ARAM, 9-10 (1997-1998), 563-575 R. SCHICK 563

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PALESTINE/ IN THE EARLY OTTOMAN PERIOD

ROBERT SCHICK

The Early Ottoman period (16th-17th centuries) in Palestine/Jordan has not yet been fully accepted as a serious topic for archaeological inquiry. The later 19th and 20th centuries have been the topic of numerous ethnographic and ethno- archaeological studies, and the earlier Crusader-Ayyubid/Mamluk periods is re- ceiving increasing attention. But studies of the material remains of the earlier Ottoman period remain few. One glaring example of that lack of interest is the recent handbook of the types of pottery in Jordan,1 which covers everything from the Neolithic period up to the Mamluk period, and which could easily have added a couple more pages to include the Ottoman and modern period to make the book complete, but doesn't. Also the Seventh Conference on the History and Archaeology of Jordan in Copenhagen in June, 1998 had no presentations on any sites later than the Ayyubid period; the earlier conferences, by contrast, did. But rather than bemoan further such lack of interest, this article has the objec- tive of surveying the state of knowledge of the material culture of the early Otto- man period. The situation is not all bleak; indeed there have now been four Ph.D. theses that deal at least in part with the archaeology of Palestine/Jordan in the 16th-17th centuries: Ziadeh's study of the excavated Ottoman period ar- chaeological remains of the village of Ti‘innek;2 Brown's study of pottery pro- duction in the Late Islamic period;3 Kareem's study of settlement in the Jordan Valley in the Late Islamic period, based on his excavations at the site of Dhra‘ al-Khan;4 and Baram's theoretical modeling for the study of the material culture of the Ottoman period, in which he examines tobacco pipes as an exceptionally informative class of objects about broader economic and social developments.5 There are also several MA theses of note, such as Brown's study of Late Is- lamic settlement of the Karak plateau in Jordan,6 as well as al-Malkawi's study of Late Mamluk-Early Ottoman period water mills in Wadi Kufranjah in north- 1 R. Hendrix, P. Drey and J. B. Storfjell, Ancient Pottery of Transjordan. (Berrien Springs, 1996). 2 G. Ziadeh, Change and Continuity in a Palestinian Village: An Archaeological Study of Otto- man Ti‘innek. (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Cambridge, 1991). 3 R. Brown, Late Islamic Ceramic Production and Distribution in the Southern Levant: A Socio- Economic and Political Interpretation. (Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1992). 4 Kareem, J., The Settlement Patterns in the Jordan Valley in the Mid- to Late Islamic Period. (Ph.D. dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin, 1993). 5 U. Baram, Material Culture, Commodities, and Consumption in Palestine, 1500-1900. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1996). 6 R. Brown, Late Islamic Settlement Patterns on the Kerak Plateau, Trans-Jordan. (MA thesis, State University of New York at Binghamton, 1975). 564 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PALESTINE/JORDAN IN THE EARLY OTTOMAN PERIOD ern Jordan;7 Abu Armayis' study of the Late Islamic period remains of the vil- lage of Artas and Solomon's Pools south of Bethlehem;8 and ‘Ubaydat's study of the Ottoman hajj forts in southern Jordan,9 among a larger number dealing with pottery typologies of the Mamluk period that could well be continuing into the early Ottoman period. Archaeological work on the early Ottoman period was pioneered by the Franciscans. The Franciscans have been the custodians of the various Christian Holy Places since the Mamluk period and they have maintained a continuous presence in Palestine since then. In the course of the 20th century, the Franciscans carried out excavations at the various Christian holy places, often in conjunction with the construction of modern churches over the remains of earlier Byzantine and Crusader churches, and their excavation reports frequently mention some finds from the Franciscan presence there in the early Ottoman period. Thus, for example, Bagatti's excavations at the Church of the Annunciation in Nazareth, where there was a Franciscan presence since 1620, when they obtained the grotto, followed by their construction of a major new church in 1730, produced a quan- tity of fine ware pottery that the Franciscans were importing from Tuscany.10 The reports of the Franciscan excavations at Ein Kerem are also noteworthy for the information they include about the early Ottoman period, often documented from historical records.11 Indeed the first person to pay attention to the architectural monuments of the Ottoman period was another Franciscan, Elzear Horn, who was resident in Jeru- salem in the early 1700s.12 He mentioned a number of early Ottoman buildings in Jerusalem, including the baths and produced elevation drawings of them. He connects the Tekkiye of Khasseki Sultan with the spurious Christian association as the hospital of St. Helena and also records the bath building of the Sultan Sulayman the Magnificent on the Via Dolorosa, which Christians later were to adopt for the commemoration of the Third Station of the Cross. There have been a few excavation projects that have paid close attention to the remains from the early Ottoman period, such as at the villages of Ti‘inek in Palestine, Khirbat Faris, and Dhra‘ al-Khan in Jordan.13 But other excavators have been less broad-minded. The uppermost Ottoman strata at tell sites, com- 7 M. al-Malkawi, al-Tawahin al-Ma’iyah fi Wadi Kufranjah fi al-‘Asr al-Mamluki al- Muta’akhkhir – wa-Mustahall al-‘Asr al-‘Uthmani (Dirasat al-Taqniyah). (MA thesis, Yarmouk University, 1994); see J. Greene, “The Water Mills of the ‘Ajlun-Kufranja Valley: The Relation- ship of Technology, Society and Settlement”. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan 5 (1995), pp. 757-765. 8 I. Abu Armayis, al-Athar al-Islamiyah fi Qaryat Artas. (MA thesis, al-Quds University, 1996). 9 I. ‘Ubaydat, al-Khanat al-Islamiyah fi Janub al-Urdun Khilal al-‘Asr al-‘Uthmani. (MA the- sis, Yarmouk University, 1998). 10 B. Bagatti, Gli Scavi di Nazaret. Volume 2: Dal secolo XII ad oggi. (Jerusalem, 1984). 11 S. Saller, Discoveries at St. John's, ‘Ein Karim 1941-1942. (Jerusalem, 1946); B. Bagatti, Il Santuario della Visitazione ad ‘Ain Karim (Montana Judaeae). (Jerusalem, 1948). 12 E. Horn, Ichnographiae Monumentorum Terrae Sanctae (1724-1744). (Jerusalem, 1962). 13 Ziadeh, Change.; A. McQuitty and R. Falkner, The Faris Project: Preliminary Report on the 1989, 1990 and 1991 Seasons. Levant 25 (1993), pp. 37-61; Kareem, Settlement, idem, The Site of R. SCHICK 565 monly cemeteries, have often been summarily removed by excavation projects interested in earlier remains with at best only perfunctory publication. The me- ticulous documentation of hundreds of cist burials in the Muslim bedouin cem- etery at Tell Hesi is a remarkable exception.14

