars ad-D»n Khal»l b. Sh«h»n al-§«hir», Kit«b Zubda Kashf al-mam«lik wa bay«n a³-²uruq wa’l-mas«lik, Paris, 1894.

Ibn ®ajar, al-Durar Shih«b al-D»n A¯mad b. ®ajar al-‘Asqal«n», al-Durar alK«mina f» A‘ay«n al-mi’a al-th«mina, 5 vols., Cairo, 1966.

Khayy«m, Rubbay«t Rubâyât of Omar Khayyâm. Translated by E. Fitzgerald (1859), London/Glasgow, 1947.

Ibn ®ajar, Inb«’ al-ghumr

al-Kutub», ʿUy−n al-Taw«rīkh

Shih«b al-D»n A¯mad b. ®ajar al-‘Asqal«n», Inb«’ alghumr bi-anb«’ al-‘umr, 3 volumes, edited by ®asan ®abashi, Cairo, 1969, 1971, 1972.

Mu¯ammad b. Sh«kir al-Kutub», ʿUy−n al-Taw«r»kh, 3 vols., Baghdad, 1977–1984.

Ibn Iy«s, Bad«'i‘ Zuh−r

al-Maqr»z», Khi³«³

Ibn Iy«s, Bad«'»‘ Zuh−r f» Waq«'i‘ al-Duh−r, 5 vols., Cairo, 1961–1975.

Taq» al-D»n Ab− ‘l-‘Abb«s b. ‘Al» b. ‘Abd al-Q«dir alMaqr»z», Al-Maw«'iz wa’l-I'tibar f» Dhikr al- Khi³«³ wa’lªth«r, 2 vols., Bul«q, 1853.

Ibn al-J»‘«n Ibn al-J»‘«n, al-Qawl al-mustaμraf f» safar mawl«n« alMalik al-Ashraf. Edited by ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Sal«m Tadmur», Tripoli, 1984.

al-Maqr»z», Sul−k Al-Maqr»z», Kit«b al-Sul−k li-ma‘rifat duwal al-mul−k. Edited by M.M. Ziyāda (vols. 1–2 in 6 pts.), Cairo, 1934– 1958; by S. ‘Ashūr (vols. 3–4 in 6 pts.), Cairo, 1970– 1973.

Ibn al-J»‘«n—Devonshire 1922 R.L. Devonshire, “Relation d'un Voyage du Sultan Qâitbây en Palestine et en Syrie,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire 20 (1922): 1– 42.

al-Mufa±±al, Nahj al-Mufa±±al b. Ab− al-Fa±«’il, al-Nahj al-sad»d wa’ldurr al-far»d f»m« ba‘d Ta’r»kh Ibn al-‘Am»d. Edited and translated by S. Kortantamer, Ägypten und Syrien zwischen 1317 und 1341 in der Chronik des Mufa±±al b. Abi l-Fa±«’il, Freiburg, 1973.

Ibn Jubayr, Ri¯la Ab− al-®usayn Mu¯ammad b. A¯mad b. Jubayr, Ri¯la. Edited by W. Wright, second edition, Leiden, 1907.

Muj»r al-D»n, al-Uns

Ibn Jubayr, Travels

Muj»r al-D»n al-‘Ulaym» al-®anbal», Al-Uns al-jal»l bita’rikh as-Quds wa’l-Khal»l, 2 vols., al-Najaf, 1968.

The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, Translated by R. J. C. Broadhurst, London, 1951.

Muj»r al-D»n, Histoire

Ibn Kath»r, al-Bid«ya wa'l-nih«ya

Muj»r al-D»n, Histoire de Jérusalem et d'Hébron depuis Abraham jusqu'a la fin du XVe siècle de J.-C., Fragments de la Chronique de Moudjir-ed-dyn traduits sur le texte arabe par Henry Sauvaire, Paris, 1876.

‘Im«d al-D»n Ism«‘»l ibn ‘Umar ibn Kath»r, al-Bid«ya waΜl-nih«ya, 14 vols., Cairo, 1932–1939. Ibn Shadd«d, al-A‘l«q al-Kha³»ra ‘Izz al-D»n Mu¯ammad b. ‘Al» b. Ibr«h»m b. Shadd«d, alA‘l«q al-Kha³»ra f» Dhikr Umar«’ al-Sh«m wa’l-Jaz»ra. Edited by S. Dahan, Damascus, 1963.

al-Muqaddas», Aq«l»m Shams al-D»n Ab− ‘Abd All«h Mu¯ammad b. A¯mad b. Ab− Bakr al-Bann«’ al-Sh«m» al-Muqaddas», A¯san alTaqas»m f» Ma‘rifat al-Aq«l»m. Edited by M.J. de Goeje, London, 1906.

Ibn Shadd«d, Ta’r»kh Ibn Shadd«d, Ta’r»kh al-malik al-§«hir. Edited by A. Hutait, Wiesbaden, 1983.

al-Muqaddas», Regions

Ibn Taghr» Bird», Nuj−m

al-Muqaddas», The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions Translated by Basil Anthony Collins, Reading, 1994.

Jam«l al-D»n Abū al-Ma¯«sin Y−suf b. Taghr» Bird» alAt«bak», al-Nuj−m al-§«hira f» Mul−k Mi·r wa'l-K«hira, 16 vols., Cairo, 1929–1972.

al-N«bulus», al-®aq»qa

Ibn W«·il

ΚAbd al-Ghan» b. Ism«‘»l al-N«bulus», al-®aq»qa wa ΜlMaj«z f» Μl-Ri¯la ila Bil«d al-Sh«m wa Mi·r wa Μl-®ij«z. Edited by A. ‘Abd al-Maj»d Har»d», Cairo, 1986.

Jam«l al-D»n Mu¯ammad Ibn S«lim Ibn W«·il, Mufarrij al-Kur−b f» Akhb«r Ban» Ayy−b (The History of the Ayyubids), ed. by J. al-Shayyal (vols. 1–3), ®.M. Rab»‘ (vols. 4–5), Cairo, 1954–1977.

al-N«bulus», Ri¯la ΚAbd al-Ghan» b. Ism«‘»l al-N«bulus», Kit«b al-®adra

164

Bibliography al-Unsiyya f» al-Ri¯la al-Qudsiyya, Edited by Dimitri Nicolai, Cairo, 1902.

Qal«w−n, in Badr al-D»n al-®asan ibn ‘Umar Ibn ®ab»b al-®alab», Tadhkirat al-Nab»h f» Ayy«m al-Man·−r waBan»h, edited by Mu¯ammad Mu¯ammad Am»n, Cairo, vol. 2, 1982, pp. 330–448.

al-Nu‘aym», al-D«ris ‘Abd al-Q«dir b. Muhammad al-Nu‘aym» al-Dimashq», al-D«ris f» T«r»kh al-Mad«ris, 2 vols. Edited by J. ®asanī, Cairo, 1988.

Y«q−t, Mu‘jam Shih«b al-D»n Ab» ‘Abdall«h Y«q−t b. ‘Abdall«h al®amaw» al-R−m» al-Baghd«d», Mu‘jam al-Buld«n, edited by Far»d ‘Abd al-‘Az»z al-Jund», 7 vols., Beirut, 1990

al-Nu‘aym»—Sauvaire 1894; 1895 H. Sauvaire, “Déscription de Damas,” Journal Asiatique 9eme serie III/2-VI/2, 1894–1895.

al-Y−n»n» Qu³b al-D»n M−sa b. Mu¯ammad b. A¯mad b. Qu³b alD»n al-Y−n»n» al-Ba‘labakk», Dhail Mir«t al-Zam«n, Hyderabad, 4 vols., 1954

al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ A¯mad b. ‘Al» al-Qalqashand», ¶ub¯ al-A‘sh« f» ¶in«‘at al-Insh«’, 14 vols. Edited by M. ®. Shams al-D»n, Beirut, 1987.

Primary Sources—Western Languages

al-Qalqashand»—Gaudefroy-Demombynes 1923

Adorno

M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, La Syrie a l’Époque des Mamelouks, Paris, 1923.

Itinéraire d’Anselme Adorno en Terre Sainte (1470– 1471), Édité, traduit et annoté par J. Heers et G. de Groer, Paris, 1978.

al-¶afad», al-W«f» ¶ala¯ al-D»n Khal»l b. Aybak al-¶afad», Kit«b al-w«f» bi ’l-wafay«t, 30 vols., 1931–2004 (reproduced in Beirut, 2004).

d’Alquié S. d’Alquié, Le Voyage de Galilée, Paris, 1670.

al-Subk», Tabaq«t

Baedeker

Taj al-D»n Na·r ‘Abd al-Wahh«b ibn Taq» al-D»n ‘Al», Tabaq«t al-Sh«fi‘»yah al-Kubr«. 10 vols. Edited by Ma¯mud Mu¯ammad al-²an«¯» and ‘Abd al-Fatt«h Mu¯ammad al-®ul−, Cairo, 1964.

K. Baedeker, Palestine and Syria, Handbook for Travellers, Leipzig, 1898.

al-‘Umar», Mas«lik

'Part of another Letter of Master William Biddulph, from Jerusalem’, in Purchas his Pilgrimes in Five Bookes, Part Two, Eighth Book, Peregrinations and Travels by Land in Palestina, Natolia, Syria, Arabia, Persia, and other parts of Asia, London, 1625, pp. 1344–1353.

Biddulph, Letter

Shih«b al-D»n A¯mad b. Ya¯y« b. Fa±l Allah al-‘Umar», Mas«lik al-Ab·«r f» Mam«lik al-Am·«r. Edited by A.F. Sayyid, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire (Textes Arabes et Etudes Islamiques, Tome XXIII), Cairo, 1985.

Boddy Alexander A. Boddy, Days in Galilee and Scenes in Judaea, together with some account of a solitary cycling journey in southern Palestine, London, 1900.

al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f al-‘Umar», al-Ta‘r»f bi’l-mu·³ala¯ al-shar»f. Edited by M.®. Shams al-D»n, Beyrut, 1988.

Bovet

Us«ma b. Munqidh

E.V.F. Bovet, Voyage en Terre—Sainte, Paris, 1861.

Us«ma b. Munqidh, Kit«b al-I‘tib«r. Edited by H. Derenbourg, Paris, 1889.

La Broquière, Voyage Le Voyage d'Outremer de Bertrandon de la Broquière, publié et annoté par Ch. Schefer, Paris, 1892.

Us«ma b. Munqidh—Hitti 1929 P.K. Hitti, An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the Period of the Crusades: Memoirs of Us«mah ibn Munquidh (Kit«b al-I‘tibàr), New York, 1929.

La Broquière, Travels The Travels of Bertrandon de la Brocquiere, counsellor and first esquire-carver to Philippe le Bon, duke of Burgundy, to Palestine, and his return from Jerusalem overland to France, during the years 1432 & 1433. Translated by Th. Johnes, Hafod, 1807.

al-‘Uthm«n» B. Lewis, “An Arabic Account of the Province of Safed—I,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 15, 1953, pp. 477–488.

Buckingham J.S. Buckingham, Travels in Palestine through the countries of Bashan and Gilead, East of the River Jordan: Including a visit to the cities of Geraza and

Wath«’iq Waqf al-Sul³«n al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad Wath«’iq Waqf al-Sul³«n al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad Ibn

165

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Gamala in the Decapolis, London, 1821.

Johnson

Burckhardt 1822

B.W. Johnson, Travels in Asia Minor, Excursions to Tarsus, Antioch and Damascus, and the Tour of Palestine, St, Louis, 1892.

J.L. Burckhardt, Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, edited by W.M. Leake, London, 1822.

Kelly

Daveiro

W.K. Kelly, Syria and the Holy Land, their scenery and their people, London, 1844.

(Frey) P. Daveiro, Itinerario da Terra Sancta, e suas particularidades, Lisboa, 1593.

Laborde

Douvbdan

L. de Laborde, Voyage de la Syrie, Paris, 1837.

M.I. Dovbdan, Le Voyage de la Terre-Sainte. Contenant Vne veritable description des lieux plus considerables que Nostre Seigneur a sanctifié de sa presence, Predications, Miracles & souffrances, Paris, 1666.

