Lajjun: forgotten provincial capital in Ottoman Palestine

Roy Marom; Yotam Tepper; Matthew J. Adams

During the 16th century CE, the town of al-Lajjun in the Marj ibn ‘Amir (the Jezreel Valley), served as one of Ottoman Palestine’s provincial capitals under the administration of the Turabay Dynasty (1517–1688 CE), and was an important centre on the imperial highway between Damascus and Cairo. However, the town of this period has never been the subject of historical investigation. This paper seeks to bring together, assess and synthesize, rarely accessed Arabic and Ottoman Turkish sources, along with oral histories and an archaeological survey, to provide the first comprehensive historical account of Turabay al-Lajjun and its ultimate demise in the 19th century CE.

<The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Lajjun: Forgotten Provincial Capital in Ottoman Palestine Roy Marom (corresponding author: mighemi@gmail.com) Department of History, University of California (Berkeley) http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7897-3537 Yotam Tepper Israel Antiquities Authority, 61012, Tel Aviv, Israel Zinman Institute of Archaeology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5564-1652 Matthew J. Adams W.F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9447-6277 1 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Abstract During the 16th century CE, the town of al-Lajjun in the Marj ibn ‘Amir (the Jezreel Valley), served as one of Ottoman Palestine’s provincial capitals under the administration of the Turabay Dynasty (1517–1688 CE), and was an important centre on the imperial highway between Damascus and Cairo. However, the town of this period has never been the subject of historical investigation. This paper seeks to bring together, assess and synthesize, rarely accessed Arabic and Ottoman Turkish sources, along with oral histories and an archaeological survey, to provide the first comprehensive historical account of Turabay al-Lajjun and it its ultimate demise in the 19th century CE. Key Words Al-Lajjun; Marj ibn ‘Amir; Jenin; Turabay Dynasty; Ottoman Palestine Introduction During the 16th century, the town of al-Lajjun (henceforth, Lajjun for brevity), located on the western edge of the Marj ibn ‘Amir (the Jezreel Valley), served as one of Palestine’s provincial capitals, alongside Safed, Nablus, Jerusalem, and Gaza. Lajjun was a market town and a major stop along the imperial highway between Damascus and Cairo (Fig. 1). Under the Turabay Dynasty (1517–1688 CE),1 Lajjun served as the 1 Linguistic note: The name Turabey is of Turkish or Turkmen origin, and it was pronounced differently in Arabic, Turkish, and Persian. Unfortunately, the consonantal skeleton by itself does not provide us with the vowels for reconstructing its original pronunciation. Contemporary sources transcribe it differently, for example, ṭrbyh, ṭrh b’y. it has been variously transcribed in contemporary scholarship as Turabay, Turabey, Tarabey or Tarabia. For convenience, we transcribe it as Turabay. The name of the lineage was Ibn Tarabey in Arabic, and it is equivalent with Turabayoğlu in Ottoman Turkish (cf. Stephan 1987). The appellative/patronym ‘Ibn Tarabey’ is especially confusing, as it may also denote someone’s 2 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 administrative center for their vast domains in northern Palestine. The extensive archaeological remains of the Ottoman town include an impressive khan (caravanserai), bridge, village, market grounds, irrigation canals, and multiple watermills. Yet, as prominent as Lajjun was in its heyday, its history remains mostly obscured today. Previous researchers have highlighted the lack of historical scholarship and archeological exploration of the site (Pringle 1998: 5; Petersen 2001: 201; 2005: 41). Therefore, this paper seeks to shed new light on the history of early Ottoman Lajjun as a provincial capital by exploring the interplay between local autonomous political authority and interregional trade and population movements; bringing to light existing research in Arabic and facilitating access to its main conclusions by the English- speaking research community (archaeologists, historical geographers, and scholars of landscape and environmental studies);2 providing testimony from oral sources; and surveying the standing remains from the period that can still be seen at the site. Lastly, the paper seeks to shed light on the reasons for the decline and abandonment of Lajjun during the 18th and 19th centuries. direct father, with many members of the dynasty called ‘Tarabey’ (see Table 1; cf. Sharon 1975: 26). 2 This study was carried out under the auspices of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project (JVRP), directed by Matthew J. Adams and Yotam Tepper. The JVRP is a long-term, multi- disciplinary survey and excavation project, investigating the history of human activity in the Jezreel Valley from the Paleolithic through the Ottoman period. This project strives for a total history of the region using the tools and theoretical approaches of disciplines such as, archaeology, anthropology, geography, history, ethnography and the natural sciences, within an organizational framework provided by landscape archaeology. This research was conducted with the much-appreciated consideration and advice of Lajjun’s former residents living in Israel, whose life stories were recorded by Marom as part of his Palestine Rural History Project (PRHP). The authors thank them for sharing their knowledge of their native land. Marom carried out his research as Fulbright postdoctoral fellow at UC Berkeley, which sits on the territory of xucˇ yun (Huichin), the original landscape of the Chochenyo speaking Ohlone people, the successors of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County, CA. 3 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Figure 1 Map of northern Palestine, showing the location of Lajjun and other places mentioned in the text (drawing Sources and methods This work offers an interdisciplinary, historical, and archaeological account of the history of a key administrative town in Ottoman Palestine, from the end of the Mamluk period in the 16th century until its desertion in the beginning of the 19th century. This paper will not deal in detail with the archaeology of the site dating to the Early Islamic 4 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 and Crusader periods, nor with the separate history of the modern village re-founded by residents of the nearby town of Umm al-Fahm in the last quarter of the 19th century (Kana‘ina and Mahamid 1987; Jamil 1998: II; Mahamid 2015). The paper utilizes a longue durée approach to the history of the site, examining its longer diachronic and wider geographical connections. Written sources augmented by archaeological survey were used to trace, characterise, and map the remains of the Ottoman village, and historically contextualise them within Ottoman power politics and economic and administrative change (cf. Marom 2008; 2019a; 2019b; 2022b). Islamic chronicles and geographic treatises from the Early Islamic to the Mamluk periods refer to the town’s changing history, inhabitants, architecture, traditions, and administrative status (al-Dimashqi 1923; Ibn ‘Asakir 1998; Ibn al-Faqih 1885; al-Istakhri 1927; al-Maqdisi 1991; al-Maqrizi 1997; al-Qalqashandi 1914; al-‘Uthmani 2008; Yaqut 1977). These topics are rarely attested in surviving sources from the Ottoman period (Cytryn-Silverman and Talmon-Heller 2015). As Ottoman Lajjun was in direct chronological and spatial continuity with the settlement of earlier periods, however, these sources can better our understanding of the geopolitical setting and architecture of Ottoman Lajjun. Surviving sources of the Ottoman periods belong to four main classes: A. 16th century Ottoman cadastral, demographic and agrarian surveys for fiscal purposes, preserved in the defter series of the Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivı (Istanbul). They list the revenues of the different villages (qurā, sing. qarya), agricultural plots (mazāri‘, sing. mazra‘a), religious endowments (awqāf, sing. waqf) and population (jamā‘āt, sing. jamā‘a) units according to contemporary administrative divisions (Hütteroth and Abdulfattah 1977; Rhode 1979; al-Bakhit and Hmoud 1989; Salhiya 1999; al-Bakhit and al-Sawariyyah 2010; Taşkın 2010). These sources enable a 5 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 historical-geographic reconstruction of the patterns of settlement, administration and taxable economic activities. Additionally, published imperial Ottoman correspondence and edicts (firmāns) from the Mühimme registers inform us about the local politics and society during the 16th and 17th centuries (Heyd 1960; Hourani 2010). B. Local chronicles in Arabic that document the high politics and military clashes between feuding strongmen and the Ottoman authorities (for example, al- Shidyaq, u.d; al-‘Awra, 1936). These works, and semi-professional accounts derived from them (Mansur 1924; al-Nimr 1937–1975; Tarabia 1976; al-Dabbagh 1991), are the source for much of our knowledge of Lajjun during the 17th and 18th centuries. Relevant oral traditions about the Ottoman period are recorded also in many Palestinian village books about Lajjun and its neighbours (al-Khatib 1987; Kana‘ina and Mahamid 1987; Mallahi 1997; Jamil 1998; ‘Arafat 1997, 1999; Sirhan and Kabha 2001; Mahamid 2015; Aql 2016). Additional accounts were documented as part of Marom’s Palestinian Rural History Project (PRHP: Marom 2022c; for the interview protocol and related methodological aspects see Marom 2020: 190-191; 2021: 6-8; 2022a: 69-76). C. Contemporary travelogues by European and Muslim travellers alike provide us with important, yet biased and partial, narrative accounts of Lajjun and its region at specific times (Stephan 1937; D’Arvieux 1735; Robinson and Smith 1841; Thomson 1859). D. Archaeological remains, including architecture and material culture finds. Archaeological excavation at the site of Lajjun revealed eight strata dating to the Umayyad, Abbasid, Crusader and Mamluk periods (Tepper 2013). Early exploratory works by Schumacher (1908: 177–185) and Tepper’s (2003) updated and