HISTORICAL STUDIES The 16th and 17th centuries are the first period for which there is an extensive surviving documentary record, and so the history of the period is better known than the archaeological remains. The types and varieties of Ottoman government documents remain a vast source of information that awaits study, and can only be noted in passing here. Among the studies of history and historical geography that are based on primary Ottoman documents, one can cite Heyd's collection of Ottoman documents;15 Hütteroth and Abdulfattah's study of a late-16th century defter (census document produced for taxation purposes);16 Cohen and Lewis' study of population;17 al-Bakhit and Hmoud's defter publications;18 and Arna’ut's publication of the endowment document of Sinan Bek, the Ottoman governor of in the late 16th century.19 Collections of texts of the records of the Islamic law court in Jerusalem have also been published.20 But much more information can be gained from the Ottoman documents along the lines of some other gen- eral historical studies.21 Dhra‘ al-Khan: A Main Caravanserai on Darb al-Quful. Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, 6 (1997), pp. 365-369. 14 L. Toombs, Tell el Hesi: Modern Military Trenching and Muslim Cemetery in Field I, Strata I- II. Waterloo, 1985); J. K. Eakins, Tell el-Hesi: The Muslim Cemetery in Fields V and VI/IX (Stratum II). The Joint Archaeological Expedition to Tell el-Hesi Volume Five. Winona Lake, 1993). 15 U. Heyd, Ottoman Documents on Palestine, 1552-1615. (Oxford, 1960). 16 W.-D. Hütteroth and K. Abdulfattah, Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Late 16th Century. (Erlangen, 1977); W.-D. Hütteroth, “The Pattern of Set- tlement in Palestine in the Sixteenth Century. Geographical Research on Turkish Defter-i Mufassal”, Pp. 3-10 in Moshe Ma‘oz, (ed.), Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period. (Jerusalem, 1975). 17 A. Cohen and B. Lewis, Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century. Princeton, 1978). 18 M. al-Bakhit and N. Hmoud,The Mufassal Defter of Marj Bani ‘Amir and its Dependents Entrusted to Amir Tarabey 945 A.H./1538 A.D.. (, 1989); idem, The Detailed Defter of al- Lajjun Tapu Defteri No:181 1005 A.H./1596 A.D. (Amman, 1989); idem,The Detailed Defter of Liwa’ ‘Ajlun (The District of Ajlun) Tapu Defteri No: 970 Istanbul. (Amman, 1989), among others. 19 M. al-Arna’ut, Mu‘atiyat ‘an Dimashq wa-Bilad al-Sham al-Janubiyah fi Nihayat al-Qarn al-Sadis ‘Ashar. (, 1993). 20 M. ‘Ata Allah,Watha’iq al-Tawa’if al-Hirafiyah fi al-Quds fi al-Qarn al-Sabi‘ ‘Ashar. (Nablus, 1991); A. Cohen, A World Within. Jewish Life as Reflected in Muslim Court Documents from the Sijill of Jerusalem (XVIth Century). (Philadelphia, 1994). 21 A. Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam – Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century. (London, 1984); idem, Economic Life in Ottoman Jerusalem. (Cambridge, 1989); M. Sharon, The Political Role of the Bedouins in Palestine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Pp. 11-30 in Moshe Ma'oz, ed., Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period. (Jerusalem, 1975); A. Singer, “The Country- side of Ramle in the Sixteenth Century: A Study of Villages with Computer Assistance”. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 33 (1990), pp. 51- 79; idem, Palestinian Peasants and Ottoman Officials: Rural Administration around Sixteenth-Century Jerusalem. (Cambridge, 1994); D. Ze'evi, An Ottoman Century. The District of Jerusalem in the 1600s. (Albany, 1996) 566 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PALESTINE/JORDAN IN THE EARLY OTTOMAN PERIOD