Marchand Basile Pélerinage du Marchand Basile (1465–1466), in B. de Khitrowo (translator), Itinéraires Russes en Orient, Genève, 1889, pp. 242–256.

Felix Fabri

Mariano da Siena

The Book of Wanderings of Felix Fabri (circa 1480– 1483 A.D.), translated by Aubrey Stewart, The Library of the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society; vols. 7–10, London, 1893–1897.

Mariano da Siena, Del viaggio in Terra Santa fatto e descritto da ser Mariano da Siena nel secolo xv. Edited by Domenico Moreni, Firenze, 1822.

Frescobaldi, Viaggio

Maundrell

Viaggio di Lionardo di Niccolò Frescobaldi Fiorentino in Egitto e in Terra Santa. Con un discorso dell'editore Guglielmo Manzi, sopra il commercio degl'Italiani nel secolo xiv, Roma, 1818.

H. Maundrell, A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem in 1697, Beirut, 1963. McGarvey

Frescobaldi, Visit

J.W. McGarvey, Lands of the Bible, Philadelphia, 1881.

Visit to the Holy Places of Egypt, Sinai, Palestine and Syria in 1384 by Frescobaldi, Gucci & Sigoli, translated from the Italian by T. Bellorini and E. Hoade, Jerusalem, 1948.

Medina A. Medina, Viaggio di Terra Santa, con sue stationi e misterii dal M.R.P. Frat' Antonio Medina Spagnuolo dell'Ordine di S. Francesco de gli Scalzi. Tradotto di Lingua Castigliana nella Toscana. Dal M.R.M. Pietro Buonfanti Piovano di Bibbiena, Fiorenza, 1590.

Filmer 1937 H. Filmer, The Pageant of Persia, A Record of Travel by Motor in Persia with an Account of Its Ancient and Modern Ways, London, 1937.

Niccolò da Poggibonsi Niccolò da Poggibonsi, Voyage Beyond the Seas (1346– 1350), translated by T. Bellorini and E. Hoade, Jerusalem, 1945.

Frith F. Frith, Egypt and Palestine photographed and described, 2 vols., London, 1858–1859.

Oliphant

Fullerton

L. Oliphant, “Exploration NE of lake Tiberias and in Jaulan,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly Statement 17, 1885, pp. 82–93.

A. Fullerton, A Lady's Ride through Palestine and Syria; with notices of Egypt and the Canal of Suez, London, 1872.

Pesenti

Guérin

Pellegrinaggio di Gierusalemme, Fatto, e descritto per Gio. Paolo Pesenti, Cavaliero del Santiss. Sepolcro di Nostro Signore, all'Ill. & R. Gio. Battista Milani, Bergamo, 1615.

H.V. Guérin, Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine, 3 pt., Paris, 1868–1880. Howe

Porter

F. Howe, Turkey, Greece and Palestine in 1853, Glasgow and London, 1854.

J.L. Porter, “Through Samaria” to Galilee and the Jordan, Scenes of the Early Life and Labours of OUR LORD, London, 1889.

Irby and Mangles C.L. Irby and J. Mangles, Travels through Nubia, Palestine and Syria in 1817 and 1818, 2 vols., London, 1823.

Robinson G. Robinson, Travels in Palestine and Syria, 2 vols., London, 1837. 166

Bibliography Rocchetta

London, 1871.

A. Rocchetta, Peregrinatione di Terra Santa ed' altre provincie, Palermo, 1630.

Wilson, Galilee C.W. Wilson, The land of Galilee & the north, Jerusalem, 1880 (1976 edition).

Salvator L. Salvator, The Caravan Route between Egypt and Syria (translated from the German), London, 1881.

Wright T. Wright, Early Travels in Palestine, London, 1848.

San Severino Viaggio in Terra Santa di Roberto da Sanseverino, edited by G. Maruffi, Bologna, 1888.

Modern Studies Abu Khalaf 1983

Sandys

F.M. Abu Khalaf, “Khan Yunus and the Khans of Palestine,” Levant 15, 1983, pp. 178–186.

G. Sandys, Relations of Africa and A Relation of a Ioarney begunne, Anno Dom. 1610, in Purchas his Pilgrimes in Five Books, London, 1625 (The Second Part, respect. Sixth Book, Chapter VIII, pp. 896–920 and Eighth Book, Chapter VIII, pp. 1274–1333).

Ahrweiler 1994 H. Ahreweiler, “Encore à propos du funduq,” in Itinéraires d’Orient—RES Orientales 6, 1994, pp. 195– 196.

de Saulcy

Alhamzeh 1993

L.F. J. Caignart de Saulcy, Voyage en Terre Sainte, Paris, 1865.

K.A. Alhamzeh, Late Mamluk patronage: Q«n·−h alGh−r»’s waqf and his foundations in Cairo. PhD dissertation, Ohio State University, 1993.

Scholz J.M.A. Scholz, Travels in the countries between Alexandria and Paraetonium, The Lybian Desert, Siwa, Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, in 1821, London, 1822.

Allen 1988 T. Allen, “The Concept of Regional Style,” in Five Essays on Islamic Art, Sebastopol, 1988, pp. 91–110.

Smith

Amin and Ibrahim 1990

J. Smith, Travels in Palestine in 1789, and 1790, Whitehaven, 1800.

M.M. Amin and L.A. Ibrahim, Architectural Terms in Mamluk Documents (648–923H) (1250–1517), Cairo, 1990.

Spencer J.A. Spencer, The East. Sketches of Travels in Egypt and the Holy Land, London, 1850.

Amiran 1950–1951 D.H. Kallner-Amiran, “A Revised Earthquake-Catalogue of Palestine,” Israel Exploration Journal 1/4, 1950–1951, pp. 223–246.

Thevenot 1665 J. de Thevenot, Relation d'un Voyage fait au Levant, Paris, 1665.

Amiran 1952

Thevenot 1686–1687 J. de Thevenot, Travels into the Levant, 2 parts, London, 1686–1687.

D.H.K. Amiran, “A Revised Earthquake-Catalogue of Palestine,” Israel Exploration Journal 2/1, 1952, pp. 48– 62.

Tristram

Amitai 1990

H.B. Tristram, Pathways of Palestine: a descriptive tour through the Holy Land, London, 1881, 1882.

R. Amitai, “The Remaking of the Military Elite of Maml−k Egypt by al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«w−n,” Studia Islamica 72, 1990, pp. 145–163.

Valentine 1893

Amitai 2001

L. Valentine (ed.), Palestine Past and Present, Pictorial and descriptive, 1893.

R. Amitai, “An Arabic Inscription at al-¶ubayba (Qal‘at Namrud) from the Reign of Sultan Baybars,” in M. Hartal (ed.), The al-¶ubayba (Nimrod) Fortress, Towers 11 and 9, Jerusalem, 2001, pp. 109–123.

Watson Mrs. P. Watson, Palestine Pictures or the Story of a Tour through Palestine, London-New York, 1892.

Amitai 2005

Wilson, Recovery

R. Amitai, “The Conquest of Arsūf by Baybars: Political and Military Aspects,” Mamluk Studies Review 9/1, 2005, pp. 61–83.

C.W. Wilson, The recovery of Jerusalem: a narrative of exploration and discovery, edited by W. Morrison,

167

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Mamluk Sultanate,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 16, 1993, pp. 108–124.

Amitai-Preiss 1995 R. Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks, The Mamlukºlkh«nid War, 1260–1281, Cambridge, 1995.

Ayalon 1994 D. Ayalon, “The Expansion and Decline of Cairo under the Maml−ks and its Background,” RES Orientales 6, 1994, pp. 13–20.

Amitai-Preiss 1997 R. Amitai-Preiss, “The Mamluk Officer Class during the Reign of Sultan Baybars,” in Y. Lev (ed.), War and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th-15th centuries, Leiden, 1997, pp. 267–300.

Ayalon 1996 D. Ayalon, Le phénomène mamlouk dans l’Orient islamique, Paris, 1996.

Apelbaum 1960

Ayalon et al. 1986–7

S. Apelbaum, “On Burgi and Burgarii in Eretz-Israel,” Yediot 18, 1960, pp. 202–208 (in Hebrew).

E. Ayalon, E. Gilboa and Tz. Shacham, “A Public Building of the Early Arab Period at Tell Qasile,” Israel, People and the Land 4 (22), 1986–7, pp. 35–52 (English summary in pp. 7*-8*).

Ashtor 1983 E. Ashtor, Levant Trade in the Middle Ages, Princeton, N.J., 1983.

Ayalon et al. 1987–9

Aslanapa 1971

E. Ayalon, E. Gilboa and S. Harpazi, “A Public Building of the Early Arabic Period and Crusader Remains in Tell Qasile—the 12th and 13th Seasons,” Israel, People and the Land, 5–6 (23–24), 1987–9, pp. 9–22 (English summary in p. 11*).

O. Aslanapa, Turkish Art and Architecture, London, 1971. Atiya 1935 A.S. Atiya, “An Unpublished XIVth century Fatw« on the Status of Foreigners in Maml−k Egypt and Syria,” in W. Heffening and W. Kirfel (eds.), Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Nahen und Fernen Ostens Paul Kahle, Leiden, 1935, pp. 55–68.

Balog 1964 P. Balog, The coinage of the Mamluk sultans of Egypt and Syria, New York, 1964. Barbé et al. 2002

Avi-Yonah, ‘Abu Ghosh’

H. Barbé, Y. Lehreer and M. Avissar, “HaBonim,” ®adashot Arkheologiyot 114, 2002, pp. 34–38 (Hebrew).

M. Avi Yonah, “Abu Ghosh, Later Periods,” NEAEH, i, pp. 5–7.

Behrens-Abouseif, ‘WaΌf’

Ayalon, ‘Maml−k’

D. Behrens-Abouseif, ‘WaΌf, In Egypt’, EI2, xi, pp. 63– 69.

D. Ayalon, ‘Maml−k’, EI2, vi, pp. 314–321. Ayalon 1946

Behrens-Abouseif 1989

D. Ayalon, “The Plague and Its Effects on the Mamluk Army,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, April 1946, pp. 133–141.

D. Behrens-Abouseif, Islamic Architecture in Cairo, An Introduction, Cairo, 1989. Behrens-Abouseif 1995

Ayalon 1953

D. Behrens-Abouseif, “Muhandis, Sh«d, Mu‘allim—Note on the Building Craft in the Mamluk Period,” Der Islam 72, 1995, 293–309.

D. Ayalon, “Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies of London 15, 1953, pp. 203–228, 448–476.

Ben-Horin 1952

Ayalon 1971

U. Ben-Horin, “Appendix 'B': An Official Report on the Earthquake of 1837,” Israel Exploration Journal 2/1, 1952, pp. 63–65.

D. Ayalon, “On One of the Works of Jean Sauvaget,” Israel Oriental Studies 1, 1971, pp. 298–302. Ayalon 1975

van Berchem 1893

D. Ayalon, “Names, titles and `nisbas` of the Mamlūs,” Israel Oriental Studies 5, 1975, pp. 189–232.

M. van Berchem, “Eine arabische Inschrift aus dem Ostjordanlande mit historischen Erläuterungen,” Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestina-Vereins 16, 1893, pp. 84–105.

Ayalon 1988 D. Ayalon, “The Auxiliary Forces of the Mamluk Sultanate,” Der Islam 65/1, 1988, pp. 13–37.

Berman 2005 A. Berman, “Khan Gesher: The Coins,” in ‘Atiqot 50, 2005, pp. 209–216.

Ayalon 1993 D. Ayalon, “Some Remarks on the Economic Decline of

168

Bibliography Bizri 1999

Studies Review 6, 2002, pp. 21–50.

A. Bizri (ed.), Arabic Calligraphy in Architecture— Islamic Monuments in the City of Tripoli during the Mamluk Period, Heidelberg, 1999.

Constable 2001 O.R. Constable, “Funduq, Fondacco, and Khan in the Wake of Christian Commerce and Crusade,” in A.E. Laiou and R.P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the Perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim World, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 145–156.