intensive archaeological survey at the site provide direct evidence for daily life during the Ottoman period. Tepper documented the remains of structures, aqueducts, water mills, a 6 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 khan and a bridge (Tepper 2002; 2007; 2012; 2013). Tepper’s survey also revealed Mamluk and Ottoman pottery (Tepper 2003a; 2003b: Fig. 88, 13–17), private copper- alloy seals (akhtām) bearing Arabic names, a few late Islamic weights (Tepper 2003b: Fig. 19) and a Mamluk coin from the reign of Baybars (Tepper 2003: fig 18.1: 43). Unfortunately, no contemporary sources pertaining to the daily life at Lajjun survive, due to the loss of the relevant shari‘a court records in Acre and Safed. However, utilising the abovementioned records, including those in Arabic and Ottoman Turkish, in an integrative way, goes some way to compensate for this loss. Early Settlement in the Lajjun Region The Lajjun archaeological complex (Palestine Grid 1675/2205) is situated on several low-laying hills (ca. 175m above sea level) along the meeting zone of the Marj Ibn ‘Amir (mod. Jezreel Valley) and Bilad al-Ruha (mod. Ramot Menashe), which includes the contiguous remains of settlement going from the Chalcolithic period to the present (Fig. 2). This area of settlement benefited economically from its proximity to principal trade routes, prime arable land and copious perennial water sources. It is strategically situated at the intersection of two main roads: the international highway between Syria and Egypt (the ancient “Via Maris,” and the later “Barid Road” and “Tariq al-Sultani”, along the Wadi ‘Ara/Nahal ‘Iron Pass; see Tepper 2004; 2011; Petersen 2001: 201) and the regional road connecting Jenin and Samaria with Haifa and Acre. The settlements at this location served as key administrative centres from at least as early as the Bronze Age, when the town of Megiddo (Tel Megiddo; Fig. 2) was an important Canaanite city-state, eventually incorporated into the Egyptian empire as one of its major vassals, ca. 1550 BCE. During the Iron Age II (9th–8th centuries BCE), 7 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Megiddo was one of the main administrative centres of the kingdom of Israel. The town retained its importance through the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian periods as a provincial capital under those empires (Ussishkin 2015). During the Hellenistic period, the settlement shifted slightly to the south, away from Tell Megiddo, and towards the springs at Lajjun (modern Kibbutz Megiddo; Fig. 2). The site near the Qeni Stream is commonly identified with Caporcotani, the Mishnaic Kefar ‘Othnai. In the 2nd century, the Romans established the base of the Legio II Traiana legion nearby, replaced a few years later by the Legio VI Ferrata (Tepper 2002; 2007; Tepper and Di Segni 2006; Tepper et al. 2016; Adams et al. 2019). The town of Maximianopolis that developed around the legionary base served as the administrative seat for a large district between Galilee and Samaria during the Byzantine period. 8 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Figure 2 The Lajjun archaeological complex (courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project). The Early History of Lajjun under Muslim Rule During the Umayyad period and Abbasid periods (7th–10th centuries CE), Lajjun was on the northern border of Jund Filastin (al-Istakhri 1927: 56; Ibn Hawqal 1960: 157). By the time of al-Maqdisi (d. 991), however, Lajjun was a major stop on the Abbasid Postal Road (Tariq al-Barid) and was made the capital of a sub-district (nāḥiya) of Jund al- Urdunn (al-Maqdisi 1991: 154, 190–1). During the 940s, Lajjun was on the border of 9 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 the Abbasid Caliphate and the rebellious Ikhshid governors of Egypt and was the setting of several important battles between the two parties (al-Dabbagh 1991: III, 165–7). Early Islamic writers, like the 10th c. Persian geographer Ibn al-Faqih al- Hamadani, praised Lajjun for its copious springs. A legend attributed the springs to the miraculous work of the Patriarch Abraham (Ibrahim; Ibn al-Faqih 1885: 116–117; Ibn ‘Asakir [d. 1175] 1998: LXIX, 180). A mosque dedicated to Abraham was built above the spring (modern ‘Ain al-Khalil). Later authors followed this basic narrative, with the most elaborate version given by Arab geographer Yaqut al-Hamawi (d. 1229): In the middle of the town is a circular rock, and over it a dome. This they call the Mosque of Abraham […] Under the rock is a copious spring of water. They say that Abraham entered the town at the time of his journey up to Egypt with his flocks. Now the city possessed but little water at that time, and the people besought Abraham to travel on because of the small quantity of their water supply. However, he was commanded [by God] to strike the rock here with his staff, and the water then burst forth copiously. The villages and orchards round are all now irrigated from this spring, and the rock remains standing even to the present day (Yaqut 1977: v, 13–4; translation after Le Strange 1890: 493, with modifications). During the First Crusade (1099 CE), Lajjun was taken over by Crusaders and turned into a Frankish settlement (called Le Lyon) with a priory in the lordship of Caesarea, whose lands were endowed tithes to the Abbey of St. Mary of Mount Zion (Adams et al. forthcoming; Tepper et al. forthcoming). Following the Battle of Hittin and the Second Crusade (1187–1191), the town switched hands multiple times between the Muslims and Crusaders (al-Dabbagh 1991: III, 168–9; Pringle 1998: 3–5; Adams et al. in press). 10 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 After the recovery of lordships of Caesarea and Arsuf in the 1260s CE, Sultan Baybars and his successors worked to reconstruct the Postal Road, the Empire’s jugular vein of communication and commerce (Zakkar 2008: 20–21). As major stop along the route (al-Maqrizi 1996: I, 319; III, 143, etc.), Lajjun was made an ‘amal (sub-district) of the Mamlaka (province) of Safed, alongside the adjacent sub-districts of Nazareth and Jenin (al-Bakhit 1986). In the 14th century, Safadi scholar Shams al-Din al-Ansari al- Dimashqi (d. 1327 CE) described Lajjun as a “city” and “guesthouse” for war- mongering Yamani tribes (wa-hiya maḍāfa ’ilā al-‘ashīr wa-hawā wa-l-yaman; al- Dimashqi 1923: 212, cf. Zakkar 2008: 36). The merchant (al-tājir) Shaykh Amin al-Din ibn al-Bass (d. 731A.H/1331 CE) built “Khan al-Lajjun at the head of Wadi ‘Ara across/opposite from the royal campground (qibāl maṣṭabat al-sulṭān)” (al-Dimashqi 1990: II, 182; see below). Later, Safadi historian Shams al-Din al-‘Uthmani (d. 1378) described it as the seat of the Marj ibn ‘Amir, with a great khan, and the above- mentioned royal campground and the Shrine of Abraham (al-‘Uthmani 2008: 121). From frequent mentions of conflict at Lajjun, it appears that a Mamluk garrison was stationed there. An anonymous continuation of ‘Uthmani’s chronicle informs us that Safed’s governor, Miqbil al-Dawadari (r. 1422–1433 CE), renovated the khan al- Lajjun and constructed a bridge over the Muqatta‘/Kishon River (al-‘Uthmani 2008: 234). Palestinian educator and geographer al-Dabbagh listed religious scholars and jurists who lived in Lajjun during this time, and the dramatic clashes between warring Mamluk factions stationed there (al-Dabbagh 1991: III, 169–72). Demographically speaking, Lajjun was home to Yaman-affiliated nomads, the Bani Haritha or their predecessors, who came to dominate the history of the town in the first half of the Ottoman period (al-Dimashqi 1923: 212; Zakkar 2008: 37). 11 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 The Turabay Emirate of Lajjun The History of Lajjun under Ottoman rule forms the focus of this paper. The town gained its prime importance in the 16th century with the establishment of the Turabay Emirate of Lajjun. The Turabays became “the most important local family invested with the rule of a Palestinian sanjak before and after Fakhru ’d-Dīn II’s time”, referring to the insurrectionist Druze ruler of Mount Lebanon (c. 1572 -1635) (Heyd 1960: 45; and similarly, Sharon 1975: 26). The early history of the Turabays is patchy. Tradition claims that the Turabays belonged to the Bani Haritha, a Yaman-affiliated tribal group of Tayy Arabs that migrated to Palestine during the Early Islamic period (Oppenheim 1943: 51; Ze’evi 1996: 94). By the 15th century, their territory, encompassing the Marj ibn ‘Amir, the northern part of Samaria, and the region to the north of Beisan came to be known as the Land of al-Haritha (Bilad Haritha: Mülinen 1908: 146; Oppenheim 1943: 51). As ’Amīr al-Darbayn, Emir Turabay was responsible for safeguarding key stretches of the Damascus–Cairo and Damascus–Jerusalem highways (al-Bakhit 1972: 242–143; Ze’evi 1996: 42; Zakkar 2008: 37–40). In 1517 CE, the Turabays aided the Ottoman army in their conquest of Egypt (Oppenheim 1943: 52). The new government ushered in a fiscal system of allocation of tax revenues from fiefs to subordinate military personnel (timār/ze‘āmet). The Turabays were given the southern parts of the sanjak (precise spelling: sanjaq=district) of Safed as their fief in return for maintaining the peace, paying taxes and securing the major international roads passing through the area (Heyd 1960; Tarabia 1976: 44–46; Rhode 1979: 26). During the 16th–17th centuries, imperial attention was directed towards the Ottoman campaigns of expansion against the Safavids in the east and the Christian 12 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 polities in the Balkans and eastern Europe. The Sublime Porte paid little attention to the affairs of the Levant/Bilad al-Sham, which became increasingly autonomous under local dynasties like the Turabays (see Table 1). Ottoman cadastral records testify to the expansion of the Turabay emirate, and its consolidation as a separate district. In 1520– 1527 CE, the Turabay land grants belonged to the Tabaria nāḥiya of Safed, as it did in Mamluk times (Taşkın 2010: 52). In 1536 CE, they comprised primarily the ‘Athlih and Marj Bani ‘Amir (as called in contemporary records; Jezreel Valley) nāḥiyas within the Sanjak of Safed, with a total income of 449,000 