Among the other primary sources for the history of Ottoman Palestine in addi- tion to government documents, one can note in passing the major history of Jerusalem and Hebron by Mujir al-Din,22 which dates to the end of the 15th century, the last years of the Mamluk period. The religious rulings (fatwas) by Khayr al-Din al-Ramli, which were compiled in 1670, have received some schol- arly attention for the light they shed on social conditions.23 There are several early Ottoman travelers who left accounts,24 notably Muhibb al-Din Muhammad ibn Dawud al-Hamawi in 1570,25 ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi in 1690,26 and Evliya Chelebi in the mid-17th century.27 In the 16th century the Ottomans conducted several fiscal surveys that counted population and revenue, recorded in registers that list revenue from each town quarter, village, and tribe on the basis of population, local resources and com- mercial facilities. The census in 1596-1597 was the last detailed one.28 The reli- ability of the census figures can be questioned, about such issues as counting nomads. It is not clear where the data came from for Transjordan, which was out of government control after the mid-16th century; perhaps earlier data was re- used. While the usefulness of the census data for population questions or actual revenue generation is questionable in detail, some general impressions cn be gained. According to the 1596-1597 census, the area had a prosperous rural economy, dense village settlement, occasional towns and commercial centers, regionally specialized production including olive groves in the highlands, cotton in the upper Galilee, and wheat fields in the . Village settlement was widespread in Palestine except in the Marj ibn Amr, the Jezreel Valley, where tribal groups predominated. Towns included Safad (perhaps up to 12,000), Jeru- salem, Gaza, Nablus, and Hebron, as well as smaller villages of Kafr Kanna, Majdal, Ludd and Ramla. Gaza, Jerusalem, Nablus and Safad were the primary market towns. Gaza was the only major trade center on the coast. Trade concentrated in the highlands and was little developed in the lowlands.

22 Mujir al-Din al-Hanbali, al-Uns al-Jalil bi-Tarikh al-Quds wa-al-Khalil. (Amman, 1973). 23 I. Abbas, “Khair ad-Din ar-Ramli's Fatawa: a new light on life in Palestine in the 11th/17th century”. Pp. 1-19 in U. Haarman and P. Bachmann, (eds.), Die Islamische Welt Zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Festschrift für Hans Robert Roemer zum 65 Geburtstag. Beirut, 1979; S. Seikaly, “Land Tenure in 17th Century Palestine: the Evidence from the al-Fatawa al-Khairiyya”. Pp. 397- 408 in T. Khalidi, (ed.), Land Tenure and Social Transformation in the Middle East. (Beirut, 1984). 24 B. Khayr Bak, Filastin min Khilal Kitabat Ba‘d al-Rahalah al-‘Arab min Awakhir al-Qarn al-Sadis ‘Ashar Hatta Awakhir al-Qarn al-Tasi‘ ‘Ashar. (MA thesis, University of Damascus, 1990). 25 Muhibb al-Din al-Hamawi, Hadi al-Azan al-Najdiyah ila al-Diyar al-Misriyah, (ed. M al- Bakhit). (Mu’ta, 1993). 26 ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi, al-Hadrah al-Unsiyah fi al-Rihlah al-Qudsiyah. (ed. A. al-‘Ulbi). (Beirut, 1990). 27 S. Stephan, “Evliya Tshelebi's Travels in Palestine”. Quarterly of the Department of Antiq- uities of Palestine 4 (1934), pp. 103-108, 154-164; 5 (1935), pp. 69-73; 6 (1936), pp. 84-97; 8 (1938), pp. 137-156; 9 (1939), pp. 81-104. 28 Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, Historical Geography. R. SCHICK 567

In Transjordan the number of villages was fewer. The Balqa was the domain of nomads. ‘Ajlun, Karak, Shobak were the only towns, each with fewer than 2000 inhabitants. There were no major market centers and the region was characterized by commercial isolation. It seems that no revenue was actually collected from there, there was a local Ottoman governor in name only. The Karak plateau experienced low density sedentary occupation; Karak itself had 1000 people and 12 villages had another 2415 inhabitants, in addition to no- mads. For the 17th-18th centuries less information is available due to the absence of any Ottoman tax registers. Eastern Palestine was characterized by an expansion of the pastoralist economy and a decline in the agricultural zone. In the early 17th century Jerusalem and Hebron were on the frontier of settlement.

ART HISTORICAL STUDIES

Concerning the art historic side of material culture, the one major collection of art objects in Palestine/Jordan from the early Ottoman period is in the Islamic Museum on the Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem, but little note has been taken of the Museum's collections of objects endowed to the Dome of the Rock, the al- Aqsa mosque, and other Islamic institutions in Jerusalem and elsewhere. The one group of objects that has been studied is the Qur’an manuscripts.29 The Museum has manuscripts endowed by the Ottoman sultans to the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosque, such as four 30-part manuscripts endowed by Sulayman the Magnificent and one endowed by Murad in 1593. Other manu- scripts were endowed by government officials, such as one in 1575 by Sulayman Bek, a long-serving governor of Jerusalem and Damascus, and a manuscript produced in Istanbul in 1663 and later endowed by the deputy vezier Abbas Agha in 1669-1670. One exceptionally exquisite manuscript was produced in 1519 by a student of the famous calligrapher Ibn al-Shaykh. But the most interesting manuscript historically is the one that Bayazid, the second son of Sulayman the Magnificent, endowed in 1556, as recorded in the original endowment text on the opening page of the manuscript. Bayazid later rebelled against his father and proclaimed himself sultan. But his rebellion was quickly crushed and he was killed in 1561. His short-lived rebellion is reflected in the manuscript by the addition of opening texts recording that it was endowed by “Sultan” Bayazid. Other objects in the Museum await study, such as the early Ottoman glazed tiles from the exterior of the Dome of the Rock, removed during 20th century restorations, and cooking cauldrons from the Tekkiye of Khasseki Sultan.

29 K. Salameh and R. Schick, “The Qur’an Manuscripts of the Islamic Museum, al-Haram al- Sharif, Jerusalem”. al-‘Usur al-Wusta 10.1 (1998), pp. 1-3. 568 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PALESTINE/JORDAN IN THE EARLY OTTOMAN PERIOD

JERUSALEM

The city of Jerusalem has received the lion's share of scholarly attention. The architecture of the early Ottoman period has been well served by Natsheh's re- cent Ph.D. dissertation,30 which will form the core of the British School of Ar- chaeology's forthcoming book on Ottoman Jerusalem. One should also note Ghosheh's MA thesis documenting other previously unstudied Ottoman build- ings in the Sa‘di Quarter of Jerusalem (the area between Damascus Gate and Herod's Gate, north of the Via Dolorosa).31 Jerusalem experienced a renaissance under the Sultan Sulayman the Magnifi- cent (1520-1566). Sulayman could with justice describe himself as “the second Solomon” in his building inscriptions. Among his first actions was the Islamisation of the Tomb of David on Mount Zion, leading to the final expulsion of the Franciscans from the Upper Room of the Last Supper in 1551. Sultan Sulayman also renovated the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock, which he covered with glazed tiles, and rebuilt the citadel. In 1536-1537 he also renewed the water supply of Jerusalem by rebuilding the aqueduct from the springs south of Beth- lehem, and built a number of public water fountains in Jerusalem.32 One should note that the large water reservoirs south of Bethlehem from which the aqueduct leads to Jerusalem are named Solomon's Pools, after Sulayman the Magnificent, who renovated them, and it was only later western travelers who associated the pools with the Biblical King Solomon.33 The work on the water supply system of Jerusalem was followed between 1537 and 1540 by Sulayman's construction of the city wall,34 in a dilapidated state since the Ayyubids had demolished them in 1219. Among the other noteworthy building projects were the foundation of a pil- grims' hospice and a Qur’an school by the amir Bayram Jawish ibn Mustafa in July 1540, and the establishment of larger foundation a few years later by Khasseki Sultan, Sulayman's wife, which consisted of a hospice, a mosque, a madrasah and a public kitchen for the poor.35 Much endowed property was dedicated to the

30 Y. Natsheh, Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Public Buildings in Jerusalem. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1997). 31 M. Ghushah, Harat al-Sa‘diyah fi al-Quds al-‘Uthmaniyah. (MA thesis, al-Quds University, 1998). 32 M. Meinecke, Die Erneurung von al-Quds/Jerusalem durch den Osmanensultan Sulaiman Qanuni. Pp. 257-283 in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Palestine. (Aleppo, 1988); M. Rosen-Ayalon, On Suleiman's Sabils in Jerusalem. Pp. 589-607 in C. E. Bosworth, et al., (eds.), The Islamic World from Classical to Modern Times: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lewis. (Princeton, 1989). 33 Abu Armayis, al-Athar. 34 A. Cohen, “The Walls of Jerusalem”. Pp. 467-477 in C. E. Bosworth, et al., (eds.), The Islamic World, from Classical to Modern Times: Essays in Honor of Bernard Lewis. (Princeton, 1989). 35 S. Stephan, “An Endowment Deed of Khasseki Sultan Dated the 24th May 1552”. Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine 10 (1940), pp.170-194. R. SCHICK 569 upkeep of this tekkiye, which became the most important social institution in Ottoman Palestine. Later in the 16th and 17th centuries various buildings were renovated or newly constructed on the lower and upper platform of the Haram.

ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES

Outside of Jerusalem, there are plenty of early Ottoman period buildings wait- ing to be identified and studied. The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem in recent years has sponsored an architectural survey of medieval and Ottoman buildings in Palestine. Of particular note are documented buildings in Ramla,36 and Jaljuliya,37 including the mosque of Abu al-‘Awn, a sufi who was a native of Jaljuliya and who died in 1504. The architecture of bath houses in Palestine has also been studied.38 The forthcoming publication of Petersen's catalogue of sur- viving historic buildings in pre-1967 Israel will be a major contribution. Also in the Palestinian area of the West Bank, the past few years have seen an active program by the Riwaq organization to register all the extant structures built before 1948. While the vast majority of those structures are 19th or 20th century, a basic register of all surviving early Ottoman buildings will soon be available. In Jordan, no similar comprehensive documentation has yet been done. One example of a major building in Jordan that awaits study is the caravansarai known as Maqam al-Nabi Sulayman near the village of Sirfa in the north Karak plateau. It is located in the open countryside along the easiest route down from the north Karak plateau to the Dead Sea. While the building looks sort-of Ottomanish, its architecture and history, and how it became a shrine of the Prophet Solomon, have yet to be investigated. There are numerous other fortresses and caravansarais that the Ottomans built throughout the area along major roads. The fortresses have a standard plan of a square with corner towers around an open courtyard. The fortress at Aphek/Ra’s al-‘Ayn was investigated briefly by Kochavi during his excavations of the ear- lier remains there in the 1970s and 1980s,39 and was recently surveyed by Petersen (forthcoming). The fortress was built in 1572-1574 and continued in use into the 17th century and served as the main base on the coastal road between Gaza and Haifa. Three of the corner towers were square and the fourth one was octagonal and an indirect gate was in the west wall. Rooms were built along the walls for barracks, stables and storerooms. In the middle of the central courtyard was a

36 A. Petersen, “Preliminary Report on an Architectural Survey of Historic Buildings in Ramla”. Levant 27 (1995), pp. 75-101. 37 A. Petersen, “Jaljuliya: a Village on the Cairo-Damascus Road”. Levant 29 (1997), pp. 95- 114. 38 M. Dow, The Islamic Baths of Palestine. (Oxford, 1996). 39 M. Kochavi, Excavations at Aphek-Antipatris 1972-1973. (Tel-Aviv, 1976). 570 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PALESTINE/JORDAN IN THE EARLY OTTOMAN PERIOD small mosque with its own courtyard, which was surrounded by 20 additional dwelling rooms. The Ottomans built another fortress named Qal‘at al-Birak to guard Solo- mon's Pools south of Bethlehem and the main Jerusalem-Hebron road. It is re- markable that the dedicatory inscription in Ottoman Turkish above the main entrance remained unread until 1995, when it was discovered that it reveals that the fort was constructed during the reign of the Sultan ‘Uthman II in 1622;40 the fort was also surveyed by the British School of Archaeology (forthcoming). Among the studied caravansarais one can note Khan al-Tujjar in the Galilee, surveyed in 1988 by the British School of Archaeology and later excavated by Zvi Gal in the early 1990s; a substantive excavation report is in preparation. The original Mamluk khan built in 1438 was expanded in the 16th century by Sinan Pasha, the governor of Damascus. Also a separate fort was build on an adjacent hill to separate the garrison from the khan.41 Other buildings in use in the Ottoman period go back to a Mamluk origin, such as Khan Jubb Yusuf north of the Sea of Galilee, surveyed by the British School in 1988.42 The one group of government sponsored buildings that has received the most scholarly attention is the line of hajj pilgrimage forts along the desert fringe south from Damascus.43 Starting in the early 16th century, the Ottomans constructed a string of small forts along the Darb al-Hajj, where skeleton garrisons would stay all year round, along a route used by the later Hijaz railway and modern Desert Highway in Jordan. Previously the route had gone farther west along the King's Highway in better watered, populated areas. But as the story goes, the daughter of the Sultan Selim complained about having to cross the arduous Wadi Mujib north of Karak, so the route was shifted east. While that east route along the level desert steppe avoided crossing the highland wadis, the problems of water supply and security from attacks by the bedouin tribes were so great that the route did not eclipse King's Highway for ordinary traffic until the mid-20th century. The hajj caravan could use either route, depending on the time of year and political and security considerations. Selim I built forts at Sanamayn, and Tall Far‘un in southern Syria, while Sulayman the Magnificent built forts at Qatrana, Ma‘an, Dhat al-Hajj, 40 Abu Armayis, al-Athar. 41 Z. Gal, Khan et-Tuggar: A New Look at a ‘Western Survey’ Entry. Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1985), pp. 69-75; M. Lee, C. Raso and E. Simpson, Mamluk Caravansarais in Galilee. Levant 24 (1992), pp. 55-94; Arna‘ut, Mu‘atiyat. 42 Lee, Raso and Simpson, “Mamluk”. 43 A. Petersen, Early Ottoman Forts on the Hajj Route in Jordan. (MA thesis, Oxford Univer- sity, 1986); idem, “Early Ottoman Forts on the Darb al-Hajj”. Levant 21 (1989), pp. 97-117; idem, 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; al-‘Ubaydat, al- Khanat. R. SCHICK 571

Tabuk, Ukhaydir, and al-‘Ula. Among later constructions, between 1730-1733 at Hasa, a bridge was built to span a wadi prone to flash floods, along with three kilometers of paved road. The hajj fort at Muzayrib in southern Syria,44 built in the early 16th century, reflects a shift in the hajj route to the west, bypassing Bosra, which declined into a small village. The forts were square buildings c. 25 m on a side, with stables and storage on the ground floor, accommodations of the garrison of some 20 to 40 on the upper floor, and water reservoirs. The Ma‘an and Qatrana forts have arrow slits, while the later forts were designed for the use of artillery. Any failure of safety of the pilgrimage caravan provoked a crisis of legiti- macy for the governor of Damascus. So the annual preparations for the hajj were costly and time-consuming and involved numerous officials. Gifts were nor- mally distributed to the bedouin tribes along the route to ensure the safety of the caravans from attack, but the bedouin attacked the caravans numerous times anyway, such as in 1670 and 1757.44 But there appears to be no case of bedouin storming or laying siege to one of the forts. The hajj fort at ‘Aqaba, for the Egyptian pilgrimage route across the Sinai, was built at the end of the Mamluk period by the amir Khayr Bek al-‘Ala’i during the reign of Qansuh al-Ghawri, perhaps in 1514-1515,46 with later renovations datable to 1587 and 1628. The building has seen recent restoration by the Jordanian Department of Antiquities, but no scholarly study has been done. The Qatrana fort was also recently restored and has seen some as yet unpub- lished excavations by the Department of Antiquities at the water reservoir just outside the fort, while the hajj fort at Wadi Hasa was consolidated in 1996-1997, but no scholarly information was gained. The hajj fort at Mafraq has also been briefly described.47

EXCAVATIONS

Among the sites that have been excavated, one can mention Ti‘innek, well studied by Ziadeh.48 In the Late Islamic period the multi-period site of Ti‘innek was a typical village. Its domestic architecture was characterized by houses of clustered single rooms around a courtyard. The early Ottoman houses were smaller

44 M. Meinecke, Patterns of Stylistic Changes in Islamic Architecture. (New York, 1996), p. 47. 45 M. al-Bakhit, The Ottoman Province of Damascus in the Sixteenth Century. (Beirut, 1982). 46 H. Glidden, The Mamluk Origin of the Fortified Khan at al-Aqabah, Jordan. Pp. 116-118 in George Miles, (ed.), Archaeologica Orientalia in Memoriam Ernst Herzfeld. (Locust Valley, 1952). 47 A. Husan, al-Athar al-‘Uthmaniyah wa-Shahidatuhu fi al-Muntiqah. Pp. 521-547 in Hind Abu al-Sha‘r, (ed.), Dirasat fi Masadir Tarikh al-‘Arab al-Hadith. (Amman, 1997). 48 Ziadeh, Change; idem, “Ottoman Ceramics from Ti‘innik, Palestine”. Levant 27 (1995), pp. 209-245; idem, “Ethno-history and ‘Reverse Chronology' at Ti'innik, a Palestinian Village”. Antiquity 69 (1995), pp. 999-1008. 572 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PALESTINE/JORDAN IN THE EARLY OTTOMAN PERIOD than the Late Ottoman ones and were used mostly for storage; household activi- ties were done outside. Typically the houses had two floor levels with a lower entrance for animals, higher in back for living space, and were inhabited by extended patriarchal families. The village was dependent on agriculture, and was self-sufficient with local materials used for construction. Ziadeh notes that the excavation revealed substantial differences in material culture from today. Many of the artifacts that the excavators found were unidentifiable by the mod- ern villagers, and their names unknown. Khirbat Faris, in the north Karak plateau in Jordan, is another excavated Late Islamic village.49 Excavations revealed a continuously occupied village site throughout the period. Little work has been done on pre-modern bedouin. The excavation of a Bedouin encampment in the Tur Imdai rock shelter near Petra in southern Jordan is a notable exception.50 The excavation demonstrated continuous occupation start- ing in the mid-1600s of the ancestors of the modern Bedul bedouin now resident in the Petra area. The excavation is notable for revealing the continued use of lithics by the bedouin.51 At Pella in the Jordan Valley a mosque of small size for a village of only a couple hundred residents was excavated.52 A paleopathological study of some 250 skeletons from the cemetery revealed that the maximum life span was some 30-35 years, less than earlier periods.53 At Deir Alla in the Jordan Valley, excavated in the 1960s, the tell was used as a cemetery in the Mamluk period up to around 1500. The neighboring village of Abu Ghurdan was the subject of a major study of late Islamic pottery typologies.54 At Hesban in Jordan, a major excavation project by Andrews University in the 1970s uncovered remains of an important Mamluk center, the capital of the Balqa district along the postal route from Damascus to Karak. followed by a period of decline and abandonment from around 1456 to 1870 with no sedentary occupation at the site. The Hesban regional study by LaBianca notes an intensi- fication of landuse in the Ayyubid and early Mamluk period with an increase in number of settlements, followed by a decline in the Ottoman period and a rever- sion to pastoralism and habitation in caves.55 Other excavations have yet to produce any published results, such as the large-

49 McQuitty and Falkner, “Faris”. 50 S. Simms and K. Russell, “Tur Imdai Rockshelter: Archaeology of Recent Pastoralists in Jordan”. Journal of Field Archaeology 24 (1997), pp. 459-472. 51 I. Kuijt, and K. Russell, Tur Imdai Rockshelter, Jordan: Debitage Analysis and Historic Bedouin Lithic Technology. Journal of Archaeological Science 20 (1993), pp. 667-680. 52 McNicoll. A.W. et al., Pella in Jordan 2. (Syndey, 1992), pp. 188-198. 53 McNicoll. A.W. et al., Pella in Jordan 2. (Syndey, 1992), pp. 226-229. 54 H. Franken and J. Kalsbeek, Potters of a Medieval Village in the Jordan Valley. Excavations at Tell Deir ‘Alla: A Medieval Tell, Tell Abu Gourdan, Jordan. (Amsterdam, 1975). 55 O. LaBianca, Sedentarization and Nomadization: Food System Cycles at Hesban and Vicin- ity in Transjordan. Hesban 1. (Berrien Springs, 1990), pp. 222-223. R. SCHICK 573 scale clearance of the site of Shobak in southern Jordan, by the Department of Antiquities in the early 1990s.

CEMETERIES

The uppermost Ottoman strata at tell sites are commonly cemeteries, and they have often been summarily removed by excavation projects interested in earlier remains. Rarely is there much of any information about those cemeteries, that as often as not are only vaguely datable to the Ottoman period. Fully regularized cemeteries with tombstones developed in the 20th century. To cite just one ex- ample among many of a cursorily excavated Ottoman cemetery, at Avot in the Upper Galilee in 1980-1981 Braun noted field walls, terracing and animal pens dating no earlier than the 13th century to the present, along with bedouin burials characterized by stone-lined graves, with single, flexed burials facing Mecca with no grave goods.56 The meticulous documentation of hundreds of cist burials in the Muslim bedouin cemetery at Tell Hesi places it in a class by itself. A large American expedition excavated the multiple-period site of Tell Hesi between 1970 and 1983 and the project made the remarkable decision to record the Ottoman cem- etery as carefully as the other earlier strata. Their care produced two major pub- lications of the Ottoman period cemetery,57 in which they document and analyze hundreds of burials. Their field recording and computer coding covered such aspects as field data, grave data, skeletal data, and artifactual data. From their study of the typology of burials, secondary characteristics such as the orientation of the skeleton and the position of limbs, associated artifacts, such as beads, pendants, rings, and bracelets, and osteometrics and paleopathology, Toombs and Eakin were able to conclude that the cemetery of stratum II at Tel Hesi was in use from around 1550 to 1800 A.D. The population was bedouin and Muslim and characterized by a short life span. Most of the burials were stone-lined cists and some later burials cut into earlier ones. Often artifacts such as jewelry were found with the skeletons. The general nutritional health of the population was poor, but notably their teeth were in good shape, due to the absence of sugar in their diet.

SHIPWRECKS

One can also note four excavated shipwrecks from the period, reported briefly by Rabin.58 56 P. 123 in E. Stern, (ed.), The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. (Jerusalem, 1993). 57 Toombs, Tell; Eakins, Tell. 58 A. Raban, Pp. 960-963 in Stern, New Encyclopedia. 574 THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF PALESTINE/JORDAN IN THE EARLY OTTOMAN PERIOD

At Nahal Megadim, south of Haifa, a 16th-17th-century shipwreck was exca- vated between 1968 and 1974. On board the ship was a cargo of fragments of Roman and Hellenistic bronze statues, and other metal, two bronze cannons, and breach-loading swivel guns of Spanish manufacture. At Nahal Oren, 7 km south of Haifa, a 16th-century shipwreck was excavated in 1978. The ship was a Mamluk naval variant of a Venetian galley. Recovered were a bronze bow cannon, breach-loading swivel guns, stone and iron cannon balls, copper helmets, and an iron anchor. At Tel Sahar, 6 km south of Haifa, a 16th-century shipwreck was excavated in 1980. The Mamluk ship was carrying a cargo of scrap metal, including over half a ton of copper coins in wicker baskets, some silver coins, copper nails, and other junk metal. The coins had been minted in eastern Anatolia, northern Syria, northern , and Mongolia. Just north of Sharm esh-Sheikh in the Sinai Peninsula, a 16th-century ship- wreck was excavated in 1971.59 The amphorae and copper vessels on the deck contained mercury, used to refine gold. The small ship was made of local build- ing materials, such as acacia.

EARTHQUAKES

There were a number of earthquakes in the 16th and 17th centuries,60 but little attempt has been made to identify any physical trace of them. An earthquake in 1545 is reported to have caused damage in Jerusalem and in Bethlehem, but an earthquake in 1546 caused more extensive damage. In Jerusa- lem the minaret at Bab al-Silsilah and the Madrasah al-Ashrafiyah were dam- aged; the city wall was damaged near the Golden Gate; and the dome of the Dome of the Rock collapsed, as did the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepul- chre, along with many towers. Major damage was also reported for Nablus, Da- mascus, Jaffa, Hebron, Ramla, and Gaza, where the Madrasa of Qaitbay was completely destroyed. The flow of the Jordan River was blocked for two days by a landslide.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS

Archaeological surveys have recorded plenty of early Ottoman sites, but only for the Karak plateau in Jordan has the information from surveys been utilized for an analysis of settlement patterns.61 The areas of settlement are influenced by

59 A. Raban, The Shipwreck off Sharm-el-Sheikh. Archaeology 24.2 (1971), pp. 146-155. 60 D. Amiran, E. Arieh, and T. Turcotte, Earthquakes in Israel and Adjacent Areas: Macroseismic Observations since 100 B.C.E. Israel Exploration Journal 44 (1994), pp. 260-305. 61 Brown, Late Islamic Settlement Patterns. R. SCHICK 575 political as well as environmental factors. In the Karak plateau, the early Otto- man period was marked by a decline in economic stability. There was a decline in agricultural villages and a shift to pastoralism. Brown's analysis notes an in- crease in the number of sites, but not an increase in population. Rather, there were smaller dispersed nomadic encampments demonstrating less intense, less frequent occupation of sites.

POTTERY TYPOLOGIES

Brown's study is the best for coverage of the southern Levant as a whole,62 while the studies of Abu Ghurdan and Dhra‘ al-Khan are the most useful single site presentations.63 The Early Ottoman period was characterized by a sharp drop in the frequency of glazed wares, and the general use of coarse hand-made ves- sels, representing village house-hold production, and limited wheel-made pro- duction in the towns. A type of pottery known as “Gaza ware” is characteristic for the later Ottoman period, and when this type first appeared is an unresolved question of some significance for dating sites.64

62 Brown, Late Islamic Ceramic Production.; see also R. Brown, The Ceramics. Pp. 169-280 in J. Maxwell Miller, Archaeological Survey of the Kerak Plateau. (Atlanta, 1991). 63 Franken and Kalsbeek, Potters; Kareem, Settlement. 64 S. Rosen and G. Goodfriend, An Early Date for Gaza Ware from the Northern Negev. Pales- tine Exploration Quarterly 125 (1993), pp. 143-148.