Blair 1998 S.S. Blair, Islamic Inscriptions, New York, 1998. Brentjes 1999

Constable 2003

B. Brentjes, “Caravan Routes Through Central Asia,” Les Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes, Revue d'Archéologie et d'Histoire 43 [numéro spécial sur les Actes du Colloque International d'Alep, Alep et la Route de la Soie, Alep 26–30 Septembre 1994], 1999, pp. 215– 228.

O.R. Constable, Housing the Stranger in the Mediterranean World, Lodging, Trade, and Travel in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, Cambridge, 2003. Crane 1994 H. Crane, “Anatolian Salj−q Architecture and its Links to Salj−q Iran,” in R. Hillenbrand (ed.), The Art of the Salj−qs in Iran and Anatolia, Proceedings of a Symposium held in Edinburgh in 1982, Costa Mesa, 1994, pp. 263–268.

Burgoyne 1987 M.H. Burgoyne, Mamluk Jerusalem: An Architectural Study, with additional historical research by D.S. Richards, London, 1987.

Creswell, MAE II

Burgoyne and Abul-Hajj 1979

K.A.C. Creswell, The Muslim Architecture of Egypt, II. Ayy−bids and Early Ba¯rite Maml−ks, A.D. 1171–1326, Oxford, 1959.

M. Burgoyne and A. Abul-Hajj, “Twenty-four mediaeval Arabic inscriptions from Jerusalem,” Levant 11, 1979, pp. 112–137.

Creswell 1923

Cahen, ‘Ayy−bids’

K.A.C. Creswell, “Two Khâns at Khân ²ûmân,” Syria 4, 1923, pp. 134–139.

Cl. Cahen, ‘Ayy−bids’, EI2, i, pp. 796–807. Cahen 2001

Creswell 1989

Cl. Cahen, The Formation of Turkey, The Seljukid Sultanate of R−m: Eleventh to Fourteenth Century, translated and edited by P.M. Holt, Harlow, 2001.

K.A.C. Creswell, A Short Account of Early Muslim Architecture (revised and supplemented by J.W. Allan), Aldershot, 1989.

Chabby and Rabbat, ‘Rib«³’

Cytryn-Silverman 1996

J. Chabbi and N. Rabbat, ‘Rib«³’, EI2, viii, pp. 493–506.

K. Cytryn-Silverman, The Islamic Period in North Sinai: The Pottery Evidence, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Jerusalem, 1996.

Chitty 1932 D.J. Chitty, “The Monastery of St. Euthymius,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 64, 1932, pp. 188–203.

Cytryn-Silverman 2001 K. Cytryn-Silverman, “The Settlement in Northern Sinai during the Islamic Period,” in J.-M. Mouton (ed.), Le Sinaï, de la conquête arabe à nos jours, Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale, Cahier des Annales Islamologiques 21, 2001, pp. 3–36.

Clermont-Ganneau 1887 M. Clermont-Ganneau, Notes d’Épigraphie et d’Histoire Arabes, Journal Asiatique 8éme Série, 10, 1887, pp. 496ff.

Cytryn-Silverman 2004

Clermont-Ganneau 1900

K. Cytryn-Silverman, The Road Inns (Kh«ns) of Bil«d alSh«m during the Mamluk Period (1260–1516): An Architectural and Historical Study, 2 vols. PhD dissertation, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, 2004.

Ch. Clermont-Ganneau, “La Relation du Voyage du sultan Qâïtbây en Syrie,” Recueil D’Archéologie Orientale III, Paris, 1900, pp. 248–259. Cohen et al. 1999

Cytryn-Silverman 2006

O. Cohen and D. Talshir, “Khisf»n—Toldot HaYishuv vePesher Shmo,” ‘Al Atar 4–5, 1999, pp. 95–156.

K. Cytryn-Silverman, “The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in EretzIsrael during the Mamluk Period,” Qadmoniot 39 (132), 2006, pp. 66–77. (Hebrew)

Conermann and Saghbini 2002 S. Conermann and S. Saghbini, “Awl«d al-N«s as Founders of Pious Endowment: The Waqf»yah of Ya¯yá ibn ²−gh«n al-®asan» of the Year 870/1465,” Mamluk

169

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Cytryn-Silverman 2008

Eisenberg 1980

K. Cytryn-Silverman, “Three Mamluk Minarets in Ramla,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 35, 2008, pp. 379-432.

A. Eisenberg, “HaMamlukim Bonim Kh«n Be BethShean,” BaBiq‘a 86, June 1980, pp. 21–23. (Hebrew) El`ad 1982 A. El‘ad, “The Coastal Cities of Palestine During the Early Middle Ages,” in L.I. Levine (ed.), The Jerusalem Cathedra 2, Jerusalem, 1982, p.155- 160.

Cytryn-Silverman 2009 K. Cytryn-Silverman, “Kh«n al-§«hir—bi μ«hir alQuds!,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 19/2, 2009, pp. 149–171.

Elad 1999

M. al-Dabb«gh, Bil«duna Filas³»n, 11 vols., Beirut, 1973–1986.

A. Elad, “The Southern Golan in the Early Muslim Period. The Significance of Two Newly Discovered Milestones of `Abd al-Malik,” Der Islam 76, 1999, pp. 33–88.

De Meulemeester 2008

Elisséeff, ‘Kh«n’

al-Dabb«gh

N. Elisséeff, ‘Kh«n’, EI2, iv, pp. 1010–1017.

J. De Meulemeester, "The `Aqaba Castle Project: Field Report 2007," Bulletin of the Council for British Research in the Levant (CBRL) 3, 2008, pp. 72-75.

Elisséeff 1993 N. Elisséeff, “The Reaction of the Syrian Muslims after the Foundation of the First Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,” in M. Shatzmiller (ed.), Crusaders & Muslims in TweflthCentury Syria, Leiden, 1993, pp. 162–172.

De Meulemeester and Pringle 2008 J. De Meulemeester and D. Pringle, "Die Burgen am Golf von `Aqaba," in M. Piana (ed.), Burgen und Städte der Kreuzzugszeit, Petersberg, 2008, pp. 148-158.

Elisséef and Andrews, ‘Manzil’ N. Elisséef and P.A. Andrews, ‘Manzil’, EI2, vi, pp. 455– 457.

Dentzer 1994 J.-M. Dentzer, “Kh«ns ou Casernes à Palmyre? À propos de structures visibles sur des photographies aériennes anciennes,” Syria 71, 1994, pp. 45–107.

Ellenblum 1998

Deschamps 1934

Erdmann 1961

P. Deschamps, Les châteaux des Croisés en Terre Sainte I: Le Crac des Chevaliers, Paris, 1934.

K. Erdmann, Das anatolische Karavansaray des 13. Jahrhunderts, 2 vols., Berlin, 1961–1976.

Devonshire 1921

Fernandes 1997

R.L. Devonshire, Some Cairo Mosques and their founders, London, 1921.

L. Fernandes, “Mamluk Architecture and the Question of Patronage,” Mamluk Studies Review 1, 1997, pp. 107– 120.

R. Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Cambridge, 1998.

Doumani 1995 B. Doumani, Rediscovering Palestine, Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700–1900, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1995.

Finkelstein and Magen 1993

Drory 1981

Gal 1983

J. Drory, “Eretz Israel in the Mamluk State,” in A. Cohen (ed.), The History of Eretz Israel under the Mamluk and Ottoman Rule (1260–1804), Jerusalem, 1981, pp. 11–58. (Hebrew)

Z. Gal, “Khan et-Tujjar,” Qadmoniot 16, nos. 2–3 (62– 63), 1983, pp. 92–94. (Hebrew)

Drory 2005

Z. Gal, “Khan el-Tuggar: a new look at a “Western Survey” entry,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement 117, 1985, pp. 69–75.

Y. Finkelstein and Y. Magen, The Hill Country of Benjamin, Jerusalem, 1993.

Gal 1985

J. Drory, “Aal-Malik and His Inscription,” Cathedra 117, 2005, pp. 71–80. (Hebrew)

Gazagnadou 1986

Dussaud 1927

D. Gazagnadou, “Une Précision sur l’origine du mot arabe Funduq,” Studia Islamica 64, 1986, pp. 165–167.

R. Dussaud, Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et médiévale, Paris, 1927.

Gazagnadou 1994 D. Gazagnadou, La Poste à Relais—La diffusion d'une 170

Bibliography Hartmann 1910

technique de pouvoir à travers l’Eurasie: China-IslamEurope, Paris, 1994.

R. Hartmann, “Die Strasse von Damaskus nach Kairo,” Zeitschrift Der Deutschen Morgen-ländischen Gesellschaft 64, 1910, pp. 665–702.

Genequand 2005 D. Genequand, “From 'desert castle' to medieval town: Qasr al-Hayr al-Sharqi (Syria),” Antiquity 79, 2005, pp. 350–361.

Hautecoeur and Wiet 1932 L. Hautecoeur et G. Wiet, Les Mosquées du Caire, Texte, I, Paris, 1932.

Gil 1997 M. Gil, A History of Palestine, 634–1099, Cambridge, 1997.

Hawari 2001 M. Hawari, “Khan al-Lubban: a Caravansarai on the Damascus-Jerusalem Road,” Levant 33, 2001, pp. 7–20.

Glidden 1952 H.W. Glidden, “The Mamluk origin of the fortified Khan at al-‘Aqabah, Jordan,” in G.C. Miles (ed.), Archaeologica Orientalia in Memoriam Ernst Hertzfeld, New York, 1952, pp. 116–118.

Hawari 2007 M. K. Hawari, Ayyubid Jerusalem (1187–1250)—An architectural an archaeological study, BAR International Series 1628, Oxford, 2007.

Godard 1936

Herzfeld 1942

A. Godard, “Notes Complémentaires sur les tombeaux de Mar«gha,” Ath«r-é Ir«n 1, 1936, pp. 125–160.

E. Herzfeld, “Damascus: Studies in Architecture—I,” Ars Islamica 9, 1942, pp. 1–53.

Godard 1949

Herzfeld 1943

A. Godard, “Robat Sharaf,” Ath«r-é Ir«n 4/1, 1949, pp. 7–68.

E. Herzfeld, “Damascus: Studies in Architecture—II,” Ars Islamica 10, 1943, pp. 13–70.

Godard 1951

Heyd 1960

A. Godard, “L’origine de la madrasa, de la mosquée et du caravansérail à quatre »w«ns,” Ars Islamica 15–16, 1951, pp. 1–9.

U. Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine, Oxford, 1960. Heyd 1975

Goitein 1983

U. Heyd, “Turkish Documents Concerning the Jews of Safed in the Sixteenth Century,” in M. Ma`oz (ed.), Studies on Palestine during the Ottoman Period, Jerusalem, 1975, pp. 111–118.

S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, The Jewish Communities of the World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, 6 vols., Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1983.

Hillenbrand 1994

Golvin 1967

R. Hillenbrand, Islamic Architecture—Form, function and meaning, Edinburgh, 1994.

L. Golvin, Quelques Notes sur le S−q al-Qa³³«n»n et ses Annexes a Jérusalem, Bulletin D’Études Orientales 20, 1967, pp. 101–117.

Holt 1986

Grabar et al. 1960

P.M. Holt, The Age of the Crusades, The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517, Harlow, 1986.

O. Grabar, J. Perrot, B. Ravani et Myriam Rosen, “Sondages à Khirbet el-Minyeh,” Israel Exploration Journal 10, 1960, pp. 226–243.

Huart 1894 C. Huart, “Épigraphie arabe d’Asie Mineure,” Revue Sémitique d’Epigraphie et d’Histoire Ancienne 2, 1894, pp. 61–75, 120- 134, 235–241.

Grabar 1984 O. Grabar, “Reflections on Mamluk Art,” Muqarnas 2, 1984, pp. 1–12.

Humphreys 1972

Grabar et al. 1978

R.S. Humphreys, “The Expressive Intent of the Mamluk Architecture of Cairo: A Preliminary Essay,” Studia Islamica 35, 1972, pp. 69–119.