akçe for the Turabays and 160,000 for the sultan (Defter Tahrir 1025; Rhode 1979: 24; Taşkın 2010: 160). In 1538 CE, a separate tax register of Marj Bani ‘Amir, its dependencies and appendices entrusted to Amir Turabay was commissioned (Defter Tahrir 192; al-Bakhit 2010). It constituted of 65 villages, 135 separate swaths of agricultural land and five tribal groups (summarized from al-Bakhit 2010). Around 1545 CE, the Turabay land grants separated from Safed (Taşkın 2010: 178). In 1559 CE, the Turabay emirate gained its own independence as a sanjak with Emir ‘Ali b. Turabay being appointed as governor of Sanjak of Lajjun (Heyd 1960: 42). In 1564 CE, Emir Kamal of Lajjun was awarded control over Jenin (ibid, 104–105; Hunayti u.d.: 32). In the early 17th century, the Ottoman Empire moved from direct tax collection and allocation of fiefs to indirect tax collection through intermediaries, a system known as tax-farming (iltizām). This reform led to increasing conflict between local shaykhs, who vied for the lucrative rights to serve as tax collectors (multazims). Under Emir Ahmad b. Turabay b. ‘Ali al-Harithi (r. 1601–1649 CE), the Turabay Emirate reached its max territorial extent (Fig. 3; Oppenheim 1943: 52). His reign was marked with constant conflict with the Lebanese Ma‘ani Dynasty over control of ‘Ajlun, Safed, Acre, Haifa and the Carmel Mountains (Sharon 1975: 28–29; Tarabia 1976; Abu-Husayn 13 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 1985: 192–196). In 1623 CE, the Ma‘ani emir Fakhr al-Din II and his Lebanese allies occupied ‘Ajlun, Jenin, and the heartland of the Turabay emirate, before Ahmad Turabay defeated them in the Battle of the ‘Awja/the Yarkon river (al-Shidyaq u.d: 273–288; al-Bakhit 1972: 246. The Turabays’ influence now encompassed Gaza, Safed, ‘Ajlun, Nablus and al-Karak, through their alliances with the Farukh, Ridwan and Qunsuh families (Tarabia 1976: 68–89; Ze’evi 1996: 45–61). The Emirate began a period of stagnation under the following Emirs. According to Sharon and Ze’evi, the eastward migration of the Bani Haritha, the Turabay’s power base, from the emirate’s historic heartland in the Marj ibn ‘Amir towards the Jordan valley and ‘Ajlun was to blame. Presumably, this led to dwindling tax returns and manpower shortages at the same time that rival groups, like the Shukran (Jarrar and ‘Abdul Hadi clans) moved into the area. This enabled the Ottomans to more easily depose the dynasty (Sharon 1975: 29; Ze’evi 1996: 94). It is clear, however, that internal factors were not sufficient in and of themselves to explain the downfall of the dynasty. The stabilization of the frontiers with Safavid Iran (Treaty of Zuhab, 1639 CE) and the Hapsburgs (the Siege of Vienna, 1683 CE) enabled the Ottomans to reassert their control over the autonomous polities in the Levant. In 1688 CE, the Ottoman authorities formally disbanded the Turabay Emirate (Tarabia 1976: 98–102; As'ad and Khamisy 2021: 716). Cadet branches of the House of Turabay survive in Sakhnin, Shefa-‘Amr, Tulkarm, and the Sinai, among other places (Tarabia 1976: 102–3). 14 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Figure 3 Lajjun in Bilad al-Haritha with a polygon of the area of the Emirate in the 16th century marked in light grey (courtesy of Roy Marom). Harithi Emir Beg. End Notes of of reign reign Turabay ? 1480 Killed by the Mamluks Qaraja b. Turabay ? 1517 1517 - failed revolt against the Ottomans Kusro b. Qaraja b. 1517 1521 1521 - failed revolt against the Ottomans Turabay 15 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 ‘Ali b. Turabay ? ? 1559 – mentioned; Sanjak of Lajjun established Kamal b. Turabay ? ? 1564 – mentioned Nasrallah b. ? ? 1567 – mentioned Turabay ‘Assaf b. ‘Ali ‘Al 1571 1589 Ruled from Lajjun. In exile between 1583- Turabay 1589 Turabay b. ‘Ali ‘Al 1589 1601 Buried in Jenin (Fig. 4) Turabay Ahmad b. Turabay 1601 1649 The Turabay Emirate’s golden age. A brother b. ‘Ali al-Harithi named ‘Ali killed by Sh. Husayn al-Wuhaydi. ‘Al Turabay Another brother by the name of Muhammad. Moved capital from al-Lajjun to Jenin. Zayn b. Ahmad b. 1649 1660 Turabay ‘Al Turabay (I) Muhammad b. 1660 1671 Turabay b. ‘Ali Zayn b. Ahmad b. 1671 1681 Turabay (II) Salih b. Ahmad b. 1681 1681 Last main branch Emir. Rule passed to the Turabay son of Salih’s paternal aunt Yusuf b. ‘Ali 1681 1688 Fall of the Turabay Emirate ‘Ābid 16 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Table 1. The Harithi Emirs of the Turabay Dynasty (summarized from Heyd 1960, Tarabya 1976, Abu-Husayn 1985 and Hourani 2010). The list is incomplete for the early Emirs. The rule was not based on primogeniture, but, as traditional in Bedouin society, rule remained always within the family. Lajjun as a Sanjak Capital According to Petersen, “the existence of a fourteenth century caravanserai and a medieval bridge indicate that the site was already of some importance under the Mamluks” (Petersen 2005: 41). During the 16th century, the town of Lajjun served as one of Palestine’s provincial capitals, alongside Safed, Nablus, Jerusalem and Gaza. In 1596 CE, the Sanjak of Lajjun encompassed 56 settlements, four tribal groups and 174 mazāri‘ (al-Bakhit and Hmoud 1989). For all its administrative importance, we know surprisingly little about the town itself. It had a khan, water mills, and was the home of a judge (qadi) or his deputy (nā’ib; al-Bakhit 1972: 136; Tarabia 1976: 55). As in earlier periods, the Mosque of Ibrahim must have served as a place of prayer and an important destination for local pilgrimage. The town was an economic and administrative nexus that served populations of diverse origins. Fellahin, nomads and semi-nomads frequented its markets, while international caravans found shelter in its khan. Lajjun’s extensive arable lands in the valley reached as far as the Muqatta‘/Kishon River seven kilometers to the east (opposite Mazra‘at al-Waraqani/Kefar Yehoshu‘a; al-Bakhit and Hmoud 1989: 43). Sixteenth century Ottoman fiscal registers shed light on Lajjun’s administrative, demographic and economic status. In 1520–1527 CE, Khan al-Lajjun was nominally taxed at the rate of 6000 akçe like other khans (Taşkın 2010: 152, 155). In 1536 CE, 17 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Khan al-Lajjun had a permanent population of seven households, which paid taxes amounting 3090 akçe (Taşkın 2010: 202). The town itself had a population of 23 households in 1538 (in comparison to 12 in Jenin), rising to 41 households (in comparison to 8 in Jenin) by 1596 CE (al-Bakhit and Hmoud 1989; al-Bakhit and al- Sawariyyah 2010). The town’s population belonged in part to the Bani Haritha and its Turabay clan, in addition to other settled and nomadic populations that came to the town to trade (see below). The town growth was paralleled by an economic boom. Economic output, both agricultural and commercial, more than doubled during this period (Table 2). Trade and customs supplied the majority of revenues. In 1538 CE, the total revenues of the khan amounted to 50,000 akçes (al-Bakhit and al-Sawariyyah, 2010: 55). The khan served cattle traders, pilgrims and slave-traders alike: “4 akçes are to be collected for load of every camel,” decree Khan al-Lajjun’s tax regulations, “6 akçe for every mule and half an akçes for every donkey.” In addition, “8 akçes are to be collected from the unbelieving (kāfir) [Christian] trader, and from the Jewish one 6 akçes, and from the unbelieving [Christian] and Jewish pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem likewise. And 10 akçes for every black male slave (‘abd) and black female slave (jārya), and other [slaves] passing-by. And from any flock of cattle shall be taken one head, or the value thereof.” (Author’s translation from the facsimile of al-Bakhit and Hmoud, 1989: 15) The residents grew the cereals for autarkic consumption. Additionally, they utilized the many streams and wetlands around the town to rear water buffaloes (jammūs), while also directly tapping their hydraulic potential for the operation of water mills (despite the apparent decrease in revenue due to the temporary decommissioning of a pair of 18 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 milling stones, the number of water mills expanded in the following centuries, see below). 1538 1596 Net change (%) Wheat 3000 7420 247.3% Barley 720 1760 244.4% Sesame 20 - - Summer crops - 400 - Livestock (‘goats’), beehives 200 800 400% Water buffaloes 450 1200 266.6% Marriage taxes 230 320 139.1% Water mills 1000 500 -50% Trade and customs 20000 40000 200% Total 25620 52400 204.5% Table 2. Lajjun’s tax dues, in akçe (compiled from Bakhit and Hmoud (1989) and al- Bakhit and al-Sawariyyah 2010). The Sanjak of Lajjun with its capital in Jenin Lajjun served the Emirate’s first capital. As we saw in the previous section, in the 16th century, Lajjun exceeded Jenin in both the number of inhabitants and economic output. By the turn of the 17th century, however, we argue that the effective seat of power moved to Jenin, in contrast to Ze’evi’s location of “the Turabay court in Lajjun” in that period (Ze’evi 1996: 111). 