O. Grabar, R. Holod, J. Knustad and W. Trousdale, City of the Desert: Qasr al-Hayr East, Harvard Middle Eastern Monograph Series XXIII-XXIV, Cambridge, Mass., 1978.

Humphreys 1977 R.S. Humphreys, From Saladin to the Mongols. The Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193–1260, Albany, N.Y., 1977.

Hartal 2001 M. Hartal (ed.), The al-¶ubayba (Nimrod) Fortress, Towers 11 and 9, Jerusalem, 2001.

Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977 W.D.

171

Hütteroth

and

K.

Abdulfattah,

Historical

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th century, Erlangen, 1977.

Khalilieh 2008 H.S. Khalilieh, “The Rib«³ of Ars−f and the Coastal Defence System in Early Islamic Palestine,” Journal of Islamic Studies 19:2, 2008, pp. 159–177.

Irwin 1986 R. Irwin, The Middle East in the Middle Ages, The Early Mamluk Sultanate 1250–1382, London and Sydney, 1986.

Khalilieh 2009 H.S. Khalilieh, “Rib«³s as Way Stations, Caravanserais, and Places of Refuge during Early and Late Classical Islam” paper delivered in Tavernes et auberges dans le region de la Mediterranée pendant le bas Moyen Âge (12e-16e siècles), The National Hellenic Research Foundation, May 2008, forthcoming in 2009.

Jaussen 1923 J.A. Jaussen, “Inscription Arabe du Khân al-A¯mar à Beïsân (Palestine),” Bulletin of the Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire 22, 1923, pp. 99–103. Jaussen 1925

Khitrowo 1889

J.A. Jaussen, “Inscriptions Arabes de la Ville d'Hébron,” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire 25, 1925, pp. 1–45.

B. de Khitrowo, Itinéraires Russes en Orient, Genève, 1889. Kiani 1981

Jomier 1950

M.Y. Kiani, Robat-e Sharaf, Teheran, 1981.

J. Jomier, “Ageroud, Un caravansérail sur la route des pèlerins de la Mekke,” Bulletin de la Société d’Études Historiques et Géographiques de l’Isthme de Suez 3 (1949–50), 1950, pp. 33–56.

Kiani and Kleiss, ‘Caravansary’ M.Y. K»«n» and W. Kleiss, ‘Caravansary’, EIr, iv, pp. 798–802.

Kahaner 1995

Kiani and Kleiss 1995

G. Kahaner, Khorvat Gov Yosef (Jubb Yus−f), Shelyad ‘Ami‘ad, Jerusalem, 1995. (Hebrew)

M.Y. Kiani and W. Kleiss, Iranian Caravansarais, Tehran, 1995.

Kahaner 2002

King 1992

G. Kahaner, Gov Yosef (Jubb Y−suf), in G. Barkai and E. Shiller (eds.), Eastern Upper Galilee and Ramat Korazim, Ariel 154, 2002, pp. 25–32. (Hebrew)

G.R.D. King, “Settlement Patterns in Islamic Jordan: The Umayyads and their Use of the Land,” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 4, 1992, pp. 369–375.

Kareem 1997

Kleiss 1987

J. Kareem, “The Site of Dhr«‘ al-Kh«n: A Main Caravanserai on Darb al-Quf−l,” Studies on the History and Archaeology of Jordan 6, 1997, pp. 365–369.

W. Kleiss, “Karawanenwege in Iran. Stand der Forschung 1986,” Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran 20, 1987, pp. 327–330.

Kareem 2000

Kloner and Assaf 1994

J.M.H. Kareem, The Settlement Patterns in the Jordan Valley in the Mid- to the Late Islamic Period, BAR S877, Oxford, 2000.

A. Kloner and E. Assaf, “Beth Guvrin—1992,” ®adashot Arkheologiyot 101–102, 1994, pp. 99–102. Kochavi 1972

Kedar 1997

M. Kochavi (ed.), Judaea, Samaria and the Golan, Archaeological Survey 1967–1968, Jerusalem, 1972.

B.Z. Kedar, Looking Twice at the Land of Israel, Jerusalem, 1997. (Hebrew)

Landau 1979

Kenney 2004

J.M. Landau, Abdul-Hamid's Palestine, Jerusalem, 1979.

E. Kenney, Power and Patronage in Mamluk Syria: The Architecture and Urban Works of Tankiz al-Nasiri, 1312–1340. PhD dissertation, Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, 2004.

Lapidus 1984

Khalidi 1992

I. Lapidus, Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages, Cambridge, 1967, 1984.

W. Khalidi, All that Remains, Washington, D.C., 1992.

Lapidus 1988

Khalilieh 1999

I.M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge, 1988.

H.S. Khalilieh, “The Rib«t System and Its Role in Coastal Navigation,” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 42:2, 1999, pp. 212–225.

Le Strange 1890 G. Le Strange, Palestine Under the Moslems, A

172

Bibliography Masarwa 2006

Description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500, London, 1890. R. Le Tourneau, 'Funduª', EI2, ii, p. 945.

Y. Masarwa, From a Word of God to Archaeological Monuments: A Historical-Archaeological Study of the Umayyad Rib«³s of Palestine. PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 2006.

Lee et al. 1992

Massignon 1912

M. Lee, C. Raso and R. Hillenbrand, “Maml−k Caravansarais in Galilee,” Levant 24, 1992, pp. 55–94.

L. Massignon, Mission en Mésopotamie (1907–1908), Tome Second, Épigraphie et Topographie Historique, Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du Caire, Tome 31, Le Caire, 1912.

Le Tourneau, 'Funduª'

Levanoni 1995 A. Levanoni, A Turning Point in Mamluk History. The Third Reign of al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad Ibn Qal«w−n (1310– 1341), Leiden, 1995.

Mayer 1932a

A. Lézine, Le Rib«t de Sousse, Tunis, 1956.

L.A. Mayer, “Satura Epigraphica Arabica I,” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 1, 1932, pp. 37–43.

Little 1984

Mayer 1932b

D.P. Little, A Catalogue of the Islamic Documents from al-®aram al-Shar»f in Jerusalem, Beirut, 1984

L.A. Mayer, “The Name of Kh«n el A¯mar, Beis«n,” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 1, 1932, pp. 95–96.

Lézine 1956

Little 1991

Mayer 1933

D.P. Little, “The Nature of Kh«nq«hs, Rib«³s, and Z«wiyas under the Maml−ks,” in W.B. Hallaq and D.P. Little (eds.), Islamic Studies presented to Charles J. Adams, Leiden, 1991, pp. 91–105.

L.A. Mayer, Saracenic Heraldry, A Survey, Oxford, 1933. Mayer 1950

Lufti 1985

L.A. Mayer, Some Principal Muslim Religious Buildings in Israel, Jerusalem, 1950. (Hebrew, Arabic and English)

H. Lufti, Al-Quds al-Mamlûkiyya—A History of Mamlûk Jerusalem Based on the ®aram Documents, Berlin, 1985.

Mayer 1956

Luz 2002

L.A. Mayer, Islamic Architects and their Works, Geneva, 1956.

N. Luz, “Aspects of Islamization of Space and Society in Mamluk Jerusalem and its Hinterland,” Mamluk Studies Review 6, 2002, pp. 133–154.

Meimaris 1989

D. Macaulay, City: A Story of Roman Planning and Construction, Boston, 1974.

Y.E. Meimaris, The Monastery of Saint Euthymios the Great at Khan el Ahmar, in the Wilderness of Judaea. Rescue excavations and basic protection measures, 1976–1979 —preliminary report, Athens, 1989.

Man·−r 1995

Meinecke 1985

®.‘A-R.®. Man·−r, Dir«sa li’l-nuq−sh al-‘Arabiyya f» alMat¯af al-Isl«miyy bi’l-Quds, Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Jordan, ‘Amm«n, 1995.

M. Meinecke, “Mamluk Architecture. Regional Architectural Tradition: Evolution and Interrelation,” Damaszener Mitteilungen 2, 1985, pp. 163–175.

Ma’oz, ‘Giv’at Or¯a’

Meinecke 1992

Z.U. Ma‘oz, ‘Giv‘at Or¯a’, NEAEH, ii, pp. 521–523.

M. Meinecke, Die mamlukische Architektur in Ägypten und Syrien (648/1250 bis 923/1517), 2 vols., Glückstadt, 1992.

Macaulay 1974

Ma‘oz, ‘Golan’ Z.U. Ma‘oz, ‘Golan, Hellenistic Period to the Middle Ages’, NEAEH, ii, pp. 534–546.

Meshel 1990 Z. Meshel, Newe Yotvata, Toldotav, Nofav Ve Atarav, Jerusalem, 1990 (Hebrew).

Ma‘oz, ‘®aspin’ Z.U. Ma‘oz, ‘®aspin’, NEAEH, ii, pp. 586–588.

Milwright 1998

Marmardji 1951

M. Milwright, Trade and Patronage in Middle Islamic Jordan. The Ceramics from Karak Castle, 3 vols. PhD dissertation, Faculty of Oriental Studies, The University of Oxford, 1998.

A. -S. Marmardji, Textes Géographiques Arabes sur la Palestine, Paris, 1951.

173

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Mokary and Gal 2005

Liber Annus 50, 2000, pp. 453–558.

A. Mokary and Z. Gal, “Khan Gesher (Jisr elMajami‘),”‘Atiqot 50, 2005, pp. 195–2007.

Petersen 1989

Morgan 1986

A.D. Petersen, “Early Ottoman Forts on the Darb alHajj,” Levant 21, 1989, pp. 97–118.

D. Morgan, The Mongols, New York, 1986.

Petersen 1995

Moritz 1910

A.D. Petersen, “The Fortification of the Pilgrimage Route During the First Three Centuries of Ottoman Rule (1516– 1757),” Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5, 1995, pp. 299–305.

M. Mortiz, “Sur les Antiquités Arabes du Sinaï,” Bulletin de l’Institut Égyptien 5/iv, 1910, pp. 87–101. Müller 1920

Petersen 1997

K. Müller, Die Karawanserai im vorderen Orient, Berlin 1920.

A. Petersen, “Jaljuliya: A Village on the Cairo-Damascus Road,” Levant 29, 1997, pp. 95–114.

Muqari and Gal 1998

Petersen 2001

A. Muqari and T. Gal, “Investigations at Kh«n at-Tujj«r,” ‘Atiqot 36, 1998, pp. 47–55 (Hebrew), p. 126 (English summary).

A.D. Petersen, A Gazetteer of Buildings in Muslim Palestine. Part 1, British Academy Monographs in Archaeology 12, New York, 2001.

Musil 1908

Pringle 1986

A. Musil, Arabia Petraea, II Edom, Topographischer Reisebericht. 1. Teil, Wien, 1908.

D. Pringle, The Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar)— Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the Crusaders and Mamluks A.D. 1099–1516, London, 1986.

Nahlieli et al. 2001 D. Nahlieli, Y. Masarwa and M. Ein-Gedi, “AshdodYam,” ®adashot Arkheologiyot 112, 2001, pp. 126–128. (Hebrew)

Pringle 1993, 1998 D. Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. A corpus: I: A-K (excluding Acre and Jerusalem); II: L-Z (excluding Tyre). Cambridge, 1993, 1998.

Nashef 2000a Kh. Nashef, “Khirbet Birzeit 1996, 1998–1999: Preliminary Results,” Journal of Palestinian Archaeology 1/1, 2000, pp. 25–27.

Raban 1999

Nashef 2000b

A. Raban, Map of Mishmar Ha-‘Emeq (32), Archaeological Survey of Israel, Israel Antiquities Authority, Jerusalem, 1999.

idem, “Khirbet Birzeit 1999: Summary of Results,” Journal of Palestinian Archaeology, 1/2, 2000, pp. 4–6.

Rabbat 1998

Nashef and Rabu 2000

N. Rabat, “Architects and Artists in Mamluk Society: The Perspective of the Sources,” Journal of Architectural Education 52 (Issue 1), 1998, pp. 30–37.

Kh. Nashef and O. Abd Rabu, “Khirbet Birzeit Research and Excavation Project 1998: Second Season Excavation,” Journal of Palestinian Archaeology 1/1, 2000, pp. 4–12.

Röhricht 1890

Natsheh 2000

R. Röhricht, Bibliotheca Geographica Palaestinae, London, 1890 (1989 edition).

Y. Nasheh, “Catalogue of Buildings,” in S. Auld and R. Hillenbrand (eds.), Ottoman Jerusalem, The Living City: 1517–1917, vol. 2, London, 2000, pp. 657–1085.

Roll and Ayalon 1989 I. Roll and E. Ayalon, Apollonia and Southern Sharon, Model of a Coastal City and its Hinterland, Tel-Aviv, 1989.

Netzer 2003 E. Netzer, Nabataeische Architektur, Mainz am Rhein, 2003.

Rosen-Ayalon 1986

Newhall 1987

M. Rosen-Ayalon, “A Neglected group of Mi¯r«bs in Palestine,” in M. Sharon (ed.), Studies in Islamic History and Civilization in Honour of Professor David Ayalon, Jerusalem, 1986, pp. 553–563.

A.W. Newhall, The Patronage of the Mamluk Sultan Q«’it Bay, 872–901/1468–1496. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, 1987.

Rowe 1930

Peña 2000

A. Rowe, The Topography and History of Beth-Shan,

I. Peña, “Hospedarias Rurales en la Siria Bizantina,”

174

Bibliography Philadelphia, 1930.

Schumacher, HaGolan

Sadek 1991

G. Schumacher, HaGolan. Translated with annotations by M. Hartal, Jerusalem, 1998 (Hebrew).

M.M. Sadek, Die mamlukische Architektur der Stadt Gaza, Islamkundliche Untersuchungen, Band 144, Berlin, 1991.

Schumacher 1908 G. Schumacher, Tell el-Mutesellim, Fundbericht, Leipzig, 1908.

Saig 1977 M. Saig, The Organization of the Barid in the Latter Part of the Middle Ages, Unpublished M.A. Thesis submitted to the Department of Arabic of the Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 1977. (Hebrew)

I.

Band,

Shaked 1998 I. Shaked, The Settlements Pattern and the Road System in the Hula Valley During the 10th-13th Centuries., Unpublished M.A. thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 1998. (Hebrew)

Salameh 2000 Kh. Salameh, “Aspects of the Sijills of the Shari‘a Court in Jerusalem,” in S. Auld and R. Hillenbrand (eds.), Ottoman Jerusalem—The Living City: 1517–1917, Part I, London, 2000, pp. 103–141.

Sharon 1966 M. Sharon, “A Waqf Inscription from Ramlah,” Arabica 13, 1966, pp. 77–84. Sharon 1982

Sauvaget 1932

M. Sharon, “The History of the Khans in Eretz-Israel— their origins, early development and nature,” Qardom 20, 1982, pp. 109–116. (Hebrew)

J. Sauvaget, “Comptes Rendus, L`Armorial sarrazin,” Bulletin d'Études Orientales 2, 1932, pp. 273–277. Sauvaget 1935

Sharon 2005

J. Sauvaget, “Un relais du barîd mamelouk,” in Mélanges Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Le Caire, 1935, pp. 41–48.

M. Sharon, “Khan Gesher: Epitaph of a Muslim,” in ‘Atiqot 50, 2005, pp. 217–218.

Sauvaget 1937

Silverstein 2007

J. Sauvaget, “Caravansérails Syriens du Hadjdj de Constantinople,” Ars Islamica 4, 1937, pp. 98–121.

A.J. Silverstein, Postal Systems in the Pre-Modern Islamic World, Cambridge, 2007.

Sauvaget 1939

Sims 1978

J. Sauvaget, “Caravansérails Syriens du Moyen-Âge, I. Caravansérails Ayy−bides (env. 1125–1260 A.D.),” Ars Islamica 6, 1939, pp. 48–55.

E. Sims, “Trade and Travel: Markets and Caravanserais,” in G. Michell (ed.), Architecture of the Islamic World, London, 1978, pp. 97–111.

Sauvaget 1940

Siroux 1949

J. Sauvaget, “Caravansérails Syriens du Moyen-Âge, II. Caravansérails Mamelouks,” Ars Islamica 7, 1940, pp. 1– 19.

M. Siroux, Caravansérails d'Iran et Petites Constructions Routières, Mémoires publiés par les membres de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale (MIFAO) 81, Le Caire, 1949.

Sauvaget 1941 J. Sauvaget, La Poste aux Chevaux dans l'Empire des Mamelouks, Paris, 1941.

Siroux 1974 M. Siroux, “Caravanserails seldjoucides iraniens,” in W. Watson (ed.), The Art of Iran and Anatolia from the 11th to the 13th Century A.D., Colloquies on Art & Archaeology in Asia no. 4, London, 1974, pp. 134–149.

Sauvaget 1950 J. Sauvaget, “Noms et surnoms de Mamelouks,” Journal Asiatique 238, 1950, pp. 31–58.

Sourdel, ‘Bar»d’

Schlumberger 1986

D. Sourdel, ‘Bar»d’, EI2, i, pp. 1045–1046.

D. Schlumberger, Qasr el-Heir el Gharbi, Paris, 1986.

Stacey 2004

Schumacher 1886

D. Stacey, Excavations at Tiberias, 1973–1974, The Early Islamic Periods, IAA Reports 21, Jerusalem, 2004.

G. Schumacher, “Researches in Southern Palestine,” Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 1886, pp. 171–194. Schumacher 1888 G. Schumacher, The Jaulân, London, 1888.

175

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Stepansky 1988–1989

Thiersch 1909

Y. Stepansky, “Hanot Minnim (Khan Minya),” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 7–8, 1988–1989, pp. 73–75.

H. Thiersch, Pharos. Antike, Islam und Occident: Ein Beitrag zur Architekturgeschichte, Leipzig, 1909. Thorau 1992

Stepansky, Mapat Rosh Pina, forthcoming

P. Thorau, The Lion of Egypt, Sultan Baybars I and the Near East in the Thirteenth Century. Translated by P.M. Holt, London and New York, 1992.

Y. Stepansky, Archaeological Survey of Israel—Map of Rosh Pina (18), Israel Antiquities Authority website www.antiquities.org.il, forthcoming.

de Vaux & Stève 1950

Stern 1982

R. de Vaux and A.M. Stève, Fouilles à Qaryet el-‘Enab Abū Ġôsh, Palestine, Paris, 1950.

S. Stern, “The Khans in Eretz-Israel,” Qardom 20, 1982, pp. 117–123. (Hebrew)

Vilnay 1956

Stern 1997

Z. Vilnay, Encyclopedia Le Yediat HaAretz, 3 vols., Jerusalem/Tel Aviv, 1956.

Eliahu Stern, Caravansaries: Roads and Inns in Israel, Beit El, 1997. (Hebrew)

Vilnay 1970

Stern 1999

Z. Vilnay, Golan we Hermon, Jerusalem, 1970. (Hebrew)

Edna Stern, The Sugar Industry in Palestine during the Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk Periods in Light of the Archaeological Finds, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1999.

Wilkinson 1977 J. Wilkinson, Jerusalem Pilgrims Before the Crusades, Jerusalem, 1977.

Tabbaa 1997

Yadin 1964

Y. Tabbaa, Constructions of Power and Piety in Medieval Aleppo, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1997.

Y. Yadin, “Arabic Inscriptions in Palestine,” Eretz-Israel 7, 1964, pp. 102–116.

Taher 1996

Yannai 2006

M.A. Taher, “Les grands zones sismiques du monde musulman à travers l’histoire,” Annales Islamologiques 30, 1996, pp. 79–104.

E. Yannai, ‘En Esur (‘Ein Asawir) I. Excavations at a Protohistoric Site in the Coastal Plain of Israel, IAA Reports 31, Jerusalem, 2006.

Tamari 1978

Yavuz 1995

Sh. Tamari, Qal‘at al-²»na in Sinai, Ramat Gan, 1978. (Hebrew)

A.T. Yavuz, “Mirçinge Han and Concentric Planned Anatolian Seljuk Period Caravanserais,” 9th International Congress of Turkish Art—23–27 September 1991, vol. III, Ankara, 1995, pp. 449–469.

Tamari 1982 Sh. Tamari, “Darb al-®ajj in Sinai, An HistoricalArchaeological Study,” Atti della Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Ser. 8, vol. 25, fasc. 4, 1982, pp. 432–523.

Yavuz 1997 A.T. Yavuz, “The concepts that shape Anatolian Seljuq Caravanserais,” Muqarnas 14, 1997, pp. 80–96.

Tamari 1987 Sh. Tamari, “Kh«n Yunis—Historical, Archaeological and Urban Clarifications,” in G. Gvirtzman et al. (eds.), Sinai, vol. 2, Tel Aviv, 1987, pp. 695–706. (Hebrew)

Yavuz 1999 A.T. Yavuz, “Anatolian Seljuk Caravanserais and their use as state houses,” in Turkish Art, 10th International Congress of Turkish Art, 17–23 September 1995, 1999, pp. 757–765.

Taragan 2000 H. Taragan, “Politics and Aesthetics: Sultan Baybars and the Ab− Hurayra/Rabbi Gamliel Building in Yavne,” in A. Ovadiah (ed.), Milestones in the Art and Culture of Egypt, Tel Aviv, 2000, pp. 117–143.

Yedíyildiz 1996 B. Yedíyildiz, “Place of the Waqf in Turkish Cultural System,” Habitat 11, 1996

Taragan 2004

http://www.history.hacettepe.edu.tr/archive/waqfkultur.html.

H. Taragan, “Doors that open meanings: Baybars’s Red Mosque at Safed,” in M. Winter and A. Levanoni (eds.), The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society, Leiden/Boston, 2004, pp. 3–20.

Yetkin 1961 S.K. Yetkin, “Les Caractéristiques des Caravansérails Seldjoucides,” in First International Congress of Turkish Arts, 19th-24th October 1959, Ankara, 1961, pp. 371– 374.

176

Bibliography Zori 1962 N. Zori, “An Archaeological Survey of the Beth-Shean Valley,” in The Beth Shean Valley, The 17th Archaeological Convention, Jerusalem, 1962, pp. 135– 198. (Hebrew)

177

178

Maps

Map 1 – The road inns of Bilād al-Shām.

The Road Inns (Khāns) of Bilād al-Shām

Map 2 – The Saljuq road inns of Anatolia. Adapted from Erdmann 1961.

Maps

Map 3 – Gazetteer Sites

The Road Inns (Khāns) of Bilād al-Shām

Pl. I – Mamluk khāns of Bilād al-Shām.

Plates

Pl. II – Mamluk khāns of Bilād al-Shām.ā 183

The Road Inns (Khāns) of Bilād al-Shām

2. Khān Lubban, after Hawari 2000.

Pl. III – Mamluk khāns of Bilād al-Shām. 184

Plates

Pl. IV – Ayyubid khāns of Bilād al-Shām. 185

The Road Inns (Khāns) of Bilād al-Shām

Pl. V – Masonry. 186

Plates

Pl. VI – Construction techniques.

The Road Inns (Khāns) of Bilād al-Shām

����������������������������������K

����������������K

Plates

Pl. VIII – Decorative elements.

The Road Inns (Khāns) of Bilād al-Shām

Pl. IX – Decorative elements, continued.

Plates

Pl. X – Epigraphy, stabling facilities and water provision.

The Road Inns (Khāns) of Bilād al-Shām

9. Water trough (masqāa) at Turbat Berke Khān, dated 792AH/AD1390

Pl. XI – Parallels: Mamluk architecture in Jerusalem.

Plates

Pl. XII – Parallels: Saljuq Architecture in Anatolia.

The Road Inns (Khāns) of Bilād al-Shām

Pl. XIII – Early Islamic courtyard ribāΓāt-buildings (1-4) and rural inns of Iran.

Plates

Pl. XIV – Early Islamic rural inns of Syria (1-4) and barīd relay stations (5-6).

The Road Inns (Khāns) of Bilād al-Shām

Pl. XV – Ayyubid rural inns.