19 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 As the ancient ‘Ain Ganim, Jenin had been an important center on the southern fringe of the Jezreel Valley since ancient times (Hunayti u.d.: 29–31). During the 14th century, it was an ‘amal in the Sanjak of Safed (al-Uthmani 2008: 121). It was Lajjun’s “twin town.” Both towns stood at the intersection of major regional roads and were supplied by copious springs near prime agricultural land. Lajjun was the most developed center in the Marj ibn ‘Amir during the Mamluk period. In 1564 CE, Suleiman I (the Magnificent) granted the Turabays Jenin and its sub-district in-fief on the condition that they repair its old caravanserai, garrison its fort and build their residence there (Heyd 1960: 104–105; al-Bakhit 1972: 104). In 1586 CE, Lady Fatima Khatun, granddaughter of the penultimate Mamluk Sultan al-Ashraf Qansuh al-Ghuri (r. 1501–1516 CE), endowed Jenin with an elegant Friday Mosque, a bathhouse, twenty shops and other public installations. She furthermore bequeathed her extensive estates to finance their future upkeep (Mardom Bek 1925: 274–275). Thus, Jenin was poised to eclipse Lajjun in infrastructure and economic importance. The Harithi Emirs resided in Lajjun in the 1550s CE. Although Suleiman I called on Emir Kamal to move his residence to Jenin, the following Emirs continued to reside in Lajjun. Emir ‘Assaf b. ‘Ali (r. 1571–1583 CE, d. 1589 CE) and Emir Turabay b. ‘Ali (r. 1594–1601 CE) both resided in and governed from Lajjun (al-Bakhit 1972: 245; Tarabia 1976: 48–51). Emir Ahmad b. Turabay was born in Lajjun in 1571 CE and moved his capital to Jenin in 1601 CE (Tarabia 1976: 67). The Turabays buried their Emirs in an imposing family mausoleum in Jenin’s Eastern Cemetery (Fig. 4; Stephan 1937: 87; Oppenheim 1943: 53; Sharon 2017: 172–178). In 1623 CE, Jenin was the main target (and forward base) for Ma‘ani emir Fakhri al-Din II’s campaign against the Turabays (al-Shidyaq u.d: 273; Hourani 2010: 929). In the 1660s CE, Evliya Çelebi 20 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 described Jenin as a prosperous town, with a fortress, the Emir’s residence, a caravanserai, and fortified markets (Stephan 1937: 86–89). Figure 4 Epitaph of Turabay b. ‘Ali ‘Al Turabay from Jenin, ‘In the name of Allah the most gracious most merciful. This is the grave of Allah’s poor (servant), Emir Turabay b. ‘Ali. Year 1010 (A.H.) [1601]’ (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities ) The Decline of Lajjun after the Fall of the Turabays By Maundrell’s day at the end of the 17th century, Lajjun was reduced to “an old village and a good Kane [khan]” (1703: 56). The village still existed a century later, when Pierre Jacotin mapped it during Napoleon’s campaign (1799 CE; Jacotin 1826). Edward Robinson reports seeing Lajjun from afar and mentions it as an inhabited village (Robinson and Smith 1841: III, 156, 267, 177–180). We have no evidence for the existence of a settlement in Lajjun after this date. In 1851, Consul Finn reported finding “no village there” (Finn 1877: 229–230) and a year later Carl Van de Velde described the “ruins of Lejjûn” in great detail (Van de Velde 1854: 309, 350–354). The fate of 21 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Lajjun touches upon the broader theoretical question, namely: how and when does a settlement become abandoned? As Marom argued, this is usually not the result of a single cause. Macro-economic, political and security conditions may change, but normally other reasons are required in order to uproot established and ancient communities like Lajjun (Marom 2022a: 77–188). While still missing a “smoking gun,” we can still offer a convincing picture of the worsening conditions, which resulted in the abandonment of this once prosperous provincial capital. The decline of Lajjun was a gradual, not one-way, process. It apparently began as early as the first half of the 17th century with the transfer of the Turabay’s administrative seat to Jenin. Al-Bakhit asserted that “Lajjun remained a centre of the sanjaq and had its own mutasarrif (provincial governor), but nevertheless it continued to lose importance to […] Hayfa and Acre.” This assertion is incorrect, however, as the actual seat of government since the 17th century was in Jenin (see above). Al-Bakhit associates the decline of Lajjun with the eclipse of Turabays in 1677 CE and the rising importance of the Syrian coastlands following the creation of the new province of Sidon in 1660 CE and the benefits arising there from the growing trade with Europe (al-Bakhit 1986: 594). Ottoman rearrangement of provincial administration involved the dislocation and exile of local elites (Ott. Tur. sürgün). Around 1670 CE, the Jarrar clans moved from Transjordan into the Marj ibn ‘Amir. They consolidated their control over the area around Jenin with the aid of their large peasant militia and their command of the mighty stronghold of Sanur, south of Jenin (Jarrar 1990: 65–66; Shanti 2015). In the 18th century, the waning sanjaks of Lajjun and ‘Ajlun were united into one administrative unit, the sub-district of Jenin, subservient to Nablus. In the north, the maritime trade, administrative importance and political clout of Acre over the Galilee and southern 22 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Lebanon reached its zenith under al-Dhahir al-‘Umar of the Zaydani clan (d. 1775 CE). Thus, according to Doumani, “what was left of Lajjun in the early eighteenth century was severely diminished, between the hammer of Acre’s political power and the anvil of Nablus‘s economic muscle” (Doumani 1995: 37–38). Adopting a longue durée perspective, we may note that Lajjun (and Legio and Megiddo before it) derived their importance from their position on the international routes of trade. Commerce was the life force of the town and its residents. Just as ancient Megiddo was dependent on the Via Maris, so did the later Islamic Lajjun derive its significance from being a key station on the Barid Road. During the 17th and 18th centuries, however, the importance of internal trade by land diminished with the growth of international maritime commercial exchanges with Europe through developing coastal towns like Sidon, Acre, Haifa and Jaffa. The deteriorating security situation in the Jezreel Valley, attacks by nomads on caravans and settled populations, and intermittent warfare between local shaykhs vying for power, worked in tandem to untangle long-established arteries of trade. Many khans became abandoned, and the towns which had sprung around them followed suit. As William M. Thomson, the famous evangelist who lived in Palestine for several decades in the 19th century noticed, “Large caravans [used to co]me from Aleppo…from Bag[h]dad and Damascus…meeting near Lejjun…That was the time when the long lines of khans, caravanserais, and castles were needed and maintained. But no sooner did the sea, freed from pirates, offer a cheaper conveyance, than this entire system was abandoned. Commerce sought the nearest ports along the coast, and was thence shipped to its destination. Hence all these khans have gone to ruin, and those great highways are [now] deserted. Many other towns besides Lydd[a] 23 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 and Ramleh have lost by this change of route, and the cities on the coast have gained in equal if not greater proportion” (Thomson 1859: II, 293–294). Even without international trade, Lajjun’s prime agricultural lands, and copious springs, could have comfortably supported a medium-sized autarkic settlement as it did in previous times. According to Kana‘ina and Mahamid (1987: 7), however, “The residents of [modern] Lajjun all agree that their village did not see permanent construction during Turkish rule, because the area was controlled by Bedouin tribes in constant conflict with the fellahin.” The abandonment of villages under nomadic pressures is a universal phenomenon (Reifenberg 1953; Khazanov and Wink 2012). In the absence of effective central authority, the security situation continued to worsen. Turkmen tribes, encamped near Lajjun, posed a threat to trade and sedentary life in the valley (Nimr 1937–75: I, 91–92; Ya‘ari 1943: 425–6; Jamil 1998: I, 133; Jibly 2004: 17). During the 18th century, the Bani Saqr (Squr) crossed the Jordan and settled around Beisan (Oppenheim 1943: 35–40; ‘Arafat 1997: 87–102; Mallahi 1997: 93– 126). Written and oral sources are in agreement that the Bani Saqr disrupted sedentary life in and around Marj ibn ‘Amir (Mallahi 1997: 127–188). They raided the villages of Bilad Haritha and the Turkmen tribes as far west as Umm al-Fahm and Wadi ‘Ara/Nahal ‘Iron. Beginning in the 1740s CE, Galilean strongmen Dhahir al-‘Umar expanded his rule to the northern part of the valley and fortified adjacent villages, turning the valley into a borderland of conflict with the rulers of Jenin and Nablus (Grossman 1994: 73). In 1771–3 CE, Lajjun was the site of a decisive engagement, in which Dhahir al-‘Umar routed the combined forces of the Jarrars, the Saqr and the Nabulsi sheikhs, and established political hegemony over Jabal Nablus (Mu‘ammar 24 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 1979: 63–64; Jamil 1998: I, 134–136; Mallahi 1997: 133–170). Al-‘Umar reportedly used cannon fire against the village (Khalidi 1992: 335), and the Tahunat al-Khalil watermill was destroyed during the fighting and subsequently abandoned (Avitsur 1963: 50). In the middle of the 19th century, coalitions of fellahin and Turkmen fought several skirmishes against the Bani Sqr at Khan al-Lajjun, but their victories proved ephemeral, and the threat of attacks kept many away from the valley’s fertile lands (al-Khatib 1987: 21–32; Mallahi 1997: 178–179; Jamil 1998: I, 143; Jibly 2004: 13; interviews, PRHP). These events, taken together, undoubtedly unsettled the remaining fellahin in the modest village, and contributed – alongside the changing macroeconomic and political circumstances – to its ultimate demise. It is not clear where the residents of Lajjun went. The vast corpus of Palestinian ethnographic literature, genealogical traditions and local lore of adjacent villages does not provide us with a clear answer (in contrast with similar cases of village abandonment during the Ottoman period discussed by Roy Marom: Marom 2019b; Marom 2020a; Marom 2021: 10–17; Marom 2022a: 103–104; Marom 2022b: 17-20). None of the former residents of Lajjun settled in Umm al-Fahm (Kana‘ina and Mahamid 1987: 7), Lajjun’s largest neighbor and the mother village for the reestablished Lajjun, nor among the wandering Turkmen (al-Khatib 1987). It is possible, but not certain, that some settled in al-Sila al-Harthiyya, a large village situated between Lajjun and Jenin. Al-Sila’s Tahayna clan claims Harithi descent, and al-Sila’s residents fought with those of Umm al-Fahm over Lajjun in the 1870s–1880s CE because they regarded it as part of their land (Jamil 1998: I, 152–154; interviews with residents of al-Sila al-Harthiyya, 2021, PRHP). The continued security problems significantly delayed the resettlement of Lajjun. Things began to change in the second half of the 19th century. The Ottoman 25 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Tanzimat reforms, and later Abdul Hamid II’s centralized rule (1876–1908 CE) augmented imperial control over the empire’s internal affairs and largely pacified both the Qays-Yaman rivalries and Bedouin raids (Hoexter 1973; Büssow 2011: 59–70). Gradually, Ottoman authorities restored a sense of stability and security in the Levantine lowlands, including the Marj ibn ‘Amir. The Ottoman Land Laws (1858–9) enabled mercantile entrepreneurs like the Sursocks of Beirut to acquire vast landed estates (tens of thousands of hectares) and repopulate long-abandoned villages throughout the valley with tenant farmers (Grossman 1994: 74–75; Galilee and Kark 2018). On the western margins of the valley, between Yoqne‘am and Lajjun, Turkman tribes began to settle down in areas like Abu Shusha, Abu Zurayq, al-Ghubayyat and al- Mansi (al-Khatib 1987: 45–61; Grossman 1994: 76–77; ‘Arafat, 1999: 78–106; Sirhan, and Kabha 2001: 13–22, 74–76; Jibly 2004: 13–17, 23–42; Aql 2016: 23–32, 226–238; Galilee and Kark 2018: 175–192). In the middle of the 19th century, Umm al-Fahm’s fellahin founded satellite villages along the southwestern margins of the Marj ibn ‘Amir and Bilad al-Ruha (Kana‘ina and Mahamid 1987: 7–8; Sirhan, and Kabha 2001: 74; Mahamid 2015: 14–37; Aql 2016: 217–218). The clans of Umm al-Fahm absorbed Lajjun’s former territory up to the Muqatta‘/Kishon River and used it for seasonal occupation. By the beginning of the 20th century, they settled Lajjun on a permanent basis (Schumacher 1908). The “Fahmawi” Lajjun was a new town, with different inhabitants and socio-spatial connections, requiring a detailed treatment elsewhere. 26 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Traces of Prosperity: The Remains of Mamluk–Early Ottoman Lajjun The importance of Lajjun in the Mamluk and early Ottoman periods is evident in public constructions, including its impressive khan and bridge, designated market grounds, and sophisticated canals and watermill along its stream (Figs. 5–6). The village nucleus was next to two springs, ‘Ain as-Sitt Leila and ‘Ain al-Khalil and the adjacent Early Islamic Mosque (Mosque of Ibrahim). The late Islamic settlement concentrated on the hill later known as Dhahr al-Dar (modern Kibbutz Megiddo). The settlement’s outline is extensive, as could be expected from a village whose population contained significant nomadic or semi-nomadic elements (as testified by al-Bakhit and Hmoud 1989: 10–11; al-Bakhit and al-Sawariyyah 2010: 5). Those semi-permanent residents probably dwelled on the outskirts of the village on a seasonal basis or came there to trade. What follows is an historical-architectural discussion of the town’s different architectural and geographical features evident in historical sources and on the ground, and their history before the establishment of the modern village in the late 19th century. The most detailed witness to these ruins (before the resettlement of Lajjun by the “Fahmawi”) was G. Schumacher, who conducted excavations a Tell el-Mutasellim (Tell Megiddo) and surveyed the standing ruins of Lajjun in the years 1903–1905 (Fig. 6; Schumacher 1908). 27 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Fig. 5. Reconstruction of the geographical and built components of Ottoman Lajjun (Drawing: R. Marom). 28 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Fig. 6. Map of Lajjun and Tell el-Mutasellim created by G. Schumacher during his excavation and exploration of the region, 1903–1905 (Schumacher 1908: Pl. 1). The core of the settlement of Lajjun was on the north side of the Wadi Lajjun (Nahal Qeni, Wadi al-Sitt; Figs. 5–6). The wadi flows eastward from the Bilad al-Ruha toward the Muqatta‘/Kishon. Two springs within the wadi are mentioned in sources, ‘Ain al-Sitt Leila and ‘Ain al-Khalil, and together create a perennial stream within the wadi downstream. ‘Ain al-Khalil is the main water source along Wadi al-Lajjun. It gushes 29 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 forth not far from ‘Ain al-Sitt Leila, and the two springs are frequently conflated even among former residents of modern Lajjun (PRHP interviews, 2018–2020). The Mosque of Ibrahim was the main building referred to in sources from the 10th to the 15th centuries. According to al-Bakhit, Lajjun “owed its prominence,” in part, “to the sanctity of [its] shrine […] which attracted pious people” (al-Bakhit 1986: 594). Early Islamic writers place the shrine at or above Lajjun's main spring (see above). The memory of the sacred edifice lingered long after the desertion of the village, with the name “Hill of the House of Ibrahim” (Dhahr al-Dar; Dahr Dar Ibrahim; Fig. 6) applied to the ancient tell on which Lajjun once stood (al-Dabbagh 1991: III, 172). Schumacher records that the hill and its surrounding lands and watermills were once held as part of a waqf whose dues were dedicated to Ibrahim prior to the arrival of the residents of Umm al-Fahm; the latter’s residents, therefore, seemed reticent from excavating in the hill’s sacred ground (Schumacher 1908: 177–178). A possible location for the Mosque of Ibrahim is ‘Ain al-Sitt Leila, described by Schumacher as flowing from “within the mountain from whence it is conducted via a stone channel to a point close to the entrance of the subterranean system leading to the spring. The vaulted entrance leads to several humid, vaulted rooms from Islamic times which are held sacred as Weli, namely by the women fellahin.” Just outside the entrance was a weather-beaten column with an Arabic inscription, which Schumacher says belonged to the forecourt of the Weli (Schumacher 1908: 186, Fig. 282). Guérin had previously described this spring as “a curved cave in the flanks of the mound through which flows a spring and where does a Muslim family live” (Guérin 1875: 233). In 1872, the Survey of Western Palestine expedition found two pillars still standing in-situ and provided a detailed description of the three-chambered underground structure and the water tunnel (Conder and Kitchener 1882: 64–65). One of these chambers had two 30 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 pilasters, a cornice, and traces of red paint. During the survey done by Tepper near the spring of ‘Ain al-Sitt Leila (Tepper 2003a), walls belonging to a large structure, including marble capitals, granite and limestone columns in secondary use, were found (Tepper 2002: fig. 7, 234; 2003b: figs 68, table 3; 2007: 65; Tepper 2022: fig. 7; see also Robinson and Smith 1856: 118). Another possible site for the Mosque of Ibrahim is a columned vestibule documented by Schumacher at the highest point of the mound. It is the most elaborate building so far known from Lajjun that it must have been in use during the later period of the Mamluk and the Ottoman settlement. Khan al-Lajjun was an important caravanserai of Mamluk construction at a major stop along the Barid Road (Fig. 5–7). Built before 1331 CE, the khan followed a typical Mamluk-Ottoman plan (compare to Khan Jaljuliya; Petersen 1997; 2001; Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 99–102). According to Petersen, Khan al-Lajjun was “square enclosure measuring approximately 30m per side with a central courtyard” (Petersen 2001: 201). These measurements must refer to the courtyard only, as Cytryn- Silverman’s survey measured a 65m by 55 m area, including the enclosing long- collapsed vaultings. The khan was renovated several times during the 14th and 15th centuries (Zakkar 1998; al-‘Uthmani 1998: 234; Cytryn-Silverman 2010: 125–127). It continued to function as a key road stop in the early Ottoman period and remained in use throughout the 16th and 17th centuries (Heyd 1960: 127; Maundrell 1703: 56; Stephan 1937: 86). G. Schumacher reportedly saw 18th century deeds of sale mentioning the khan in the hands of Hafidh ‘Abd al-Hadi (Schumacher 1908: 187). By the middle of the 19th century, however, the khan had long been in ruins (Van de Velde 1854: 354; Robinson and Smith 1856: 117; Wilson 1882: 24; McGarvey 1893: 307). Van de Velde reported in 1854 of finding “two miserable small huts […] built among the fallen 31 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 stones, perhaps for temporary accommodation only” (Van de Velde 1854: 354). However, the khan was never rebuilt and its masonry was reused in newer constructions. Tepper’s survey near the khan documented Mamluk and Ottoman pottery (about 2%). However, most findings (more than 80%) dated to the Roman and Byzantine periods (Tepper 2003: Table 2), a reasonable basis for concluding that the khan was built on ancient remains along the Roman Legio-Caesarea road (Fig. 7; Tepper 2004). Schumacher refers to many Roman building stones reused in the walls of the khan (Schumacher 1908: 187). Fig. 7. Aerial photo of the Khan al-Lajjun looking east toward Mount Tabor. Courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project. Mastabat al-Sultan was a place in Lajjun mentioned in 14th century texts. Shaykh Amin al-Din ibn al-Bass reportedly built Khan Lajjun “across/opposite from 32 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 (qibāl) maṣṭabat al-sulṭān” (al-Dimashqi 1990: II, 182). Cytryn-Silverman (2010: 126, no. 461) gives a long and inconclusive philological discussion of the meaning of the term maṣṭaba, highlighting “Lajjun’s long use as a station on the road from Egypt to Syria as well as its religious importance for Muslims.” al-Bakhit translated it as “an elevated piece of land for pitching [the sultan’s] pavilion” (al-Bakhit 1986: 597). However, functionally speaking, the term maṣṭabat al-sulṭān seems best translated as “royal campground,” in light of al-Qalqashandi’s (d. 1418 CE) description of this maṣṭaba as a specially-prepared place for the camping of high ranking officials (wa- bihā yanzilu al-mulūk ‘alā maṣṭaba hunāka mu‘idda li-dhālika; al-Qalqashandi 1914: IV, 155). That the maṣṭaba formed a separate geographical entity from the khan is clear from al-‘Uthmani account (2008: 121). In any case, al-Dimashqi’s description shows that the maṣṭaba’s foundation predated the construction of the khan. It appears to have been abandoned before the Ottoman period, and its precise location “opposite the khan” cannot be ascertained today. The Lajjun Bridge (Jisr al-Lajjun), another important monument, is an impressive 20m long and 4 meter wide bridge carried on three arches over Wadi al- Lajjun/Nahal Qeni (Figs. 8–10; Petersen 2001: 201). The date of original construction of the bridge is unknown, but a similar bridge was repaired by Safed Governor Miqbil al-Dawadari (r. 1422–1433 CE; al-‘Uthmani 2008: 234). The bridge seems to have outlasted the village, as Charles Wilson (Fig. 9; 1870s) and Edward Robinson (1852) depicted it in use (Robinson 1856: 117; Wilson 1882: 24 - see fig. 9 McGarvey 1893: 307). It had a watermill, Tahunat al-Jisr, installed under its northern arch (Schumacher 1908; Avitsur 1963: 50). Tepper documented the bridge and found that it was built on the foundation of an earlier Roman period bridge on the Roman road between Legio and Caesarea 33 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 (Tepper 2002: 232–233; 2003a: 102; 2007: 63–64). Tepper’s survey and subsequent excavations by the Jezreel Valley Regional Project on el-Manakh hill (Figs. 2) identified the Legionary Base of the VIth Legion. The bridge is on a precisely located on the direct course of the Roman road from Legio to Caesarea leaving the western gate of the base, suggesting that both were planned together. If this suggestion is true, the origin of the bridge must date to in the 2nd/3rd Century CE (Tepper et al. 2016; Adams et al. 2019). Fig. 8. Photograph of the Mamluk/Ottoman bridge looking west (courtesy of the Israel Antiquities Authority archives). 