Figures

Fig. 1.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 1.2

Figures

Fig. 1.3

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 1.4

Figures

Fig. 1.5

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 1.6

Figures

Fig. 2.1 203

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 2.2

Figures

���������������� (01.01.1890), similar to image from ‘Abd al-Дamīd’s Collection (below). As in top photo, the western wall is still integral (GPO Collection, D311-003). Note legend at bottom left.

Fig. 2.3

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 2.4

Figures

Fig. 2.5

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 3.1

Figures

Fig. 4.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

2. The khān at Wādī al-Hawd, with the village al- Azariya at the top. c

Fig. 5.1

Figures

Fig. 6.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 6.2 212

Figures

Fig. 6.3

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 6.4

Figures

Fig. 6.5 215

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 6.6 216

Figures

Fig. 6.7

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 7

Figures

Fig. 8.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 8.2

Figures

Fig. 8.3

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 8.4

Figures

Fig. 8.5

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 9.1

Figures

Fig. 9.2

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 9.3

Figures

Fig. 9.4

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 10.1

Figures

Fig. 10.2

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 10.3

Figures

Fig. 10.4

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 10.5

Figures

Fig. 10.6

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 10.7

Figures

Fig. 10.8

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

1. Proposed ground plan of the Mamluk khan. Adapted from Kahaner 1995 by R. Piperno-Beer, Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew Universisy of Jerusalem.

2. Drawing by Dauzatz (1839), from Kahaner 1995, p. 20.

Fig. 10.9

Figures

Fig. 11.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 11.2

Figures

Fig. 11.3

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 11.4

Figures

Fig. 12.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 13.1

Figures

Fig. 13.2

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

1. General view of the site of Khān al-Lubban, looking NW. Photo courtesy of IAA Archives, mandate Record File, December 1935.

Fig. 14.1

2. Khān al-Lubban from the west. Note sign on the right, “Khan Lubban Police Post.” IAA Archives, 1935.

Figures

Fig. 14.2

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

1. Khān al-Lubban looking NW. Note cemented raised court.

Fig. 14.3

Figures

Aerial view of Khān Lūbiyā, 26 January 1945 (Dept. of Geography, The Hebrew University). Approximate measurements from ��� surveys in meters.

Fig. 15.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

1. Khān Lūbiyā, remains of western and northern walls as in 1935 (IAA archives). Note the Horns of ДiΓΓīn in the far right of the photo.

Fig. 15.2

Figures

Fig. 16.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 16.2

Figures

Khān Minya, end of 1988 excavations. Photographs on this page and the next by G. Peled. Courtesy of IAA Archives and Y. Stepansky.

Fig. 16.3

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 16.4

Figures

Fig. 16.5

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 16.6

Figures

Fig. 17.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 17.2

Figures

The site of Ab™ Gh™sh during excavation by De Vaux and Stève (in black). After De Vaux and Stève 1950, Pl. I).

6. Sketch of gateway, after De Vaux and Stève 1950.

8. Reconstruction of the gate area, after De Vaux and Stève ��������

Fig. 18.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 18.2

Figures

Fig. 18.3

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 18.4

Figures

Fig. 18.5

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 18.6 262

Figures

Fig. 18.7

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 18.8

Figures

Fig. 19.1 265

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 20 266

Figures

Fig. 21.1

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 21.2

Figures

Fig. 21.3

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 21.4

Figures

Fig. 21.5

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 21.6 272

Figures

Fig. 21.7 273

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 21.8 274

Figures

Fig. 22

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 23.1

Figures

Fig. 23.2

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Fig. 23.3 278

Figures

Fig. 23.4

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

7. Alara Han (Alanya-Konya road), Anatolia after Y���������

Fig. 23.5

Figures

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

Figures

The Road Inns (Khāns) in Bilād al-Shām

 

Index* ‘Abb«d«n, 26* ‘Abd al-®am»d, 68, 91 ‘Abd al-Malik, 124, 137 Abū Ghūsh/Abu Ghosh. See Qaryat al-‘Inab ablaq, 67, 71, 78, 85, 100, 106, 109, 113, 114, 115, 154, 161, 162 Abutigia, 55 Acre/Akka, 27, 39, 41, 57, 74, 107, 115, 119, 121, 141, 149 Adorno, 38, 117, 118 Af»q, 9, 124. See also F»q Afula, 85, 144 ªhuw«n, 76 Ajrūd, 19, 122, 123 Ak Han, 22, 24 Ak¹ehir-Afyon road, 22, 23, 47 ªl Fa±l (Bedouin tribe), 58 Alara Han, 63, 64, 155 Aleppo, 12, 13, 15, 16, 27, 31, 38, 49, 50, 64, 70, 72, 104, 106 Aleppo road, 12, 13, 15, 16, 37, 59, 61, 64, 65, 152 Alexandria, 26, 36, 122 alhóndiga, 39 ‘Al» Bakk«, Shaykh, 51 Almalik/ªlmalik/ªl-Malik, 12, 54, 122-3, 142, 143 ªlmalikiyya, 154 Almaliq (China), 29 Al³unbugh«, 110, 122 Altınapa Han, 47 Am»n al-D»n b. al-Ba·· al-T«jjir, 49, 54, 125 Antalya-Alanya road, 47 al-‘Aqr, kh«n, 27, 28 al-Aq·«, 53, 54 al-‘Aqūla, 30 Ar«z«ma, 26 Arbid. See Irbid Arghūn Sh«h al-Ibr«h»m», 15, 50 Argıt Han, 47 al-‘Ar»sh, 18, 28, 30, 58, 61, 157 Arsūf (Appollonia), 25, 52, 91, 92, 95 ‘Ar³ūsiya/ Orthosiya kh«n, 31, 64, 65, 70, 71, 79 Aruq³«y, Mūsa b. ®«jj, 59 A·bugh« b. Bal«³, 33 Ascalon, 25 Ashdod-Yam, 75 ‘Atsh«n, 75, 76 Aw¯adiyya, Jerusalem, 72 ‘Awj«’, 30, 54, 59, 99, 101, 144 Aybak al-Mu‘aμμam», 7, 8, 9, 46, 57, 77 Aydamur al-Zardk«sh, 122 al-‘ªyin, 46 Ayla/ Wayla, 17, 26 ‘Ayn al-As«wir, 95, 101 ‘Ayn J«lūt route, 30

Azlam, 122, 123 Baghdad, 7, 25, 27, 34, 35, 43, 113 Baghr«s, kh«n, 30 Baktamur, 11, 58, 87, 122, 123 Baktash al-®us«m», 11 Balab«n, 122 B«lis, 26, 64, 113 al-Balkh», 24 B«niy«s, 7, 10, 45, 107 B«qid»n, 27 al-Baqq«ra, 26 al-Bara, 26 bar»d, 2, 11, 12, 18, 29, 30, 31, 36, 45, 48, 52, 53, 54, 59-62, 64, 83, 84, 86, 87, 91, 95, 96, 101, 103, 106, 111, 124, 134, 136, 142, 153, 155, 157, 162 bar»d», 51, 60 Barqūq, 14, 15,18, 33, 36, 45, 50, 55, 56, 65, 73, 106, 110, 155, 156, 157, 158 Barsb«y, 34, 43, 156 B«si³iyya, 154 Baybars, 32, 44, 51, 52, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62, 76, 78, 85, 95, 101, 103, 104, 106, 110, 136, 144, 156 Baybars II, 51, 87 Bay±«’, 27 Baydamur, 33 Baykand, 25 Bayl«n, kh«n, 16 Bays«n, 2, 6, 11, 30, 31, 32, 49, 51, 52, 61, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 85- 88, 91, 92, 110, 111, 122, 133, 134, 136, 137, 142. See also Kh«n al-A¯mar Bayt Dar«s, kh«n, 30, 49, 53, 54, 96, 100, 123, 144, 153 Bayt Jibr»n, 7-8, 12, 16, 55, 142 Beirut, 57 Bernard the Monk, 26 Bethany, 36, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 98 Bethsaida, 132 Biddulph, 37, 77, 134 b»m«rist«n, 53, 102 Bi’r al-Jūkhad«r, 123 Bi’r al-Q«±», 30 Bi’r Ghaz», 30 bi’r sab»l, 30, 54, 103 Bi’r Zayt, Kh., 128 al-B»ra (Palestine), 51, 128 Birkat Qadas, 31, 106 al-Birz«l», 54, 125 Black Death, 58 Boyabat-Vezirköprü road, 22, 47 Bukh«r«, 25 al-Burayj, 31,67, 70, 106; kh«n, 31, 37, 51, 67, 77, 78, 81 Bu·ra, 32 Butingi. See Abutigia

                                                            

* References to terms in italics relate to their definition and/or citations in the literature, not to place-names. The indexing of sources is not exhaustive and usually does not list citations and bibliographical references.

285

 

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Caesarea, 75, 95, 99, 143 Cairo, 6, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 43, 45, 48, 52, 53, 56, 58, 60, 62, 73, 85, 87, 91, 122, 136, 158 Cairo-Damascus road, 18, 28, 60, 87, 95, 101, 106, 132, 150, 152, 157 Can, 37, 149. See also cane, kan/e and kh«n cane, 36, 37, 38, 44, 77, 90, 92, 104, 107, 118, 128, 129, 135, 149, 150, 157 Capernaum, 120, 132, 135 caravansarai/caravanserai/caravanserail, 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 18, 19, 33, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 60, 63, 149; caravansary, 1, 41, 120, 126, 129, 135, 152, 161 Çardak Han, 21, 24, 47 Çay Han, 23, 24, 78 Çelebi, Evliya 102, 144, 145, 147, 148 Ch«h-i-Siy«h, 76 China, 28, 29, 60 Cyprus, 57

fondaco, 36, 37, 38, 39- 41, 162 foundouk. See funduq. Frescobaldi, 36, 44, 54, 55, 90, 92, 128 funduq, 1, 5, 7, 8, 16-17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 83, 145, 162 Fus³«³, 48, 76 Gaza, 12, 14, 18, 25, 30, 36, 45, 49, 51, 52, 55, 63, 64, 83, 88, 89, 90, 91, 96, 136, 143, 153, 156, 157, 158, 159 Gaza-Hebron road, 55, 142 Gaza-Ludd road, 103, 123, 153 Ghab«ghib, 54, 71. See also Kh«n Kha³³«b al-Ghur«b», 30, 31 Golan Heights, 1, 2, 7, 9, 17, 46, 54, 59, 68, 72, 77, 83, 87, 121, 124, Granada, 26 Gucci, Giorgio, 44, 55, 128

Da‘j«niya, 155 Da‘uq, 74 Damascus, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 59, 60, 67, 77, 87, 90, 100, 104, 106, 107, 108, 110, 112, 116, 117, 119, 123, 124, 134, 135, 145, 149, 150, 151, 152 Damascus-Acre road, 119, 121 Damascus-al-Bira (Syria), 51 Damascus-Aleppo road, 15, Damascus-Baghdad road, 5 Damascus-Dar’at, 13 Damascus-Gaza road, 30, 54, 96, 153 Damascus-Homs road, 5, 6, 27, 46, 64, 76 Damascus-Jerusalem road, 44, 88, 120, 135, 150, 152 Damascus-Mecca road, 49 Damascus-Q«r« road, 27 Damgh«n, 25 Darb al-®«jj, 51, 122 Darb al-Sul³«n», 60 Dast Qataw«n, 25 Dayr al-Azhar, 137 Dayr al-Ji··, 26 Dayr al-Shaykh, 28 Dayr al-T»n (Upper Egypt), 29 Dhir‘»n, Zar‘»n, 30, 60, 61 Dhr«‘ al-Kh«n, 63, 65, 69, 71, 79 Dihist«n, 25 Dokuzun Derbent Han, 20, 24 Dunaysir, 27 Durak Han, 22, 24, 47

HaBonim/ Kafr L«m, 75 ®abwa, 30, 61 ¯ajj, 16, 17, 74 ®alba, kh«n, 35 ®am«/ Hama, 27, 58, 152 ¯amm«m, 47, 51, 54, 91, 102 ®amm«m al-¶arakh, 72 han, 23, 38, 41, 65, 66, 104, 119, 131, 150. See also kh«n ®ar«n-Ni·ib»n road, 51, 67 ®aram, Hebron, 52, 53, 54 ®aram, Jerusalem, 28, 32, 33, 52, 53, 54, 56, 68, 71, 100 H«rūn al-Rash»d, 60 ®asy«/®isy«, 17, 50; kh«n 17, 31, 37, 38, 50, 59, 147 Hatun Han, 21, 24 ¯aw±, 26, 53, 54, 100, ¯aw± sab»l/¯aw± li’l-sab»l, 51, 54, 102, 103 ®aw± al-‘Azariya, 78, 92, 96-98 ®awr«n, 8, 46, 49, 54, 77, 105, 124, 125, 144 Hebron/al-Khal»l, 49, 51, 87, 88, 91, 101, 118, 120, 136, 149, 159 Hekim Han, 20, 23, 24, 39, 47 ®ij«z, 26, 29, 126 al-®illa, 27 Hish«m b. ‘Abd al-Malik, 6, 76 ®i·n al-‘Inab, 137 ®i³³»n, 30, 130, 140 hogotunes, 20, 23, 24 Homs, 27 Hurmuz, 29 ®us«m al-D»n al-®«jib, 51, 67

Emmaus, 137, 141 Ertokuş Han, 47 Euthymius, St. monastery, 90, 91, 93, 95

Ibn Ba³³ū³a, 28, 29, 36, 38, 57, 117 Ibn al-Fur«t, 31, 57, 101, 155 Ibn ®ajar al-‘Asqal«n», 52 Ibn ®awqal, 25, 26 Ibn Iy«s, 17, 157 Ibn al-J»‘«n, 31, 50, 106, 134 Ibn Jubayr, 26-28, 41

Fa¯ma, 30 al-Far«sh (Iraq), kh«n, 27 F»q, 7, 9, 122, 124 fonda, 39 286

Index Ibn Kath»r, 54, 96, 110 Ibn Khurd«dhbih, 26 Ibn al-Muzalliq, 48, 50, 59, 66, 68, 106, 107, 117, 134, 135, 148 ibn al-sab»l, 12, 15, 25, 27 Ibn ¶a·r«, 51, 67, 77 Ibn Shadd«d, ‘Izz al-D»n Mu¯ammad, 32 Ibn Taghr» Bird», 31, 32, 52, 87, 101 ºdhaj, 29 Ilg½n Han, 47 ‘In«k, 46 ºn«l al-Yūsuf», 56 ¼ncir Han, 21-22, 24 iq³«‘, 46, 52, 56, 57 ºr«nshahr, 26 Irbid/Arbid, 30, 63, 110, 111 Is‘ardiyya, 154 Isb»j«b, 26 I·fah«n, 18, 26, 29, 45, 76 ¼s¯aql½ Han, 22, 24, 47 al-I·³akhr», 24, 25

Karatay, Jal«l al-D»n, 47 Karbal«’, 29 Karg½ Han, 64 Kar»m al-D»n (?), 30 karvansera/ karvanssera, 37. See also caravansarai. Kayk«wus (I) b. Qilij Arlsl«n, 20 Kayk«wus (II) b. Kaykhusraw, 22, 47 Kaykhusraw (I) b. Qilij Arsl«n, 20, 47 Kaykhusraw (II) b. Kayqub«d, 21-22, 47 Kaykhusraw (III) b. Qilij Arsl«n, 23, 47 Kayqub«d b. Kaykhusraw, 21 Kayseri-Sivas road, 47 Kervanserai, 38. See also caravansarai Kesik Köprü Han, 22-23, 24 Khal»l, al-Ashraf, 30, 31, 44, 51 kh«n, 1-3, 5-42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 61, 68, 74, 85, 86-87, 88, 90-91, 92, 98, 100, 103, 107, 115, 119, 126, 129, 131, 135, 136, 144, 148, 149, 150, 153, 155, 156 , 157, 161 kh«n al-sab»l/kh«n li’l-sab»l, 12, 13, 14, 18, 32, 33, 36 , 43, 44, 47, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 61, 91, 99, 100, 125, 126, 156, 161 al-Kh«n (Iraq), 6, 9 Kh«n al-A¯mar, Bays«n, 2, 6, 11, 14, 32, 49, 51, 52, 61, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 79, 85-88, 90, 91, 122, 133, 134, 136 Kh«n al-‘Aqaba (F»q), 7, 9, 10, 17, 46, 77, 81, 83, 122, 124 Kh«n al-‘Arūs, 6, 16, 27, 40, 45, 69, 76, 77, 78, 81 Kh«n al-‘Asal, 12, 16, 49, 64, 65, 69, 70, 73, 79, 154 Kh«n al-As«wir, 95-96 Kh«n al-‘A³ni/I³na , 8, 44, 45, 46, 69, 77, 81 100, 121, 128 Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh, 5, 8, 10-11, 44, 49, 65, 66, 69, 70, 73, 79, 100, 117, 121, 128 Kh«n al-‘Azz«m (Ramla), 100, 113 Kh«n B«liq/Beijing, 29 Kh«n Barqūq, 36 Kh«n Dannūn, 13-14, 50, 55, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 73, 79 Kh«n al-Dwayr, 10 Kh«n al-®ad»d, 28 Kh«n ®athrūra, 52, 63, 66, 6967, 88-95, 136 Kh«n al-Ifranj (Acre), 40 Kh«n Jaljūliya, 32, 49, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69, 71, 79, 99102, 109, 113, 144, 155 Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘qūb, 50, 60, 63, 65, 66, 68, 71, 79, 104-108, 117, 121, 132, 134, 137–8, 147, 148 Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘, 31, 48, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 79, 85, 86, 108-112, 133, 146 Kh«n Jisr al-Sughūr, 16 Khān Jubb Yūsuf, 1, 28, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 79, 112-121, 125, 132, 133, 144, 145, 146 Kh«n Jūkhad«r, 54, 65, 72, 79, 84, 87, 121-123 Kh«n al-Kar»m», 30, 61 Kh«n al-Khal»l», 34, 44 Kh«n Kha³³«b, 49, 54. See also Ghab«ghib Kh«n L«j»n. See Kh«n ‘Ayy«sh Kh«n al-Lajjūn, 49, 54, 64, 80, 125-127 Kh«n al-Lubban, 44, 63, 66, 80, 127-130 Kh«n Lūbiy«, 65, 78, 130-131, 153 Kh«n Mankuwirish (Cairo), 43 Kh«n al-Masrūr (Cairo), 41

Jabala, kh«n, 15, 50, 69, 73 Jaffa, 25, 57, 137, 141 Jam«l al-D»n b. Nah«r, 110 Jam«l al-Lūk, 29 Jamalabad, 19 Janb«, 30 Jaqmaq, 59 al-Jaw«r», kh«n, 35 Jedda, 26 Jericho, 36, 37, 92, 93 Jerusalem, 6, 24, 27, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 44, 49, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 59, 63, 68, 69, 70, 72, 92, 93, 94, 98, 100, 101, 102, 107, 109, 110, 113, 122, 129, 137, 140, 141, 143, 149, 150. See also ®aram, Jerusalem Jerusalem-Damascus road. See Damascus-Jerusalem road Jerusalem-Jericho road, 52, 63, 66, 69, 89, 90, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 136 Jerusalem-Ramla/Ludd/Lydda road, 36, 137, 141, 142 Jerusalem-N«blus road, 128, 129 Jibr«’»l b. J«j«, 23 J»n»n, 30, 61; kh«n, 32, 49, 54, 61, 102-4, 130 Jisr al-‘Ar³ūsiya, 31. See also ‘Ar³ūsiya Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b. See Kh«n Jisr Ban«t Ya‘q−b Jisr al-D«miya, 110 Jisr al-Maj«mi‘. See Kh«n Jisr al-Maj«mi‘ Jisr al-Ruq«d, 123, 124 Jisr S«ma/Us«ma, 110 Jit»n, 30, 54, 96, 153 jūkand«r, 87, 122, 123, 142 Kadın Han, 47 Kafr L«m. See HaBonim. Kafr Sabt, 131 kan/kane, 36, 37, 125, 126, 129. See also kh«n. Karak/Kerak, 30, 39, 52, 70, 88, 145 Karatay Han, 32, 47 287

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m Kh«n Minya, 1, 47, 50, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 72, 80, 117, 125, 131-135, 145, 145, 148 Kh«n Mirj«n (Baghdad), 35, 113 Kh«n of Qaw·ūn (Cairo), 33 Kh«n al-Sab»l (Cairo), 43 Kh«n al-Sab»l, Inqir«t«, 13, 31, 44, 48, 49, 61, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 73, 80, 100 Kh«n al-Sabbūn (Aleppo), 72 Kh«n Sar«qeb, 37, 38, 50 Kh«n al-S«wiya, 128 Kh«n al-Sha‘r, 64 Kh«n Shaykhūn, 31, 37, 38, 49, 64, 65, 69, 73, 80, 147 Kh«n al-Shūna (Acre), 40 Kh«n al-Sultan (al-Wak«la, Jerusalem), 1, 33, 37, 70 Kh«n Tankiz (Jerusalem), 1 Kh«n al-Tujj«r, 1, 2, 17, 18, 50, 63, 64, 66, 80, 102, 105, 106, 112, 117, 126, 134, 144-153 Kh«n ²ūm«n, 15-16, 27, 31, 37, 38, 44, 50, 65, 71, 72, 73, 77, 78, 81, 147 Kh«n Uraynba, 31, 65, 69, 73, 80, 106 Kh«n Urtm« (Baghdad), 35, 43 Kh«n Yūnus, 14, 15, 18, 32, 44, 50, 56, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 80, 83, 99, 153-9 Kh«n al-§«hir, Jerusalem, 6, 32, 36, 44, 55, 110 Kh«n al-Z«wiya (Iraq), 35 kh«nq«h, 34, 43, 52, 83 Kha³³«b b. Ma¯mūd, ‘Izz al-D»n, 49, 54 al-Kharrūba, kh«n, 28, 30, 56, 61 Khirbat Bi’r Zayt, 128 Khirbat ®anot, 142, 143 Khirbat al-Mafjar, 92 Khirbat al-Sukkariya, kh«n, 12, 36, 54, 55, 123, 142143 Khirbat Ma‘an, 155 Khirbat al-Minya, 66, 132, 133, 134, 135 Khirkan (Iran), 17 Khisf»n, kh«n, 7, 9, 78, 79, 123-125 Khushqadam, 116 K»rank, 25 K½rkgöz Han, 21, 24, 64 Kiswa, 13, 54 Kitbugh«, 101 K½z½lören Han, 47, 69, 72 Konya-Afyon road, 47 Konya-Ak¹ehir, 20, 47 Konya-Aksaray road, 21, 47 Konya-Alanya road, 155 Konya-Bey¹ehir road, 20 Konya-Kaysei road, 47 Kuruçe¹me Han, 20, 24 Kütahya, 37, 89

Lurist«n, 29 Ma‘arrat al-Nu‘m«n, 13, 27, 37, 59 ma±«fa, 39 Madrasa al-Mirj«niyya (Baghdad), 34, 35, 43 Madrasa al-Tankiziyya (Jerusalem), 53, 69, 100, 101, 102, 109 Madrasa al-Muzhiriyya (Jerusalem), 74 al-Mahallab», 26 ma¯a³³a, 31, 106 ma¯alla, 27 M«hbar» Kh«tūn, 21 Majdal, 51 mak«n, 15, 31 Manjak, 13, 17, 31, 48, 49, 50, 61, 147 Mankuwirish, Rukn al-D»n , 8, 43, 46 manzil, 1, 26, 29, 39, 40, 119, 150 al-Maqr»z», 31, 33-34, 41, 43, 61, 86, 95, 101, 102, 103, 130, 136, 155 Maragha, 19 Marchand Basile, 37 Mariano da Siena, 37, 44, 89 markaz, 11, 29-31, 49, 54, 60, 61, 101, 103, 106, 110, 153, 157 Markiya, 64, 80 mawqif, 30 Mecca, 15, 49, 123, 124 Megiddo. See Kh«n al-Lajjūn Merv, 24 Messina (Sicily), 28 M»m«s (Gaza), 25 Monastir, rib«³, 25, 66, 75 Mosul, 9, 24, 27, 28, 29 Mount Tabor, 144, 150, 151, 152 al-Mu‘aμμam ‘ºs«, 8, 46, 51, 77 Mub«riz al-D»n Ertokuş, 47 Mu¯ammad b. Fa±l All«h, Fakhr al-D»n, 30, 31, 56-57, 61 Mu¯ammad Sh«h ºnj, 29 muhandiz, 14 Mu‘»n al-D»n Sulaym«n, 22, 47 Muj»r al-D»n al-‘Ulaym», 31, 33, 44, 51, 52, 54, 56, 87 Mul«qis. See Umm L«qis mulk, 56 al-Muqaddas», 24-26, 27, 28, 143 muqarnas, 71, 72, 85, 146, 154, 155 Mūs«, Sharaf al-D»n, 12, 49 al-Mush«rifa, 32 mutatio, 74, 143 al-Mu³aylib, 28, 30 Muzayrib, kh«n, 49, 54, 125

La Broquière, 36-37, 117 L«j»n, 5, 11, 49, 52, 101 Lajjūn, Palestine. See Kh«n al-Lajjūn Lajjūn, Jordan, 155 Latakiya, 15, 16 Lift«, 32 Ludd/Lydda, 30, 52, 54, 101, 103, 123, 136, 137, 143, 144, 153 Lu’lu’, Badr al-D»n , 9, 56

Nab» Shu‘ayb, 30, 130 Nab» Yam»n, 53, 99, 100 N«blus, 95, 98, 101, 102, 104, 127, 128, 129, 150 Najm al-D»n F»rūz, 85 Nakhl, 51, 122, 123 al-Nashū, 54, 58, 62 Na‘r«n, 31, 106 N«·ir al-D»n al-Daw«d«r al-Tank»z», 30, 53, 54, 96, 144 288

Index N«·ir al-D»n al-Khaznad«r al-Tankiz», 30, 54, 96, 153 al-N«·ir Mu¯ammad b. Qal«wūn, 29, 48, 58, 87, 102-3, 110, 122, 140, 161 al-N«·ir Yūsuf , 57, 104 Nayin/N»n, 30 Nays«būr/Nīshāpūr, 26 Nilometer (Rawda), 76, 140 Ni·»b»n/Nusaybin, 27 al-Nu‘aym», 52, 54, 59, 68, 100, 101, 106, 125, 134, 148 Nūr al-Dīn al-Zankī, 36

Qiryat Gat, 7, 12, 54, 123, 142 Qizil, rib«³, 35 al-Qubayba, 141 Qud«ma b. Ja‘far, 25, 26 Quhist«n, 25 Qumar», jūkand«r, 122 Qunay³ra, kh«n, 31, 50, 59, 66, 106, 107, 134, 135, 148 Qur’«n/ Qur’«n passages, 12, 14, 53, 55, 72, 73, 119, 141, 142, 156 al-Qu·ayr, (Egypt), kh«n, 30 al-Qu·ayr, (Syria), kh«n, 27, 78, 81 Qu³ayf«, 64, 69, kh«n, 38, 66, 69, 76, 77, 78, 81, 113 Qu³l Kh«tūn, 122 Qu³lūbugh«, 130

Obruk Han, 69 okel/okelle, 40. See also wakāla Oxus River, 25     Palermo (Sicily), 28, 37 pandocheion, pandocheia, 20, 39, 43, 74 Pasargad (Iran), 19 Pella, 63 Pınarba¹ı Han, 47 Poggibonsi, Niccolò da, 36, 92, 97 putqō, 20, 23, 24

al-Ra¯ba, 58 R«s al-‘Ayn, Palestine, 99, 101, 143, 145. See also Qal‘at R«s al-‘Ayn R«s al-‘Ayn (Syria), 27 Ra·ad, 27 Rafa¯, 30, 158 Ramla, 24, 35, 39, 44, 52, 56, 76, 100, 109, 113, 140, 142, 143, 153 al-Raqqa, 26 Rash»d al-D»n, 19 Rayy, 26 rib«³, 1, 5, 19, 20-26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 41, 42, 43, 53, 74-76, 83, 100, 1-2, 124, 155, 156, 161, 162 Rib«³ ªb Shutur«n, 26 Rib«³ Afr«wa, 25 Rib«³-i-Anūsh»rw«n, 76 Rib«³ of Dhū ’l-Kifl, 25 Rib«³ of Dhū ’l-Qarnayn, 25 Rib«³ ibn Rustam, 26 Rib«³-i-Kar»m, 66, 76 Rib«³ Kawr«n, 26 Rib«³ Kūfan, 25 Rib«³-i-Malik, 76 Rib«³ al-Nūr, 25 Rib«³ Suhayl, 25 Rib«³-i-Sharaf, 74, 76, 162 Rocchetta, 17, 37, 38, 102, 106, 112, 115, 116, 147 Ru·«fa, 80

Qadas, 31kh«n, 50, 73 qal‘a, 5, 17, 49, 124, 131, 147, 155, 162 Qal«wūn, 9, 10, 13, 15, 51, 57 Qalansuwa, 95, 101, 143 Qal‘at al-‘Aqaba, 17-18 Qal‘at Barqūq (al-Qal‘a), 18. See also Kh«n Yūnus Qal‘at al-¶ubayba, 66, 68 Qal‘at al-Azraq, 46 Qal‘at Ja‘bar, 58 Qal‘at R«s al-‘Ayn, 59, 101, 145 Qal‘at ‘Uy−n al-Tujj«r, 144 al-Qalqashand», 5, 11, 30, 31, 48, 101, 110, 153 Q«n·ūh al-Ghūr», 2, 17, 34 44, 51, 57, 156 Qan·ūh al-Ya¯y«w», 15 Q«qūn, kh«n, 30, 49, 51, 66, 80, 90, 91, 135-137, 155 Q«r«, kh«n, 27, 69, 70, 72, 76, 81, 117 Qarantal, 37, 90, 92 Qar«qūsh, Bah«’ al-D»n Ab− Sa‘»d , 43 Qar«sunqur b. ‘Abd All«h, 22 Qar«sunqur, jūkand«r, 122 Qaryat al-Kat»ba/Qaryat al-Kath»b, 52, 90-92 Qaryat al-‘Inab/ Abū Ghūsh, 1, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 75, 76, 80, 137-142 Qa·r al-®ayr al-Gharb», 6, 76 Qa·r al-®ayr al-Sharq», 76 Qa³ra/Qa³r«, 30, 54, 60, 96, 103 Qa³rana, 145 Qa³ya/Qa³y«/Qa³iy«, 18, 30, 31, 57, 58, 157 Qaw·ūn, 33, 34, 41, 101 Qaym«z al-Najm», ¶«rim al-D»n, 124 qay·ariyya, 33-34, 53, 100, 102 Q«ytb«y, 15, 17, 31, 34, 44, 48, 50, 59, 72, 79, 101, 106, 117, 125, 134, 143 Q«z«n, jūkand«r, 122 Qazw»n, 18

sab»l, 12, 29, 54, 100, 102, 103, 161; water fountain, 31, 41, 53, 67, 100, 101, 103. See also ¯aw± sab»l, ibn al-sab»l and kh«n al-sab»l Saddedin Han, 47, 71 ¶afad/Safed, 28, 29, 30, 40, 43, 53, 59, 85, 87, 100, 101, 102, 103, 106, 108, 115, 117, 120, 122, 130, 150 al-¶afad», 51, 52, 53, 54, 68, 100, 101 al-¶«fiya, 30 S«la, 46, 77 ¶al«¯ al-D»n, 6, 7, 11, 27, 76, 77, 110, 140 Sal«r, 11, 49, 51, 52, 58, 85, 87, 90, 91, 117, 122, 123, 136 al-¶«li¯»ya, 28, 30 ¶alkhad, 46; kh«n, 46, 77 Salqa/Silqa, bar»d, 30, 36, 153, 157 289

The Road Inns (Kh«ns) in Bil«d al-Sh«m ¶«magh«n. See D«mgh«n Samarqand, 25, 76 S«marr«, 76, Sanjar al-J«wul», 49, 51-52, 58, 87, 88, 90, 92, 123, 136, 144 Sarcham, rib«³, 19 Sarūj, 27 Sa‘sa‘, 31, 50, 106, 148, 149 Sa³r, bar»d, 30 al-Saw«da, 28, 30 Sh«h ‘Abb«s II, 19 Sh«h ‘Abb«s» caravansarais, 45 Sha‘b«n, al- Ashraf, 13, 14, 49, 50, 59, 61, 130 Sha‘b«n, al-K«mil 13-14, 49, 122 Shaq¯ab, 53; kh«n, 11, 49, 53 Shaykhū al-‘Umar», 49, 73 Sh»r«z, 19, 29 S»n (Iran), 18 Sin«n Pasha, 145, 147, 148, 149 Sinai, 19, 26, 28, 31, 36, 51, 56, 58, 122 Sivas-Malatya road, 20, 23, 47 St. Catherine (Mt. Sinai), 36, 39 ¶ubaykha Nakhla Ma‘n (Sinai), 30 Sūq al-Qa³³«n»n, 34, 53 Sūsa, rib«³, 25, 75, 155 Sultan Han, near Aksaray, 20, 24 Sultan Hans, 45, 47, 162 Sulaym«n b. Sal»m (The Magnificent), 16, 18, 67, 147

²ūm«n al-Nūr», 15 Turba Berke Kh«n, Jerusalem, 72, 113 al-²urra (Syria), 32 Tyre, 27     Uchkuduk, 64 Ukhaidir, 75, 76 al-‘Umar», 11, 29-31, 48, 53, 54, 60, 61, 67, 77, 84, 95, 96, 101, 110, 130, 136, 142, 144, 153 Umm L«qis/ Mul«qis, 12, 30, 36, 55, 142 Urfa (al-Ruh«, Edessa), 27 Us«ma al-®alab», 100. See also Jisr S«ma ‘Uthm«n al-§«hir» , Fakhr al-D»n, 15 Uzdamur al-‘Umar», 50     W«d» al-T»m/Sūq al-Kh«n, 50 wak«la, 1, 31, 32-35, 36, 40, 41, 59, 70, 162 Wak«la al-Ghūr», 34, 44 waqf, 2, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 32-34, 35, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 56, 57, 87, 104, 161 waqfiyya, 32-35, 44, 47, 51, 52 al-Warr«da, 31, 56 xenodochia, 74 Y«f«. See Jaffa. Y«m, 60 Y«sūr, kh«n, 30, 153 Yashbak al-®amz«w», 31, 59 Yūnus al-Nawrūz», 8, 36, 45, 50, 56, 156, 157 Yotvata, 1, 64, 75 Yubn« (Yavneh), 17, 25, 78

al-²abar», 25 Tabgha, 132 ²«j«r al-Daw«d«r, 30, 49, 54 Takr»t, 27, 28 Tamarlane/Timurlang, 36, 59 Tankiz, 12, 48, 49, 52-54, 58, 68, 73, 96, 100, 101, 102, 110, 113, 134, 143, 144 ²aran³«y, 52 ²ayba, 30, 111 ²ayn«l, 33, 40, 43 Tell Najila, 142 Tell Qasila, 1, 64, 75, 76 Thevenot, 17, 36, 38, 65, 66, 73, 130, 131, 147 Tiberias, 28, 118, 119, 120, 131, 132, 134, 135, 138, 144, 150, 151, 152 ²»na, burj, 156 ²»ra, kh«n, 30, 49, 53, 54, 96, 143-144, 155 Tripoli, 15, 31, 33, 40, 43, 49, 50, 64

z«wiya, 28-29, 34, 38, 43, 51, 53, 56, 83, 117, 118 Z«wiya Ban«t ®amid (Safed), 53, 59 al-Za‘qa, bar»d, 30 Zu¯ar, 30, 61, 111 Zur«‘, 9, 11, 46; kh«n, 7, 8-9, 46, 77

 

290