34 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Fig. 9. Wilson’s drawing of the Lajjun bridge looking west (Wilson 1882: II, 24). 35 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Fig. 10. Aerial view of the Lajjun bridge as it appears today (courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project). Market Grounds (Khallet al-Suq): Lajjun was a key market town and commercial hub for the caravans along the Imperial Highway and large numbers of nomads in the Marj ibn ‘Amir (Fig. 11). Already in 1161, a Crusader market operated in the town (Pringle 1998: 3). Later, the open-air market grounds stood to the north-west of the village nucleus, opposite the caravanserai, and across the bridge. This is apparent in the toponym Khallet al-Suq, which appears in the Ottoman Tapu registers prior to the resettlement of Lajjun). Oral testimonies describing the economic activities during the Mandate period may reflect its character in earlier periods: “They would bring sheep, cattle, horses, and camels. [...] Merchants used to come from Jordan and Syria (because it is closest to Palestine) and put their livestock for sale in Khallet al-Suq. Gypsies (nawar) also used to dwell there temporarily” (col. Ar. baqū m‘azbbīn hināk; interview with ‘Abd al-Latif Salih Darawsha, 28-Sep-2019, the Palestinian Rural History Project [PRHP]). 36 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Fig. 11. Aerial view of the area of the Khallet al-Suq looking west. At bottom center is the cemetery of 20th century “Fahamwi” Lajjun, which was probably also the cemetery of Ottoman Lajjun (courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project). Watermills: At least seven watermills operated along Wadi al-Lajjun at different times and were fed directly by the stream or through secondary open-air water channels (called locally qanāwāt, and distinct from the subterranean water channels also called ‘qanāwāt’) along its course (Figs. 5–6; Avitsur 1963: 47–51). In the 12th century CE, the abbey of St Mary of Mount Zion owned a mill among other possessions at the village (Avitsur 1963: 48). Therefore, Pringle suggests that “it is possible that […] the [Ottoman] watermills […] will have incorporated remains of earlier structures” (Pringle 1998: 3). In 1538 CE, 1,000 akçe were paid in tax for one watermill (ṭāḥuna) in Lajjun with three pairs of grinding stones (al-Bakhit and al-Sawariyyah 2010: 12, 55). By 1596 CE, however, only one pair of grinding stones operated in the village, with Imperial tax dues of only 500 akçe (al-Bakhit and Hmoud 1989: 44). Additional mills were 37 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 constructed later, testifying to the increasing need for milling grain during the 17th–18th centuries. Three watermills, under Christian ownership (Tahunat al-Haddad, Tahunat al- Nuwaysir, Tahunat al-Khalil), continued to operate throughout the 19th century, and their number seems to have grown before the re-establishment of the modern village (Robinson and Smith 1856: 118; Finn 1877: 229; Van de Velde 1854: 353 [reporting two watermills]; Guérin 1875: 233; Conder and Kitchener 1882: 65 [reporting four operational watermills]; McGarvey 1893: 307; Schumacher 1908: 185–187 [reporting the ruins and/or operations of 6 mills]; interview with ‘Adnan Abd al-Hadi Mahamid, 5- Oct-2019, PRHP). Tepper’s survey documented the water mills along Wadi al-Lajjun, dating most of them to the Ottoman period. However, he suggested the possibility that one or two operated already during the Mamluk period (Tepper 2002: 234; 2003a: 103–104; Tepper 2003b; forthcoming; Conder and Kitchener 1881: 9; Pringle 1993. II: 3–5). Special attention is due to Tahunat al-Nuwaysir, which appears to reflect at least two architectural stages (Figs. 5–6, 12–14; called “Tahunat Muēsir” by Schumacher 1908 and “Tahunat al-Ras” by Avitsur 1963: 48–49). The first stage is composed of the surviving northwestern section of the mill, and traces of adjacent buildings noticeable on the surface. The outer wall of the water mill has carved muqarnaṣ decorations (Fig. 13; Tepper 2003a) typical of the 13th–15th century CE (compare Petersen 1997: 99). The three water funnels of the Mamluk mill are aligned northwards, perpendicularly to the stream, which apparently was vaulted over by the watermill. The second stage dates to the 18th–19th centuries. During this time, two new funnels in parallel to the stream replaced the old water funnels. They were fed from an elevated water cannel 250 meter long. The southwestern section is an ‘aqd-type cross- vaulted chamber (10 m. by 5 m.) constructed of finely smooth-dressed ashlar blocks 38 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 with ṭāqa-type niches typical of late 18th–19th century CE elite monumental construction (Fig. 14; al-‘Amiri 2003: 99–100; Schumacher 1908: 185–186; Tepper 2003a: 100, fig. 39. The outer walls have traces of red-ochre color. The inner southern wall of the chamber contains what seems to be a tracing of an Orthodox Christian saint in ochre, perhaps drawn by the Christian clan from Umm al-Fahm that owned the watermill during that time (Fig. 15). Fig. 12. Tahunat al-Nuwaysir from the north, looking across the Wadi al-Lajjun. Courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project. 39 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Fig. 13. Muqarnaṣ decoration inside the Tahunat al-Nuwaysir, looking east. Courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project. Fig. 14. The ‘aqd-type cross-vaulted chamber constructed of finely smooth-dressed ashlar blocks with ṭāqa-type niches. Courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project. 40 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Fig. 15. Photos of a portion of the east facing interior wall of Tahunat al-Nuwaysir. Enhanced using D-stretch YRB filter and Auto Contrast. Courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project. The cemetery of early Ottoman Lajjun probably underlies the cemetery of modern Lajjun, on the southwestern corner of the site, north of the stream (Fig. 11; Kana‘ina Mahamid, 1987). A broken inscription in secondary use as a headstone was documented at the cemetery and left on site (Figs. 16–17). It contained a roughly executed and badly preserved etched inscription in four lines listing a three-generational lineage, and originally serving, perhaps, as part of a larger funerary stela. Marom’s tentative reading is: Line 1 ‘Ali Ahmad Line 2 Ibn Sulayman Line 3 al-Makki (?)/al-‘Akki (?) ibn ‘Ali Line 4 al- … 41 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 The inscription contains a possible nisba form relating either to Acre/‘Akka or Mecca/Makka. It offers a tantalizing glimpse into the town’s wider links to the Levant and beyond. Epigraphic considerations date the inscription to the 17th–19th centuries (with parallels in al-Shaykh Hilu Muslim cemetery in Hadera). 42 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Fig. 16. Tombstone of ‘Ali Ahmad in reuse in a later grave. Courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project. Fig. 17. Orthophoto of the tombstone of ‘Ali Ahmad. Courtesy of the Jezreel Valley Regional Project. Concluding Remarks 43 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 The rise of Lajjun in the Mamluk and early Ottoman periods attests to the historical, longue durée, continuity in the importance of Megiddo/Lajjun as a military post, communications hub and administrative seat in the Jezreel Valley. Ottoman Lajjun inherited its administrative and economic importance from the Mamluk period. During the 16th century, the town of Lajjun served as one of Palestine’s five provincial capitals, alongside Safed, Nablus, Jerusalem and Gaza. As the first hometown of the Turabay dynasty (1517–1688 CE), it was the heart of their vast, yet sparsely populated domain, extending from Transjordan, Beisan and Tiberias in the east to the Mediterranean coast in the west, to include all of ‘Ajlun, parts of the Jordan Valey, the Jezreel Valley, Carmel Mountain, Jenin and the Northern parts of Samaria (al-Bakhit and al-Sawariyya 2010: 5). In 1596 CE, the District of Lajjun encompassed 56 settlements, four tribal groups and 174 mazāri‘ (summarised from al-Bakhit and Hmoud 1989). Lajjun’s fortunes during the first half of the Ottoman period are related to the changing fortunes of the Turabay Dynasty. As our historical and architectural survey shows, most of the monumental architectural units at Lajjun already existed by the end of the Mamluk period. Therefore, the change in Lajjun’s status was primarily administrative in nature and derived from the elevation of the southern portion of Sanjak Safed, and its administrative seat at Lajjun, into a separate sanjak for the Harithi Emirs. In his book The Towns of Palestine under Muslim Rule, 600–1600, Petersen noted that “there are no examples of new towns created under Ottoman rule in Bilad al- Sham during the sixteenth century. There are, however[,] a few villages which appear to have grown in importance possibly attaining urban attributes[. T]hus both Lajjun and Jenin within the Ikta Tarabay […] appear to have developed as important local centres […]” (Petersen 2005: 41). The twin towns of Lajjun and Jenin indeed shared many 44 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 natural advantages like proximity to springs, fertile soil, and being positioned on major trade routes. The spatial planning of Jenin and Lajjun is strikingly similar; being extensive settlements with notable spacing of architectural elements, springs, caravanserai, mosque, market grounds, water mills (observed already by the Mamluk chronicler al-‘Uthmani 2008: 121). The establishment of infrastructure through the Fatima Khatun endowment and Ottoman imperial encouragement bolstered Jenin’s status. Although less populated and economically weaker than Lajjun, by the turn of the 17th century, Jenin came to eclipse Lajjun administratively and replaced it as the seat of the Turabay Emirate. Nonetheless, Lajjun remained the province’s titular namesake well into the 19th century (Mansur 1924). The demise of Lajjun resulted from several macro and micro factors working together. With the rise of Jenin, Lajjun lost its administrative significance, and with the replacement of land trade routes by maritime commerce it lost its economic importance. The fall of the Turabay Emirate, and unsettling of security conditions in the Marj ibn ‘Amir through wars and nomadic incursions all contributed to the decline of the town until its abandonment in the early 19th century. The modern Palestinian village of Lajjun, established in the early 20th century, was a satellite village of Umm al-Fahm with little socio-demographic continuation from the Lajjun of old. Reference List3 Abu-Husayn, A. 1985. Provincial Leaderships in Syria, 1575–1650. Beirut: American University of Beirut 3 The reference list uses the notation ‘u.d’ (undated) for works whose year of publication is not stated. 45 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Adams, M. J., Cradic, M., Farhi, Y., Peers, M. and Tepper, Y. 2019. A Betyl with a decorated base from the Principia of the Roman VIth Ferrata Legionary Base, Legio, Israel. Israel Museum Studies in Archaeology 9: 68–91. https://museum.imj.org.il/ journal/pdf/legio28-5.pdf. Al-‘Amiri, S. 2003. ‘Imarat Qura al-Karasi: Min ta’rikh al-’iqta‘ fi rif Filastin fi al- qarnayn al-thamin ‘ashar wa-l-tasi‘ ‘ashar. Ramallah: Riwaq. Aql, M. 2016. Bilad el-Ruha: Watan wa-Juzhur. No place of Publication: no publisher. ‘Arafat, J. 1997. Qura wa-‘Asha’ir Qada’ Bisan. Nazareth: no publisher. ——— 1999. Min Dhakirat al-Watan: al-Qura al-Filistiniyya alMuhajjara fi Qada’ Hayfa. Nazareth: no publisher. Avitsur, Sh. 1963. Seker Mitkaney Koach ha-Mayim be-Eretz Israel 1953–1955. Tel Aviv: Ha-Machon le-Ydi‘at ha-Aretz. D’Arvieux, L. 1735. Memoires du chevalier d’Arvieux, envoyé extraordinaire du Roy à la Porte, Consul d’Alep, d’Alger, de Tripoli, & autres Echelles du Levant. Paris: Chez Charles Jean-Baptiste Delespine le Fils. As‘ad, A. and Khamisy, R. G. 2021. The Druze settlement on Mount Carmel: Daliyat al-Karmil as a case study — Archaeological, historical and geographical evidence. Middle Eastern Studies 57(5): 712–29. Al-‘Awra, I. 1936. Ta’rikh Wilayat Sulayman Basha al-‘Adil. Sayda: Dayr al-Mukhlis. Al-Bakhit, M. ‘A. 1972. The Ottoman Province of Damascus in the Sixteenth Century. PhD. University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies. 46 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 ——— 1986. Ladjdju¯n. In, Bosworth, C. E., van Donzel, E., Lewis, B. and Pellat, Ch. (eds), The Encyclopaedia of Islam: New Edition Prepared by a Number of Leading Orientalists. Vol. 5 (KHE– MAHI): 593–94. Leiden: Brill. ——— 1989. The Detailed Defter of Al-Lajjun: Tapu Defteri No. 181 1005 A.H./1596 AD: A Study, Edition and Translation of the Text. Amman: University of Jordan. Al-Bakhit, M. ‘A. and al-Sawariyyah, N. R. 2010. Defrer-i Mufassal of Marj Bani ‘A¯mir. its Dependencies and Appendices Entrusted to Am¯ır Tarabay 945 A.H./1538. Second edition. Amman: University of Jordan. Büssow, J. 2011. Hamidian Palestine: Politics and Society in the District of Jerusalem, 1872–1908. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Conder, C. R.andKitchener, H.H.1882. The SurveyofWestern Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Geography, Hydrography, and Archaeology, Vol. II: Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2010. The Road Inns (Kha¯ns) in Bila¯d al-Sha¯m. Oxford: Archaeopress. Cytryn-Silverman, K. and Talmon-Heller, D. 2015. Material Evidence and Narrative Sources: Interdisciplinary Studies of the History of the Muslim Middle East. Leiden: Brill. Al-Dabbagh, M. M. 1991. Biladuna Filastin. Kafr Qara‘. Darling, L. T. 1996. Revenue-Raising and Legitimacy: Tax Collection and FinanceAdministrationintheOttomanEmpire,1560–1660.Leiden:Brill. Al-Dimashqi, Sh. 1923. Cosmograpgie de Chems-ed-din Abou Abdallah Mohammed el-Dimichqui (Ara. title: Kitab Nukhbat al-Dahr fi ‘Aja’ib al-Barr wa-l-Bahr: ta’lif 47 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 al-shaykh […] Shams al-Din Abi ‘Abdillah Muhammad b. Abi Talib al-Ansari al- Sufi al-Dimashqi Shaykh al-Rabwa). Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz. Al-Dimashqi, A. Q. N. 1990. Al-Daris fi Ta’rikh al-Madaris. Bayrut: Dar al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya. Doumani, B. 1995. Rediscovering Palestine: Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700–1900. Berkeley: California University Press. Finn, J. 1877. Byeways in Palestine. London: James Nisbet. Galilee, E. and Kark, R. 2018. Transformation of the Jezreel Valley-Marj Iban ‘Amar in the Late Ottoman Period. New York: Israel Academic Press. Grossman, D. 1994. Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and its Offshoots in Ottoman Palestine. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Tzvi. Guérin, V. 1875. Description Géographique Historique et Archéologique de la Palestine. Vol. 2: Samarie, pt. 2. Paris: L’Imprimerie Nationale. Heyd, U. 1960. Ottoman Documents on Palestine 1552–1615: A Study of the Firman According to the Mühimme Deftyeri. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hoexter, M. 1973. The role of the Qays and Yaman factions in local political divisions: Jabal Nablus compared with the Judean hills in the first half of the nineteenth century. Asian and African Studies 9(3): 249–311. Hourani, A. 2010. New Documents on the Historyof Mount Lebanon and Arabistan in the 10th and 11th Centuries. Beirut. Al-Hunayti, H. n.d. Qisat Madinat Jinin. Da’irat al-Thaqafa biMunazhzhamat al-Tahrir al-Filistiniyya. 48 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Hütteroth, W. D. and Abdulfattah, K. 1977. Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century. 5. Erlangen Selbstvverlag der Fränkischen Geographischen Gesellschaft in Kommission bei Palm & Enke. Ibn ‘Asakir, ‘A. 1998. Ta’rikh Madinat Dimashq wa-Dhikr Fadliha waTasmiyat Man Hallaha min al-Amathil aw Ijtaza bi-Nawahiha min Waridiha wa-Ahliha. Beirut: al-Fikr. Ibn al-Faqih, H. 1885. Mukhtasar Kitab al-Buldan : Ta’lif Abi Bakr Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Hamadani al-ma‘ruf bi-bn al-Faqig. Leiden: Brill. Ibn Hawqal, I. Q. 1996. Surat al-Ard. Beirut: Dar al-Hayat. Al-Istakhri, A. I. F. 1927. Kitab Masalik al-Mamalik li-Abi Is-haq Ibrahim b. Muhammad al-Farisi al-Istakhri al-Ma‘ruf bi-al-Karkhi wa-huwa mu‘awwal ‘ala Kitab Suwar al-Aqalim li-l-Shaykh Abi Zayd Ahmad b. Sahl al-Balkhi. Leiden: Brill. Jacotin, M. 1826. Carte Topographique de l’Egypte et de Plusieurs Parties des Pays Limitrophes, Levée Pendant l’Expedition de l’Armée Francaise, 1:100,000. Paris. Jamil, W. H. 1998. Umm al-Fahm wa-l-Lajjun: Rihla ‘Abra al-Zaman. Jarrar, H. A. 1990. Jabl al-Nar: Ta’rikh wa-Jihad. Amman: Al-Diya’. Jibly, H. 2004. Turcomans and Jews in North Eretz Israel in the Mandate Period. MA. The University of Haifa. Kana‘ina, S. and Mahamid, ‘U. 1987. Al-Lajjun. Silsilat al-Qura alFilastiniyya al- Muhajjara 6. Ramallah: Birzeit University. 49 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Khalidi, W. 1992. All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington DC: Institute for Palestine Studies. Al-Khatib, A. 1987. Arab al-Turkman: Sons of Marj Ibn Amir. Part One. Amman: Dar el-Jaleel. Khazanov, A. M. and Wink, A. (eds) 2012. Nomads in the Sedentary World. London and New York: Routledge. Le Strange, G. 1890. Palestine UndertheMoslems: ADescription ofSyria and the Holy Land from AD 650 to 1500. Translated from the Works of the Medieval Arab Geographers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Mahamid, ‘U. 2015. Al-Lajjun. Umm al-Fahm: Mat-haf Turath alLajjun and Mu‘asassat al-Jami‘a li-l-Hiwar wa-l-Ta‘lim. Mallahi, ‘A. F. 1997. ‘Asha’ir ‘Arab al-Saqr iban al-Hukm al-‘Uthmani: Dirasa Ta’rikhiyya Ijtima‘iyya. Mansur, A. 1924. Ta’rikh al-Nasira. Egypt: al-Hilal. Al-Maqdisi. 1991. Ahsan al-Taqasim fi ma‘rifat al-Aqalim: li-l-Maqdisi al-ma‘ruf bil- Bashshari. 3rd ed. Cairo: Madbuli (facsimile of Brill edition). Al-Maqrizi, T. D. 1997. Faharis al-Suluk li-Ma‘rifat Duwal al-Muluk. Beirut: al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya. Mardom Bek, Kh. A. 1925. Kitab Waqf Fatima Khatun. Damascus: alAwqaf. Marom, R. 2008. From Time Immemorial: Chapters in the History of Even Yehuda and its Region in Light of Historical and Archaeological Research. Even Yehuda. ——— 2019a. The contribution of Conder’s tent work in Palestine for the understanding of shifting geographical, social and legal realities in the Sharon during the Late 50 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Ottoman period. In, Gurevich, D. and Kidron, A. (eds), Exploring the Holy Land: 150 Years of the Palestine Exploration Fund: 212–31. Sheffield, UK: Equinox. ——— 2019b. A short history of Mulabbis (Petah Tikva, Israel). Palestine Exploration Quarterly 151(2): 134–45. ——— 2020. The village of Mullabes and its residents: before the establishment of Petah Tikva. Cathedra 176: 49–76. ——— 2022a. Dispelling Desolation: The Expansion of Arab Settlement in the Sharon Plain and the Western Part of Jabal Nablus, 1700–1948. PhD. University of Haifa. ——— 2022b. Jinda¯s: a history of Lydda’s rural hinterland in the 15th to the 20th centuries CE. Lod, Lydda, Diospolis 1: 1–31. ——— 2022c. The Palestinian Rural History Project (PRHP): Mission Statement. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31021.77285. ——— 2023. The Abu Hameds of Mulabbis: an oral history of a Palestinian village depopulated in the Late Ottoman period. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 50(1): 87–101. Marom, R., Tepper, Y. and Adams, M. J. forthcoming. Al-Lajjun: a social and geographic account of a Palestinian village during the British Mandate period. Maundrell, H. 1703. A Journey from Aleppo to Jerusalem at Easter, A.D. 1697. Oxford: Oxford University Press. McGarvey, J. W. 1893. Lands of the Bible: A Geographical and Topographical Description of Palestine, with Letters of Travel in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece. Louisville, KY: Guide Printing and Publishing. 51 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 McGowan, B. and McGowan, B. W. 1981. Economic life in Ottoman Europe: Taxation, Trade and the Struggle for Land, 1600–1800. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mu‘ammar, T. 1979. Dhahir al-‘Umar: Kitab Yatanawwal ta’rikh al-Jalil Khassatan wa- l-Bilad al-Suriyya ‘Ammatan min Sanat 1698 hatta Sanat 1777. Nazareth: Wawfist al-Hakim. Mülinen, E.V. 1908. Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Karmels. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 31: 1–3. Al-Nimr, I. 1937–1975. Ta’rikh Jabal Nablus wa-l-Balqa’. Damascus and Nablus. Olsaretti, A. 2008. Political dynamics in the rise of Fakhr al-Din, 1590– 1633: crusade, trade, and state formation along the Levantine Coast. The International History Review 30(4): 709–40. Oppenheim, M. 1943. Die Beduinenstämme in Palästina, Transjordanien, Sinai, Hedjạ ¯z. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. Petersen, A. 1997. Jaljuliya: a village on the Cairo–Damascus road. Levant 29(1): 95– 114. ——— 2001. A Gazetteer of Buildings in Muslim Palestine (Part 1). Oxford: Council for British Research in the Levant and Oxford University Press. ——— 2005. The Towns of Palestine under Muslim Rule, 600–1600. Oxford: Archaeopress. Pringle, D. 1998. The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Corpus. Volume 2, L–Z. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Al-Qalqashandi, A. ‘A. A. 1914. Kitab Subh al-A‘sha. Cairo: Dar alKutub al- Khadiwiyya. 52 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Reifenberg, A. 1953. The struggle between the ‘desert and the sown’. In, Desert Research. Proceedings of the International Symposium held in Jerusalem, May 7–14, 1952: sponsored by the Research Council of Israel and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization: 378–91. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Research Council. Rhode, H. 1979. The Administration and Population of the Sançak of Safad in the Sixteenth Century. PhD. Columbia University. Robinson, E. and Smith, E. 1841. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1838, 1841. New York: Crocker and Brewster. ——— 1856. Later Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Regions: A Journal of Travels in the Year 1852. Boston: Crocker and Brewster. Joudah, A. H. 2013. Revolt in Palestine in the Eighteenth Century: The Era of Shaykh Zahir al-‘Umar by Ahmad Hasan Joudah. Piscatawy, NY: Gorgias Press. Salhiya, M. 1999. Sijill Aradi Alwiya (Safad, Nablus, Ghazza wa-Qada’ al-Ramla) hasab al-daftar raqam 312 ta’rikhihi 964H/1556M. ‘Amman: Jami‘at ‘Amman al- Ahliyya. Schumacher, G. 1908. Tell el-Mutesellim; Bericht über die 1903 bis 1905 mit Unterstützung Sr. Majestät des deutschen Kaisers und der Deutschen Orient- Gesellschaft vom Deutschen Verein zur Erforschung Palästinas veranstalteten Ausgrabungen. Vol. 1. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung. Shanti, Kh.‘A. 2015. Banu Jarrar min al-Qastal ila al-Lajjun: Ta’rikhuhum wa-Abraz Shuyukhihim. Dar al-Ma’mun. 53 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Sharon, M. 1975. The political role of the Bedouins in Palestine in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In, Maoz, M. (ed.), Studies on PalestineDuringtheOttomanPeriod:11–30.Jerusalem:MagnesPress. Sharon, M. 2017. Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, Volume Six: J. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Al-Shidyaq, T. n.d. Kitab Akhbar al-A‘yan fi Jabal Lubnan. Beirut: Manshurat al-Jami‘a al-Lubnaniyya. Sirhan, N. and Kabha, M. 2001. Bilad al-Ruha fi Fatrat al-Intidab alBaritani: al- Sindiyana Numudhjan. Ramallah: al-Shuruq. Stephan, St. H. 1937. Evliya Tshelebi’s travels in Palestine. The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 6: 84–97. Stern, E., Shapiro, A., Adams, M. J., Tepper, Y., Marom, N. and Ktalav, I. In press. Domestic waste as a window into Crusader-period Le Lyon (Kibbutz Megiddo/Lajjun, Israel): insights from a household midden and its ceramic assemblage. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Tas¸kın, Ü. 2010. Safad in the Ottoman Administration (1516–1600). PhD. Fırat University. Tarabya, Kh. M. 1976. Al Tarabya ‘Abra al-Ta’rikh. Jerusalem: Dar alAytam al- Islamiyya. Tepper, Y. 2002. Lajjun-Legio in Israel: results of a survey in and around the military camp area. In, Freeman, P., Bennett, J., Fiema, Z. T. and Hoffman, B. (eds), Limes XVIII — Proceedings of the XVIIIth International Congress of Roman Frontier Studies held in Amman, Jordan (September 2000): 231–42. BAR International Series 1084. Oxford: BAR. 54 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 ——— 2003a. Survey of the Legio Region. Excavation and Survey in Israel 115: 29*– 31* (English-Hebrew 35–37). ——— 2003b. Survey of the Legio Area Near Megiddo — Historical Geographical Research. MA. University of Tel Aviv (Hebrew with English Abstract). ——— 2004. Roman road at ‘Iron Passage’ — remains of the road from Caesarea to the VI Legion Roman Camp at Legio. In. Bar-Gal, Y., Kliot, N. and Peled, A. (eds), Eretz Israel Studies — Aviel Ron Book: 47–82. Haifa: Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, University of Haifa. (Hebrew). Tepper Y. 2007. The Roman Legionary Camp at Legio, Israel: results of an archaeological survey and observations on the Roman military presence at the site. In, Lewin, A. S. and Pellegrini, P. (eds), The Late Roman Army in the Near East from Diocletian to the Arab Conquest: 57–71. BAR International Series 1717. Oxford: BAR. Tepper, Y. 2011. ‘19 Mill from …’ Roman road from Legio to Caesarea through Ramat Menashe. In, Ayalon, E. and Izdarechaet, A. (eds), Caesarea Treasures, I: 257–75. Jerusalem: Keter (Hebrew). ——— 2012. Legio, Nahal Qeni survey. Final report. Excavation and Survey in Israel. 124. (English-Hebrew, 16.4.2012). http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=1984&mag_id= 119 ——— 2013. Megiddo (Kibbutz). Preliminary report. Excavation and Survey in Israel. 125. (English-Hebrew, 5.11.2013). http://www. hadashot-esi.org.il/Report_Detail_Eng.aspx?id=4357&mag_id= 55 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 120 ——— 2022. Megiddo, and they call it Lajjun — memory and oblivion in toponymy and archaeological finds in the region of Legio/Kefar ‘Othnay. In, Stiebel, D. G., Ben-Ami, D., Gorzalczany, A., Tepper, Y. and Koch, I. (eds), Memory. In Centro, Collected Papers, Vol. II: 33–69. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. (Hebrew with English abstract). ——— Forthcoming. The al-Lajjun mills. Tepper, Y., Adams, M. J. and Ernenwein, E. In press. The Principia of the VIth Legion at Legio. ‘Atiqot. Tepper, Y. and Di Segni, L. 2006. A Christian Prayer Hall of the Third Century CE at Kefar ‘Othnay (Legio): Excavations at the Megiddo Prison 2005. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. Tepper, Y., David, J. and Adams, M. J. 2016. The Roman VIth Legion Ferrata at Legio (el-Lajjun), Israel: preliminary report of the 2013 excavation. STRATA: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 34: 91–123. Thomson, W. M. 1859. The Land and the Book: Or Biblical Illustrations Drawn from the Manners and Customs, the Scenes and Scenery of the Holy Land. New York: Harper. Tsafrir, Y., Di Segni, L. and Green, J. 1994. Tabula Imperii Romani — Iudaea — Palaestina. Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine Periods, Maps and Gazetteer. Jerusalem. Ussishkin, D. 2015. Megiddo-Armageddon. The Story of the Canaanite and Israelite City. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society. 56 <The Version of Record of this paper has been published in “Levant” on May 9, 2023 and is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00758914.2023.2202484> © Council for British Research in the Levant 2023 Al-‘Uthmani, M. 2008. Ta’rikh Safad (original text). In, Zakkar, S. (ed.), Ta’rikh Safad: Ma‘a Malahiq ‘Arabiyya wa-Latiniyya Mutarjama Tunshar Lil-Marra al-Ula: 113–241. Damascus: alTakwin. Van de Velde, C. W. M. 1854. Narrative of a Journey through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852. Edinburgh and London: William Blackwood. Wilson, C. W. 1882. Picturesque Palestine, Sinai, and Egypt. London: J. S. Virtue. Ya‘ari, A. 1943. Igrot Eretz Israel. Tel Aviv: Gazit. Yaqut, Sh. D. 1977. Mu‘jam al-Buldan: li-l-Shaykh al-Imam Shihab alDin Abi Abdillah Yaqut b. Abdillah al-Hamawi al-Rumi alBaghdadi. Beirut: Sader. Yazbak, M. 2013. The politics of trade and power: Dahir al-Umar and the making of early modern Palestine. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 56(4–5): 696–736. Zakkar, S. 2008. Ta’rikh Safad: Ma‘a Malahiq ‘Arabiyya waLatiniyya Mutarjama Tunshar li-l-Marra al-Ula. Damascus: alTakwin. Ze’evi, D. 1996. An Ottoman Century: The District of Jerusalem in the 1600s. Albany NY: SUNY. 57

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Jun	JUL	Jul
	18
2022	2023	2025

Log In

Lajjun: Forgotten Provincial Capital in Ottoman Palestine

Lajjun: Forgotten Provincial Capital in Ottoman Palestine

Lajjun: Forgotten Provincial Capital in Ottoman Palestine

Lajjun: Forgotten Provincial Capital in Ottoman Palestine

Lajjun: Forgotten Provincial Capital in Ottoman Palestine

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS