The Arab Settlement of Late Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine: New Village Formation and Settlement Fixation, 1871-1948

Seth Frantzman

Most of the first Jewish rural settlements established in Ottoman Palestine in the late 19 th Century have something in common that has not yet been systematically analyzed. This common factor is their physical location: on low or high ground. Most of the first Jewish settlements were established in plains and valleys for several reasons, while Arab rural settlements were located in the hills and mountains. The paper discusses how Palestinian notables (effendis) who purchase or leased the usufruct rights to state land after the promulgation of the Ottoman Land Code in 1858, subsequently sold all or part of their landholdings in the valleys and plains of Late Ottoman Palestine to Jewish purchasers until the British conquest of Palestine in 1917.

During the late Ottoman and British Mandatory periods the cultural and environmental landscape of Palestine changed dramatically. This was reflected in both urban development and rural settlement patterns. In the last decades of Ottoman rule much of the newly settled rural low country of Palestine, including the coastal plain and Jordan valley, was strongly influenced by Bedouin tribes, who were living in various states of mobile pastoralism. By the end of the British Mandate the majority of the Bedouin, with the exception of those living in the Negev in Southern Palestine, had become sedentary in one form or another. The Bedouin actively built about 60 new villages and dispersed settlements, comprising several thousand houses. The Mandate authorities estimated the population of these Bedouin villages to be 27,500 in 1945. Our paper examines who the inhabitants of these Bedouin villages were, tracing them from their nomadic and pastoral origins in the late Ottoman period to their final sedentarization under the British Mandate. We examine how Mandatory land policies and Jewish land purchases created legal and demographic pressures for sedentarization. In shedding light on these intertwined topics we illustrate the increasingly limited role the Bedouin played in the rural landscape due to constraints placed upon them and show how, as a result, their settlement was part of a change in the environment in the period.

This doctoral dissertation seeks to describe and explain the human factors that influenced the spatial distribution of Arab settlements in the Plain of Sharon and Samaria/Jabal Nablūs (hereinafter: Jabal Nablūs), which together form its area of study (hereinafter: AoS). More specifically, it explores the geographical, social and economic features of the Arab settlements in the AoS between the years 1700 – 1948 CE. In doing so, the study outlines the settlement processes, identifying the places of origin of the settlers and clarifying the circumstances of their arrival in the AoS. Furthermore, it describes the tenurials of land ownership, possession and use at the family, village and regional levels. The work won the Middle East & Islamic Studies Association of Israel (MEISAI)'s 2023 award for outstanding Ph.D. dissertation.

The Arab settlement of Late Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine: New Village Formation and Settlement Fixation, 1871-1948 Thesis submitted for the degree of ―Doctor of Philosophy‖ By Seth J. Frantzman Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem June 2010/Tammuz 5770 The Arab settlement of Late Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine: New Village Formation and Settlement Fixation, 1871-1948 Thesis submitted for the degree of ―Doctor of Philosophy‖ By Seth J. Frantzman Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem June 2010/Tammuz 2010 22 This work was carried out under the Supervision of: Professor Ruth Kark of The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 23 Acknowledgement I would like to sincerely thank Professor Ruth Kark for her guidance, patience, and unending support during my doctoral studies at the Hebrew University. Her endless encouragement to explore new topics, her assistance in developing my research skills and her serving as a scholarly role model were all essential to my completing this project. It was she who first suggested studying ruins in the Jerusalem foothills and encouraged me to expand the research and it was she who encouraged this project to aim ambitiously for a study of the entirety of Palestine. I would also like to acknowledge the support of Dr. Ran Aaronsohn and Prof. David Grossman for supporting this project and being flexible in supporting the ambitious nature of this work. During the course of my doctoral studies many people provided invaluable assistance; Tammy Sofer of the Geography Department at the Hebrew University, Rachel Kangiser at the map library of Hebrew University at Mount Scopus was always helpful and flexible with my work. Ram Almog and Dov Gavish of the now closed Hebrew University Aerial Photo archive. Ayelet Rubin of the Jewish University and National Library Eran Laor cartographic collection, and the personel at the Haganah archives in Tel Aviv and the Israel State Archives in Jerusalem. I would like to thank Iris Avivi of the Rothberg International School at the Hebrew University and Dr. Hillel Cohen of the Truman Institute, both of whome were formative influences during my work on my M.A. Prof. Sasson Sofer was very supportive and also influential in reading my M.A work and giving it high marks. Prof. Gad Yair also provided me with essential guidance and recommendations. At the University of Arizona I want to thank Dr. James Todd and Prof. Richard Cosgrove who supported me in my B.A work and served always to encourage me along the long road towards pursuing academics. Prof. Charles Smith also encouraged me in my interest in the Middle East while Dr. Del Phillips, Giana Sperra, Alex Reyes and Ray Sharpe encouraged me to go abroad. In Tucson, Arizona Rabbi David Freelund encouraged me in my interest in Israel. There are also numerous people, friends and colleagues, who supported me over the years in Jerusalem with my various research activities, many of them connected to my doctoral work. Among these must be numbered Jonathan Yudelman, Avi Margolin, Eitan Halevy, Zeev Clement, Yekaterina Ushomirsky, Pnina Radai, Kasaey Damoza, Jovan Culibrk of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Father Athanasius Macora of the Custody of the Holy Land and the Hebronite Communist Sonia Ashab. And I must mention the undying and ever-present support of my family, particularly Lucy Abbot, my mother and Joel Frantzman, my father, as well as my cousin Jesse Abbot, my sister Julia FrantzmanDiaz and the inspiration of my Grandfather, Leo Frantzman and Grandmother Bedeiux Abbot. 24 Table of Contents Acknowledgements List of Figures and Tables Currency and Measures Note on Transliteration 1 8 15 15 Preface 21 Introduction 23 State of the Research 25 Theoretical Background: Nature of Rurality 33 Sources 38 Research methods 45 Methodological problems 49 Expected contribution 52 Criteria 53 The Logic behind this study’s periodization 58 Chapter 1: Legal and settlement processes in 19th century Palestine 63 The Geography of Palestine 65 Settlement Patterns 1596-1880 66 Bedouins 67 Land Laws 1856-1867 68 25 The Arab Village in Palestine 68 Muslim Immigrants and Settlers in the 19th century 78 The PEF survey of Palestine, 1871-1877 81 Chapter 2: From Ruin to Settlement in rural Ottoman Palestine 1871-1922; 86 General description of the period 86 Abdul Hamid II and the Late Ottoman Period 87 Investors in Land 89 Bedouins 90 Infrastructure and Environmental Change 93 Demographics 94 Sixty-nine new villages 1871-1922 95 The Galilee Panhandle Villages: Seasonal settlements not included in the 1922 census 96 The Ottoman Administrative dispersion of these villages 98 The Geographical location of the new villages and hamlets 104 The Population of the new settlements 110 The Size of the landholdings of the new settlements 113 The Origins of the Settlers 1871-1922 121 Settlement Structural Patterns: How did the settlements appear? 141 Which villages existed in 1596? 156 26 What was the physical origin of the settlement: Ruins? Makams? 158 Abdul Hamid II’s role: The southern bloc and other lands he owned 164 The Role of Effendis 167 When were the settlements established? 172 Algerians 172 Bedouins Settlers 173 A comparison with Jewish settlement patterns in the same period 174 Conclusion: The establishment of new Arab and Muslim villages in 175 Palestine Chapter 3: New Arab Rural Settlements in Mandatory Palestine Between the 1922 census and 1931 census The Mandate Period 1922-1931 177 177 Land settlement and survey: Torrens, Sir Ernest Dowson and the 1928 Land Reform 178 The Constitution of Villages coorespondence and Survey of Palestine during the British Mandate: Evidence for new village formation 185 Jewish land purchases 190 Fifty-two new villages and Hamlets 1922-1931 191 The 1922 and 1931 Census: discussion, characteristics, definitions, logic and problems 192 The Administrative Distribution of the Villages 27 194 The Geographical Distribution of the Villages 198 The Size of the land holdings of the villages 201 The Size of the population of the villages 208 The physical appearance of the villages 212 The origins of the inhabitants of the villages 220 The causes of settlement fixation of the villages 227 Physical Origin 236 The Jordan’s Rift Valley, the new villages, the Bedouins, Mandatory Policy 19221931 and the Ghor-Mudawara agreement 238 Comparison with Jewish settlement in the same period 1922-1931 240 Conclusions on the period 1922-1931 Settlement trends and processes 244 Chapter 4: 1931-1948 Settlement fixation in the middle and late Mandatory period 245 Part 1 1931-1938 An Overview 246 Nine new settlements 1931-1938 249 Part 2 1938-1945 New settlements and some older settlements 255 Part 3 1945-1948 Settlements without people and unrecognized settlements 265 Chapter 5: The demographic history of the villages, 1922-1948 Population increase 286 288 28 Jewish settlement and the abandonment or relocation of villages 291 Irregular growth rates 293 The Case of the ‘Constitution of Villages’ 1941 298 Post-script: the Villages and the 1948 war 299 Chapter 6: Case Study, The Baysan Valley 300 Introduction 300 Overview 302 Private Lands 304 The Young Turk Revolution 311 German Maps 315 First Years of the Mandate 318 The Ghor-Mudawara Agreement 321 After the Ghor-Mudawara Agreement 327 JNF Land 328 The Landless Arab Schemes 330 Conclusion 335 341 Chapter 7: Discussion The number of settlements, their landholdings and population 341 The geographic distribution of the settlements 1945 342 The distribution by Mandatory sub-district 344 Ruins 345 Bedouins 346 29 Daughter Villages 347 Outside influences: Adbul Hamid, Jews and Effendis 348 The Progress of Settlement formation 349 Rate of new village formation: Comparisons 350 The use of Maps 352 Conclusion Postscript 354 361 Bibliography 363 Glossary 377 Appendices 378 Appendix 1: The Villages, hamlets and other sites identified and included in this research (By sub-district and then alphabetically) 378 Appendix II: Selected aerial photographs from 1944 30 398 List of Figures Figure 1 Aerial photo 1945 and Map of Bawati. 23a Sources: Aerial photo of Bawati Zaba, 1945, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS18_No.6007-02-25.01.1945; Jisr Esh Sh. Husein, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942. Figure 2 Map of Lajjun 1942 55a Source: Silat al Harithiya, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942 . Figure 3 Map of the Huleh, 1890 Source: author unknown. 64a Figure 4 Map of Effendi estates in Palestine, Late 19th and early 20th century Source: Ruth Kark. 69a Figure 5 Examples of Strassendorf (linear) and Haufendorf (nucleated) type 78a settlements alongside examples of nucleated, linear and dispersed settlements and Map of Algerian settlements in Palestine, late 19th century. Map of sub-districts of Mandatory Palestine. Sources: Geographyalltheway.com; unweltspione.de; sakry-looking.de; Palestinerememmbered.com. Figure 6 Map of new Arab villages settled between 1871 and 1922. Source: Created by Seth J. Frantzman. 94a Figure 7 Map of Nahiyas, 1871 96a Source: David Grossman, Arab Demography and the Jewish Early Rural Settlement in Palestine, In Press. 31 Figure 8 Maps of Algerian Settlements in Palestine, late 19th century. Source: Seth J. Frantzman, based on research carried out for this work. 105a Figure 9 Beersheba in 1918 from a German aerial photo. Note the planned 107a network of streets. Source: German Aerial Photos, JNUL 564, FL. 324.2838, April. 9, 1918, ‗Beerseba‘, H. 4000.Br.50. Figure 10 Map of Beit Shanna, Amwas, 1930 107b Source: Topocadastal series, Sheet 12-12, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1930, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1930. Figure 11 Map of Kaufakha showing the planned layout of the village. Source:Village Development Survey, 1:625, 1260115, JC900 D1, JC-65, 1946. 108a Figure 12 Map of Abdul Hamid II lands in the area of Baysan, 108a Source: Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid II and Palestine: Private land and imperial policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 2008, 129-166. Figure 13 Photo of Caeseria, 1893. Source: Unknown origin, www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/index2.html. 109a Figure 14 Map of Abdul Hamid II Lands where new Arab villages were established. 116a Source: Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid II and Palestine: Private land and imperial policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 2008, 129-166. Figure 15 PEF map showing Kh. Ismallah as a ruin in relation to nearby 117a Kfar Uriah (top left) and Deir Rafat (bottom). Source: PEF 1:63:360, 1872-77 by Lts. Claude Conder and Horatio Kitchener, Map of Western Palestine in 26 sheets (Sheet XVIII) from surveys conducted for the committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. London, 1883. Figure 16 Aerial photo of Masmiya and Huraniya, 1917. 123a Sources: German Aerial Photos, JNUL 338, FL. 321.91, Jan. 1, 1917, ‗Mesmije, H. 3200.Br.21. Figure 17 Palmach and Hish made map of the village of Islin (upper left) in 1948. 125a Source: Haganah Archives, Palmach, Islin, 1;5000, February 1948, 8/village/13. Figure 18 Aerial photo of Salbit (lower) and Beit Shanna (upper), 1948. 125a The intelligence officers marked the villages on the map but actually did so incorrectly, indicating Salbit in the upper portion, when in fact it is the opposite. See Figure 10 for comparison. Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Salbit and Beit Shanna, Birger archive BirgerHP0642, July 4, 1948, 1488-1418, 10B-5. Figure 19 Sajad in 1948. 125a 32 Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Sajad 3, Birger archive BirgerHP0243, February 29, 1948, 1399. Figure 22 A photo of Mallaha ascribed to 1922. The photo‘s authenticity 127a and date is confirmed by a British aerial from 1944 that shows the large white house in the background. Note the reed huts still used by the villagers. Source: www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/index2.html . Figure 21 The growth of the Bedouin settlement of Abu Fadl 1880-1945. 127a Source: Ramla, Topocadastal series, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1929, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1929 . Figure 22 Map showing Bedouin tribes in the area of Baysan 1880-1920. 129a Source: Survey of Western Palestine, Sheet no. 9, 1:63,360, Conder, C.R., and Kitchener, H.H., Palestine Exploration Fund, London, 1880; Jewish and National University Library Beisan, 4, 1:100,000, F.J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1937, Mt. Scopus map library BB 900 C - [1] 1937. Figure 23 Map of Tabgha and souroundings, 1889. Note the ruin 132a in the upper left called ‗Tell Hum‖ described as ‗Hutten d. Beduinen. Later this became the site of the new village of es Samakiya. Source: Karte von Kapharnaum bis Tabaka, 1:25,000, by Gottlieb Schumacher, Haifa, July 1889. Figure 24 Aerial photo taken by the Shai of Tuleil on the Huleh, 1948. 132a The village appears to be abandoned and the photo was probably taken in the spring of of 1948. Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Birger collection HP0431, Shai0103, unknown date. Figure 25 PEF map showing Beit Shanna and Salbit as ruins, 1880. Source: Palestine Exploration Fund Map, Sheet XVII, 1:63,360, London: 1880. 136a Figure 26 Photo of Nebi Rubin festival in the 1930s. Source: Library of Congress online photo archive, Nabi Ruin 3c02385. 139a Figure 27 Wadi Hunein showing Nes Ziona and nearby Muslim mosque and estate 139a houses, 1942. Source: Ramla, Topocadastal series, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942. Figure 28 PEF map of the area around Jisr al Zarqa, 1880. 142a Source: Palestine Exploration Fund Map, Sheet 7 and 8, 1:63,360, London: 1880. Figure 29 Aerial photo of Shuna in 1948. 146a Source: January 1948, Esh Shuna, 1956-2571, Birger photo archive, Yad Yitzhak BenZvi, 103-104. 33 Figure 30 Photo of Circassian Rihaniya showing mosque (building in background 146b with green tower and old stone buildings perhaps dating from the period when Rihaniya was a ruin before being settled by Circassian refugees, 2008. Source: Seth J. Frantzman, own photograph, September 21, 2008. Figure 31 PEF map showing Islin as a ruin in the 1870s. Source: Palestine Exploration Fund Map, Sheet XVII, 1:63,360, London: 1880. 151a Figure 32 Private lands of Abdulhamid II in Palestine, 1908. 155a Source: Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid II and Palestine: Private land and imperial policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 2008, 129-166. Figure 33 Photo of Taji family estate house in Wadi Hunein, unknown date but 159a probably from 1930s. Source: Palestine Remembered website, photo posted by user without reference. Figure 34 1948 photo of Kh. Ismallah after conquest by Jewish fighters in 1948. 159a Compare to Figure 68. Source: Jewish residents of the site today, provided to the author without reference but which the author has confirmed, through examination of British aerial photos from 1944, is the site. Figure 35 German Aerial Photo showing Nes Ziona and Wadi Hunein in 1918. 162a Source: German Aerial photos, JNUL 338, FL 304. 854. April 12, 1918, Ness Siona, 2477, H. 3700. Br. 50. Figure 36 Map showing Abdul Hamid II‘s southern planned settlements, 1918. 166a Source: Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid II and Palestine: Private land and imperial policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 2008, 129-166. Figure 37Aerial photo of Mallaha in 1948. Compare to figure 20, the white 167a building and reed huts at the lower part of the photo are visible in both. Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Birger collection HP0233, Shai0103_233, April 21, 1948, 2047-2773. Figure 38 Map indicating lands of new Arab villages settled between 1871 and 168a 1922 and those of Jewish settlements founded in the same period plotted on an Index of villages map from 1942. The lands did not necessarily belong entirely to residents of the Jewish or Arab settlements. Source: Seth J. Frantzman based on research and Index to Villages and Settlements, 1:250,000 Mount Scopus Map Library 900B (AO-1) 45A, 1942, (1). Figure 39 Map of new Arab villages settled by 1822 and 1931. Source: Author‘s research 34 188a Figure 40 Aerial photo of Jammasin al Gharbi in 1948. 193a Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Birger collection HP0394, Shai0103_394, April 7, 1948, 1438-1372. Figure 41 Aerial photo of Zalafa (Jenin sub-district) from 1948. 211a Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Birger collection HP0289, Shai0103_289, no date but probably from April of 1948. Figure 42 Aerial photo from 1945 showing Zaba compared with a map from 211a 1942 of the same area. Sources: Aerial photo of Zaba, January 25, 1945, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS18_No.6007-25.01.1945; Jisr Esh Sh. Husein, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942 . Figure 43 Location of major swamps in Palestine in 1925 with new Arab settlements that arose between 1871 and 1948 indicated. Source: author‘s own research; map courtesy David Grossman. 212a Figure 44 Aerial photo of Hamma from 1948. 222a Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Birger collection HP0543, Shai0103_543, no date but probably from April of 1948. Figure 45 PEF map showing Kh. Wereidat which would later be called Hamam, see Figure 42. Source: Palestine Exploration Fund Map, Sheet VI, 1:63,360, London: 1880. 227a Figure 46 Photo of the ruins of Yarda as they appeared in 2005. Source: Seth J. Frantzman , photo, 2005. 231a Figure 47 Photo of the ruined Caravanserai, Jubb Yosef, from 1894. 245a Source: Palestine Remembered website, date and actual source unreferenced, but modern day photos confirm that it is the site. Figure 48 Jisr al Zarqa as it appeared in 2007. Compare with Figure 28. Source: Survey of Israel, 2007 246a Figure 49 Map of Kh. Shomariya with Jisr al Zarqa printed over it in Hebrew, 246b 1942. Compare with Figure 48 and 28. Source: Caeseria, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942, updated in 1949. Figure 50 Aerial photo of the Bedouin settlement of Abu al Fadl 1945, compare 252a with Figure 21. Source: Aerial photo of Abu al Fadl, 1945, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS18_No.6007, exact photo date unknown. 35 Figure 51 The Negev and Beersheba sub-district in 1934 showing major tribes, 263a settlements and police posts. Unfilled circles indicate settlements. Note Khalasa and Auja Hafir (both south of Beersheba) are both indicated by a circle. No other settlements are shown in the sub-district. Source: ‗Aref Al ‗Aref, Bedouin Love, Law and Legend, (New York: AMS, 1974, originally 1934) the map in the original book in Arabic is from 1934. The tent symbol indicates tribal boundaries. Figure 52 Ein Rafa in 1942 showing newly constructed houses built by residents 266a of Suba. Source: Ein Karim, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942. Figure 53 Map showing the newly established Christian Arab settlement of 275a Mansura, 1942. Compare with Figure 54. Source: Sasa, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942. Figure 54 PEF map 1880 showing Mansura as a ruin, compare with Figure 53. Source: Palestine Exploration Fund Map, Sheet II, 1:63,360, London: 1880. 275a Figure 55 Aerial photo of a few houses of the Bedouin settlement of 283a Zangariya, 1948. Note their dispersion, a remnant of the Bedouin heritage and a pattern differing greatly from that found in Arab villages in the hill country of Mandatory Palestine. Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Birger collection HP0292, Shai0103_292, 20512607, no date but probably from April of 1948. Figure 56 Aerial photo of the Abdul Hamid II settlement of Jaladiya, 1948. 287a Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Birger collection HP0401, Shai0103_401, 1263-1223, March 19, 1948. Figure 57 Aerial Photo of Deir Mukheisin, 1948. The houses in the lower part of the photo along the road are all new construction and do not appear on 1930 Mandatory maps. Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Birger collection HP0394, Shai0103_394, 1263-1223, March 19, 1948. 291a Figure 58 Map of Kfar Bara in 1956, compare to Figure 59. Houses first 291a appeared at the site in 1917 maps and subsequently in Mandatory era Survey of Palestine maps. Source: Kfar Saba, 1:20,000, Survey of Israel, Sheet 14-17, November 1956. Figure 59 Kfar Bara in 2007, compare to Figure 58. Source: Kfar Saba, 1:20,000, Survey of Israel, Sheet 14-17, 2007. 291a Figure 60 Kh. Wadi el Hamam in 1942, also known as Hamam, Kh. Wereidat. Part of the larger settlement of Wa‘ara es Sauda. A few houses can be seen. 292a 36 Source: Tiberias, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942. Figure 61 A Map showing Bawati (Hakamiya) and Zaba (Mazra Zia) in 1913. 306a Source: Bissan, 1:12,222 in Ruth Kark, ‗The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,‘ Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, Institute for Neohellenic Research N.H.R.F. Tetradua Ergasias 25/26 (2004), p. 197-220, 202-204. Also see Central Zionist Archive (CZA), RG J15M, File 38. Figure 62 Map of lands settled under the Ghor Mudawarra agreement showing 315a Jewish and Bedouin settlements, 1922-1945. Sources: Palestine, Index to Villages and Settlements, 1:250,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library KB 900 B (ADM) - 45A; ‗Statement of Areas Covered by Beisan Land Agreement, Oct. 1924, ISA 2599/5/22, RG 22. Figure 63 Aerial photo 1945 and Map of Bawati. 319a Sources: Aerial photo of Bawati Zaba, 1945, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS18_No.6007-02-25.01.1945; Jisr Esh Sh. Husein, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942. Figure 64 Aerial Photo 1944 and Map of Ghazawiya. Note the Bedouin tents on 320a the right side of the photo and the new Jewish kibbutz Avuqa on the left. Sources: Aerial Photo of Ghazawiya, 1944, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, Ghazawiya-PS4_No.6021_12.12.1944; Es Safa, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1942; Jisr esh Sh. Husein, Topocadastal series, Sheet 20-22, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1940, Mt. Scopus map library AD 900 A[1] 1940/12 Figure 65 Map of all the new villages identified by the author, 1945. Source: Seth J. Frantzman. 336a Figure 66 Unrecognized Villages and Settlements without inhabitants Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this work. 338a Figure 67 Villages constructed on existing ruins Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this work. 341a Figure 68 Villages with inhabitants of Bedouin origin Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this work. 344a Figure 69 Daughter villages and settlements whose origins were as seasonal settlements Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this work. 352a Figure 70 Aerial photo of Kh. Ismallah (upper left) and Deir Rafat, 1944. Source: Mount Scopus Photo Archive, PS1 No. 5023, December 7, 1944. 347a 37 Figure 71 Aerial photo of Iktaba, 1948. Source: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Birger collection HP0684, Shai0103_684. June 4, 1948, 1552-1925. 347b Figure 72 Photo of Arab on Horseback Source: Walid Khalidi, Before Their Diaspora: A Photographic History of the Palestinians, 1876-1948, Washington D.C., Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984 358a List of Tables Table 2.1 The population of Palestine in 1914/1915 94 Source: U. O. Schmelz, ‗Population characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron regions according to Ottoman census of 1925‘ in Gad G. Gilbar (ed), Ottoman Palestine 18001914:Studies in Economic and Social History, E.J. Brill, Leiden: 1990. Table 2.2 Villages by Ottoman sub-district, 1880-1917 96 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, based on calculations from Conder, Claude R., and Horatio Kitchener. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archeology. Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Republished Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970. Volumes 1-4. Table 2.3 New Villages in 1922 by Ottoman sub-district, 1880-1917 98 Source: Seth J. Frantzman based on research and Conder, Claude R., and Horatio Kitchener. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archeology. Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Republished Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970. Volumes 1-4. Table 2.4 New villages by their nahiya or kaza, 1880-1917 100 Source: Seth J. Frantzman based on research and Conder, Claude R., and Horatio Kitchener. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archeology. Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Republished Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970. Volumes 1-4. Table 2.5 Geographical Location of new villages in 1922 38 101 Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from Palestine Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922, taken on the 23rd of October, 1922. Compiled by J.B Barron, printed in Jerusalem by the Greek-Convent Press. Table 2.6 The population of the new settlements in 1922 from smallest to largest 108 Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from Palestine Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922, taken on the 23rd of October, 1922. Compiled by J.B Barron, printed in Jerusalem by the Greek-Convent Press. Table 2.7 Size of landholdings of the new settlements established by 1922 110 Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938. Table 2.8 The origins of the settlers of new Arab settlements 1871-1922 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this study. 134 Table 2.9 Settlements re-established after 1871 that existed in 1596 149 Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from Wolf Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah, Historical-Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the late 16th Century. Table 2.9.1 The size of the landholdings of villages established on Abdul Hamid II‘s lands 164 Source: Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid II and Palestine: Private land and imperial policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 2008, 129-166. Table 2.9.2 The date of establishment of the new villages Source: Seth J. Frantzman, based on research for this study. 169 Table 3.1 Geographical location of new villages, 1922-1931 196 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, based on research for this study with reference to Efraim Orni and Elisha Efrat, Geography of Israel, Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1971. Table 3.2 Size of land holdings of new villages 1922-1931 Source: Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938. 200 Table 3.3 Population Size of new villages 1922-1931 204 Source: Census of Palestine, 1931. E. Mills, Superintendent of Census, Jerusalem, July, 1932. Table 3.4 Number of houses in new villages 1922-1931 206 Source: Census of Palestine, 1931. E. Mills, Superintendent of Census, Jerusalem, July, 1932. Table 3.5 Physical appearance of new villages 1922-1931 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this study. 39 210 Table 3.6 Origins of the settlers of new villages 1922-1931 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this study. 218 Table 3.7 Physical origin of new villages 1922-1931 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this study. 234 Table 4.1 Population of new settlements 1931-1945 Source: Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945. 247 Table 4.2 Population and area of new villages 1938-1945 Source: Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945. 253 Table 4.3 Unrecognized settlements 1945-1948 263 Source: Palestine, Survey Directorate. Palestine Index Gazetteer; Index to Place Names on the 1:100,000 Palestine Series Maps. Cairo: Palestine, Survey Directorate, General Headquarters, Middle East, MDR 599/12077. Reproduced by 17 Map Reproduction Section, Royal Engineers, January 1945. Table 5.1 Population increase of selected villages 1922-1945 Source: Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938. 287 Table 5.2 Village growth rates 1922-1945 294 Source: Palestine Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922, taken on the 23rd of October, 1922. Compiled by J.B Barron, printed in Jerusalem by the Greek-Convent Press; Census of Palestine, 1931. E. Mills, Superintendent of Census, Jerusalem, July, 1932; Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938; Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945. Table 6.1 Lands purchased by Sultan Abdul Hamid II in the Baysan valley. 309 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research derived from Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid II and Palestine: Private land and imperial policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 2008, 129-166. Table 7.1 Distribution of new settlements compared with existing settlements. 344 Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from research and Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945. 40 Currency and Measures One Palestine Pound was, in 1927, worth one English Pound, being the equivalent to 1,000 Palestinian mils, or one Egyptian Pound. A Turkish dunam was equivalent to 919.3 square meters. On 5 February 1928, the British abolished the Ottoman dunam and replaced it with the metric dunam. This measured 1,000 square meters (about 1/4 of an acre; 1,000 meters=.62 miles). The measure of one feddan varied over time and was between 60 and 250 metric dunams. The use of the word ‗dunam‘ in this study refers to metric dunams after 1928. Note on transliteration For Arabic this work has adopted the Library of Congress system of transliteration but without diacritics. For Anglicized place names it uses the spelling of the Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (for instance ‗Gaza‘ instead of ‗Gazza‘). In the case of common words such as Deir and Khurbet this work uses the British Mandatory 1945 Village Statistics and Palestine Index Gazetteer spelling (as opposed to Dayr and Khurbat). For obscure place names whose names cannot be located in Arabic the British Mandatory government‘s transliteration is also used. 41 Preface This work further develops tools for the analysis of rural settlement fixation for use in a historical-geographical context through the use of period maps, censuses, aerial photographs, archival primary sources, period newspapers, written histories and field work. The research focuses on the advent of new villages in a marginal rural environment and discusses the external and internal factors and processes that led to their creation. The study blends aspects of geography, history and demography. The study is situated primarily in the field of historical-geography. It is also ensconced in the subject of area studies of the Middle East and Palestine and provides a method for analyzing the extent to which the rural processes were unique to Palestine and\or the Middle East or a common phenomenon of rural settings in other parts of the world. The purpose of my study is to examine the factors that led to the creation of new villages and their distribution and to provide not only a model for explaining this process but also to provide a detailed history of these settlements and their origins. The research is based on quantitative and empirical methods. In this case the research concentrates on Palestine between the end of the last half century of Ottoman rule and the end of the British Mandate. This study seeks to examine, in a systematic manner, the history, growth and settlement of new Arab villages that were established in Palestine between 1871 and 1948. The dissertation provides details on the numerous1 Arab villages that appeared throughout Palestine during this period and have hitherto been generally overlooked in research on the topic of settlement in Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Case Studies as well as field work are employed to examine the exact nature and extent of these villages, many of which ceased to exist due to the 1948 war. The most important contribution of this work is in establishing the exact population and geographic 1 Preliminary research incorporating the model and research methods that I hope to employ in this dissertation covering the whole of Palestine have shown that in the Jerusalem, Ramla and Gaza districts there were as many as 36 news villages, hamlets and sedenterizing Bedouin tribal settlements that appeared between 1871 and 1948. This does not include the unstable villages that appeared and disappeared during this period. For a discussion of the sources used in the study, including the decision to use only selective Ottoman Turkish sources in translation please see page 39-40. 42 extent of these new villages through systematic work on each sub-district and region of Palestine. The research focuses on the period from the completion of the Survey of Western Palestine conducted by the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) between the years 18711877 and the outbreak of the 1948 war. These dates frame the last years of the Ottoman Empire and the years of British Mandatory rule. Because of the high level of accuracy and detail provided during this period from more reliable maps, aerial photos and counts and censuses, the discussion of new settlements is based on a totality of evidence and documents. Special focus is given to the period of the British Mandate, which provided the security and stability necessary for the creation of new villages in the rural areas of Palestine. The research answers the following questions; 1. How many new places of Arab and Muslim inhabitation were established between 1871 and 1948? 2. What was the primary cause of settlement fixation for the new settlements, internal or external? Did governments or foreigners play a role in initiating these new settlements? Who were the inhabitants of the new settlements and where did they come from? Were they Bedouin, peasants or urban landlords? Were they from inside or outside Palestine? Were they seasonal, off-shoot or daughter settlements of nearby villages? 3. What were the geographic and spatial characteristics of the new villages? What types of places were these new settlements? Were they established on ancient ruins or previously deserted land? Were they built upon or near recently abandoned settlements, pilgrimage sites or oasis? What was their size in population and area (metric dunams)? What building materials and agriculture did they engage in? Were they bunched together or spread out? Where were they situated, for instance were they on hilltops or in valleys, or near existing makams and springs, wells? What was their geographic extent according to region, for instance were there far more new settlements in the Shephelah and far fewer in the Galilee or were they equally distributed throughout Palestine? Were they along well trodden roads and paths and near existing urban centers or farther afield in more rural areas? 43 Introduction On June 19th, 1937 a gathering took place at a Bedouin tent a few kilometer's west of the Jordan river in the Baysan valley of Palestine. In attendance were Assistant District Commissioner for Safed Lewis Y. Andrews and Hana Eff. Boulos, the Arab District officer of Baysan.2 Other Mandatory government representatives were in attendance. There were also the sheikhs and members of the Bawati and Bashatiwa Bedouin tribes as well as Jews from the nearby settlements of Beit Joseph and Kafr Giladi as well as Joseph Nahmani, a Jewish KKL man from Tiberias. As the highest ranking official, Mr. Andrews approached the tent where a white flag was flying. In a solemn manner he tied a knot in the flag and turned to face the assembled men. The Arabs, Jews and Englishmen shook hands and revelry soon followed with shots being fired, target practice and a feast which included roast lamb. The ceremony marked the finalization of a peace agreement between the Jewish moshav Beit Joseph and the neighboring Bedouin tribes, one of whose members, Ahmed Nazzal, had recently been shot by a Jewish guard. According to newspaper accounts the most interesting aspect of this peace pact was the fact that a plot of land was given to the heirs of Mr. Nazzal by the Jews of Beit Joseph.3 This story is not unusual in telling of a peace pact between neighboring Arab and Jewish villages. What is interesting about it is the fact that neither Beit Joseph nor the village of Bawati existed a mere fifty years before this meeting took place. Bawati was one of many Arab villages in the Baysan region and elsewhere that were founded 2 3 Palestine Post Sept. 28th, 1937 Late Mr. L.Y Andrews, Biographical note. Palestine Post, 'Arab Jewish Peace Pact', June 20th, 1937. 44 between 1871 and 1948. It was not mentioned in the British Census of 1922 but in 1931 it had 86 houses and 461 inhabitants. By 1945 it was estimated to have 520 inhabitants. Unlike most of the historical Arab villages whose houses were clustered together the houses of Bawati reflected her Bedouin heritage as a branch of the nearby Ghazawiyya tribe. They were strewn about in a haphazard manner along a road to Baysan, the subdistrict capital and the location of the nearest school (See Figure 1). In 1948 with the coming of war the village‘s inhabitants fled across the river Jordan. The story of the foundation of Bawati, its settlement and the processes that led to this event are central to understanding the history of Palestine in the late Ottoman and Mandatory period. Bawati was not the exception in the valleys of Palestine, but the rule. Everywhere Arabs were on the move, transforming the landscape in dynamic ways. Bedouin tribes were settling. Seasonal villages were being transformed into permanent settlements. Effendis were settling fellahin on their lands. Sultan Abdul Hamid II's vast estates were being transformed into villages. From the borderlands of the Negev desert to the swamps of the Huleh a great and fascinating colonization of the landscape was taking place that would see the establishment of some 140 new villages and the movement of their 60,000 inhabitants from their former settled or nomadic life to new lives in new places. This history was forgotten when it was truncated in 1948. When the majority of these villages were abandoned and destroyed in the course of the war they became names attached to lists, to be catalogued and remembered in monumental works such as Walid Khalidi's All That Remains. The history of the time before 1948, especially the period 1880-1948, became a period dominated by research into Zionism and its opponents. Histories of the Arabs in 45 this period became histories of land struggles, nationalism, rising consciousness and class conflict. Through it all the Arab village became stationary, a thing that was unmoving and unchanging. Things were done to Arab villages. But Arab villages and their inhabitants were not usually, outside of the works of David Grossman and a few other scholars, portrayed as having an agency or a process. Beginning in 1880, with the first Jewish Aliyah, they simply froze in place. But this false sense of a frozen history has not shed light on the processes that did affect the Arab villages of Palestine. These processes were both natural and extraordinary. They were both influenced by the government and part of a general trend of expansion due to increased security, population growth and the opening up of new lands. After 1948 these processes continued in parts of the country, including in the West Bank and the Negev. To a lesser degree they continued in the Galilee and throughout the State of Israel, leading to the growth of villages such as Hamama, Kammana and Ein Rafa. The State of the Research David Grossman, David J. Siddle and J.C Hudson have all provided models and the theoretical background for the study of rural process-pattern relationships and the advent of new villages in a rural setting.4 This is important material, especially when it relates to the colonization of new areas. However in the Palestinian context one of the phenomena that may be unique to the region is the existence of large numbers of ruined settlements that provided the perfect place for settlement fixation, not only for peasants and urban landlords, but also for Bedouins. This subject has been discussed in Norman 4 David Grossman, Rural Process-Pattern Relationships: Nomadization, Sedenterization, and Settlement Fixation, New York: Praeger, 1992; Siddle, D.J. ‗Location theory and the subsistence economy: the spacing of rural settlements in Sierra Leone‘ in The Journal of Tropical Geography, (1970), 31: pp. 79-90; Hudson, J. C. ‚A location theory for rural settlement‘ in Annals of the Association of American Geographers‘ 59 (1969), 365-81. 46 Lewis and Raouf Abujaber in relation to Transjordan and Syria.5 In addition Roger Owen and Charles Issawi have provided discussions of the economic contexts in which this settlement fixation took place.6 One of the most important studies to systematically examine the extent of Arab villages in all of Palestine has been Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah‘s Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria which focused on 16th century Ottoman Palestine, but also compared it to 19th century Palestine7 and two neighboring areas in modern Syria, Transjordan and Anatolia.8 By contrast Walid Khalidi‘s All that Remains and Benny Morris‘s Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem serve as important systematically compiled sources for the Palestinian villages that ceased to exist due to the 1948 war. There is a gap in the existence of systematic studies that address the extent, village by village, of settlement in Palestine between 1600 and 1948. As Haggai Etkes has recently shown in a case study on Ottoman Gaza, the Ottoman government censuses are problematic.9 After 1596 they were rarely updated and are often unreliable.10 However beginning with the work of the Palestine Exploration Fund Survey in the 1870s and the first British census of 1922 there exists reliable data on the extent and population of Arab villages in Palestine. Case studies such as Yehoshua Ben-Arieh‘s ‗The Sanjak of Jerusalem in the 1872s‘, ‗the rural settlements in the Sanjak of Gaza, including Jaffa and Ramla, in the 1872s‘, his studies of the sanjaks of Acre and Nablus, and Dorit Ayalon‘s work on Deir Rafat have shed light on areas of rural settlement and new settlements in the rural Abujaber, Raouf Sa‘d. Pioneers over Jordan: The Frontier of Settlement in Transjordan 1850-1914. I.B Tauris, 1989; Lewis, Norman. Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1987. 6 Roger Owen and Sevket Pamuk. A History of the Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century, 1999; Owen, Roger. State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, London: Routledge, London: Routledge, 2004. Issawi, Charles P. An Economic History of the Middle East and North Africa, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 7 See Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, Historical Geography of Palestine: Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Last 16th Century, 168, (Nurnberg: Palm and Enke, 1977), p. 56. 8 Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah, Historical Geography of Palestine, p. 54-55. 9 Etkes, Haggai, ‗Legalizing Extortion: Containing Armed Bedouin Tribes by State Regulated ―Protection Payments‖ and Military Forces in Ottoman Gaza (1519-1582),‘ 2227, (The Hebrew University, Unpublished Phd dissertation). (Hebrew) 10 Shaw, Stanford J. ―The Ottoman Census System and Population, 1831-1914‖ in International Journal of Middle East Studies, IX (1978): 325-338. 5 47 hinterland of Palestine.11 But there is a complete absence of a systematic work to focus on the question of new settlements throughout Palestine during the period 1871-1948. There is a vociferous debate regarding the existence of Arab immigration to Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine and the role of the 1948 war in causing the desertion or destruction of numerous Arab villages. Arieh Avneri and Joan Peters have argued that many of the Arabs who became refugees were newcomers to Palestine.12 By contrast Walid Khalidi‘s All That Remains clearly emphasizes the historic and continual nature of the Arab villages in Palestine. Mauros Reinkowski has claimed that the terminology used by some Israeli historians ―insinuates that Arabs do not belong to Palestine, but that a small group out of the total number of Arabs accidentally lives in this place.‖13 In addition these ―Zionist‖ historians (i.e. Avneri, Peters and Reinkowski) maintain ―that Palestine under Islamic rule and the Ottomans [was] desertified and was no longer cultivated in most areas.‖14 According to him ―the pre-Zionist period is characterized by the term ‗backwater‘ that signifies the remoteness of Palestine and its neglect by authorities during the Ottoman period.‖15 David Amiran and Yehuda Karmon‘s extensive and pioneering work on the geography and mapping of Palestine serve as a basis for any study of the country in the modern period.16 In addition Hana Margalit‘s Atlas of Israel and Moshe Brawer‘s Ayalon, Dorit, ‗Deir Rafat,‘ unpublished paper, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2227. Ben-Arieh, Yehoshua, ‗Settlements and Population of the Sançaks of Jerusalem in the 1872s‘ in A. Singer and A. Cohen (eds), Aspects of Ottoman History (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 35), Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994, pp. 218-262;‗The geographical exploration of the Holy Land‘, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 104, 1972, 81-92;‗The Sanjak of Jerusalem in the 1872s.‘ in Cathedra, 36. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi. 1985 (Hebrew); Ben-Arieh, Yehoshua and A. Golan. ‗The Sanjack of Shachem in the 19 th century,‘ Yud-Zayin, 1983, pp. 65-38(Hebrew). 12 Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, JKAP publications, 2001; Arieh Avneri, The Claim of Dispossession, Yad Tebenkin, Efal: 1982 13 Mauros Reinkowski, ‗Late Ottoman rule over Palestine: its evaluation in Arab, Turkish and Israeli histories, 1970-92‘ in Middle East Studies 35 (1999), S. [66]-97, p. 81. 14 Mauros Reinkowski, ‚Late Ottoman‗, p. 82 . 15 ibid, p.79. 16 David, Amiran, ‗Jacotin's Map of Palestine, surveyed during Napoleon's campaign in 1799‘, Palestine Exploration Quarterly (PEQ) 76 (1944), pp.157-163; Palestine: Index Gazetteer, Survey Directorate, GHQ ME 1945, v+205 pp. [2nd edit., Survey of Palestine, 1948]; Sites of Settlements in the Mountains of Lower Galilee, Israel Exploration Journal (IEF) 6 (1956), pp. 69-77;idem, The Pattern of Settlement in Palestine, IEJ 3 (1953), pp. 65-78, 192-209, 250-260; Sites of Settlements in the Mountains of Lower Galilee, IEJ 6 (1956), pp. 69-77; idem, Estimates of the Urban Population of Palestine in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century (withA. Shachar), IEJ 10 (1960), pp. 181-183; idem, ‗Sedentarization of Beduin in Israel‘ (with Y. Ben-Arieh), IEJ 13 (1963), pp. 161-181; Changes in Rural Settlement Structure. in: W.P. Adams & F.M. Helleiner (eds.), International Geography, 1972, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1972, pp. 70011 48 works.17 For instance Brawer provides both the background to Israel‘s borders, an introduction to the village patterns of Judean and Samaria and an introduction to Arab rural settlement in Palestine.18 David Grossman‘s numerous works have shed light on the process of settlement fixation throughout Palestine during the 20th century and the demographics of Palestine between 1835 and 1948.19 His work on the creation of daughter villages and the diffusion of settlements in northwestern Samaria and the western Hebron hills provides a place to begin understanding the creation of new Arab settlements in rural Palestine.20 His explanation of the process of settlement fixation, including that of Bedouins sedenterization and seasonal settlements that become embryos for new settlements is of the utmost importance for understanding the creation of new settlements throughout Palestine.21 In addition his most recent work on Arab Demography and Population Density during the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods has challenged Beshara Doumani‘s view of the economic opening of Palestine and sheds light on the fate of the Bedouin and the situation and migration of the Arab peasantry.22 He has also shown the degree to which the 1834 suppression of a Bedouin rebellion had wide reaching demographic affects that led to the Sarrar basin being ―almost totally cleansed of its 702; idem, The Settlement Structure in Rural Areas: Implications of Functional Changes in Planning, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 27 (1973), pp. 1-4; ‗Topographic maps of Israel from the days of World War I‘, Eretz-Yisrael, 2, 1953, 33-42 (in Hebrew); idem, ‗The rural settlement of the Sanjak of Gaza, including Jaffa and Ramla, in the 1872s‘ in Ran Aaronsohn and Hagit Lavsky (editors), A Land Reflected in its Past: Studies in Historical Geography of Israel, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001, pp. 311-360, Originally published 1983 (Hebrew); idem, ‗The population of the Sanjack of Akko in the 1872s, Shalem Dalet, 1983, pp. 328-329 (Hebrew). Yehuda Karmon, ‗An Analysis of Jacot in's Mapof Palestine‘, IEJ, 12 (1962), pp.155-173,244-253, 23; idem, The Settlement of the Northern Huleh Valley since 1838, Israel Exploration Journal (IEJ), 3 .(1953). pp. 4-25 Brawer, Moshe, ‗Transformation in Arab rural settlement in Palestine‘ in Ruth Kark, The Land that Became Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, New Haven: Yale Univeristy Press, 1990, pp. 167-80; Geographic factors in the demarcation of the Israel-Egypt boundary. Researches in the Geography of the Eretz-Yisrael (Israel), 7, 1970, 125-137 (in Hebrew). 17 18 Ibid. David Gorssman, ‗The Rural Settlement in the Shephelah, 1835-1945, Historical-demography of the Land of Israel in the Modern Period,‘ Catedra, 45, 1987, pp. 57-86. 20 Grossman, Rural Process, pp. 135, 139. 21 Grossman, Rural, pp. 121-127. For sedenterization see pp. 90-91 and 115-119. 22 Beshara Doumani, , ‘The Political Economy of Population Counts in Ottoman Palestine: Nablus, circa 1852‘ in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 1-17; idem, Rediscovering Palestine: Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700-1900. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995. 19 49 former Bedouin population.‖ This is a significant detail if reductions in Bedouin population and increased stability were a prime factor in Arab peasant migration to hitherto deserted ruins and open areas. Grossman also connects this pattern to other parts of Palestine during the same period.23 Ruth Kark‘s extensive work on 19th and 20th century Palestine provides a basis for understanding the various stages of development during the period. In the preface to The Land that became Israel she illustrates four ―central fields‖ affecting Palestine; including the local scene, the development of the cities, the western-Christian influence on the land and the advent of Jewish immigration and settlement.24 In her work with Michal OrenNordheim, Jerusalem and its Environs and also in her essay Stages in the process of spatial change in Palestine 1800-1914 she provides a detailed description of three stages affecting 19th century Palestine. These are the ―expansion of the rural population‖ into peripheral regions, the ―penetration of settlers and entrepreneurs from outside Palestine‖ and the ―partial retreat of the Bedouins.‖25 In addition her paper ‗Land Ownership and Spatial Changes in Nineteenth Century Palestine‘ provides essential background and detail on this aspect of Palestine.26 Kark‘s case studies on Wadi Hawareth and Abu Shusha as well as other case studies such as those of Karmon (Sharon and Huleh Valley) and Scott Atran (Wadi Hawarith) provide important information on specific sites.27 23 See David Grossman, Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Eretz-Israel Palestine: Distribution and Population Density during the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods. Magnes Press, 2004, p. 14 (translated unpublished version); Also David Grossman, Arab Demography and the Jewish Early Rural Settlement in Palestine, In Press. 24 Ruth Kark, The Land that became Israel Studies in Historical Geography, ed. Ruth Kark (New Haven: Yale University Press and Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1989), pp. viii-ix. 25 Ruth Kark, ‗Stages in the process of spatial change in Palestine‘ in Thom Levy, The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land, New York: Facts on File, 1984, pp. 538-539. 26 Ruth Kark, -―Land Ownership and Spatial Changes in Nineteenth Century Palestine.‖ Seminar on Historical Types of Spatial Organization—the Transition from Spontaneous to Regulated Spatial Organization', Warsaw, Poland, April 1983. 27 Scott Atran, ‗The Surrogate Colonization of Palestine 1917-1939‘ in American Ethnologist, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Nov. 1989), pp. 719-744. Kark, Ruth and Shiloni, T. ―The Bergheim family and the farm in Abu Shusha.‖ In The Fertile Crescent 1800–1914, A Documentary Economic History Ed. C. Issawi. New York and Oxford, 1988, 332–36; Ruth Kark, R. and Emir Galili, ‘Privatization of Land in Palestine during the end of the Ottoman, and the Mandate Periods: Land Ownership and Cultivation of Northern Samaria Landlords in the Valley of Yizrael‘, in: Eshel Y. (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies, Ariel College, Ariel, 2006 (Hebrew). 50 Hasan Kayali provides important background material on the late Ottoman period in Palestine.28 Arabic sources such as Mohammed Tamimi and Muhammed Bahjat provide important information on attempts to compile a complete census and description of Palestine during the last years of the Ottoman empire.29 Kemal Karpat, Justin McCarthy, Stanford Shaw, Bernard Lewis, David Grossman and Amnon Cohen have worked on the Ottoman censuses and detailed the problems associated with them.30 In addition Ehud Toledano, Aref al Aref and Amy Singer have shed light on Ottoman policies.31 Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal have both provided general histories of the Palestinians and suggested their formation of a national identity already in the 1830s.32 Kenneth Stein‘s important works on Mandatory Palestine have shed light on both the rural economy and land issues.33 Two of the most recent, specialized and significant studies of the British Mandatory period‘s administration as it relates to Arab settlement and Bedouin is Roza I.M. El Eini‘s Mandated Landscape and Ghazi Falah‘s, The Role of the British Administration in the sedentarization of the Bedouin Tribes in Northern Palestine. These provide a basis for understanding both the policies and geography of the British administration and the role of it in the affairs of the Bedouin. Emanuel Marx, Yosef Ben 28 Hasan Kayali, Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1918. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. 29 Muhammad Rafiq Tamimi, , and Muhammad Bahjat. Wilayat Bayrut. Beirut, 1916–1917. (also appears as Temimi, Mehmet and Bahjat, Wilayat janub Bayrut (The District of South Beirut). Beirut: Matba‘at aliqbal, 1916.) (Arabic). 30 Kamal Karpat, ‗Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893‘ in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Oct., 1978), pp. 237-274. McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. New York: Institute of Palestine Studies and Columbia University Press, 1990. Cohen, Amnon and Bernard Lewis. Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century. Princeton, 1978. Stanford J. Shaw, ―The Ottoman Census System and Population, 1831-1914‖ in International Journal of Middle East Studies, IX (1978): 325-338. 31 Ehud Toledano, ‗The Sanjaq of Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century-Patterns of Rural Settlement and Demographic Trends‘ in Amnon Cohen(Editor), Jerusalem in the Early Ottoman Period. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1979. (Hebrew); Amy Singer, ‗The Countryside 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): 51-79; Aref, al Aref,(Arif, al Arif) ‗The Closing Phase of Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem‘ in Moshe Maoz, Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975, pp. 334-340. 32 David Grossman‘s Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Eretz-Israel Palestine: Distribution and Population Density during the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods. Magnes Press, 2004, (Hebrew), also Grossman, Arab Demography and the Jewish Early Rural Settlement in Palestine, In Press; Baruch Kimmerling, and Joel S. Migdal. The Palestinian People: A History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2003. 33 Kenneth Stein. The Land Question in Palestine. University of North Carolina Press, 1984; ‗Palestine‘s Rural Economy, 1917-1939‘ in Studies in Zionism, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1987, pp. 25-49. 51 David, Avinoam Meir, Clinton Bailey, Tuvia Ashkenazi, Gideon Kressel and Avshalom Shmueli have provided further details on sedenterization and changes in Bedouin lifestyles in the Wilderness of Judea and the Negev.34 In addition introductions to the history of the Bedouin provided by Aref al Aref and Moshe Sharon serve as important material for understanding the political role and geographic extent of the Bedouin in Palestine.35 Joseph Ben David and David Grossman have provided significant insights into the sedenterization of Bedouin, a process that began at the end of the 19th century and continues to this day.36 Most of the research literature, such as that done by Yehoshua Ben-Arieh has focused on existing villages and not with new ones. Despite the fact that scholars have mentioned the phenomenon of new Arab settlements, no study has previously examined it in a systematic and thorough matter by looking spatially at all of Palestine. Theoretical Background: The Nature of rurality The rural settlement is ubiquitous. Since man could build himself the most rudimentary structure he was apt to create small settlements. The rural settlement, being the simplest form of settlement, also contains in its vicinity the simplest necessities for life; water, food and shelter. However "rurality is associated with heterogenous and 34 Emanuel Marx. Bedouin of the Negev. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967; Meir, Avinoam, As Nomadism Ends: The Israeli Bedouin of the Negev, Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1997); Shmueli, Avshalom and David Grossman, Rechavam Zeevi (editors), Judea and Samaria: Study in Settlement Geography, Jerusalem: Canaan, 1977 (Hebrew). 35 Sharon, Moshe, ‗The Political Role of the Bedouins in Palestine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries‘ in Moshe Maoz Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975. 36 Ben-David, Joseph, ‗The processes of Spontaneous Settlement among the Negev Bedouins‘ in C: Bailey (ed), Notes on the Bedouin: A series in Memory of Yithaki Netzer, 7, Midreshet Sede Boker: Field Study Center, 1976, pp. 30-49 (Hebrew); Emanuel Marx. Bedouin of the Negev. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967; Noam Levin, Ruth Kark and Emir Galili, ‗Historical Maps and GIS: Mapping of Southern Palestine 1799-1948, issues of scale and accuracy and possible applications.‘ 2227 (sent for publication). 52 complex conditions, and its nature is not conducive to easy generalizations."37 The very concept of rural settlements and their definition is debated.38 Traditionally there are three types of rural settlements; dispersed settlements containing clusters of not more than 20 people placed at least 150 meters apart, hamlets of between 20 and 100 people and villages which are contigious and have more than 100 people. However even these terms are flexible and have changed over time. Grossman sums this up "because of the difficulties of definition and classification, and because of the dominance of locally specific factors, rural settlements are subject to a bewildering complexity of customs, religious pactices and economic techniques."39 Rural settlements present a problem historically because they do not always lend themselves to archeological investigation, being small, common and scattered about. However the excavation of numerous Crusader era homesteads in the Holy Land or the identification of ruined khans shows that when substantial structures constituted the settlement, even if the population was quite small, it can be revealed. But they represent "at best, only a partial picture."40 Written records do not often record the lives of the poor and rarely record the lives of the rural poor who make up the inhabitants, generally, of hamlets and villages. The fact that rural people, until quite recently, were almost uniformly illiterate means source material for scattered rural settlements is quite rare. There are various models for predicting or explaining how rural settlements appear. They all seem to be predicated on a landscape at one point being uninhabited which, as we shall see, was the case in some of the places that will be discussed. Thomas 37 Grossman, Rural Process-Pattern Relationships: Nomadization, Sedenterization, and Settlement Fixation. New York: Praeger, 1992, p. 1. 38 Grossman, Rural, p.2. 39 Grossman, Rural, p. 2. 40 Grossman, Rural, p. 3. 53 R. Malthus described a process of demographic growth followed by decline in population usually due to some sort of Hobbesian savagery such as war or mass starvation. Jared Diamond used this to describe what had gone wrong in Rwanda in 1994.41 Hudson's village model sees development taking place in three stages. His source was a study of Lincolnshire in the U.K. He saw the first settlements clustered around core elements such as a church. Later 'ribbon development' led to the construction of settlements along routes. The final stage saw the creation of large scale developments and as Grossman writes "limited resources reduces the size of the clusters. Density is lowered and the pattern tends to become regular."42 This model has the advantage of examining not only pre-technological societies but also examining the colonization of a virgin landscape. For our purpouses only the first stages are relevant because, as we shall see, our settlement pattern ceases after a certain number of years because of a war. In another model D.J. Siddle examined Sierrra Leone and found that as opposed to regularity being the end result, that clustering of settlement was the result.43 Because the settlement pattern to be discussed is truncated by time it seems that the result in the end is not necessarily of prime importance. Walter Christaller's Central Place Theory, which he developed from observations and studies in southern Germany, suggested that there are certain laws determining the size and spacing of towns.44 It claims that the larger the settlements are the fewer there will be and the larger they grow the greater the distance between them. It is not that 41 Jarded Diamond, Collapse, New York: Viking, 2005, p. 311. Grossman, Rural p. 5. 43 Siddle, 1970. 44 Christaller (1893-1969) had an interesting career, serving as a Nazi planner under Himmler and after the war as a devoted Communist, his theory was used both in Nazi Ocupied Poland and by the Federal Republic of Germany. 42 54 helpful for the purpouses of this discussion because the settlements examined were never very large and we cannot observe them over a long period. Rank-size distribution is another model that examines the size of villages and cities in relation to one another an occurrence in a certain area. In studies done by Grossman and Sonis in 1989 it was shown that there is a correlation between Palestinian villages and English Cheshire villages.45 Grossman provides a number of parameters and formulations for understanding the logical growth of settlements. He notes that ―peaceful expansion of single farmsteads without any interference by government can be expected to continue as long as sufficient land is available.‖46 In applying this to Palestine it is noted that ―The most widespread form of settlement in the early Ottoman period was the small village.‖47 However in Palestine other factors affected settlement patterns including the existence of strong family bonds around the clan or Hamula (extended family). In addition geography had a great affect on settlement patterns and this points partly to the fact that there was a relationship between site, pattern and resource distribution. In affect this produced the opposite affect of northwestern Europe where nucleation had been ―closely associated with lowlands while dispersal is more common in the mountains.‖48 But nucleation was ―also associated with complex forces and conditions (access to water supply, security, political organization, and inheritance practices.‖49 Inheritance in Islamic societies is divided between heirs and thus helps produce clustering since land is divided among kin, Michael Sonis and David Grossman, ‗Rank-size rule for rural settlements‘, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 18: 1984, pp. 373-380. 46 Grossman, Rural, p. 19. 47 Grossman, Rural, p. 66. 48 Grossman, Rural, p. 12. 49 Grossman, Rural, p. 13. 45 55 rather than given to one son. Security bears on settlement in Palestine and resulted in the creation of ‗Acropolis villages‘ which were built in locations more ideal for defense, rather than ideal for access to resources.50 Other studies have shown that settlement patterns are influenced not only by geography, security, time, external (technology) and internal (demography) factors, but also by cultural patterns of kinship, migration and heritage. In Albion’s Seed, David Fischer examines four ‗folkways‘ of colonists in the New World and shows that each folkway had its own unique settlement pattern. Thus those coming from East Anglia, where there had been villages, hamlets and dispersed farmsteads, replicated the pattern in New England where the Puritan nucleated village was quite common.51 In Virginia the pattern replicated those found in ―the south and west of England…Tidewater plantations were often compared to English manorial communities….neighborhoods tended to become kin-groups.‖52 In Pennsylavia Fischer found a ―form of settlement ]that] had long existed in the north of England-a pattern equally distinct from the town life of East Anglia and the manorial villages of Wessex. Nucleated towns were comparatively rare in the North Midlands…In America this North Midland pattern was modified and reinforced by Quaker ideals.‖53 This resulted in the Quaker planned communities emboding William Penn‘s ideal townships. In the borderlands or backcountry in western Virginia and Appalachia one found that the first settlers created ‗stations‘ or ‗forts‘ for security. This later developed into a scattered settlement pattern of ―isolated farmsteads, loosely grouped sprawling neighbourhoods that covered many miles.‖ One traveler noted D. Amiran, ‗The Pattern fo Settlement in Palestine‘, Israel Exploration Journal 3: 1953, pp. 65-78, 192209, 250-260. 51 See David Fischer, Albions Seed, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989, p. 181-182. 52 Fischer, Albions, p. 393. 53 Fischer, Albions, p. 578. 50 56 farms ―scattered about in these woods at various distances, three to six miles, and often as much as ten or fifteen or twenty miles apart.‖54 These patterns in the New World, which were due at least in part, to the heritage of the immigrants who replicated the lifestyle they had in the Old World, has some ramification for this study of Palestine. Because the settlers arriving on the coastal plain, Baysan valley or Shephelah were settling, in some cases, virgin lands where settlement was infrequent, it is reasonable to examine their origins. In the cases of former residents of the hill country or Bedouins who were formerly nomadic it would be logical to assume that they would replicate their pattern of settlement (in the case of Bedouins, the pattern of settlement found when they set up tents while in summer or winter camps) in the new zones of inhabitation. Thus, while the geography had changed, the settlement pattern might not, partly because of the origins of the settlers. In addition other researchers have found correlation between settlement patterns and economies. Carmen Ocana Ocana and Luisa Gomez Moreno in their article ‗La Axarquia: Building, disorganization and re-building a Mediteranean territory, from barter sytem to post-industrial society‘55examined the area of Axarquia in Spain. They found that ―the shore settlements were few and linked to fishing‖ while in the nearby hills there predominated ―little nucleated settlements surrounded by irrigated terraces with orchards, dispersed settlement linked to the culture of grapes and their drying to get raisins.‖ Eventually ―the progressive abandonment of irrigated or dry hill crop farming fossilized 54 Fischer, Albions, p. 760. Emails with authors August 2008, Carmen Ocana Ocana and Luisa Gomez Moreno, La Axarquia: Building, disorganization and re-building a Mediteranean territory, from barter ssytem to post-industrial society, on a Poster, IGU conference, Tunis, 2008, Departmento de geografia, Universidad de Malaga; Campus de teatinos. 55 57 the previous landscape.‖ They found, in part, that the economies of fishing and grapes in different locales produced different patterns of settlement. This study uses the terminology and background described above but does not seek to provide a complete model for the Arab settlement of Palestine in the late Ottoman and Mandatory period. In general it examines the affect of external and internal factors in the creation of new settlements and seeks to determine the history, size and other characteristics of those settlements and examine why they occurred where and when they did. In general the study follows what other scholars such as Ruth Kark have shown to be three sub-periods of settlement change in Palestine in the 19th century; the first 1799 to 1831, the second 1831-1881 and after 1881.56 The study concentrates on the third period and follows the settlement patterns up through the end of the Mandate. Sources The numerous data sets including maps and censuses from the period and the large number of archival material available at the Israel State, PEF and Haganah (the name of the pre-state Jewish militia) archives among others remain untouched for the purposes of a systematic study of new settlements that appeared in the entirety of Palestine between 1871 and 1948. The most important source for identifying Arab villages that were settled in the period remains the maps, accompanying travel diaries, aerial photos and censuses produced between 1871 and 1945. See Ruth Kark, ‗Stages in the process of spatial change in Palestine 180-1914‘, in The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land, London: Leicester University Press, 1998, p. 538. 56 58 During the 19th century a number of European travelers attempted to provide maps and travelogues that systematically covered the area that would become Mandatory Palestine. Colonel Pierre Jacotin‘s 1826 map,57 of Palestine, produced from research carried out in 1799, was the first modern map of the country58 while Edward Robinson‘s and Smith's 1838 travelogue was one of the first works to systematically examine rural Palestine.59 Albert Socin‘s 1872 population data from his second visit to Palestine provides an insight from the late 19th century before the advent of the Palestine Exploration Fund‘s survey.60 Victor Guerin, Charles Clermont-Ganneau and Charles William Meredith Van de Velde all provided maps and lists of rural Arab villages in their various important surveys and maps made between 1858 and 1882.61 Gottlieb Schumacher and Conrad Schick also drew up lists and, in the former case, maps of Arab villages in various parts of the country in the years 1886-1896.62 The PEF‘s 1882 map and multi-volume Survey of Western Palestine was the first modern survey of Palestine. Its detail provides excellent information on all of the Jacotin‘s map was based on just two months of survey work during Napoleon‘s 1799 campaign in Palestine, in the end six sheets of his Carte topographique de l’Egypte were dedicated to Palestine. See Noam Levin, Ruth Kark and Emir Galili, ‗Historical Maps and GIS: Mapping of Southern Palestine 17991948, issues of scale and accuracy and possible applications.‘, 2227 (sent for publication). 58 Levin, Noam, Ruth Kark and Emir Galili, ‗Historical Maps and GIS: Mapping of Southern Palestine 1799-1948, issues of scale and accuracy and possible applications,‘ unpublished paper, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007; Karmon, Yehuda, An Analysis of Jacot in's Mapof Palestine, IEJ, 10 (1960).pp.155-173,244-253 23; Jacotin, Carte topographique de l'Egypte et de plusieurs parties des pays limitrophes , 1:1,000,000, Jacotin, P., Commission des sciences et arts d'Egypte; Panckoucke, C. L. F. France, 1826, http://www.davidrumsey.com. 59 Robinson, Edward and Eli Smith. Biblical Researches in Palestine: a journal of travels in the year 1838, 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1841; Later Biblical Researches in Palestine: a journal of travels in the year 1852, London: Murray, 1856. 60 Socin, Albert. ‗Alphabetisches Verzeichniss von Ortschaften des Pashalik Jerusalem‘, ZDPV (Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palestina-Vereins), 2, 1879, pp.20-33. 61 Victor Guerin, Carte de la Palestine et de la Region Meridionale du Liban, 1:775,000, V. Guerin, MÉnÉtier, Paris, 1882, Jewish National and University Library, Laor Map Collection: Pal 1288 - Vol. 2, From: Guérin, Victor. La Terre Sainte, 1882, between, Vol. 2, between pp. 150-1; Clermont-Ganneau, Charles. Archeological Researches in Palestine: during the years 1873-1874. Vol. II. London: PEF, 1896; Van de Velde, C.W.M. Memoir to accompany the Map of the Holy Land, N.P: Gotha, 1852. 62 Gottlieb Schumacher, The Jaulan, London: Bentley, 1888; Conrad Schick, ‗Zur Einwohnerzahl des Bezirks Jerusalem,‘ ZDPV, 19, 1896. 57 59 villages of Palestine from the years 1871-1877.63 While the PEF‘s Survey of Western Palestine did not provide a census, when it is combined with the work of Guerin, together they provide a list of place names and descriptions of the inhabitants and sites that is comparable in form to the Palestine Index Gazetteer published and updated during the British Mandate (Survey of Palestine, 1945). The Ottoman government also compiled a number of censuses. The most pertinent for this research is the data published in the Syrian Yearbook (Salname Vilayet Suriya) for 1871-72 (1288 of the Hijra) and in 1880-81 (1298 of the Hijra). The 1871/72 Ottoman data not only represents precisely the same years as the PEF was involved in its survey but it also provides data on the village level and is thus an important point of reference for the research.64 The information found in the population (nüfus) registers pertains not only to the 1870s and 80s but also to subsequent general censuses and population registry updates carried out in 1912 and 1915 and in interveneing years. Other types of censuses relating to military conscription and lists of village mukhtars were not all carried out at the same time, therefore for instance the Jerusalem district was enumerated in 1883-1884 and 1887-1888.65 This work does not contain Ottoman Turkish sources from archives in Istanbul, apart from those quoted by scholars. Other Ottoman Turkish material that was deemed most relevant for this work, such as material relating to the Sultan Abdul Hamid II‘s land 63 Claude R, Conder and Horatio H. Kitchener Horatio, H., The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archeology. Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Republished Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970. Volumes 1-3. 64 David Grossman possesses copies in microfiche of some of the salname and other copies are at the University of Chicago. 65 Jonathan Pagis, Ottoman Population Censuses 1875-1918, Jerusalem: Israel State Archive Press, 1997; U. O. Schmelz, ‗Population characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron regions according to Ottoman census of 1925‘ in Gad G. Gilbar (ed), Ottoman Palestine 1800-1914:Studies in Economic and Social History, E.J. Brill, Leiden: 1990, p. 57; incomplete books, totally 461 registers, exist at the ISA. 60 purchases in Palestine, and the Shamsieh and Yuklama commissions of 1870 and 1881 in Palestine was obtained in translation from primary Ottoman documents and maps. In addition translations of the Ottoman era statistical yearbook (salname) and census (nüfus) located at the Israel State Archives and University of Haifa Library were used. However to compensate for the lack of other Ottoman Turkish sources the utmost attention was paid to the work of other scholars who have examined rural geographical aspects of the Turkish period, such as Hasan Kayali, Yasemin Avci, Amnon Cohen, Beshara Doumani, Haggai Etkes, Roy Fischel, Haim Geber,David Grossman, Ruth Kark, Kemal Karpat, David Kushner, Bernard Lewis, Justin McCarthy, Stanford Shaw Amy Singer and Mahmud Yazbak. The next important data for rural settlement in Palestine comes from maps made by the British army in 1917 and 1918 during the conquest of the country.66 When accompanied by German, British and Australian aerial photos they provide data on the entire country.67 With the addition of the British census of 1922 a full set of statistics, visual and quantitative, is achieved for the early years of the Mandate (Government of Palestine Census office 1922). These sources provide the most important resources for examining new villages that appeared between 1871 and 1917. The 1931 census and the British Survey of Palestine 1:20,000 series maps along with the 1944-1945 Royal Air Force aerial survey and 1948 Shai Jewish sponsored aerial 66 There are two sets of maps in question, one is copied directly from the 1:63,360 scale 1880 PEF with additions added by the Survey of Egypt in 1917, the other is a 1:40,000 scale map also created by the Survey of Egypt in 1918. 67 These photos are in a variety of places, some of them are at the Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi aerial photo archive in Jerusalem, others are at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra and still other German photographs are located at the Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich, Abt. IV: Kriegsarchiv and at Fritz Groll‘s album deposited at the Jewish National and University Library (shelfmark: TMA 4390). Still more of these 19171918 aerial photos are in the collection of Erich Steiner at the Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, aerial photograph archive located at Mt. Scopus. 61 photos provide complete maps and figures for the last half of the Mandate.68 The British Village Statistics, which provide population estimates and lists of agriculture to be taxed, may be less accurate but nevertheless provide a picture of the rural Arab villages of Mandatory Palestine (Government of Palestine Census office, Village Statistics 1938, 1945). These sources provide the most compelling evidence for the creation and growth of new villages during the Mandate. The PEF archive in London and the Public Record Office in London both include information relating to the PEF Survey of Western Palestine and the British Mandate. There are unpublished writings and maps relating to the PEF survey in the PEF archive that may shed light on places such as Gaza during the period of the Survey. Aerial photos of Palestine from 1917 to 1948 exist in archives at the Department of Geography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Jewish National and University Library (JNUL), Yad Yizthak Ben-Zvi in Jerusalem and at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra.69 They are an important reference for comparison with the 1931 census, which listed the number of homes in each Arab village, and the 1945 estimate which listed the number of inhabitants. In addition the Ecole Biblique on Nablus road in 68 The 1:20,000 series maps, which were updated at various times from 1929 to 1942 are located at the Jewish National and University Library‘s map room and also at the map room of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem at Mt. Scopus library. In addition map collection of the Dept. of Geography at Tel Aviv University includes copies of these mandate era maps. The 1944-45 British aerial survey photos are located at the Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi archive and also at the aerial photo archive at the Geography department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus. The aerial photos created by the Haganah are at the Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi and although they are not as extensive they provide the best detail due to their having been photographed at a lower altitude than the British survey. There is a 1:10,000 series of British Mandatory maps. 69 Dov Gavish, , Land and Map: The Survey of Palestine, 1920-1948. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1991; ‗Aerial Photographs by First World War Fliers in Palestine‘ in Cathedra, VII, 1978, pp. 119-150 (Hebrew); The Survey and Mapping of Palestine under the British Mandate, 1920-1948, RoutledgeCurzon, London and New York, and Palestine Exploration Fund, London, 2005;idem, 50 Years of Mapping Israel, 19481999, Survey of Israel, Tel-Aviv (H) (with Ron Adler), 1999; Kedar, Benjamin K, The Changing Land between the Jordan and the Sea: Aerial Photography from 1917 to the present. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi, 1999. 62 Jerusalem contains an extensive archive of over 12,000 photos from the late 19th and early 20th centuries depicting Arab village life. One of the most interesting sources on Arab villages in Palestine during the Mandate are the village surveys carried out by the Haganah intelligence units in the 1940s before the 1948 war. These village surveys available at the Haganah Archive note the history of the villages, the number of inhabitants, names of clans and type of building materials among other things. Although they were systematic in nature, they did not cover all the Arab villages in Palestine, but concentrated heavily on villages that played a role in the Arab revolt of 1936-39 and on villages neighboring Jewish areas. In 1943 the Palmach and the Shai (Haganah intelligence service), the former an elite paramilitaty unit of the Jewish yishuv and the other an intelligence unit, began a program of extensive surveys of Arabvillages which were then marked on 1:5,000 maps. The objective was to examine the village from a variety of points in conjunction with ‗plan B‘ of initial Haganah war plans and thus determine the strong points of the village should hostilities break out. In addition there were overflights and aerial surveys carried out on a number of villages. When combined with the earlier surveys of the Shai or Haganah intelligence that began in 1940 quite detailed information about many villages. Unfortunatly not all this information survives. The surveys that do survive constitute a snapshot of village life for that date, including the number of animals possessed by the village. Although the surveys were supposed to be used by military and intelligence reasons, identifying friendly mukhtars and establishing the number of firearms owned by the villagers for instance, the other information gives one of the few written records of 63 life in these villages from the period.70 For example, The Haganah, during a report before 1948 noted that there were 700 inhabitants at Bir Salim divided into three Hamulas.71 Aerial photos carried out by the Haganah were usually done at a low altitude and were frequently taken from an angle as the plane careened over the site, providing a great level of detail but often leaving out the wider context of the landscape and sometimes only showing part of the village. They are in contrast to the British and German aerial photos of 1944/45 and 1917/18 respectivelly which were taken from a higher altitude. But these aerial photos, of which thirty relate to the settlements under consideration, provide both evidence for the existence of the villages, as well as data that can be compared with the censuses and maps. As for the intelligence surveys, for example relating to the Ramla and Jerusalem sub-districts, they exist for Beit Thul, Beit Umm al Meis, Beit Jiz, Beit Susin, Bir Salim, Deir Abu Salama, Sajad and Wadi Hunein. The Israel State archive include extensive information on the background to village surveys and censuses, court cases, land purchases and the existence of schools and mosques throughout Palestine. This sheds light on administrative aspects of the villages in question and provide evidence for the existence of villages that are shown, through this research, to have appeared during the Mandate. The archives of the Israeli Antiquity Authority located at the Rockefeller Museum and Har Hotzvim also include information on the history of numerous sites at Arab villages. In addition missionary journals kept by the Church Missionary Society are kept at JNUL and the Anglican cathedral St. George‘s in East Jerusalem. The Royal 70 Shimri Salomon, ‗Village Files 1942-1948‘, Bulletin of the Haganah Archive, Number 9, 2005 (Hebrew); Shimri Salomon, ‗Village Files 1942-1948‘, Bulletin of the Haganah Archive, Number 14, 2010 (Hebrew). 71 ‗Bir Salim,‘ no date, 125/243, Haganah Archives, Tel Aviv. 64 Geographical society archives in London also include information on the geography of 19th and early 20th century Palestine. The Palmach archive and the archives of the United Kibbutz Movement at Yad Tabenkin in Israel also contain relevant material. In addition relevant archives of local moshavs were be consulted where necessary. Issues of the Palestine Post between 1932 and 1948 shed light on the existence of Arab villages and events that took place within them. For instance the description of a British arrest in Beit umm al Mais from 1938 indicates that this former ruin from the 1870s was inhabited at the time. The report includes important information on the Mukhtar of the village.72 Other sources on general demographics, the administrative development of Palestine, and specialized works on the 19th century provide important background on the processes affecting the country in the 19th and first half of the 20th centuries.73 Hebrew newspapers from the period such as Ha Magid (1856-1903), HaTzvi (1884-1915) and Arabic newspapers such as Filastin (1911-1967) and al Karmil (19081948) from the period as well as issues of the missionary newspaper, Jewish Intelligence provide important insights into both daily life in Palestinian villages and also include mentions of individual villages. The Itonot electronic database at the JNUL is an important resource for searching the historic Hebrew language newspapers. There are also personal recollections of living people. Some of these were examined and recorded by Walid Khalidi in All That Remains. However many other are currently being posted and collected online at the website Palestineremembered.com and May 6, 1938. ‗Mukhtar faces court in Jerusalem‘ Palestine Post. See for instance, Etkes, Haggai, ‗Legalizing Extortion: Containing Armed Bedouin Tribes by State Regulated ―Protection Payments‖ and Military Forces in Ottoman Gaza (1519-1582),‘ 2227, (The Hebrew University, Unpublished Phd dissertation). Also, Levin, Noam, Ruth Kark and Emir Galili, ‗Historical Maps and GIS: Mapping of Southern Palestine 1799-1948, issues of scale and accuracy and possible applications,‘ unpublished paper, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2227. 72 73 65 elsewhere. Coorespondence with descendants of various villages and those living in existing villages, especially when the people have historical photos, can constitute a way of adding color to already existing primary documents and maps. However there is a caveat that they are necessarily open to flaws due to the lapse of time or manipulations due to current political ideologies and situations and must be scrutinized. Research Methods The research is be primarily quantitative, following in the footsteps of Hütteroth and Abdulfattah. It proceeds by sub-district and thence chronologically. By using the 1945 sub-district boundaries of the British Mandate the study in fact work backwards initially. This is because it is assumed that there were more Arab villages in 1945 than in 1871. Preliminary investigations of the Jerusalem and Ramla sub-districts have borne this view out. No villages that existed in 1871 were found to have disappeared by 1945, while over 25 villages or hamlets were found to have been created in these two subdistricts. A survey of the Gaza sub-district shows five to six new villages. Statistical analysis was employed on the census data to understand the growth rates of individual villages and in order to compare the growth of new settlements with established ones. Archival material, newspaper accounts, traveler‘s accounts, aerial photos and Haganah surveys were be employed to understand the story of the villages during the period and provide answers regarding their origin. Field work, as well as visits to village sites, was be carried out on some of the village sites specially chosen for in depth case studies. This work involved documenting the sites and examining the remains of the pre-1948 villages. This also involved a visit to a village that still exists today, such as Ein Rafa, which became a hamlet during the 66 Mandatory period or just prior to it.74 The villages were be chosen in order to present field work on each category of new village i.e. Bedouin settlement, effendi estate, daughter village built on ruined village. In addition the field work was representative of the geographic extent of the villages and field work was conducted in different regions of the country such as in the Shephelah, the Jerusalem hills and the north. Due to the political-security situation field work was not be conducted in the West Bank or Gaza strip. Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used to reconstruct and map the data mined from the numerous maps and censuses available. This presents a visualized map of the geographic extent of the new Arab villages that appeared between 1871 and 1948. In addition it allows for a comparison between new Bedouin settlements, daughter or off-shoot villages, and other types of settlements that were the product of foreign, government or effendi investment. Comparisons were made by size, date of origin and type of inhabitant. This aided greatly in drawing conclusions regarding the different geographic areas of Palestine and their affect on the creation of new villages. Preliminary research and case studies already completed on the Ramla and Jerusalem sub-districts for the period shows that great disparities exist between the two. Mapping the entire area of Palestine using GIS for this phenomenon, when combined with archival work and other analysis provides a full picture. See Dror Barak and Ruth Kark, ‗A micro-study of an Arab village in Palestine/Israel, The Case of Subanew methodologies and sources.‘, Al-Rafidan, 30, 2009, pp. 107-118 (in English) Descendants of the villagers describe the Barhoum family having moved there before 1948 (author‘s own communication with village descendant Yacoub Nasrallah on September 11th, 2007). It is also mentioned in Kark and OrenNordheim, Jerusalem and its Environs p. 275 and Grossman, Expansion and Desertion, pp. 51-52. See also Barak and Kark 2004. 74 67 Methodological problems The research examines the period 1871 to 1948. While the latter date represents a very clear break in the history of the demographics and settlement of Palestine, the former date appears more arbitrary. The processes that affected the settlement of Ottoman Palestine in the 19th century neither stopped nor started in 1871. Many studies75 have looked to the entry of Napoleon into Egypt in 1799 or the period of Mohamed Ali‘s rule in Palestine 1831-1841 as starting points for research on Modern Palestine.76 However, because this study relies heavily on data and quantification of settlement, it is more reasonable to follow the Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah‘s approach.77 They employed the 1596 Ottoman Deftar (census) as a starting point in their data driven research because it provided a data point for research on a cross section of the entire country at a particular instant. No study conducted before the PEF survey provides anywhere near the detail or systematic examination of Conder and Kitchener.78 This project is likewise interested in quantifying the number of types of settlements that were built or newly populated in the period. It is important to 75 Ruth Kark, Ruth and Michel Oren-Nordheim. Jerusalem its Environs. Jerusalem: Magnus, 2001. ―Changing Patterns of Land Ownership in Nineteenth Century Palestine: The European Influence.‖ Journal of Historical Geography 10 (1984): 357–84. Sicker, Martin. Reshaping Palestine: From Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 1831-1922, Praeger, 1999; Indinopulos, Thomas A. Weathered by Miracles: A History of Palestine from Bonaparte and Muhammes Ali to Ben-Gurion and the Mufti. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1998; Reinkowski, Mauros. ‗Late Ottoman rule over Palestine: its evaluation in Arab, Turkish and Israeli histories, 1970-92‘ in Middle East Studies 35 (1999), S. [66]-97, p. 81; Shamir, Shimon "Egyptian Rule (1832-1840) and the Beginning of the Modern History of Palestine," in A. Cohen and G. Baer," eds. Egypt and Palestine: A Millennium of Association (868-1948) (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1984, 220-221. 76 Itzhak Hofman, Muhammed Ali in Syria, thesis submitted for a doctorate in philosophy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 1963 (Hebrew). 77 Wolf-Dieter Hütteroth, and Kamal Abdulfattah, Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria. Erlanger: Palm and Enke, 1977. 78 On the accuracy of the PEF map see Levin Noam, ‗The Palestine Exploration Fund map (1871-1877) of the Holy Land as a tool for analyzing landscape changes: the coastal dunes of Israel as a case study", The Cartographic Journal, 43 (1), (2006), pp. 45-67 68 acknowledge that settlement processes were put into motion in the early and mid-19th century that led to a number of new Arab and other settlements in Ottoman Palestine.79 However absence of surveys of the country makes these new settlements easier to study as regional or specific case studies.80 This project instead seeks to focus on the entire country and uses countrywide maps and statistics to provide a sweeping and all encompassing survey of all the new places of habitation that appeared between 1871 and 1948. One major problem is determining the accuracy of the sources employed. Hütteroth and Abdulfattah concluded that the PEF 1880 map and subsequent British maps whose place names were based on it were ―particularly valuable‖ due to their ―abundance of place names.‖81 The censuses are another matter. This study sheds light on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the British Village Statistics which were prepared for the years 1938 and 1945. Most works on the Mandate period have continued to quote these figures as if they are reliable while many works have ceased to use the Ottoman censuses of the 19th century because of their unreliability.82 Whereas the British censuses of 1922 and 1931 were exceedingly detailed, the subsequent estimates are most likely unreliable for many of the smallest villages. One important point of comparison is between the number of houses listed in the 1931 census and aerial photos from 1944-45/1917-1918. 79 David Grossman, Rural Process-Pattern Relationships: Nomadization, Sedenterization, and Settlement Fixation. New York: Praeger, 1992; Maoz, Moshe (ed), Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben Zvi, 1975. 80 Dorit Ayalon, ‗Deir Rafat,‘ unpublished paper, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2227; Ruth Kark,‘Land Purchase in Emek Hefer prior to Jewish Settlement.‘ The Israel Geographic Society Annual Meeting, December 1978. 81 Hütteroth and Abdulfatah, Historical Geography, pp. 13-14. However the accuracy of the Survey‘s data on village demographics and size is less reliable as it was usually taken in an unsystematic manner from the work of others such as Guerin. Luckily for this project the work is not interesting in already existing villages and thus, for the most part, can ignore this problem. 82 Khalidi, Walid (ed). All That Remains. Washington, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992 69 Through the marshalling of resources, including aerial surveys, censuses, maps, Haganah village surveys, The Palestine Post and official documents from government archives in Tel Aviv and London an accurate picture was drawn up for the villages, sites and communities in question. A further problem is determining what geographic boundaries to use. The boundaries of Ottoman Palestine and its administrative divisions were not the same as those of Mandatory Palestine and even the borders and internal divisions of Mandatory Palestine were altered during the Mandate period.83 This study has chosen to use the subdistricts used by the 1945 Village Statistics as a basis for systematic study of the country. The borders of the sub-districts and the villages included within them did not change substantially between 1922 and 1945 and the borders of Palestine proper did not change after 1924. The PEF survey covered the entire area of these sub-districts with the exception of the Negev south of Beersheba, the area around Rafah and Khan Yunis near Gaza and the Eastern side of the Huleh and Jordan river in northern Palestine. For those few villages that existed outside the PEF survey but within the boundaries of Palestine in 1945, the PEF archive was used, along with other sources such as Schumacher to make up for the lack of PEF mapping.84 A separate problem arises in determining which definitions to use. The British authorities classified settlements and places in the Palestine Index Gazetteer of 1945 in a 83 The exact northern border of Palestine remained undetermined until the early 1920s, see for instance Asher Kaufman, ‗Between Palestine and Lebanon: Seven Shi‗i Villages as a Case Study of Boundaries,Identities, and Conflict.‘ Middle East Journal 2006. Nicholas Blanford, ‗The Seven Villages: Origins and Implications‘ also provides an interesting study online at http://www.nowlebanon.com/Library/Files/EnglishDocumentation/Other%20Documents/The_Seven_Villa ges-paper-final2.pdf. By contrast the Western and Southrn borders of Palestine have been generally unchanged since the late 19th century, the PEF survey being the best evidence of this. 84 Schumacher‘s Jaulan happens to cover, exactly, the portion of the Huleh and western side of the Jordan not covered by the PEF. There were no settlements south of Beersheba. 70 variety of manners including as hamlets, villages, plantations, khirbas ( ruins), houses, monasteries, tombs and caves. The British authorities also determined boundaries for villages in Palestine. In some cases more than one settlement was included inside one boundary and the village was named after the largest settlement inside the boundary. This was the case with the village that is today called Ein Rafa near Abu Ghosh but was included in the boundaries of Suba, its ‗mother‘ village, in 1945. Because this study is systematic classifications, definitions and systematic analysis of both the maps and censuses were be employed in order to avoid missing any villages and also to avoid discrepancies in the data. In order to surmount the semantic problem of what constitutes a new ―village‖, this study relies on the villages recognized by the British Mandatory authorities. A careful analysis was carried out to check each settlement found on maps and in censuses against the Mandatory statistics. Some enumerations that appear on the British censuses and Village Statistis and are shown on the 1:250,000 map Index to Villages and Settlements are not actually listed as having populations. Some villages that appear on 1:20,000 Survey of Palestine maps do not appear in the censuses or other Mandatory material. This has, with good reason, caused other researchers confusion and is a problem that must be resolved in order to finalize any list of new rural settlements that appeared. Consider Khirbat al Burj, which the 1945 Gazetteer described as a ―Village Unit‖ with 5000 dunams of land but no population.85 Walid Khalidi described the ―village‖ as being situated on ―rolling terrain‖ and claimed it was ―known for its citrus crops.‖86 The 1:22,222 Survey of Palestine maps don‘t provide a great deal of insight. They show what 85 A Gazetteer of the place names of Palestine and Transjordan, Jerusalem: Government of Palestine, 1945, p. 52. 86 Khalidi, All That Remains, p. 156. 71 appears to be a large structure, akin to a khan, with no indication that it was populated. Such villages without people pose one problem. A related problem are settlements that are contained within the Mandatory boundaries of other villages. The 1945 Village Statistics described cases where a ―previously declared village which is no longer recognized as a separate entity‖ might be included in another village‘s boundaries.87 In some cases a tentative population was given for these entities, such as the numerous small settlements included in the lands of Shfar‘amr in the Village Statistics. In other cases the maps shows what appears to be a substantial settlement, such as Kh. Al Muntar north of the Sea of Galilee, which is included in the boundaries of another village, in this case Tuba. Other researchers, in failing to employ maps and only relying on Mandatory statistics, have missed these settlements.88 This study seeks to synthesize both the settlements which appear on maps with the enumerations that appear on censuses, estimates and place names in the Mandate. A careful and thorough examination was made of the ‗Constitution of Villages‘ files in which the Mandate district officers recorded their additions and subtractions of villages from the official list and discussed which villages were populated and which were not.89 Through the use of archival material, aerial photos, site visits and other research this study revealed which of these handful of questionable settlements were populated year round and which were unpopulated. A list of these unrecognized villages and recognized villages that had no populations appears under the heading Settlements without people 87 Village Statistics, 1945, p. 3. Walid Khalidi does not mention it and neither does Benny Morris or other researchers listed by Khalidi in All That Remains on p. 593. 89 See for instance ‗Constitution of Villages‘, ISA RG23/3547/M Tiberias and Nablus sub-districts. 88 72 and unrecognized settlements before the conclusion. A continuing discussion of the criteria used to define settlements examined in this study can be found below under the heading ‗criteria‘. Expected contribution Until now a vast amount of research has examined the politics of Mandatory Palestine, the Jewish immigration, the Jewish-Arab conflict, 19th century Palestine and the affect of the 1948 war on Palestine. Studies have delved deeply into Jewish immigration waves, foreign Christian settlement, new Jewish Moshavot and Kibbutzim, urban development, town planning, and Bedouin and Arab village life in Palestine between 1871 and 1948. But to date there has never been a study that examined completely and systematically the advent of new Arab villages during the period. Studies have shed light on new Arab neighborhoods and individual villages, but have not given a complete picture of new Arab rural settlements.90 This dissertation, because of its systematic study of the entire country, provides a basis for understanding this phenomenon and its widespread nature. It adds important insights into the agents and determinants, and the amount of population caught up in the building of new settlements, usually on the ruins of ancient ones. In order to arrive at a conclusion as to the reason for the creation of new villages the dissertation examines the role of agents such as foreign investment, the Ottoman See Dror Barak and Ruth Kark, ‗A micro-study of an Arab village in Palestine/Israel, The Case of Subanew methodologies and sources.‘ 2226, Unpublished; Grossman, Rural; Avinoam Meir, The Arab Settlement in Israel: Geographical Processes. 90 73 government land laws and the British Bedouin control ordinances. It also examines the role of internal and external factors such as immigration and demographic growth. It investigates, to what degree, the increased stability in the countryside and increased government oversight led to an increase in the number of villages in the country. Most importantly this research adds a new level of understanding and color to the role of the rural Arab community of Palestine and Arab and Muslim immigrants from abroad in changing the environment to suit its needs. It sheds light on the Bedouin community and examine not only its retreat into the margins of Palestine (for example, the Negev) but also the timing and scope of its sedenterization. This work moves away from examining only the Arab villages affected by the 1948 war and provide instead a comprehensive survey of the entire country, including villages now located in the West Bank and Gaza. Examination of the modern extent and growth of these villages that were created between 1871 and 1948 contributes nuance and depth to the history and origin of the Arab communities in these areas. It provides other scholars with important data and material with which to begin further research into the origins of other villages in the first half of the 19th century and the development of the villages in the second half of the 20th century. It uses sources and methods that have been previously overlooked. Furthermore, critical analysis of sources helped to reveal the nuances and level of accuracy in such important documents as the British population estimates for 1938 and 1945. There is a great contemporary political interest in the Palestinian refugees and their claims against the State of Israel. As time fades memories are shaped and villages that were only newly constructed in the 1920s become ancient places of residence for 74 people that no longer recall, or no one wishes them to recall, their place of origin. While it may have been inside Palestine, it may not have been the village they speak longingly of. There is nothing wrong with Palestinians clinging to keys to houses. However the historical record deserves to be examined. This research shows that a significant number of the Arab residents of the areas that became Israel in 1948 were living in newly established settlements. Like the Jews who were busy settling the coastal plain and valleys of Palestine the Arabs were vigorously expanding into this new landscape, recently opened to settlement due to a variety of reasons including the extension of new laws and security. A more nuanced examination of the events of 1871-1948 shows not so much an Arab populace always on the defensive from Jews attempting to purchase their lands or at the mercy of absentee landlords but rather an active Arab populace, including sedenterizing Bedouin, who were busy colonizing new lands and building new villages, much like their Jewish counterparts. Lastly it sheds light on the important and controversial question of Muslim and Christian Arab external and internal immigration waves in Palestine that originated with the local Arabs and from such places as Egypt (Kark 1988; Grossman 2004), Syria, Lebanon and the Caucuses (Circassia).91 This dissertation adds nuance and depth to this debate.92 Criteria Mustafa Abassi, ‗From Algeria to Palestine: The Algerian Community in the Galilee from the late Ottoman period until 1948.‘ The Maghred Review, vol. 28, 2223; Fischel, Roy, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II (1876-1909) and Palestine: Imperial Policy and Private Lands. Unpublished MA Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, 2006 (Hebrew); Grossman, Grossman, Arab Demography (English) 92 Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, JKAP publications, 2001. 91 75 A study such as this requires that strict criteria be followed in terms of defining not only the basic terms and parameters of the study but also in what data and information should be included and which should be left out. Considering such terms as ‗village‘ and ‗hamlet‘ and what constitutes a ‗new village‘ and what does not are essential to coming up with a complete list of new Arab settlements that appeared in Palestine during the period. In the end the most important aspect of this is consistency. The only villages that were considered for the purposes of the spreadsheets and calculations in this study were those that were not inhabited according to the PEF‘s 1882 map and its Memoirs and those that were subsequently inhabited during the British Mandate period. For the Mandate period the main sources for determining what constitutes an inhabited settlement will be the British censuses, statistics, gazetteers and maps, with an emphasis on the 1945 Village Statistics being the guiding list for what does and does not constitute an inhabited settlement. When one considers the number of ‗villages‘ and ‗hamlets‘ that appeared in the Mandatory authorities‘ publications one must note a few essential problems with these documents. The British Mandate‘s 1922 and 1931 censuses are not consistent and the 1938 and 1945 Village Statistics are also not consistent one finds that certain inhabited places, such as Deir Amr or Nataf, appear in 1922 and are subsequently included in another enumeration, Suba and Qatanna respectively, in 1931 and then reappear in 1945. Thus the basis for what constitutes a village cannot rely on any one of the British censuses by themselves. On the other hand one cannot assume that every single enumeration mentioned in the 1931 census which, being the most complete, included the largest number of enumerations has to be included. For that reason all but ten of Dura‘s 76 off-shoots, which David Amiran and David Grossman have previously done extensive work on, are ignored in this study.93 However there are other less known off-shoots and daughter villages that were first established during the Mandate and yet never appeared as a separate place because of the logic of the Village Statistics. Ein Rafa, an off-shoot of Suba (Tzuba), does not appear on the 1945 Village Statistics because it was settled in 1940 or thereabouts and the 1945 Statistics does not include these types of small enumerations as independent entities. In addition small off-shoots such as Dura‘s Kh. Beit Awwa do not usually appear as separate settlements in the Index of Villages and Settlements maps that were published in 1938, 1942 and 1946, except they are sometimes enumerated within the boundaries of larger villages. For instance the large area that was the village of Umm al Fahm in the 1938 Index map includes ―Umm el Fahm, Lajjun, Mu‘awiya, Musheirifa and Musmus‖ in the 1946 Index map. Mu‘awiya and Lajjun should be discussed as potential examples of one of the new villages mentioned in this study (See Figure 2). There is, however, no way of knowing their population or the number of dunams associated with them because they do not show up independently in the Village Statistics or on the Index map. For Lajjun one must go back to the 1922 and 1931 censuses to find population data. The Palestine Index Gazetteer of 1945 is another 93 Dura was not a good candidate for inclusion based on the fact that it already existed in the 1870s. It went on to create a plethora of off-shoots in a loose Bunched pattern, see Grossman, Rural, p. 133 and 169. A very informative case study of Dura exists in David Kalner (later Amiran), ‗Dura – characteristics of the villages on the margins of the Bedouins‘, Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society XIV (19481949), pp. 30-37. See also Yehuda Karmon and Abshalom Shmueli, Hebron: Characteristics of a Mountain City, Tel Aviv: Goma, 1970, pp. 112-117. The 1931 Census acknowledged the Dura phenomenon in its introduction; ―the village in the Hebron sub-district commonly known as Dura is a congeries of neighbouring localities each of which has a distinctive name.‖ See Census of Palestine, preface, p. I. This study could have examined each of Dura‘s 72 individual off-shoots from the 1931 census, which totaled some 7,000 people. Such a study should best be left to a case study and goes beyond the scope of this work because there is no way of knowing if each of the off-shoots of Dura was inhabited year round and because the parent village existed and the off-shoots were so small. A short discussion of its largest daughter village, Kh. Beit Awwa, and ten other off-shoots is included under the heading ―unrecognized villages‖ at the end of the this study. 77 place to look for lists of settlements but it by itself without a map of the boundaries and a census of the population does not give enough information. This document includes references to ―localities‖ but examination of Mandatory official coorespondence alongside maps and aerial photos shows that the term ―locality‖ was not connected to inhabited settlements but rather known place names.94 The British 1:20,000 series maps and aerial photo survey of Palestine are yet another place to look but they also cannot stand alone without census data to go along with them. Cases like Shibli and Mu‘awiya, which today are villages of more than 1,222 people, are important to this study in analyzing the processes of settlement creation during the period. The Mandatory data does not always include these hamlets and villages and the only evidence of their existence is maps from the Mandatory period that show the first houses being built in these areas. Oral testimony from villagers, case studies and archival documents also shed light on these places. The criteria for this study is thus based not only on finding which settlements appeared in the Mandatory maps and censuses but also on examining aerial photos and other sources and discovering where certain hamlets and villages may have ‗fallen through the cracks‘ or where there is a dispute between the various documents. To rely on only one set of Mandatory era official documents may lead to errors in calculating the total number of settlements. Relying only on the Index map and its boundaries ignores several large and medium sized villages that were grouped with other villages by the Mandatory authorities and also necessitates including numerous places that are listed on the 1945 Village Statistics as having no population. Relying only on the 94 District Commissioner to Commissioner of Lands, Jerusalem, ‗reconciliation statement‘, Constitution of Villages, 14 April, 1933, ISA RG22/3547/LS28. 78 Palestine Index Gazetteer or the 1:20,000 series of maps runs the risk of including numerous settlements that were related to eachother or were temporarily inhabited. Relying only on the 1931 census, the last census of Mandatory Palestine, ignores all the new settlement formation that took place after 1931. Relying only on the Mandate‘s aerial photo survey conducted during the Second World War would be ideal but it would be exceedingly time consuming, near impossible to analyze the tens of thousands of photos and be cost prohibitive. The best system for identifying new settlements is thus a blend of these sources as well as use of accompanying information from archives and secondary material as well as oral testimony and recollections. Blending maps, censuses and other information also allows for the tracing of settlement growth and examining new settlement growth by combining layers of data and information. Those settlements whose apparent settlement is least clear, i.e appearing on a map but not on a census or not appearing in the Index but appearing on a map, are discussed seperatly in chapter 5 under ‗settlements without people.‘ The existence of ‗unstable‘ villages presents a further problem for this study. There are villages that appear to have been established during the late Ottoman period and disappeared by 1922. The Sursuq estates in the Jezreel and Baysan valleys are among these. Tell al Fir became part of the lands of the Jewish settlements; Merhavia (founded 1911), Balfouria (founded 1919-1922) and Tel Adash (1913).95 None of these 95 Kfar Gidon was founded in 1923 and Afula in 1925 in the same area on lands purchased by Yehoshua Hankin when he bought 10,000 dunams from the Sursuqs in 1909 and 1910. Mechavia and Tel Adashim (originally Tel Adash) were founded on the lands, all around Tell el Fir. 79 villages will be included in this study, although they will be mentioned, their existence will not affect the statistics and data. Some of them have been studied elsewhere.96 A village such as Kh. Sarkas must be left in to be discussed, although it was not included in the 1938 and 1945 Village Statistics, and certainly deserted by that time, it was included in the censuses of 1922 and 1931. The numerous ‗hamlets‘ in the Memoirs of the PEF such as Baysan, including some that seem to appear on the map as ruins but are mentioned in the Memoirs, such as Deir Rafat, are not included in this study. The Logic behind this study’s periodization Researchers into the late Ottoman and Mandatory periods have often subdivided them into period. Important events such as Napoleon‘s invasion of Palestine in 1799 and the Egyptian invasion of Palestine under Mohammed Ali in the 1830s are often seen as key dates. For the second half of the 19th century one may look to 1856, 1858 and 1867 as important points because of the passage of key legal legislation. 1880 is another important date because it coincides with the First Aliyah of Jewish immigration. One cannot ignore 1908, the year of the Young Turk revolution and 1914, the outbreak of World War One. Roy Fischel and Ruth Kark among others have shown that in terms of settlement patterns the late Ottoman period can be separated into three sub-periods; ―The first period (1800-1840) was characterized by rural settlements in the hillside, whereas the lowlands were controlled by Bedouins. During the middle period (1840-1880), rural settlements appeared in new regions. Foreign settlers and entrepreneurs became active in thinly populated regions and the Bedouins were forced to withdraw from some regions. In the late period (1880- Ruth Kark, ‗Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization processes in Palestine‘, 1858-1918, unpublished paper, submitted for publication, p. 6. 96 80 1917), coinciding with the rule of Abdülhamid II, the settled area expended even more.‖97 The Mandate period is not as frequently divided into periods. However one can clearly see that the period between 1917 and 1923 was unique because during this period the Mandate was still being legally formed and the borders of Mandatory Palestine were defined. The time of the Arab rebellion, 1936-1939 is important as is the time of the Second World War, 1939-1945, when the British passed laws restricting Jewish land purchases and immigration. The analysis of historical-geography through the use of cross-sections is one of the methods used in the discipline of historical-geography.98 The use of cross-sections deates from H.C Darby‘s 1936 analysis England before 1822 using this method.99 This vertical method of analysis may well not account all processes taking place at a given time. Thus while this study takes the above mentioned dates and sub-periods into account and examines processes taking place, it is based on various cross-sections sections of Palestinian history through the use of data sets. While not all-encompassing, is the best method for studying the development of Palestine‘s rural environment in the period examined here and dealing with the types of settlement (i.e settlements that did not exist in the first cross-section) this study is interested in. This data is derived from censuses, maps, surveys and photos. Therefore the start date, of 1871, coincides with the first year of the PEF survey. It coincides with the Salname-i Vilayet-i Suriye, an Ottoman census, of 1871-1872 (Syrian salname of H 1288, another salname was carried out in Ruth Kark, ―Landownership and Spatial Change in Nineteenth Century Palestine: an Overview,‖ in Seminar on Historical Types of Spatial Organizations: The Transition from Spontaneous to Regulated Spatial Organistaion (Warsaw, 1983), pp. 1-7. 98 Henry Clifford Darby, The Relations of History and Geography: Studies in England, France and the United States, Exeter: University of Exeter, 2002. 99 Ibid. 97 81 1880-1881, H 1291).100 It also coincides nicely with the years of first mass Jewish immigration after 1882 and the third periodization of settlement patterns described by Kark for the Late Ottoman period. Another Ottoman census was conducted in 1905. Sultan Abdul Hamid II reigned for much of this period as well, 1876-1908 and, as will be shown, his rule influenced the creation of new rural settlements. The next period, 1922-1931, coincides with the first two censuses conducted by the Mandatory authorities. Not long before the 1922 census the 1917 aerial photographs of the Germans offer additional information on settlements as do the earlier German 1:50,000 maps and the British 1:40,000 series military maps of 1917. The 1931 census is also very close in time to the 1:20,000 series of Survey of Palestine maps produced by the British between 1927 and 1931. The next period of 1931 to 1948 includes the 1938 and 1945 Village Statistics. It includes the 1942 overprint addition of the 1:20,000 series maps. Furthermore it includes the Aerial photograph survey conducted by the British in 1944-1945 and the Shai aerial photographs conducted in 1948. This study does not seek to divide the period 1871-1922 into sub-periods because the Ottoman census of 1905 is not reliable and because there is no other survey with the level of detail or reliability as the PEF survey.101 Thus there is no cross-section of the country on which to rely and thus make comparisons. Because of the reliability of the first two Mandatory censuses and the Mandatory maps the Mandate period can be easily See Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II and Palestine: Private Lands and Imperial Policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, (2008), 129-166. p. 129; Alexander Schloch, ‗The Demographic Development of Palestine, 1850-1882‘, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 17, No. 4, Nov. 1985, pp. 485-505; Palestine in Transformation: 18561882: Studies in Social, Economic and Political Develoment, New York: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2006. David Grossman includes most of it in his Appendix 2 of Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine: Distribution and Population Density during the Late ottoman and Early Mandate Periods, Jerusalem: Magnes, Appendix 2. 101 See Alexander Schloch, ‗Demographic‘, p. 485. 100 82 sub-divided based solely on the censuses. This is the only fair way to sub-divide the period for a study such as this. To sub-divide the period based on the Mandatory maps would make little sense because the data included in the maps only provides the researcher with one level of data, namely the size, physical layout, and location, of new settlements. Other information, such as population or number of houses is not included. This study does not ignore other processes taking place in the country during the period. However it was felt that dividing the period into sub-periods based on the censuses and beginning with the PEF‘s survey was the best way to divide the period because each census and the PEF survey provided a cross-section of the country that could be easily compared. Factors such as the reliability of the censuses and the degree to which they amalgamated settlements is all taken into account and employing other sources, such as maps, travelers accounts, aerial photos and newspaper accounts, fills gaps that are left by the censuses. 83 Chapter 1: Legal and settlement processes in 19th century Palestine This chapter explores various issues of settlement patterns and processes between the 1800 and 1871. It introduces the geography of Palestine and prevailing settlement patterns that changed between 1596 and the 1870s. It looks at the issue of the Bedouins and their affect on settlement and on the landscape, their extent and power. It examines the Land laws of 1858 and related laws which had a great affect on the inventory of land available for purchase and on land settlement. It examines the traditional Arab village of Palestine, its physical layout and processes that affected it over time. It also examine the history of Muslim and Arab immigration to Palestine in the 19th century and the geography of Palestine. It seeks to lay out these themes, all of which affect the processes that occurred after 1871, and introduce the reader to these processes which are essential to understanding how and why new villages were formed after 1880. The Geography of Palestine 84 As in any other region the landscape of Palestine played an important role in determining where settlement arose and the forms of that settlement. Therefore in order to understand the settlement processes that affected Palestine in the 19th and 20th centuries it is essential to understand the physical geography of the country. Palestine is traditionally divided into four distinct regions; the coastal plain, the central highlands, the rift valley and the Negev desert To these must be added two unique areas known as the Shephelah foothills and Jezreel valley. The coastal plain is made up of low plains, deserts and, before they were drained in the 20th century, swampland. During the British Mandate this plain stretched for 187 kilometers from Rosh Hanikra on the Lebanese border to the Egyptian border at Rafah. It is 48 km wide at its widest in the south and narrows to just a few kilometers at its narrowest near Haifa where it abuts Mount Carmel. For our purposes it will be divided into three parts; the Zebulon plain north of Haifa, the Sharon plain between Haifa and Jaffa and the Judean Plain or Western Negev south of Jaffa.102 The Rift valley which runs 253 kilometers from Banias in the north to Eilat in the south is a unique geological phenomenon.103 Large swaths of it are below sea level and it is there that the Dead Sea and the Sea of Galilee are located. For our purposes it can best be divided into four sections. The Central are stretches from the Dead Sea to a point where the Wadi Al Buqeia meets the Jordan river. North of this there is the Baysan valley portion where the Rift valley widens greatly by some thirty kilometers. The next portion can be defined as the area directly around the Sea of Galilee. The last portion 102 103 Efraim Orni and Elisha Efrat, Geography of Israel, Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1971. Efraim Orni and Elisha Efrat, Geography of Israel, Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1971, p. 35 85 shall be defined as the area north of the Sea of Galilee including the Huleh valley and the valley north of the Huleh that stretches up into the foothills around Metullah and Banias. The central highlands region is composed of three distinct parts. The first part is the Central massif which includes the Hebron hills and the hills of Judea and Samaria. The second part is formed by Mount Carmel and its foothills which stretch out to the southeast linking it to the foothills northwest of Jenin. The third part is composed of the upper and lower Galilee and its mountains and hills. The Galilean hills are on average about 600 meters above sea level and their highest peak is Mount Meron in the north. The last major geographical unit is the Negev, which is 12,500 square kilometers of desert. Geographically it is part of the Sinai Peninsula with which it shares a common climate. In size it formed half the land area of Palestine. There are two unique regions left that, while they might fit into one of the above categories, deserve to be considered independently. The definition of these areas as unique and the desire to consider the Shephelah as a separate region, while rooted in both common parlance, bible and geography, is one that I decided to use for this study. 104 It is apparent that numerous settlements arose in the Shephelah and it is worthwhile to consider this area as being both separate from the central highlands and the coastal plain. The Shephelah is composed of a wide stretch of low hills and valleys that average between 120 and 450 meters above sea level and is 10 to 15 kilometers wide.105 The Shephelah begins east of Jaffa and stretches southwards towards the Negev. It forms a 104 The Shephelah plays an integral part in the stories told in the Bible and numerous battles waged for control of the country, appearing in Deuteronomy 1:7; Joshua 9:1; 10:40; 11:2, 16; 12:8; 15:33; Judges 1:9; 1 Kings 10:27; Jeremiah 17:26; 32:44; 33:13; Obadiah 1:19; Zechariah 7:7; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27;26:10; 28:18. Deuteronomy 1:7; Joshua 9:1; 10:40; 11:2, 16; 12:8; 15:33; Judges 1:9; 1 Kings 10:27; Jeremiah 17:26; 32:44; 33:13; Obadiah 1:19; Zechariah 7:7; 1 Chronicles 27:28; 2 Chronicles 1:15; 9:27;26:10; 28:18. 105 Orni and Efrat, Geograhy, p. 37. 86 barrier between the coastal plain and the central highlands. These undulating foothills traditionally contain the Ayalon, Elah, Sorek and Lachish valleys. The region is sometimes referred to as the ‗Judean Piedmont‘ or ‗Judean lowland.‘ The final unique region that I have also chosen to consider independently is the Jezreel (Esdraelon) valley which stretches from northeast of Haifa, cutting across the country at a slight southeast slant to link up with the Baysan valley. It is 48 kilometers long and reaches a maximum of 19 kilometers wide.106 In the 19th century a large number of swamps formed an integral part of the landscape of the country but their distribution was not regular. There were few, if any, in the Negev. Most of them occurred in the coastal plain. However there was also a few in the Shephelah region including the swamp in the Sorek valley. In the Rift valley there were also a number of swamps, including the Wadi Faria and Auja swamps, the swamps around Baysan and the great swamp around Huleh lake (See Figure 3). There were swamps in the Jezreel valley as well. The central highlands remained relatively clear of the swampland. These swamps were destined to play a major role in the placement of new settlements in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Throughout the study reference will be made to these six unique geographic areas; the highlands, the coastal plain, the Rift valley, the Jezreel valley and the Shephelah. In addition the coastal plain, rift valley and central highlands have been sub-divided into three or four regions. Although in reality landscapes flow into one another and rarely start or end at an exact point this study has created these mutually exclusive divisions in order to provide for analysis of where settlement developed. These divisions will serve throughout the study to provide a way to examine the distribution of the new settlements 106 Orni and Efrat, Geography, p. 39. 87 Settlement Patterns 1596-1880 Wolf Dieter H ütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah‘s Historical-Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the late 16th Century is one of the most comprehensive studies of the Ottoman daftar-I mufassal of 1596. Earlier daftars included those from 1519-1526, 1433-1539, 1548-1549 and 1553-57. In total this census recorded 340,200 people in seven liwas. For Palestine within the borders of the Mandate period a total of 206,290.107 In general the trend was towards an increase in population by 1596. Haggai Etkes‘s work on the Liwa of Gaza also found this to be the case.108 Village density was highest in the mountains and in the Galilee. Villages were ―small for the most part and onl very few have more than 522 inhabitants.‖109 Hütteroth and Abdulfatah noted that ―apart from natural conditions, aspects of security pay a decisive role in this distribution pattern of rural settlements‖, a reference to the problem of Bedouin raids.110 In general the survey for 1596 found that ―there was not much more space for the extension of agricultural settlements at least with the traditional methods of that time.‖111By the 19th century the ―density of settlement is far below that of the 16th century.‖112 A map showing these changes between 1596 and 1880 illustrates this fact. Large decreases were clear in the coastal plain, Shephelah, Jordan valley, Huleh valley and around the Sea of Galilee and on the fringes of the Negev desert. There were slight 107 Wolf Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah, Historical-Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the late 16th Century, p. 43. 108 Etkes, Haggai, ‗Legalizing Extortion: Containing Armed Bedouin Tribes by State Regulated ―Protection Payments‖ and Military Forces in Ottoman Gaza (1519-1582),‘ 2227, (The Hebrew University, Unpublished Phd dissertation). (Hebrew). 109 Hütt. And Abd. Historical-Geography, p. 47. 110 Hütt. And Abd., Historical-Geography, p. 47. 111 Hütt. And Abd., Historical-Geography, p. 56. 112 Hütt. And Abd., Historical-Geography, p. 56. 88 increases in only a few spots. Haim Gerber has taken issue with this portrayal of decline, arguing that the ―population of Palestine ]in 1596[…was probably even lower than in 1822.‖113 He argues that the presence of numerous khirbats on the map don‘t necessarily point to a mass desertion of villages in the Ottoman period. Nevertheless the decline in settlement in the Ottoman period has been noted by researchers such as Amy Singer, Bernard Lewish and others; ―The early 19th century, the time during which the level of settlement density and the economy is assumed to be at its lowest since the 16th century, has not been documented and needs intensive investigation.‖114 Bedouins One issue that is also interesting is the extent of Bedouin influence on the country. In general ―many of the villages along the southern coastal inner plain of Israel were only founded in the 19th century, because until then the fellahin (farmers) population was too afraid of the nomadic Bedouin wandering in this area.‖115 In addition ―The areas which had been totally abandoned are those close to the Bedouin frontier.‖116 But by the end of the 19th century there was also a trend, noticeable in the Transjordan as well as in Palestine; ―Slowly the Khurbets began to be used as permanent places of settlement. Houses built by shaykhs of sub-sections, or by other Bedouin, were at first used more in 113 Haim Gerber, Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem, 1890-1914, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag. 1985, p. 50. Hütt. And Abdl., Historical-Geography, p. 7. See also Amnon Cohen and Bernard Lewis. Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century. Princeton, 1978; Amy Singer. ―The Countryside 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): 51-79. 114 115 116 Levin, Kark, Galilee, p. 16. Hütt. And Abd., Historical-Geography, p. 61. 89 winter than in summer, or were used mainly as store houses.‖117 The role of Bedouins will be discussed further in Chapter 3. Land Laws 1856-1867 The Hatt-i-Humayun (1856), the 1858 land law and the 10 June 1867 land law had a dramatic impact on the land system in Palestine. Ruth Kark has noted that ―beginning after 1858 we find a dominant and important process of privatization of landownership and the resulting phenomenon of large agricultural estates and estate buildings in Palestine. It had a long-term impact on the land and landscape. The main catalyst of this process, and even of the establishment of new villages and new cities in the Ottoman Empire in general and in Palestine in particular, were the Ottoman Land Laws.‖118 The land laws opened up the land to speculation and after 1858 a total of 1 million dunams were purchased by private investors (effendis) and an additional 800,000 dunams was accumulated by the Ottoman sultan. This was more than a quarter of the Arable land and a total of around 6.5% of the total land area of Palestine.119 The main logic behind the land laws was to modernize the land system in the empire through establishing clear definitions for landholdings and categories of land. It also abolished ―the system of tax farming, and consolidated and retrieved the state‘s rights to its miri Land on which the state has ultimate ownership rights (raqaba) but which individuals may pass from one to another) lands in order to increase agricultural 117 Norman Lewis, Jordan, page 139. Ruth Kark, ‗Consequences of the Ottoman Land law: Agrarian and Privatization processes in Palestine 1858-1919‘, unpublished paper, 2228, p. 2. R. Kark and D. Grossman, 'The Communal (musha’) Village of the Middle East and North Africa'. In: W. Leimgruber, R. Majoral, and C-W. Lee (eds), Policies and Strategies in Marginal Regions. Hants, (UK: Ashgate, 2003). 119 Kark, ‗Consequences of the Ottoman Land law‘, p. 3, 6. 118 90 production and therefore tax revenues.‖120 The ―code entrusted the tax collection to the tapu officials and aimed to abolish the musha’a (form of communal land holding in Muslim countries by which a group of people-usually a village hold shares or parcels which are periodically reallocated for cultivation) system, in which all the inhabitants of the village held the land of the village collectively in shares that were periodically redistributed among them every few years.‖121 It also set up a system of land registration through the Tabu law which allowed for the registration of private property and pious endowment lands. After 1858 the land system included five legal categories of land ranging from private freehold to uncultivated state land: mulk (private freehold), miri, waqf (religious endowment), matruka (public land) and mewat (unoccupied or ‗dead‘ state land). It was extended to the entire region under Ottoman control with a similar law being enacted in Egypt in the same period, meaning that the legal underpinnings of land registration covered the area extending from North Africa to Arabia and the Middle East. An accompanying law known as the Tapu law of December 1858 established a system for land registration in official registration books and the issuing of title deeds (kushans) to owners. In general these laws, and subsequent laws regulating the registration of mulk private freehold land and waqf land in imperial registers (daftar khani), moved the system of registration away from religious Islamic Shariah courts and into the hands of the Ottoman state.122 But the implementation of the law was haphazard, proceeding from Kark, ‗Consequences of the Ottoman Land law‘, p. 1. Ibid. See also Birgit Schaebler, ‗Practicing Musha‘: Common Lands and the Common Good in Southern Syria under the Ottomans and French‘ in New Perspectives on Property and Land in the Middle East, Roger Owen (ed.), Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs, XXXIV, Cambridge: Center for Middle Eastern Studies of Harvard University, 2000, pp. 241-312. 122 Dov Gavish, A Survey of Palestine Under the British Mandate 1920-1948, p. 26. 120 121 91 north to south and from more populated municipal centers to regional ones. For instance registration only began in the Ajlun district of Jordan in 1876 and land registry offices were opened in southern Jordan in 1900.123 In general, with the exception of some very large estates such as those of Abdul Hamid II, land registration was concentrated in towns and villages and the lands surrounding them. This meant that the vast majority of land in the Middle East, fell outside those areas affected by registration between 1858 and 1917 and not coincidentally, this was where the vast majority of the Bedouins resided. In addition one shortcoming of the system was that land was still registered through verbal descriptions, without maps attached, leaving open the possibility for disagreement over the exact borders of landholdings later. Its greatest affect was the accumulatin of lands in the hands of great landlords referred to in the literature as ‗effendis‘. Previously villages had practiced a system of communal holding of land called ‗musha‘ which divided land into narrow strips. After the land law of 1858 the lands of entire villages in some cases would actually be bought and sold by investors, leading in some cases to the depopulation of those villages. In other cases the effendis brought in tenants to farm their lands, resulting in the creation of new settlements (See Figure 4).124 The affect of the land laws was an opening up of the land of Palestine to investment. This was not merely investment by Arabs and Muslims but also by foreigners including Jews and Europeans, especially after the passage of the 1867 law which extended the rights of foreigners to purchase land. The Arab Village in Palestine 123 124 Fischback, Michael. State, Society and Land in Jordan. London: Brill, 2000. Page 30. The sursuq estates are the best example. See Kark, ‗Consequences‘, p. 3. 92 Arab village life in Palestine was built on a variety of pillars. Foremost among these was the Muslim religion, which dominated most of the villages in Palestine.125 Beside this was the traditional feud between the Qays and Yaman, two ancient factions of Arab tribes, and a rivalry that survives into the present. Within each village there were Hamulas or extended families. These clans dominated the village and local politics as well as the selection of the village Mukhtar or headman. For instance, at Beit Thul west of Jerusalem according to one descendant of a villager there were two Hamulas or extended family clans that inhabited the village; the Khalil Ali (al sheikh Mohammed Ali) and Alqam.126 This is born out by a Haganah report from May 22nd, 1943 which lists the Humulas as Mohamed Ali and Alqam. The Mohamed Ali Hamula which was referred to as 'Khalil' was larger and three fifths of the village belonged to it and it dominated the village council during the Mandate period.127 In addition there were divisions between the Fellahs or peasants, Bedouins and local aristocracy, the ‗effendis‘ that came to prominence in the 19th century. There have been a variety of studies of Palestinian villages such as Moshe Brawer‘s ‗Transformation in Arab Rural Settlement in Palestine‘ and Joseph B. Glass‘s ‗Land Purchases and Land use in the Area of Abu Ghosh‘. Larger general studies such as Ruth Kark and Michal Oren Nordheim‘s Jerusalem & its Environs: 1800-1948’ and Walid Khalidi‘s All that Remains have focused on Arab villages in a specific geographic 125 Although Christians numbered up to 10 percent of the Arab population of Palestine in the early 20 th century they were less than 4% of the rural population. 126 http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Bayt-Thul/Story854.html, accessed December 1, 2006. Posted by Jamal Elayyan Khaleel Mohammed Ali, July 11, 2002. Dr. Hillel Cohen of the Truman Institute at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem confirmed in an email on December 12 th, 2006 that the Hamulah Alqam lived in the village and that villagers first moved to the Jewish Qaurter of the Old City between 1948-1967, since the quarter was emptied of its residents during the war, and they settled there until they were moved to Shufat and Anata which was built in the 1965-1966. See also UNRWA, http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/westbank/shufat.html. 127 See ‗Beit Thul‘ May 22nd, 1943 village Survey. 105/95 A 150. Haganah Archives. 93 area or time period. Some of these themes have been developed by others such as David Grossman and Yehoshua Ben-Arieh in his study ‗The Sanjak of Jerusalem in the 1872s (Hebrew).‘ Scholars such as Bellarmino Begatti have focused on specific religious groups and Palestinian village life as he did in his series on Christian villages in the Galilee, Judea, the Negev and Samaria.128 Therefore there is not a paucity of research on Palestinian village life or the history of villages and districts from the mid 19th century to the present time. Since the time of Edward Robinson and his Biblical Researches which were published following two separate trips in 1838 and 1852 there has been a keen interest in Arab village life in Palestine.129 The foundation of the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) in 1865 and its subsequent survey of Palestine between 1871 and 1877 and its accompanying maps that were published in 1880 was the first systematic survey of the entire country and helped shed light on many Palestinian places of settlement.130 Moreover the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (PEFQSt.) provided a forum for a large number of explorers and writers to document their ideas and observations regarding Arab villagers, among other themes. Ruth Kark and Michal Oren Nordheim in Jerusalem & its Environs have pointed out in their subsection ‗Instability of village life‘ that in ―periods of weak government and Bedouin incursions into the settled parts of the country, many villages were 128 See Begatti, Bellarmino, Ancient Christian Villages of Galilee, Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2001. 129 Robinson, Edward and Eli Smith. Biblical Researches in Palestine: a journal of travels in the year 1838, 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1838. Robinson, Later Biblical Researches in Palestine: a journal of travels in the year 1838.. London: Murray, 1856. 130 Conder, Claude R., and Horatio Kitchener. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archeology. Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Republished Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970. 94 abandoned.‖131 The phenomenon of unstable villages was clear in the Jerusalem subdistrict at dozens of locations including Artas, Najes, Beit Thul, Sar‘a and elsewhere.132 But there was also a tradition of continuity in village life. It is also clear from a quick survey of villages just how many Palestinian places of settlement had been continually settled since ancient times. Travelers and pilgrims throughout the ages give accounts of life in a variety of settled places that date to the Crusader period, Byzantine period and even back to the Second Temple.133 This combination of instability and continuity is what marks the extremes of village life in Palestine. However between these two extremes these exists a third theme; that of new villages and villages that were once ruins and became villages again. David Grossman has written a number of pioneering studies of the theoretical and practical natures of settlement in Palestine during the 19th and 20th centuries. Foremost among these works is his Rural Process-Pattern Relationships: Nomadization, Sedenterization, and Settlement Fixation.134 Grossman provides a number of parameters and formulations for understanding the logical growth of settlements. He notes that ―peaceful expansion of single farmsteads without any interference by government can be expected to continue as long as sufficient land is available.‖135 In applying this to Palestine it is noted that ―The most widespread form of settlement in the early Ottoman 131 Kark, Ruth. Jerusalem its Environs. Jerusalem: Magnus, 2001. Kark, Jerusalem its Environs. p. 274. 133 See for instance Beit Surik. Page 16 Survey of Western Palestine vol. 3. 134 David Grossman, Rural Process-Pattern Relationships: Nomadization, Sedenterization, and Settlement Fization. New York: Praeger, 1992. See also Grossman, David. ‗Settlement patterns in Judea and Samaria. GeoJournal 7: 299-312. Grossman, David. ―Oscillations in the Rural Settlement of Samaria and Judaea in the Ottoman Period,‖ In: S. Dar and Z. Safra (eds.), Shomron Studies. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameihad, 1986, pp. 303-388(Hebrew). 135 Grossman, Process-Pattern page 19. 132 95 period was the small village.‖136 This is apparent from the 1596 tax records of the Ottomans.137 Between this period and the early 19th century many villages remained in a semi-ruined form, appearing from the outside as Qashdas or ruins.138 Grossman points out that village life in the Levant was characterized by the ‗Nucleated village‘ which is to say the small cluster of village homes around some larger structure, perhaps on a hill or a place that is easily defendable. It was rare to find farmsteads or single family homes existing outside the village. This was due to the prevalence of insecurity in the countryside due to Bedouin raiding and a weak government.139 Grossman notes several other characteristics of rural settlement in Palestine: the planting of Sabra cacti next to and around settlements, the existence of some hamlets and ―isolated villas‖ as well as the use of rocks to build houses and walls.140 Guerin notes that the village of Deir Hanna grew up inside the walls of the former fortress or monastery for which the settlement is named, and that it was repopulated in the 19th century.141 Either way a multiplicity of villages were what could be referred to as an acropolis Village or hilltop settlement. Reverend F.A. Klein of the PEF noticed in 1881 the preference of the Fellahin to live around a sheikh‘s house that had the ―appearance of an impregnable fortress.‖142. He points out that the sun-dried brick built 136 Grossman, Process-Pattern page 66. Hütt. And Abd., Historical-Geography, 58.. 138 Ibid page 73. 139 See Grossman Rural, p. 77 and see Falah, Ghazi. The Role of the British Administration in the sedentarization of the Bedouin Tribes in Northern Palestine: 1918-1948. Occasional Papers no. 17. Durham: University of Durham, Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, 1983. Page 7 notes that large raids by Bedouins in time of weak government such as the Ghazzu(raid) of the Rwala before World War I, that reached deep into the Galilee from Jordan. 140 Grossman, Rural, , page 77 141 Guerin 1985, 6: 316-7. 142 Kline, F.A. ‗Life, Habits, and Customs of the Fellahin of Palestine.‘ PEFQSt. January, 1881, page 110. 137 96 ―huts‖ of the villages ―as a rule are built on the summit or slope of a hill.‖143 Grossman further points out that ―a comparison of sixteenth and nineteenth century data suggests that many existing villages are not very old. They were occupied, or re-occupied, during the Ottoman period.‖144 Therefore it is not surprising that there were many ruins throughout Palestine, particularly in the regions around Jerusalem and a number of these ruins oscillated between desertion and inhabitation. There are a number of classifications of settlements. There is the ‗daughter‘ settlement. The idea of the daughter settlement is that seasonal workers or people leaving due to demographics, who may even be semi-nomadic, inhabit caves and or other semipermanent dwellings, eventually settling down permanently. Gideon Golany in his 1966 referred to these types of settlements as ―Branch villages‖, this research will retain the more common term.145 In one model the seasonal fellahin or peasants use ruins as a base of operations, thus the ruin can serve as a place of embryonic settlement.146 The izba or ‗seasonal settlement‘ is defined as a separate category than the daughter settlement but both can be created through the pressures of demography, which is to say population growth. The seasonal settlement is created when people farming an area for a season bring enough tools and items with them year after year that eventually they choose to remain. There were a plethora of these exact types of settlement, liable even for taxation in the early Ottoman period, near Hebron.147 143 Ibid Kline, PEFQSt, .January, 1881, page 113. Grossman, Process page 79. 145 Gideon Golany, Geography of Settlements of Eron Valley Region, Thesis submitted for doctorate of philosophy, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, October 1966 (Hebrew). Volume III, map 60 provides a very interesting example of daughter villages in the Sharon region. 146 Grossman, Rural, page 91. 147 Grossman, Rural, page 135. 144 97 Grossman writes that ―the villages that eventually emerged above the caves were mostly settled by Bedouin.‖148 These settlements became inhabited between the early 19th and early 20th centuries. Another study conducted in the Samaria region, relying on statistics from the Mandate period, examined ‗daughter‘ or ‗offshoot‘ settlements of the large village of Yabad. Yabad had 2,383 inhabitants in 1931. This village produced a number of ‗daughters‘ at Barta‘a, Zibda and Aqqaba among others. Aqqaba had 22 inhabitants in 1922 but 411 residents in 1931 and 89 houses. Zibda by contrast had only 132 residents in 1931 and 22 houses. This pattern of off-shoots, evident from Mandatory statistics, was part of a general pattern that had existed in the 19th century. In a similar Samaria offshoot of Deir al-Ghusun there was the village of Yamma, where the first houses were built after 1905 and there were not more than a few by 1918. In other offshoot the same pattern was discernable.149 Once new settlements were established they also grew. Since, as we shall see, many of the new settlements arose inside previous ruins they therefore replicated the nucleated pattern of the ruin. But as Moshe Brawer has shown in his study ‗Transformation in Arab Settlement‘150, the growth of villages over time became more dispersed, especially as increased security was the norm. He notes that the initial stages of expansion were ―marked not only by their slow pave but also by the short distance away from the clustered nucleus that people were willing to move.‖151 In the 1940s this resulted in ―the expansion of the clustered area rather than in dispersion and a change in 148 Grossman Rural, page 132. Ginat, J. Women in Muslim Rural Society, status and role in family and Community. New Brunswick, Transaction Book, 1982, page 11. As referenced in Grossman, Process page 137. 150 In Ruth Kark, The Land That Became Palestine, pp. 167-180. 151 Brawer, ‗Transformation‘, p. 176. 149 98 pattern.‖152 It was also ―sporadic, in accordance with local tendencies and the villagers‘ convenience.‖153 The village frequently grew outwards mimicking its original Haufendorf or nucleated pattern but ―in a looser form.‖154 Sometimes however the village came to resemble a Strassendorf (linear) or street centered village with houses growing out along a road (See Figure 4a). As we shall see in this study the expansion of new villages was tied closely to the environment and the origin of the settlers, as well as the physical/archeological origin of the settlement itself. Muslim Immigrants and Settlers in the 19th century There are a limited number of studies on the history of Muslim and Arab immigration to Palestine in the 19th century. Mustafa Abbasi‘s ‗From Algeria to Palestine: The Algerian Community in the Galilee from the Late Ottoman Period Until 1948‘ is one of the few.155 But it is known that there were at least two pronounced waves of foreign immigrations of Egyptians and Algerians. The first to come were the Egyptians. Grossman has written that ―the major series of Egyptian migration waves are associated with the time of Mohammad Ali's Syrian campaign. The original wave took place in 1829, about two years before the Brawer, ‗Transformation‘, p. 176. Brawer, ‗Transformation‘, p. 176. 154 Brawer, ‗Transformation‘, p. 176. 155 Mustafa Abassi, ‗From Algeria to Palestine: The Algerian Community in the Galilee from the late Ottoman period until 1948.‘ The Maghred Review, vol. 28, 2003. 152 153 99 invasions and ended in early 1841, with the forced retreat of the Egyptian army.‖156 The Egyptian migration was not small; ―the Egyptian population that remained in Palestine after the retreat of the army made up the largest migration that the country had known during the nineteenth century.‖157 Egyptians that settled in villages in Palestine could be found primarly in the low country, including in the Baysan area, Wadi Araba, the Jezreel valley, the Shephelah, the coastal plain and the Negev. In the Baysan area they settled on lands that had been reported to Moses Montefiore in 1839 as available for purchase. This included Kh. Kerak and Dalhamiya.158 As we shall see Dalhamiya later became an unstable village and was re-colonized again over the years. The PEF noted one such village in Baysan named after Egypt called Kafr Misr ―A small mud village with a spring on the north, standing in plough-land and inhabited by Egyptians…It is probably modern.‖159 The Egyptian migrants were poor and landless and ―most of the Egyptians had no rights to the land they lived on, and were, in fact, the main reservoir of the sharecroppers needed by the absentee landowners (commonly referred to as effendis) who were looking for cheap and obedient manpower.‖160 Some of them were semi-nomadic, including the Ghawarina tribe and Arab Zubeid tribe of the Huleh.161 In total some 20,000 Egyptians had settled in Palestine by 1850.162 However their population in Palestine tended to shrink and become Grossman, chapter 2, unpublished manuscript, p. 3 of the chapter. His footnote reads ―The term "Egyptian" is commonly used for denoting Muhammad Ali‘s rule. I will also use this term in the following discussion. Strictly speaking, however, Muhammad Ali was Albanian, not Egyptian.‖ 157 Grossman, chapter 2, unpublished manuscript, p. 4 of the chapter. 158 Ruth Kark, ‗Agricultural land in Palestine: Letters to Sir Moses Montefiore, 1839‘, in Jewish Historical Studies, Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, Volume XXIX 1982-1986, The Jewish Historical Society of England, 1988, p. 227. 159 Memoirs, Sheet IX, Vol II, p. 65. 160 Grossman, chapter 2, unpublished manuscript, p. 12 of the chapter. 161 Avneri, Claim of Dispossession, p. 13. 162 Grossman chapter 2, unpublished manuscript, p. 13 of the chapter. 156 100 indescernable as many of them were assimilated into the local population over the years.163 Beginning in 1855 and lasting until 1920 a series of waves of Algerian immigrants also found their way to Palestine. The first were followers of the rebel leader Abd al-Qadir al-Jazairi who was exiled first to Paris for his revolt against France and eventually found his way to Palestine. Mustafa Abbasi located four distinct waves (18471860, 1860-1883, 1883-1900, 1900-1920), although because the end of each immigration wave coincides with the start of a new one his description of the immigration should be described as a periodization, rather than separate waves.164 What is important to note is that the first two waves took place mostly before the PEF survey. Grossman concludes that ―four migration waves occurred after 1855. The last wave started in 1900 and lasted to 1920. The Ottoman authorities gave the migrants ten villages with a total area of about 8,416 hectares [84,160 dunams] in the Safad and Tiberias Sub-districts (See Figure 5).‖165 They also acquired land near Shfa‘amr.166 Among these villages, according to Avneri, were the villages of Tuleil and Huseiniya near lake Huleh (See Figure 8).167 Both of these show up as villages as early as a 1910 map by Adolphe Starkmeth.168 Mustafa Abbasi located 12 villages and four towns that were either established by Algerians or 163 Avneri, Claim, p. 13. Mustafa Abbasi, ‗From Algeria to Palestine,‘ pp. 43-45. 165 Grossman chapter 2, unpublished manuscript, p. 18 of the chapter. 166 Mustafa Abbasi, ‗From Algeria to Palestine,‘ p. 48. 167 Avneri, Claim, p. 17. 168 See ‗Carte de Terrains de la Haute Galilee‘, Rosch Pina 1:22,222, Adolphe Starkmeth, May 24 1910. CZA. The map hangson the CZA wall without attribution or sourcing. Ruth Kark, ‗The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,‘ Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, Institute for Neohellenic Research N.H.R.F. Tetradua Ergasias 25/26 (2004), p. 197-220. pp. 202-204. Also see Central Zionist Archive (CZA), Record Group J15M, File 38. 164 101 where they formed a portion of the population.169 The PEF survey only located four Algerian villages; Deishum, Kafr Sabt, Mazar (Madhar) and Olam. The rest, accept for Samach which was part Algerian, were founded after or during the time of the PEF survey. The Algerians amassed a great deal of property under Abd al-Qadir and his descendants. Some of this property would eventually be sold to Jewish investors, transforming ―most of the eastern Lower Galilee, into a large, contiguous Jewish territory that included a number of Jewish settlements.‖170 Waves of immigration also included, as we shall see, Jewish immigrants, Germans, Circassians and Bosnians. What is most important to note about these immigration waves is that they primarily resulted in the settlement of the low lying regions of Palestine or the intermediate foothills. Few of the immigrants, whether Egyptians of Jews, built new settlements or settled in existing settlements in the hills. This pattern which resulted in the opening up of the deserted and semi-deserted landscapes of Palestine were of essential importance for the creation of a periphery of semi-secure lands that might be enticing to would-be local Arab Muslims migrants looking to leave their villages.171 The PEF survey of Palestine, 1871-1877 Mustafa Abassi, ‗From Algeria to Palestine: The Algerian Community in the Galilee from the late Ottoman period until 1948.‘ The Maghred Review, vol. 28, 2003, p. 42. They were located in the following villages; Deishum, Tuleil, Husseiniya, Ammuqa, Marus, Kaysair, Husheh, Kafr Sabt, Sha‘ara, Mazar, Olam, Samakh. The towns included Nazareth, Acre, Safed and Tiberias. There were significant portions in the towns, for instance by 1881 a total of 6,800 were settled in Acre. They may have formed half the population of Safad in the 1870s, although Abbasi claims that by the Mandate period there were only 200 of them left, perhaps due to assimilation. 170 Grossman chapter 2, unpublished manuscript, p. 19 of the chapter. 171 Ruth Kark, ‗Land ownership and spatial change in the nineteenth century Palestine: An overview.‘ In M. Roscizewsky (Ed.), Transition From Spontaneous to Regulated Spatial Organization, Warsaw: The Polish Academy of Sciences, 1984, pp. 183-196. 169 102 The Palestine Exploration Fund‘s survey of Palestine and its accompanying maps and memoirs are widely regarded to be accurate to the degree providing a complete picture of the country and its settled areas. Numerous scholars have used it as a benchmark for comparison in terms of settlement patterns. Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, in their monumental work on the Ottoman census from the 16th century use it as a point of comparison as does Grossman.172 The PEF‘s attempt to map the entire country of Palestine followed in the footsteps of other mapping attempts. In 1799 the French cartographer Pierre Jacotin accompanied the force of Napoleon on their invasion and sojourn in the Holy Land. He produced the first trigonometrically based topographic map in a period of just two months. In general the 1:100,000 map he produced has been widely criticized for its in-accuracy.173 The American explorer Edward Robinson produced a map of the country following his 1838 visit with Rev. Eli Smith. In 1858 the Dutch cartographer Van de Velde published a 1:315,000 map that covered the area from Tripoli to south of the Dead Sea. This was ―recognized as the best cartographic work on the country until the appearance of the map of the Palestine Exploration Fund.‖174 Victor Guerin also produced a map of the country following his visits between 1863 and 1871.175 The Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) was founded in 1865 under the inspiration of George Grove, a biblical-archeologist and all around renaissance man. The original prospectus of the society noted that ―no country should be of so much interest to us as 172 Grossman, Rural, p. 71, Hütt. And Abdl., Historical-Geography, p. 7. Levin, Kark and Galilee, p. 3, also see Gavish 1991, 2005 and Karmon, 1960. 174 See Gavish, A Surcey of Palestine under the British Mandate, New York: Routledge;, 2005, p.10. 175 Victor Guerin, Description Geographique, Historique et Archeologique de la Palestine, Paris, 1869 (‗Judee‘), 1874 (‗Samarie‘), 1882 (‗Galilee‘), 7 Vols; 173 103 that in which the documents of out Faith were written.‖176 In 1870, heeding calls by cartographer cum explorer and archeologists Charled Warren and Charles Wilson the society decided to dispatch Lieutenants Claude Regnier Conder and Horatio H. Kitchener to Palestine to complete a survey of the entire country based on the latest technology. M. Clermont-Ganneau and Tyrwhitt Drake were also dispatched, the former composing a descriptive account of the country and the latter to assist with the mapping. Gavish writes that ―the survey began with the layout of a triangulation network from two baselines measured between Lydda and Ramle and in the plain of Esdraelon. The system was based on control points established in the past by Symonds (1841), on Wilson‘s leveling (1865), and on Mansell‘s points along the coastline (1858).‖177 In total 26 sheets were produced for the map which was 1:63,362 scale. Gavish writes that ―during the next half century, for lack of a more modern map, the PEF map was considered the most reliable and served as a basis for adaptations of new maps compiled with reference to it.‖178 It was reliable to such an extent that the British army marching to Palestine in the First World War carried the PEF map re-issued by the Survey of Egypt and the War Office on a 1:40,000 scale overlayed with grid coordinates.179 The Survey was completed over half a dozen years and was met with much difficulty. It began in the country around Ramleh and Lydda and by 1872 was working it way down to Jaffa. By August of that year it was at Nablus and Jenin. From there it proceded to the Jezreel valley and by October was nearer the plain of Sharon. It was 176 Lt. Conder and Kitchener, The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs of the Topography, orography, Hydrography and Archeology, Volume I, London: PEF, 1881, p. 7. 177 See Gavish, A Survey, p. 11. 178 Ibid, Gavish, Survey, p. 12. 179 On its reliability also see Levin, Kark and Galilee, ‗Maps and settlement of Southern Palestine, 17991948: an historical/GIS analysis‘, Journal of Historical Geography, 2009, 1-21, in press, p. 17. 104 assaulted on numerous occasions by locals and by various fevers.180 It spent the fall of 1872 working its way up to Nazareth and then down to the Germany colony at Haifa. In the spring of 1873 the plain of Sharon was surveyed and by June of that year 1,800 miles had been surveyed.181 The fall of 1873 was spent in the Judean and Hebron hills around Bethelehem. The spring of 1874 was spent surveying around Jerusalem and from thence the Jordan valley, Ghor al Faria and Baysan. In October of 1874 part of the survey party moved to the area around Beersheba and completed a survey of the northern Negev which continued into the spring of 1875 and included the area of the southern Dead Sea. In the same period the coastal plain south of Jaffa was surveyed as was the Gaza area. Then it was back to the Galilee for work around Shefa‘arm and Safed where an attack by ―Algerine colonists‖ left Kitchener badly wounded.182 In 1877 surveying commenced again with surveys of the country around Tiberias, the Sea of Galilee and the Huleh up to Banias as well as southern Lebanon. In September of 1877 the survey was completed with a total of 6,040 miles surveyed.183 The survey employed the latest mapping methods of triangulation, base checks, and the use of barometers. In order to obtain information on the villages and sites ―names were collected on the spot by each surveyor, great care being taken to obtain them from persons most likely to be well informed.‖184 Names were written in Arabic script and in English and ―every effort was thus made to secure both correct spelling and correct application for every name.‖185 Some 9,000 names were collected and most were 180 See Memoris, Vol. 1, p. 24-25. Ibid, p. 25. 182 Ibid, p. 27. 183 Ibid, p. 29. 184 Ibid, p. 35. 185 Ibid, p. 36. 181 105 placed on the map. The names were also cross-referenced with Turkish lists of villages which had ―many errors‖ and Robinson‘s lists as well as a list of villages and ruins in the Galilee prepared by Rev. Zeller of Nazareth and a list of places around Nablus prepared by Rev. J. Elkram. Some special archeological sites were mapped using chain and compass and larger scale individual maps were produced for Baysan, Atlit and Caesaria among others. The 1880 map included clear destinctions between ruins and settled villages. The former were marked with a dashed line and usually included an ‗R‘ next to them while populated villages were an unbroken circle with red fill. Swamps were indicated as were sheikh‘s tombs. In addition the names of various Bedouin tribes were written across the areas where they were most prominent. The map produced in 1880 was not the only important work of the survey. In addition the multi-volume Memoirs are of equal importance for providing descriptions of existing villages as well as ruined ones. It also includes sections on ‗traditions‘ and water use for each map. Each feature on the map is included in the Memoirs with the exception of a few ruins that seem to have been overlooked. This essential accompanying text is equal in many ways to a census of the country, although it is not always accurate as regards the exact population of inhabited villages for it did not record this data in all cases and in other cases relied on the works of others such as Guerin and the British consul Rogers. In addition Conder produced two books about his travels, one entitled Palestine and the other Tent Work in Palestine which give a narrative account of the country, the survey and the people‘s encountered.186 186 Claude R. Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, London: A. P Watt, 1895; Claude R. Conder, Palestine, first published 1891, N.P: Kessinge Publishing, 2004. 106 Chapter 2: From ruin to settlement in rural Late Ottoman Palestine; 1877-1922 General description of the period The late Ottoman period, for our purpouses covering the period 1871-1922, was marked by modernization and the long rule, a postive thing for continuity and development, of Abdul Hamid II (1876-1908). It was noted for the enactment of land laws, most significantly in 1858 and the introduction of foreign immigrant waves into Palestine, particularly Jewish immigration after 1880. European Christians also took 107 advantage of greater access to the country, through the railroad, ports and increased security, to arrive in greater numbers as pilgrims and also as settlers. In Palestine it was marked by the increasing accumulation of large land holdings into the hands of a few people, particularly outside investors. It saw the increasing marginalization of the Bedouin as a political or military force in the area. With the exception of the population decline resulting from the First World War (1914-1918), there was population growth throughout the area although the problematic Ottoman census regime does not always provide a great level of detail or accuracy when it comes to these numbers. Economically the region underwent a transformation and saw the extension of investment to lands hitherto considered mewat or dead lands, the attempt to open new areas to farming and preliminary attempts to grant concessions over the previously impenetrable swamps, such as the Huleh.187 Abdul Hamid II and the Late Ottoman Period Sultan Abdülhamid II (ruled 1876-1909) was the last influential sultan of the Ottoman empire. He attempted to continue the policies of modernization that his father, Abdulmecid I (ruled 1839 to 1861) had begun. As the son of a Circassian mother he took a keen interest in the affairs of Muslim refugees seeking resettlement in the empire. He was variously known as ‗the Great Assasin‘ and ‗Abdul the Damned‘ for his role in the Armenian massacres of the 1890s.188 His most important contribution was in Palestine Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II and Palestine: Private Lands and Imperial Policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, (2008), 129-166. 188 For his nicknames see Webster Fawcett, ‗Abdul Hamid‘s Estate‘, Palestine Post, November 23rd, 1945. 187 108 where he ―attempted to increase its internal cohesion and to secure his own position by reintroducing Islam as the ideological basis of the State.‖189 A British naval intelligence report of 1920 recalled that ―Abdul Hamid's time, one is bound to admit that a good deal of beneficent construction – almost all that make Syria as a whole the most civilized province of Turkey at this day – stands to the credit of a Sultan whose energies are popularly supposed to have been uniformly destructive and sinister.‖190 He was also a great investor in property throughout his own empire, conflating the role of the estate with his own private interests, through personal investment and the direction of the Ottoman privy purse towards the accumulation of estates. He accumulated some fifty-six million dunams in the Arab provinces of the Empire.191 Fischel and Kark have shown that ―the private lands of Abdülhamid II in Palestine were comprised of 115 tracts covering 832,222 metric dunam (from Turkish: dönüm, equals to 1,000m2) or roughly nine hundred thousand Ottoman dunams (919.3m2), thus covering 3.1% of the total landed area of Mandatory Palestine.‖192 The sultan‘s land was classified as çiftlik-i hümayun, or imperial çiftlik. The Ottoman land code of 1858 defined çiftlik in two ways, the first being 60-150 Ottoman dunams, and the other being a large tract with a single owner, which could not be divided.193 Fischel and Kark note that ―Çiftlik estates were created in three ways. First, Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II and Palestine: Private Lands and Imperial Policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, (2008), 129-166; Ruth Kark and Seth J. Frantzman, ‗One of the Most Spectacular Lawsuits ever launched: Abdulhamid‘s heirs, his lands and the Land case in Palestine, 19281950, New Perspectives on Turkey, 42, 2010, pp. 127-157. 190 See Great Britain, Admiralty Geographical Section of the Naval Intelligence Division 10, no. 58 (1920), p. 41. 191 Arzu T. Terzi, Hazine-i Hassa Nezareti (Ankara: Tarih Kuruku Basımevi, 2222), pp. 95-96. 192 Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 135. 193 Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 145. Halil İnalcık, ―Čiftlik,‖ Encyclopedia of Islam (New Edition), vol. ii, pp. 32-33; ―The Ottoman Land Code of 7 Ramazan 1274 (21 April 1858),‖ in The 189 109 with the abolishment of the timar system, some estates became large çiftliks. Second, the unification of several units created large çiftliks. Third, taking over mevat, i.e. uncultivated state lands on which no one could claim legal rights. In exchange, the state gained the ‗revival‘ (ihya) of the land as an agricultural tract….Land surveys and the tapu law (January 1859) were the main instrument used by the Sultan and his representatives to find out which lands were available for purchase. In 1871, a land survey, conducted all over the Empire, defined deserted or sparsely inhabited villages, whose lands were called şemsiye.‖194 The Sultan‘s man in Palestine who helped to negotiate and scout out some of these settlements was none other than Ali Ekram Bey, the governor (mutasarrıf) of Jerusalem from 1906-1908.195 The Sultan invested in land and helped to settle people on it. For instance at the town of Baysān the Sultan owned 7,817 dunams.196 The PEF had found a ―miserable hamlet of some 62 mud cabins‖ which by 1924 had a population of 2,522 inhabitants (See in depth case study of the Baysan region below).197 After Abdülhamid II was overthrown and imprisoned by the Young Turks his land was confiscated and transferred to the state, which considering the fact that the finances for the purchases had come from the fact that the sultan was the sultan was not surprising. Fischel and Kark note that ―after the British occupation of Palestine in 1918, the government conducted a systematic Ottoman Land Code, tr. F. Ongley (London: William Clowers and Sons, 1892), articles 99, 130-131, pp. 51, 68-69. 194 Fischel, Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 145. Also, Gilles Veinstein, ―On the Çiftlik Debate,‖ in Landholding and Commercial Agriculture in the Middle East, ed. Ç. Keyder and F. Tabak (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), pp. 35-39. 195 Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 147. 196 Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 166. 197 The Survey, PEF sheet IX, Vol II, p. 83. Karl Bädeker, Palästina und Syrien: Handbuch für Reisende (Leipzig: Karl Bädeker, 1904), p. 194. 110 survey and registration of the lands. Çiftlik lands were registered as state domain.‖198 Later some of the lands were purchased by Jewish organizations. In the 1920s and in subsequent years the heirs of the sultan, who had had more than a hundred concubines, applied to courts throughout the empire to regain the property, to little affect.199 Investors in Land Following the 1858 land law wealthy investors or effendis from Palestine and nearby Arab lands became investors in lands throughout Palestine.200 The impact of modernization, the land laws of 1858, the reforms of the hatt-i hümayun of 1856 and a law from 1867 all opened up the land not only to local investors but also to Europeans and other foreigners.201 According to Kark ―by the end of Ottoman rule in Palestine private estates covered over one million dunams out of a total land area of 27 million metric dunams of Western Palestine (1 metric dunam = 1,000 square meters), comprising over a quarter of the arable land (4 million metric dunams)… In Palestine, fifty western agricultural settlements and a hundred urban neighborhoods were established by 1914.‖202 198 The similarity between the map of the private lands of Abdülhamid II and the state domain in 1936 is striking; a large portion of the lands marked as state domain are formerly çiftliks. See: Administration map (State domain and forest reserves), 1:250,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1936, Mt. Scopus map library 900 B(Adm) – 61. 199 Fischel, Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 133, also Palestine, Land in Jewish Possession (as of 30.6.1947), 1:250,000, Joseph Weitz and Zalman Liphshitz on behalf of the Jewish Agency, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1947, Mt. Scopus map library, KB 900B (ADM) 34. 200 Ruth Kark, ―Landownership and Spatial Change in Nineteenth Century Palestine: an Overview,‖ in Seminar on Historical Types of Spatial Organizations: The Transition from Spontaneous to Regulated Spatial Organistaion (Warsaw, 1983), pp. 1-7. 201 Fischel, Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2008, p. 145. 202 Kark, ―Changing Patterns,‖ p. 359; Kenneth W. Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); Ruth Kark, "Napoleon to Allenby: Processes of Change in Palestine, 1800-1918," in Shared Histories: A Palestinian Israeli Dialogue, ed. Paul Scham, Walid Salem and Benjamin Pogrond, (Jerusalem: Left Coast Press Truman Institute, Panorama Center, and Yakar Center, Jerusalem, 2005), 13-61; 2nd edition of this book was published by Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. 111 As was the case with the sultan's lands, the lands purchased by the effendis and foreigners were not equally distributed but were concentrated in the low lying and ‗marginal‘ regions of Palestine. These included the Negev and various swampland and deserted landscapes in the plains and valleys from the Huleh to the Sharon and the Jordan valley.203 According to various works by Kark, Grossman, Aharonson and Ben-Artzi ―ownership by effendis facilitated the purchase of part of this land by Jewish immigrants from Europe for settlement in nucleated villages. Thus over 52 estate buildings became the initial core of the new Jewish agricultural settlement in Palestine. At least 15 became the initial core of German Christian settlement or religious activity.‖204 Bedouins The role of the Bedouins in the Middle East has typically been portrayed as a competition between the ‗desert and the sown‘.205 But this ebb and flow that existed between the power of the state and the power of the nomadic tribes began to shift in the 16th century and after. 206 Nevertheless great nomadic raids frequently affected large sections of the Arab world into the 19th century, including such famous resurgences of Karpat, ―Ottoman Immigration Policies,‖ pp. 58-64. 203 Ruth Kark, ―Land Acquisition and New Agricultural Settlement in Palestine during the Tyomkin Period, 1890-1892,‖ Zionism 9 (1984): 186-190 (in Hebrew). 204 Ruth Kark, ‗Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization processes in Palestine, 1858-1918‘, Submitted 2228 for publication. David Grossman, Rural Process-Pattern Relationship (New York: Praeger, 1992): 175-176. Yossi Ben-Artzi, Ruth Kark and Ran Aharonshon, "Kahns or Estate Buildings? The Question of the Original Function of Jewish Settlement Sites in the Land of Israel Landscape (1882-1914)," Zionism 13 (1988): 263-283 (in Hebrew); Ruth Kark, "Khans or Estate Buildings", in The Khan Museum Catalogue, ed. N. Rudin, (Hadera: The ―Khan‖ Museum,2001). 205 Hourani, History pages 100-104. This is a common theme among all who study the Middle East prior to the mid 20th century. See for example, Lewis, Norman N. Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan, 18001980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Also Birgit Schaebler "Practicing 'Musha': Common Lands and the Common Good in Southern Syria under the Ottomans and the French (1812-1942)," in: Roger Owen (ed.), Rights to Access, Rights to Surplus: New Approaches to Land in the Middle East, Harvard University Press, 2001, pp. 267-338. Also Birgit Schaebler, The "Noble Arab": Shifting DisCurrent Courses in Early Nationalism in the Arab East (1910-1916). In: Streck, Bernhard; Leder, Stefan (eds.):Shifts and Drifts in Nomad Sedentary Relations. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2005, pp. 443-467. 206 Haim Gerber, The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers and London: Mansell Publishing, 1987), pp. 59-61. 112 nomadic power as that generated by the power of the Wahhabi movement. The way in which the Ottomans attempted to disrupt Bedouin power was through a complex system of bribes, alliances and military expeditions. For instance in 1867 the Ottomans sent an expedition against the Banu Sakhr (in modern day Jordan) and their leader Findi al Faiz as well as against the Adwan and their chief Ali al-Dhiyab due to their having attacked the town of al-Ramath and having harassed the Hajj route, which they were traditional ‗protectors‘ of.207 In this battle the Ottomans employed the Wuld Ali Bedouins to fight their neighbors. During this expedition both the Bani Sakhr, Hamaydah (who lived north of Karak) and Adwan submitted to Ottoman authority.208 The 19th century saw a dramatic shift in the power of the central government visà-vis the Bedouins. It began with a sort of ‗coexistence‘ whereby the Bedouins controlled the lowlands and rural settlements controlled the hills. Gradually, beginning with Egyptian expeditions against the nomads the Bedouin power began to be reduced. The governor of Jerusalem, Rauf Pasha (Paşa), embarked on four expeditions between May 1876 and November 1878 against the Bedouin tribes of southern Palestine209. But a policy of ‗butcher and bolt‘ was not enough.210 Improvements in the transportation system and the establishment of administrative centers were also needed, 207 Ibid; Abujaber, Pioneers page 36-37. This story is also told in Lewis, Nomads page 124-125. 209 Letter from the mutasarrıf of Jerusalem (Rauf Paşa) to the Consul of the German government in Jerusalem, 10 May [12]92 (23 May 1876), ISA, RG 83, (no number); Letter from the mutasarrıf of Jerusalem (Rauf Paşa) to the Consul of the German government in Jerusalem, 10 May [12]92 (23 May 1876), ISA, RG 83 (no number); Letter from the mutasarrıf of Jerusalem (Rauf Paşa) to the Consul of the German government in Jerusalem, 31 May [12]93 (12 June 1877), ISA, RG 67 (no number); Havazeleth, 31 May and 7 November 1878 (in Hebrew). 210 This is the name popularly used among British soldiers for the campaign in Iraq in 1920 against Arab rebels, many of whome were tribal nomads. It was also used by Churchill to describe his commandos and their methods during the Second World War. See a Time Magazine article from Monday, June 8th, 1942, ‗Why are we Waiting‘. See also Colonel Kenneth J. Alnwiick, ‗Perspectives on Air Power at the low end of the Conflict Spectrum,‘ in Air University Review, March-April 1984, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1984/mar-apr/alnwick.html. 208 113 resulting, for instance, in the1899/1900 establishment of Beersheba.211 Yasmin Avci, in one of the most recent studies on Ottoman policy in the region notes that ―until the end of the nineteenth century, Beersheba had been paid barely any attention, and due to ongoing feuds, tribal rivalry and outbursts of intertribal wars, there was no evidence of effective administrative activity.‖212 The establishment of the new town had an impact on the region and marked the beginning of settlement by Bedouin and others in the Negev. In addition the Bedouins lifestyle had to be altered, including sedenterization of them. Fischel and Kark note that; "in the 1922s, the Bedouins around Baysān usually resided in one place and were involved in agriculture. They were supervised by the local administrative system and most paid the taxes on their crops, which were probably produced for local consumption and some were sold in the towns of northern Palestine. The Bedouin villages had a muhtar responsible for the administration of taxes and connections with the representatives of the government, but the tribal hierarchy persisted…Some aspects of Bedouin life in the Negev did change: the Bedouins became increasingly engaged in agriculture, a process intensified by the foundation of the town of Beersheba as a market for agricultural products. Urban entrepreneurs entered the market as suppliers of agricultural machinery and buyers of surplus and moneylenders in years of drought. From the administrative perspective, the integration of the Bedouins into the Ottoman system was successful. Representatives of the main tribes of the Negev were included in the town council (meclis) of Beersheba, and the revenues of the region were increasing following the establishment of the town. Nevertheless, in the process of the settlement of the Bedouins, only marginal success was recorded."213 Infrastructure and Environmental Change 211 See: Ha-Megid, 21 August 1900 (in Hebrew). Yasemin Avci, ‗The application of the tanzimat in the Desert: Ottoman Central Government and the of Southern Palestine,‘, Middle Eastern Studies 45 (2009), 983-969, 984. 213 Fischel, Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 169. Also Haim Gerber, Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem, 1890-1914, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag. 1985, p. 23; Agmon, ―Bedouin Tribes,‖ pp. 94-101. Fischel, Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 168. Joseph Ben-David, ―The Negev Bedouins: From Nomadism to Agriculture,‖ in The Land that Became Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, ed. Ruth Kark (New Haven: Yale University Press and Jerusalem: Magness Press, 1989), pp. 187-191. Avcı, ―The Application of the Tanzimat‖. 212 114 During the late Ottoman period the infrastructure of Palestine was also altered. In addition the government began to take an active role in attempting to alter the environment through man-made projects, primarily in the realm of swamp drainage. Cadastral maps were a beginning, especially of areas owned by the Sultan and villages built by him.214 In 1892 a road was constructed from Jerusalem to Jericho road and by 1900 it had reached the Jordan River. These roads had been planned as early as 1889, and ―their main purpose was probably the improvement of state control over Jericho and its environs.‖215 In addition a rail extension was built from the Hejaz line to the port of Haifa. A first attempt was made in 1882 when a concession was granted to a British company by failure to execute the project led the Ottoman Empire to complete it.216 It was constructed in 1904 and 1905 and, not coincidentally, it ran through a number of the sultan‘s estates.217 Acqueducts were also repaired or constructed in the Jericho region.218 In 1877 the Ottoman administration began to examine the problem of the Huleh swamps, a massive festering malarial swamp that sourounded the Huleh lake and 214 Maps of Lands Arrangement of the çiftliks of Muḥarraqa, Kawfakha and Jaladiyya, which are attached to Kaza Gaza, Sancak of Jerusalem, 1:5,000, 1309 [1893], Kark Map Collection, Jerusalem (in Turkish). 215 Ruth Kark, ―Transportation in Nineteenth-Century Palestine: Reintroduction of the Wheel,‖ in The Land that Became Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, (New Haven: Yale University Press and Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989), p. 60. 216 David Kushner, ―The Haifa-Damascus Railway: The British Phase (1890-1922),‖ Cathedra 55 (March 1990): 89-99 (in Hebrew); Walter Pinhas Pick, ―Meisner Pasha and the Construction of Railways in Palestine and Neighboring Countries,‖ in Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914: Studies in Economic and Social History, ed. G.G. Gilbar (Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp. 190-193; Kark, ―Transportation‖, pp. 59-66. 217 Fischel, Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 149. See map in Kushner, ―Haifa-Damascus Railway,‖ p. 92. 218 Ruth Kark, ‗Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,‘ Eastern Meditteranean Cartographies, Institute of Neohellenic Research NHRF, Tetradia Ergasis 25/26, 2004, p. 197-220, p. 217. 115 stretched north of it. In 1901 a concession was given to the Jewish settlement of Yesud Ha-Ma‘alah.219 Demographics The population of Palestine in 1914 was given as 689,275 with a total of 298,362 concentrated in the Mutasarrif of Jerusalem and 153,749 in that of Nablus and 137,164 in that of Acre.220 This did not include the estimated 55,000 Bedouin then living in the Beersheba sub-district. In contrast the 1922 Census found a total of 757,182 people in Palestine, including foreign nationals. Demographers have viewed these population figures from 1914 and 1915 as problematic and according to UzielO. Schmelz they ―require a substantial upward revision.‖221 He has argued that in fact the population of 1914 Palestine may ―not fall short of the 1922 mark, as has been believed so far, but exceeded it.‖222 Mutasariflik Acre Kaza Acre Haifa Tiberias Safed Nazareth 40,000 30,000 12,000 30,600 20,200 Nablus Bani Sa'ab 76,800 36,000 Nablus Iris Agmon, ―The Bedouin Tribes of the Hula and Baysan Valleys at the End of Ottoman Rule,‖ Cathedra 45 (September 1987): 91-97 (in Hebrew); Izahk Zitrin, History of the Hullah Concession (Ramat Gan: No publisher, 1987), pp. 32-40 (in Hebrew). 220 U. O. Schmelz, ‗Population characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron regions according to Ottoman census of 1925‘ in Gad G. Gilbar (ed), Ottoman Palestine 1800-1914:Studies in Economic and Social History, E.J. Brill, Leiden: 1990, p. 67. 221 Schmelz, ‚Population‘ p. 67. 222 Schmelz, ‗Population‘, p. 67. 219 116 Jenin 41,800 Jerusalem Jerusalem Gaza Jaffa Hebron Beersheba (estimate) 120,900 78,600 72,200 56,400 Total 670,500 55,000 Table 2.1 The population of Palestine in 1914/1915 Source: U. O. Schmelz, ‗Population characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron regions according to Ottoman census of 1925‘ in Gad G. Gilbar (ed), Ottoman Palestine 18001914:Studies in Economic and Social History, E.J. Brill, Leiden: 1990. In the Jerusalem kaza, where there are reliable figures and numerous Western, local and Turkish population counts, and with which demographers and scholars have done a great deal of work, the village population grew from 47,200 in 1870 to 55,200 in 1922.223 This was a growth of 17 percent. However there was a decline in population due to the First World War so that, while there were 60,000 residents of villages in 1905, there were only 55,000 in 1922 and 72,000 by 1931, illustrating the incredible decline suffered due to the war. Thus the years 1870-1905 saw a 27 percent increase in 35 years while the years 1922-1931 saw a 30 percent increase in just 9 years. What this shows, with the exception of the First World War (1914-1918) was that there was a increasing growth rate (or rather a decrease in infant mortality and increase in life span) among villages in this area and this was most likely true for other areas of Palestine as well. Sixty-nine new villages 1871-1922 223 Schmelz, ‗Population‘, p. 32. 117 Between the Palestine Exploration Fund‘s survey and the British census of Palestine in 1922 a total of sixty-nine new Arab Muslim villages and hamlets were established throughout Palestine (See Figure 6).224 They accounted for a population of 11,700 people according to the Census of Palestine completed by the British in 1922.225 They included at least 342,627 dunams within the British administrative boundaries of the villages.226 This chapter will examine who established these new villages. What types of villages were established? When the villages were established? Why they were established and, lastly, how they were established? It will provide an extensive analysis of these new villages, comparing on what types of terrain they were established, what kind of villages they were and whether there was noticeable clumping of new villages in various blocks throughout the land and if there was, why? The Galilee Panhandle Villages in the Huleh Valley: Seasonal settlements not included in the 1922 census The 1922 Census carried out by the British Mandate did not include all of the areas that eventually became part of British Mandatory Palestine. Some 10,000 Arabs residing in the Huleh valley and the foothills north of it, known as the Galilee panhandle, 224 This number is most accurate one that can be obtained given the criteria. In cases such as Deir Rafat, Dalhamiya and Samra there may be some discussion over whether they were villages or hamlets already in 1880. But the number does not include Kh. Serkas and may be missing other small hamlets that popped up during the period and were later deserted either because they were sold to Jew (as in the case with Jisr al Majami) or were unstable. Kh. Shallala is another case where it was included in Damun in the calculation that led to the number sixty-nine, and not as a separate settlement because it disappeared soon after its establishment. 225 J.B Barron (ed.), Palestine-Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922, 1923. 226 This is the amount of dunams according to the Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938 and Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945. Since village boundaries very rarely moved during the Mandatory period, although in rare circumstances the lands of one village would be divided, we must assume that the amount of land these villages held in 1938 was equal to, or close to, the amount they held in 1922. The chances are that, if anything, they would have had more land in 1922 rather than less because at this time they were some of the first villages established in regions that were being opened up to renewed human colonization. The lands included within the village had no relaion to ownership by the villagers themselves, some of the land was state land and other was owned by Jews, foreigners and effendis. 118 were thus excluded from the 1922 census.227 This presents a problem for this research because there are several large villages in this area that appeared on the 1931 census but were not mentioned by the PEF in the 1870s and do not appear on Schumacher‘s 1885 map either.228 These include Dawwara, Khisas, Darbashiya, Kh. Es Summan, Al Ureifiya, Muftahira, Khayim al Walid, Ghuraba and Zawiya. David Grossman‘s Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and Its off-shoots in Ottoman Palestine describes most of these villages, pertinent to this study, at the end of the Ottoman period as being seasonal settlements that were founded as such before 1917.229 Khisas, for instance, was a seasonal settlement that had existed in the late 19th century.230 Thus it is possible that had the census takers included this area, or if there was some other way of knowing the status of these villages between 1917 and 1922 that we might find several of them inhabited in this period (1871-1922). They would thus affect our data and the following descriptions of new village formation during the Late Ottoman period. However it has been decided to include them with the next section as if they arose during the period 1922-1931. If they were seasonal settlements after 1880 but never inhabited year-round before 1922 then this classification would be entirely proper. But given their size, in population and built-up area, it is important to mention here that these villages are 227 This is clear from the fact that the 1922 Census was completed before the final agreement between Britian and France was signed delineating the Lebanon-Palestine Border in 1924. It is also clear from the fact that well known villages such as Abil al Qamh and Khalisa that were in the extreme north of the panhandle, towards Metulla, that existed in 1880 and 1931 and certainly existed in 1922 according to other sources such as Grossman are not included on the 1922 census. Other large villages in the area excluded from the 1922 census were Zuq al Tahtani, Lazaza, Na‘ima and Abisiyah. 228 Gottlieb Schumacher, ‗Map of the Jaulan‘, 1:63,362, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1885 in Schumacher, The Jaulan, London: Richard Bentley and son, 1888 229 David Grossman, Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and Its off-shoots in Ottoman Palestine, p. 118. Yehuda Karmon also examined this region in, among other publication,s ‘The Settlement of the Northern Huleh Valley since 1838’, Israel Exploration Journal (IEJ). 3 .(1953). pp. 4-25. 230 Grossman, Expansion, map 8. 119 not included as having arose during the late Ottoman period, partly due to lack of evidence and sources. The Ottoman Administrative division of Palestine and the dispersion of the new villages The Ottoman empire was divided into a series of administrative units that only roughly coorespond to those used during the Mandate and only rarely do their borders coorespond (See Figure 7). At the highest level were the vilayets or provinces. These were governed by walis or governors.231 Next came the sançaks (pronounced Sanjack) which were administered by a kaymakams.232 Below this was the kaza which could be called a ‗sub-district‘. There were also two unique administrative divisions in Palestine at the time known as the Mutasariflik of Jerusalem and Beirut. These two independent districts had been created specifically due to the European interest in protecting the Maronite Christians in Lebanon and the holy places of Jerusalem. The provinces were thus answerable directly to Istanbul from the 1860s. The smallest administrative unit was the nahiya. Thus, for instance, around 1883 there were seven nahiyas in the kaza of Jerusalem and four nahiyas in the kaza of Hebron.233 During the Ottoman period, and especially during the 19th century, the borders of these units changed often.234 They even changed during the period of the PEF survey so that districts that once existed in 1870 had changed by 1880. Nevertheless the PEF has left the readers a list of the nahiyas, 231 Before the Ottoman Tanzimat reforms of 1864 these were called eyalets. In Arabic they were called liwas. 233 See U. O. Schmelz, ‗Population characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron regions according to Ottoman census of 1925‘ in Gad G. Gilbar (ed), Ottoman Palestine 1800-1914:Studies in Economic and Social History, E.J. Brill, Leiden: 1990, p. 29-31. He bases this off Hartmann‘s village list, M. Hartmann, ‗Die Ortschaftenliste des Liwa Jerusalem in dem turkeschen Staatskalender dur Syrien auf das Jahr 1288 der Flucht (1871),‘ ZDPV, vol. VI (1883), pp. 122-149. . 234 See Schmelz, ‗Population‘, p. 29, ―From about 1872 to the Mandatory perio one find that their groupings into larger geographical units-nahiyas, kazas or sub-districts-Changed repeatedly.‖ 232 120 kazas and mutasariflik under which the newly established villages and hamlets can be placed. Villages mentioned by the PEF by Ottoman district Mutasariflik of Acre 189 Mutasariflik of Beirut (in 21 Palestine) Mutasariflik of Jerusalem 223 Mutasariflik of Nablus 291 Total 724 Table 2.2 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, based on calculations from Conder, Claude R., and Horatio Kitchener. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archeology. Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Republished Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970. Volumes 1-4. Table 2.3 illustrates the fact that the administrative divisions were such that there was very little difference in the number of villages contained in each district. Only the Beirut district‘s Belad Besharah and Merj Ayun sub-districts included parts of northern Palestine. However the mutasarifliks of Nablus, Acre and Jerusalem were entirely contained in what became Mandatory Palestine. New villages 1870-1922 By Ottoman district Number of new Mutasariflik Percentage villages Name increase Acre 18 9.52% Beirut 1 4.76% Nablus 24 10.76% Jerusalem 22 7.22% Ajlun 2 Total 69 9.12% Table 2.3 Source: Seth J. Frantzman based on research and Conder, Claude R., and Horatio Kitchener. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, 121 Hydrography and Archeology. Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Republished Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970. Volumes 1-4. The actual increase from the 724 villages located by the PEF between 1871 and 1877 to 791235 villages in 1922 recorded on the 1922 census represents a 9.12 percent (Table 2.2). This was spread equally throughout the mutasarifliks of Jerusalem, Nablus and Acre owing to the fact that the districts were mostly cross-sections of the country. Each of these districts was basically a salami slice of Palestine, dividing the top half of the country roughly into thirds. The Negev region and an area up to a point north of Jerusalem, Jaffa and Jericho was all included in the Jerusalem mutasariflik. Nablus included a swath of territory stretching from the Jordan river across the country to the sea and including the Baysan valley. The Acre mutasariflik included the Sea of Galilee and Haifa as well as the Galilee in between. The Beirut mutasariflik included small portions of the northern Galilee. The British Mandate added to these areas a small stretch of coastline along the Sea of Galilee. This accounts for the two new villages that were in the Ajlun sançaks (Vilayet of Demascus), but which the PEF did not map. The fact that the administrative divisions were arbitrary and did not reflect the landscape of the country, and the fact that the borders of the divisions changed so often in the period, must lead one to conclude that any examination of the appearance of new villages by administrative region would not be exceedingly helpful or insightful. Kaza Nahiya New 235 The 1922 census found a total of 838 settlements including Templer villages and Jewish villages. The PEF located 724 villages. When one subtracts the new villages founded between 1871-1922 from the 1922 total that means there would have been 771 villages in 1922. When one subtracts 724, the PEF‘s total villages, from 771 (the number of villages without the new villages) that means a total of at least 47 Jewish and German settlements arose in the same period. 114 new settlements arose in Palestine between 1871 and 1922 when one compares the numbers in the 1922 census with the PEF findings. Some Arab villages were purchased by Jewish settlers in the period which means that there were actually more than 47 Jewish and German villages arose. 122 villages Nahiet al Mejdel Kaza Ghuzzeh Kaza Hebron Kaza Hebron Kaza Yafa Kaza Yafa Kaza Jerusalem 3 2 1 2 8 3 2 Jebel Khulil Al Arkub Beni Amar Beni Malik Sharawiyet al Gharbiyeh Mesharik Nablus Mesharik al Jarrar 3 1 3 9 16 2 2 Kaza Haifa Nahiet Jenin Kaza Tubariyeh Ajlun Sharawiyet esh Sherkiyeh Jebel Safed 2 7 1 Belad Besharah Not clear (Beersheba) 1 Total 69 Table 2.4 New villages by their nahiya or kaza Source: Seth J. Frantzman based on research and Conder, Claude R., and Horatio Kitchener. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archeology. Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Republished Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970. Volumes 1-4. It is possible to note the name of the kaza and nahiya in most cases with the new villages and hamlets. This gives the impression that a majority of the new villages could be found in just four of these sub-districts; Beni Amar, kaza Haifa, nahiya Jenin and Jebel Safed. But even this classification is almost useless because of the changing divisions of these nahiyas and kazas. It is enough to show that the distribution of new villages was not equal and that there was a clear administrative bunching of them in certain territories, under certain local kaymakams and mudirs.236 236 The mudir was a local ruler who presided over a kaza. 123 The main problem of the delving into the development of new settlements based on the Ottoman administrative divisions is the fact that these divisions moved about so much and so little reliance can be placed on deciding at which point to examine a crosssection of the country based on a prevailing administrative breakdown. If one were to use the PEF‘s classifications, as has been done here, one can see that there is a very real development of settlement in certain areas. However one cannot draw conclusions based on the policies or prevailing powers of those areas because of the fact that the administrative responsibilities of local leaders changed so often. Logically the Tanzimat reforms of 1864 and after which gave birth to the divisions of the 1880s should have made them more concrete and stable. However, as Schmelz has shown in his essay ‗Population Characteristics of Jerusalm and Hebron regions according to the Ottoman census of 1925‘ the true stability was on the village level, rather than the administrative one. Schmelz is thus more comfortable working at the level of kaza and even in his essay he relies on administrative divisions from 1883 published by Martin Hartmann, which itself was compiled from a Turkish register of 1871.237 Rather than going through an exhaustive examination of the total number of villages per nahiyas throughout Palestine between 1880 and 1922 and trying to take account of any changing borders between them and then comparing that to the new villages that appeared, some of which we do not know the exact date of their establishment, it seems more effective to leave this aside and concentrate instead on where the villages arose geographically. The geographical locations, along with information on who established the villages and on whose lands they were established, how they appeared and on what M. Hartmann, ‗Die Ortschaftenliste des Liwa Jerusalem in dem turkeschen Staatskalender dur Syrien auf das Jahr 1288 der Flucht (1871),‘ ZDPV, vol. VI (1883), pp. 122-149. He based his list on the salname or census of 1871. 237 124 physical-geographical landmarks they were established, will provide a better understanding of the development and establishment of new villages between 1880 and 1922. The Geographical location of the new villages and hamlets Main Geographical Region Highlands Sub-Geographical region Judea, Samaria, Hebron Galilee Carmel New Villages 15 7 1 Jordan Rift valley Huleh and north Sea of Galilee 2 3 125 Baysan Central 14 1 Coastal Plain Judean/Western Negev Sharon Zebulon Jezreel Valley Shephelah Negev 5 4 0 4 12 1 Total 69 Table 2.5 Geographical location of the villages Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from Palestine Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922, taken on the 23rd of October, 1922. Compiled by J.B Barron, printed in Jerusalem by the Greek-Convent Press. A majority of the new villages and hamlets established between 1871 and 1922 were concentrated in the highlands of Judea, Samaria and Hebron, in the Baysan valley and in the Shephelah. This accounts for a total of 39 of the 69 villages. A total of 32 of the new villages or 48% were located in the valleys and plains. 18% or 12 villages were located in the Shephelah. 21 villages or 32% were in the highlands while a total of one village, Beersheba, was located in the Negev. This gives a very striking and clear picture; the plains and valleys, together with the Shephelah, accounted for 66% of all the new villages. This means that while some villages did form in the highlands the real area of new development were the lower altitudes. It also indicates that the village formation 126 that did take place in the hills took place in the central highlands (19%) and not in the Galilee (10%). What is more interesting is the fact that in certain areas the development of new villages between 1871 and 1922 was more pronounced than the development of new villages after 1922. For instance of a total of 17 new villages that formed in the highlands of Judea, Samaria and Hebron between 1871 and 1945, fifteen of them were formedbefore 1922. That represents 88 percent. Thus most of the new villages founded in the mountain regions were founded during the Ottoman period. The same was the case in the Baysan valley and the Sea of Galilee regions. Of three new villages that would eventually be founded around the Sea of Galilee a total of three (60%) were formed in the Ottoman period (Samra, Nuqeib and Tabgha). In Baysan a total of 14 of the 17 Arab villages that would eventually be formed in this region by 1948 were established in the late Ottoman period. In contrast to the areas that experienced enhanced activity in the late Ottoman period there are areas that were neglected. In the Huleh and northern Rift valley area, the Jordan valley north of the Sea of Galilee, there were only two new villages (Tuleil and Jahula238). In the Sharon region of the coastal plain only four new villages were formed (Kabara, Caesaria, Kh. Manshiya and Al Mazar). The evidence suggests that the process of new village formation between 1871 and 1922 heavily impacted areas that already had an existing presence of Arab Muslim villages and that new villages were formed in the border regions between these already The name ‗Jahula‘ is evidently connected to the region where the village was founded, the Huleh valley. It was first noted in a 1912 map of the region, See ‗Carte de Terrains de la Haute Galilee‘, Rosch Pina 1:20,000, Adolphe Starkmeth, May 24 1910. CZA. The map hangs on the CZA wall without attribution or sourcing. 238 127 established areas and the new, less secure, less inhabited, regions of the plains and valleys. According to this perspective the new village formation consisted of a slow outgrowth of settlement from the populated highlands, a sort of tentative attempt to settle border areas where settlement had previously been tenous. The places farthest from the mountains were less likely to be settled, with the exception of a few outlying settlements that were either established by minorities (Bosnians and Egyptians) or through government intervention (such as Beersheba, founded in 1900). This may be no surprise. Only in the late 19th century and early 20th century did the Ottoman governing authorities take an interest in placing the plains and valley‘s firmly in the control of the government and local elites. During the 18th century these areas had been ravaged by Bedouin raids. Dahir al-Umar, the local warlord who extended his control throughout northern Palestine in the 18th century worked hard to curtail the Bedouins of the Galilee, Baysan and Jezreel valley. It was noted at the time that ―without an escort of fifty armed cavalrymen‖ it was impossible to travel on the roads in these areas.239 Dahir worked to bring security to the roads and ―wiped out many of the tent dwellers."240 Ahmed Jezzar was even more firm with the Bedouins, establishing or maintaining forts a key points so at to control the Bedouins ability to enter Palestine from Syria via the Baysan valley. Should they enter Palestine they would ―be able to pour into the Safed, Tiberias, Shafa‘amr, Acre, Lajjun, Jerusalem, Ramle, Jaffa, Hebron and Nablus areas …in other words they would swamp the whole of Palestine.‖241 Jezzar understood removing the negative effects of Bedouin raiding and lawlessness would increase security and ―without a doubt [Palestine] would become more populous 239 Amnon Cohen, Palestine in the 18th Century, The Magnes Press Jerusalem: 1973, p. 90. Cohen, Palestine, p. 105. 241 Cohen, Palestine, p. 105. 240 128 and prosperous with each passing day.‖242 But the problem recurred in the 19th century. In response to an uprising in 1834243 the Egyptian ruler of Palestine, Ibrahim Pasha, set about destroying a number of Bedouin tribes who he accused of joining the rebellion. He literally cleared whole areas of Bedouin through massacres.244 In 1863 Henry B. Tristram recalled that ―a few years ago the whole Ghor ]Jordan valley[ was in the hands of the fellaheen, and much of it cultivated for corn. Now the whole of it is in the hands of the Bedouin, who eschew all agriculture…with the Bedouin come lawlessness and the uprooting of all Turkish authority.‖245 The extension of law and order and Turkish authority to these previously sparsely inhabited malarial ridden regions that were subject to bouts of nomadism can be reflected in the 1911 granting of the Huleh concession to Arab landlords from Beirut with the intention that they would drain its swamps to make it hospitable for settlement.246 By examining the geographical distribution of the villages it is possible to conclude that there was a very clear dispersion of these villages with clear blocks of settlement distinguishable. There was a cluster of 14 villages in a very close proximity to eachother in the Shephelah and the hills west of Jerusalem. The easternmost village was the tiny hamlet of Deir Amr and the western most member of this block could be considered Masmiya es Saghira, also called Huraniya (See Figure 8). Along with Jaladiya it was the southernmost piece of this group. The northernmost was the hamlet of Deir Abu Salama. Therefore this area contained villages that were in the mountains and 242 July 1777, Cohen, Palestine, p. 106. Hofman, ‗Muhammed Ali‘. 350. 244 See Grossman, unpublished manuscript, Chapter 2, page 5. His sources are Al-Araf, pp. 122-124; Bailey, pp. 51-69. 245 Quoted in Arieh Avnery, The Claim of Dispossession, Yad Tebenkin, Efal: 1982, p. 20-21, from H.B. Tristram, The Land of Israel, 3rd edition, London: 1876. 246 Dov Gavish and Ruth Kark, ‗The cadastral mapping of Palestine, 1858-1928‘, The Geographical Journal, vol.159, no. 1, March 1993, pp. 70-80, p. 72. 243 129 the foothills (the Judean Piedmont or Shephelah) and we can thus see that the new villages were formed not at the highest altitudes but in the middling ones with a general dispersion towards the low country and the coastal plain. The same was the case farther north where several villages in the vicinity of Nablus and Jenin (Tilfit, Zibda, Arrabuna) were not formed at the highest altitude along the spine of the central highlands, but in the transitional areas where the mountains petered out and became low-lying foothills. The settlements that were formed in the late Ottoman period might best be seen as a tentative step by Arab Muslims to extend settlement to new agricultural regions in the coastal plain. But rather than taking the shape of a bold migration to the lands abutting the sea it took the form of a colonization of low hills, still within a days ride of the highest country, but with a view out into the coastal plain. These settlements represented a sort of testing of the waters to see if the new-found security of the late 19th century would last. With the failures, deaths and abandonment of so many tentative settlements by Cherkasian (Circassian), Algerian and Egyptian migrants in the 19th century it was no surprise that these settlements that were established and survived were primarily positioned in middling areas, not completely coastal plain and not in the heart of the mountains either. Name 1922 Population Name 130 1922 Population Umm Kalkha Deir Amr Beit Shanna Ghabbatiya 1 5 8 9 Iktaba Islin Beit Thul Al Mazar 121 132 133 134 Kh. Al Hiqab 16 Qira Arabbuna 134 136 Nataf Kh. Damun and Kh. Shallala Kh. Beit Far Deir Abu Salama Ashrafiya Ghub al Tahta Tilfit Marus Beit Susin Yamma Tell esh Shauk Kufeirat Mansi (Arab al Mansi) Ghazawiya and Sheikh Husein (Abu Hushiyeh) Kabara, Kh. Shomariyya, Yubla Ghub al Fawqa Khuneizir Shuna, esh Farwana Umm Ajra Usarin Kh. Manshiya Kh. Khisas 16 36 28 30 34 41 43 45 47 48 58 66 68 Kh. Al Butaymat Zibda Es Samra and Kafr Harib lands Tabgha (At Tabigha), Tell al Hunud, Khan al Minya Samiriya Hamidiya Al Wadi Hunein Tuleil Bira Kaufakha Beit Jiz Muharraqa 137 150 157 157 162 192 195 196 200 203 203 204 68 73 73 79 83 83 84 86 87 94 102 211 214 221 231 232 255 261 266 273 288 296 Nuqeib Nasr Ed Din 103 109 Rihaniya Jahula Sajad Ar Rahiya Jaladiya Safa Masmiya es Saghira or Huraniya Rihaniyya Kafra Caesaria Salbit Ghor al Faria, Qawara al Fawqa/Tahta, Umm Herreira Dalhamiya Jisr al Majami Ammuqa Al Nebi Rubin 112 114 120 Lajjun Barta'a Beersheba Table 2.6 The population of the new settlements in 1922 from smallest to largest Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from Palestine Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922, taken on the 23rd of October, 1922. Compiled by J.B Barron, printed in Jerusalem by the Greek-Convent Press. The Population of the new settlements 131 313 349 407 468 2356 There were 11,700 residents in the 69 new villages and hamlets established by Muslims in Palestine between 1871 and 1922. The largest of these villages was in fact the town of Beersheba with 2,356 residents in 1922 (See Figure 9). The second largest was the village of Bart‘a west of Jenin with 486 residents in 1922. Lajjun had 427 residents and was the third largest. Dalhamiya had 349 residents in 1922 and was the fourth largest. The valley (Ghor) of Faria registered 313 residents, making it the fifth largest. Salbit, east of Ramla, was the sixth with 296 residents (See Figure 10). Caesaria with 288 residents in 1922 rounds out the top 7. These large settlements reflected no particular pattern. Two were founded with government intervention (Beersheba and Caesaria). At least two were founded by foreigners (Caesaria and Dalhamiya). They were founded on ruins. But their distribution was random. Four settlements had less than ten residents in 1922. Two had been 10 and 20. Mathmatically, the average size of the villages was 170 but the mean size was 120, reflecting the fact that Beersheba had so many more residents than the other villages. In total 20 villages had between 100 and 200 people. Twenty-seven villages had less than 100. This means that almost half the villages had less than 100 residents. Many of the hamlets only had a few dozen men between the ages of 15 and 35, illustrating just how small these settlements were in most cases. The Gaza area, including the western Negev and the southern Shephelah (the Mandtory period‘s Gaza sub-district) contained the most medium-large villages with four out of five villages having over 200 residents. This was a reflection partly of the fact that three of these villages were founded by the Sultan Abdul Hamid II and were thus planned settlements and the fact that in a barren southern region strength in numbers was a 132 standard solution to an inhospitable environment and the problems of security due to nomadism (See Figure 11). The Tiberias and Sea of Galilee region included a number of villages of roughly identical size; Samra247 and Tabgha each had 157 residents while Nuqeib and Nasr ed Din had 103 and 109 respectively. In contrast the Baysan, Jezreel and Shephelah areas had smaller villages. Ghub al Fahqa, Ghub al Tahta and Mansi each had less than 100 residents. The Shephelah had five hamlets with less than fifty residents (Beit Shanna, Beit Susin, Deir Abu Salama, Kh. Beit Far and Umm Kalkha). In the Baysan area six settlements had between 50 and 100 residents (Farwana, Ghazawiya, Khuneizer, Tell al Shauf, Umm Ajra and Yubla) (See Figure 12). What conclusions can be drawn by these disparities in the sizes of settlements in different regions? It makes clear the affects the environment played on village size and village formation. In places where village formation was to some extent natural, such as the Shephelah and Baysan, where the government did not settle the people and where foreigners or non-Arabs played little role, the villages were settled in a manner that certainly reflected the natural environment, so that the Baysan, Jezreel and Shephelah produced smaller villages.248 The Tiberias region produced larger ones and the southern Shephelah and Western Negev areas produced larger villages, mostly due to government intervention.249 Schumacher noted 180 in 1886. Gottlieb Schumacher , ‗Population list of the Liva of Akka‘, PEFQst., 1887, pp. 169-191. 248 The Sultan Abdul Hamid played a significant role at Baysan and also at Sajad in Ramla but in the Baysan area some of the settlements that developed on his land were Bedouin settlements and had little connection to his having intentionally settled them there. In other cases, such as Farwana or Hamadiya he played a greater role. 249 As described the Negev settlements such as Beersheba and Kaufakha were settled due to the Sultan‘s influence, Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II and Palestine: Private Lands and Imperial Policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, (2008), 129-166. 247 133 Rihaniya and Caesaria, the former a Circassian village and the latter a Bosnian one founded around the same time both had over two hundred residents, reflecting the fact that in order to not be assimilated into the local environment and maintain their own unique village life required a certain minimum number of settlers, not least because of the fact that the bodies of the settlers, unused to the climate, were sure to succumb, especially in the malarial region near Caesaria. Caesaria was founded in 1878 and by 1887 had 22 houses (See Figure 13).250 At an average of ten residents per household, which might have been typical, there should have been 220 residents in 1887. Schumacher claimed the population was 935 in 1886.251 There were only 288 thirty-five years later in 1922. Such a low growth rate was evidently due to high mortality. 250 251 Grossman, Chapter 2, footnote 55, Schumacher, Caesaria, p. 84. G. Schumacher , ‗Population list of the Liva of Akka‘, PEFQst., 1887, pp. 169-191. 134 Total Dunams Name Iktaba Yemma Nasr Ed Din Jisr al Majami Deir Abu Salama Total Dunams 5401 5593 6111 6137 6354 0 0 0 548 1075 Name Wadi Hunein Kh. Beit Far Salbit Rihaniya Kh. Khisas Nataf Beersheba Kufeirat Shuna, esh Islin Usarin Ammuqa Ar Rahiya Jahula Sajad Ghabbatiya Kh. Damun and Kh. Shallala Deir Amr Khuneizir Marus Kh. Al Hiqab Beit Shanna Tell esh Shauk Tabgha (At Tabigha), Tell al Hunud, Khan al Minya Ghub al Fawqa Samiriya Jaladiya Beit Thul 1491 1526 1647 2155 2159 2184 2574 2659 2738 2795 2938 2960 3072 3107 3183 3280 3617 3685 Umm Ajra Beit Susin Masmiya es Saghira or Huraniya Ashrafiya Arabbuna Bira Umm Kalkha Rihaniyya Ghub al Tahta Es Samra and Kafr Harib lands Kh. Al Butaymat Beit Jiz Kaufakha Kafra Dalhamiya Hamidiya Al Kabara, Kh. Shomariyya, 6443 6467 6477 6711 6772 6866 6989 7454 7859 7879 8357 8452 8559 9172 9876 10302 10415 Muharraqa Farwana Yubla Al Mazar Ghazawiya and Sheikh Husein (Abu Hushiyeh) Tuleil 4855 4996 5165 5207 Zibda Mansi (Arab al Mansi) Safa Nuqeib Kh. Manshiya Kira/Qira wa Qamun Barta'a Tilfit Al Nebi Rubin Caesaria Ghor al Faria, Qawara al Fawqa/Tahta, Umm Herreira Total 11924 12272 12518 13220 16770 17804 20499 22529 29975 31809 3772 3788 3878 4330 4626 5323 5324 Table 2.7 Size of landholdings of the New settlements established by 1922 Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938. 135 80475 535098 The Lands of the New Settlements: Administrative divisions and borders The period 1871 to 1922 is one that cooresponds to a great deal of changes in the legal framework of the land regime in Palestine. From the 1858 Land Law to the 1867 reform that allowed foreigners to own property, to the first Zionist land purchases and the arrival of the first Aliyah after 1880 and the rise of a class of Arab landowners and effendis, there was a great deal of land speculation in Palestine. Much of this activity was concentrated in the same low lying and foothill regions that the new villages appeared in.252 The advent of the British Mandate and the subsequent administrative dividing up of the entirety of Palestine into individual villages provides an opportunity to examine whether or not the new villages contained jurisdiction over particular amounts of land, either larger or smaller than other villages. The only way of examining the land holdings of these villages is to see the published land holdings of the Village Statistics of 1938 and then work backward to 1922. This must be accompanied by an examination of the maps published by the Mandate at1:250,000 scale in 1938, 1940 and 1946 entitled ‗Index to Villages and Settlements‘ that show village boundaries as defined by the Mandatory authorities. The maps and the comparing the 1938 and 1945 Village Statistics illustrate that the boundaries did not often change throughout the period 1938-1946. Some villages were split in half, or into pieces (as with Wadi Hawarith), but this was a rare occasion. In a few cases new village boundaries were carved out of others, such as the Jewish settlement of Avuqa in the Baysan sub-district which was carved out of Baysan town lands. But in general there is every reason to believe that with the advance of land Ran Aaronsohn, ‗Settlement in Eretz Israel-A Colonialist enterprise? ‗Critical‘ scholarship and historical Geography‘, Israel Studies, Fall 1996, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 214-229. 252 136 settlement of title and survey operations of the Mandate there was little incentive to change borders already delineated and they remained mostly static throughout the period. The boundaries themselves had origins in the Ottoman period. A Shamsieh commission had been ―appointed to investigate and record all lands alleged to be left waste and uncultivated‖ in 1872.253 It was followed by another imperial commission known as the Yuklama Commissionin in 1881 which roamed the land and divided land into ―various portions given to individual villages‖ and also registered existing buildings on village lands.254 According to Samuel Bergheim, a resident of late Ottoman Palestine writing for the Palestine Exploration Fund‘s quarterly journal, numerous portions of unused lands and ―waste lands kharab‖ were delineated out to villages. He noted that poorer villages were frequently rewarded with unused ―small plots of land that lie among rocks or stony places and which cannot be ploughed.‖255 The delineation did not always have a connection to ownership. Some lands were held communally as musha’ by the villages that received them but the actual dividing of the land land in this manner by an imperial commission was connected to the land laws that allowed for the individuals to sell lands they owned.256 Nevertheless Kenneth Stein has shown that ―tradition determined boundaries‖ and most villagers ―failed to register their rights to a given land area and to acquire a deed.‖257 Village boundaries and the lands contained 253 Acting Director of Lands, Shatta village, July 25, 1931, signature and name of author illegible, ISA 22/3470/GP-10-23. 254 Samuel Bergheim, ‗Land Tenure in Palestine,‘ PEFQST, vol. 26, 1894, p.194. See also Acting Director of Lands, Shatta village, July 25, 1931, signature and name of author illegible, ISA 22/3470/GP-10-23. 255 Bergheim, ibid. 256 Bergheim, ibid. 257 Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984, p. 20-21. 137 within them were often registered incorrectly as being less land than existed, apparently to avoid taxation.258 Although sketch maps were sometimes made the boundaries were descriptive and were in the pattern found at Shatta village near Beisan, ―East: from Bab Wad Abdallah to the road leading to the mills of El Ghor up to the Qunat el Sahne…West: from Wadi Ma‘ el Sharayet to the east of Rubeida to Wad el Ehreyeh on the water course separating these lands from the lands of Kumieh village up to the canal known as Ma‘ el Maured.‖259 The British did not effectively survey and sort out registration to the lands of Shatta until 1931 but when they did they found that its boundaries were roughly the same as in the 19th century, the land officer noted that ―it seems to us that the boundaries of the village as a whole are correct and in accordance with the description of the Shamsieh commission.‖260 In only one case did the Mukhtars of Shatta and nearby Murassas and Kumieh have to be called upon ―to point out the northern boundaty of Shatta.‖261 Thus for 60 years the boundaries of this village remained the same even though ownership of its lands and internal boundaries of land ownership changed.262 This sheds light on the permanency of village boundaries in Palestine. New villages that arose thus had to Thus Wadi Hawarith‘s 32,222 dunams was registered as only 5,522. Stein, Land, p. 21. At Shatta village near Beisan the lands recorded by the Ottomans amounted to 8000 dunams while the British found 13,141 dunams within the boundaries of the village which had not changed greatly. Acting Director of Lands, Shatta village, July 25, 1931, signature and name of author illegible, ISA 22/3470/GP-10-23. 259 Acting Director of Lands, Shatta village, July 25, 1931, signature and name of author illegible, ISA 22/3470/GP-10-23. A discussion of the ―history, law and practice of Land registration in Palestine and the organization of the Department of Land Registration‖ can be found in J.F. Spry, assistant director of Land Registration, Memorandum, ‗History, law and practice of Land registration in Palestine and the organization of the Department of Land Registration‘, October 1948, CO 733 494/2, 81265. He provides a critique of the Ottoman system and the Mandatory system. 260 Ibid. 261 Acting Director of Lands, Shatta village, July 25, 1931, signature and name of author illegible, ISA 22/3470/GP-10-23. 262 A similar pattern was the case at Deir Yassin. Boundaries were not demarcated until 1933 when they were made in the presence of the Mukhtars of it and neighbouring villages by Mandatory settlement officers. Department of Land Settlement, Jerusalem, Director of Land Registration, ‗Lifta village and others in Jerusalem sub.‘, illegible signature, May 2, 1945. ISA 22/2463/Gp9-14B. 258 138 compete with traditions of boundaries that already existed. In some cases, such as at Lajjun, they would never receive recognition as their own villages and would remain part of the lands of nearby villages whose boundaries had been delineated long ago. Another Provisional Law of Survey and Registration of Immovable Property was published on February 5, 1913 which detailed how a survey commission would delineate the boundaries of various villages; ―on the day fixed and in the presence of the Mukkhtars the boundaries of each village, or Town, whether general or in cmmon shall in the first place be determined…if a boundary is waste land it shall be determined accordin to statements of the Mukhtars…boundary marks may be placed…in the form of a pyramid…a sketch map shall be made.‖263 Disputes would also be resolved by the survey commission or through appeal to a registration commission that would follow in its wake.264 Given the relative permanency of village boundaries we may look to the 1938 village holdings found in the Village Statistics then we see that the new villages that arose in 1922 accounted for 515, 803 metric dunams (all following references to ‗dunams‘ are in metric dunams, unless otherwise indicated) of land. When compared to the total of 832,873 dunams under the jurisdiction of the new villages established by 1948 one sees that the new villages established before 1922 accounted for 61% of the lands. This is logical, considering the fact that in many cases these villages were established in sparsely inhabited areas where lands were plentiful. Because of this villages such as Caesaria obtained large swaths of land, in its case a total of 31,809 dunams. The Ghor al Faria settlements, which was a long string of dispersed houses and 263 264 Provisional Law of Survey and Registration of Immovable Property, Feb 5, 1913. ISA 22/3326/16. Provisional Law of Survey and Registration of Immovable Property, Feb 5, 1913. ISA 22/3326/16. 139 farms in a large valley, had 80,475 dunams. Al Nebi Rubin had 29,975 dunams of land, princiably because it was the located in sand dunes southeast of Jaffa and was the only settlement for miles. This was land owned by the Ottoman government and included the swamps of Nebi Rubin.265 An analysis of the landholdings of the new settlements does not lend itself to any broad conclusions. While there were some new Arab settlements that obtained large holdings based on their being the first populated area to exist in a certain area this was not always the case. Settlements such as al Mazar and Kh. Khisas were located on the coastal plain and yet did not receive large plots of land under their jurisdiction. The settlements established by Abdul Hamid II also did not always end up with large holdings, but rather obtained borders consistent with the lands of the Jiftliks (such as at Muharaqa). The size of the holdings does not seem to have been disproportionatly affected by (i.e have a direct correlation to) the environment of the settlements or the population size. One might have expected that larger villages would have had more land. However a village such as Salbit which had 296 residents in 1922 making it one of the larger new Arab villages had 6,111 dunams of land, an average amount. Villages that had exited before 1882 didn‘t benefit from being older. Al Ja‘una had 799 residents in 1931 but had only 839 dunams of land within its borders. Nearby Jubb Yusuf, a new Arab settlement, had 11,325 dunams associated with it and only 93 people in 1931.266 It appears to me as if, in the Mandatory obsession with delineating every parcel of land to some administrative unit, they sometimes seemingly arbitrarily assigned lands to villages, in many cases much more land than a village or township would ever possibly 265 266 Avneri, Claim of Dispossession, p. 58. See the Village Statistics or Khalidi p. 458-459. 140 use. This is partly the result of the fact that the ―village‖ was the primary administrative unit to which all lands were attached in rural areas. Unlike, for instance, the United States where the country is the primary level of administrative unit in rural areas, in Palestine there was no equivalent. In some cases lands were assigned to enumeratons (i.e ―villages‖) that didn‘t have any population according to the Mandatory‘s Village Statistics. Consider Weiziya in Safed sub-district, listed with no people in 1938 and 1945, but contaning 3,826 dunams of land.267 The assigning of these lands also did not always reflect ownership of the land, especially as later in the Mandate period the lands associated with many former, and some existing, Arab villages became owned by Jewish organizations such as the JNF.268 This would eventually be particularly true of such new Arab settlements as Wadi Hunein, Qira wa Qamun, Kh. Sarkas, Ghazawiya, Jisr al Majami, Nuqeib, Samra (225 Jewish in 1944), Jahula (41% Jewish in 1944), Tuleil (80% Jewish in 1944) and Kh. Butaymat (66% Jewish in 1944).269 In the Baysan sub-district more than a third of the land (7,625 out of 18,408) associated with such villages as Ghazawiyya would eventually be owned by the JNF in 1945.270 It seems that the shapes of some villages was related to certain types of land holdings from the Ottoman period. For instance many of the lands of the Sultan became associated with new villages and hte boundaries of villages and settlements (See Figure 14). In some cases these ―settlements‖ didn‘t include permanent settlements as was the case with Sakhina or Hamra in the Baysan valley. Other Jiftlik landholdings, such as 267 See Khalidi, All That Remains, p. 503 and also Village Statistics 1938 under Safed sub-district. See the map prepared by Yossi Katz, Battle for the Land, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2005, Appendix 17, p. 368. This shows that much of the Baysan district had been purchased by the JNF and other Jews and yet this was not reflected in the changing boundaries of Arab villages. 269 ‗Land in Jewish Possession‘ compiled by J. Weitz and Z. Lifshtz, Palestine: Index to Villages and Settlements, 1:250,000, December 31, 1944, Survey of Palestine, Haffa, 1940, with overlay, Jan. 1946. 270 See Khalidi, All That Remains, p. 48 and also ISA Stat Domains Safa Village, Map of Baysan Valley 1:10,000, 2608 M/RG23. 268 141 Ghor al Faria, passed directly from the boundaries of the Jiftlik to the boundaries of the settlement in the Mandate, even though the Ghor al Faria included more than one individual settlement. Bashatiwa and Ghazawiyya both included three indivudal small hamlets within their boundaries. At Khirbat Ismallah one border reflected the ownership of Jewish Kefar Uriah whose landholdings ended at the border of the tiny Muslim hamlet (See Figure 15). The indexing by the Mandate of various enumerations as ―villages‖ and not others has led to a great deal of confusion. Walid Khalidi and his researchers in most cases relied on the data from the Index to Villages, the Village Statistis and the Palestine Index Gazetteer as a basis to determine their list of 418 villages. Khalidi assumed that ―villages for which population statistics were listed in the Mandate sources as ―not available‖ would be very small.‖271 This begs the question as to why there were many hamlets lised with miniscule populations, such as Kh. Ismallah‘s 22 people in the 1945 Village Statistics. Khalidi preficed his definition of village as placed with a ―core of permanent structures‖ but ―no village was excluded for being too small.‖272 In this way Khalidi included multiple settlements that the Mandate defined as one, such as Kh. Sabuna and Kh. Zawiya. It was one of the problems of the Mandate that multiple settlements were included under one enumeration and it was a problem common to all sub-districts but one that disproportionatly affected villages with numerous seasonal or duaghter settlements, such as Dura near Hebron. It also affected recently sedenterized or sedenterizing Bedouin where the nomads settled multiple ruins over a wide area. Except for in the Beersheba sub-district Bedouin tribes were frequently delineated by the Mandate as a 271 272 Khalidi, All that Remains, p. xviii. Khalidi, All that Remains, p. xviii. 142 single administrative unit with accompanying ―village‖ land. This was true of the Arab Zangariya in the Safed sub-district which included Kh. Jeisi and Kh. Khati. The Mandatory authorities didn‘t always shed light on their exact logic for dividing some settlements into their own ―villages‖ with their own lands and lumping others together. One document from September 1934 from the Commissioner of Lands to the Assistant district commissioner notes that at Ashrafiya (Baysan sub-district) ―the divisions of these lands should not appear as separate entities.‖ Apparently he felt that the numerous farmsteads that made up Ashrafiya were better included as one unit rather than a variety of enumerations, as they had originally appeared in the 1922 census (Ashrafiyat Haddad, Ashrafiyat Kuzam, Ashrafiyat Zamriq and Ashrafiyat Rushdi). The same was true of Bashatwa in the same sub-district. Nearby Jewish Gesher had not been official scheduled by an Order-in Council and the officer noted that he had never heard of it.273 Thus village boundaries of the Mandate era did not always reflect the existence of a populated village nor did it mean there was merely one settlement for in some cases as many as four or more were included in one ―village.‖ What is important to see from the size of the landholdings is that they were quite large in total. The success and phenomenon of the establishment of new Arab settlements can be indicated by the tremendous amount of land that was demarcated to them for administrative purposes. The Origins of the new Settlers 1871-1922 Understanding the process that led to new village formation in Palestine requires also an understanding of where the settlers came from. Understanding these origins 273 Commissioner of Lands to the Assistant district commissioner Galilee, 14 September, 1934, ISA List of Villages Baisan, 2607N/RG23. Signed by the Commisioner of Lands, signature illegible. 143 sheds lights on the changes in the environment and security situation that may have led to settlement and provides answers to questions dealing with whether external factors affected the creation of new settlement. In addition there are very contentious questions surrounding the amount of Arab and Muslim immigration to Palestine during the 19th and 20th centuries. However an examination of the origins of the settlers of many of the new villages does not indicate that they were necessarily from outside Palestine, except in the cases of migrating Bedouin tribes and two unique villages established by Muslim refugees. In two instances the new villages established between 1871 and 1922 were established by foreign refugees. Circassians had fled from their homes in the Caucuses after they had been conquered by the Russians in the 1850s and 1860s. Between 1864 and 1866 the number of Circassian refugees pouring into the Ottoman empire, many of them as slaves, numbered as many as a million.274 They trickled south, through Beirut and Demascus in the 1870s. By 1887 they had established themselves on the ruins of an ancient city now called Amman in modern day Jordan.275 In Syria they established themselves at Quneitra. Only a few made their way to Palestine where they originally built three small hamlets in the northern Sharon plain. These settlements failed as they died of malaria.276 One of the new settlements established before 1894 was later known as Kh. Al Sarkas (‗ruin of the Circassians‘) or Al-Ghaba after it was deserted in the 274 Grossman, book draft, chapter 2, footnote 46. Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, pp. 97-98, 107-109; Eugene L. Rogan, Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire: Transjordan, 1850-1921 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 73-76. 276 See Avneri, p. 51, Grossman chapter 2 page 20 of unpublished book, Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II and Palestine: Private Lands and Imperial Policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, (2008), 155-160.. Zvi Ilan, Attempts at Jewish Settlement in Trans-Jordan, 1871-1947 (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1984), pp. 11-12, 36 (in Hebrew). Fischel and Kark claim that there were two settlements in the Sharon and one in the ―southern plains.‖ It is immaterial because in the end these Circassian settlements all failed and their occupation was limited. 275 144 1930s.277 A 1944 aerial photo by the British shows a village, it is not clear if it is in ruins and one cannot discern if there are people at the site.278 Avneri notes that it was originally settled after 1878 and that ―few remained‖ after dying out due to the Malaria.279 In 1911 the village had a protracted dispute with Hadera over some land between the two that the I.C.A (Jewish Colonization Association)280 had purchased and was attempting drain and farm.281 The apparent failure of Circassian settlement in the plains did not end their attempts. Two villages were established in the Galilee. Kafr Kama was established first just northeast of Mount Tabor. It existed in the 1870s and is shown on the PEF map. The second village, Rihaniya, was constructed north of Safed in the hills near an Algerian village named Alma. Fischel and Kark note that ―The owner of Rayhāniyya lands is unclear, but it is known that the Sultan had four tracts comprised of 283 dunam in the nearby ‗Almā. In the PEF map of 1882 site of Rayhāniyya is called Burāk ‗Almā.‖282 The Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 and the subsequent Congress of Berlin in 1878 brought Bosnia under Austro-Hungarian occupation. This was unacceptable to numerous Muslim Bosniaks who became refugees, settling in Asia Minor and elsewhere in the Ottoman empire. A few of them found their way to Palestine where Sultan Abdulhamid II settled them in the ruins of the city of Caesaria between 1878 and 1884. Ghanā‘m and Ghanā‘m, Liwā’ ‘Akka, pp. 174-175; Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, p. 117. It was later resettled, according to Fischel and Kark page 166 by Palestinian Arabs. This village was built on Sultan Abdulhamid‘s lands probably on a çiftlik of 625 dunams, whose date of purchase is also unknown. The village was deserted before the 1930s. It had 130 residents in 1886 according to Schumacher. The village had 74 inhabitants in 1922 and was called ―Kherbet al-Sharkas‖. In 1931 it had 80 houses and 383 inhabitants, including 17 Jews. It may have been linked with the nearby village of El Mesady which appears in the PEF, map 8. It appears in the nüfus after 1912, Haifa , military list, book 389, RG 39, ISA. 278 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS4 5008, 10 December 1944. 279 Avneri, Claim, p. 93. 280 This Zionist organization eventually acquired a total of 350-400,000 dunams. Avneri, Claim , p. 109. 281 Avneri, Claim, p. 94. 282 Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan‘, p. 164. 277 145 The Sultan owned 23,704 dunams of land in this area and he settled the Bosnians in Caesaria.283 As Grossman notes ―The Bosnians pioneered in reviving ruins. They also constructed large farm buildings, one of which includes a big yard, surrounded by several rooms for permanent workers, storage barn and animal watering places.‖284 In general the settling of these two communities, Circassians and Bosnians, served a dual purpose. On the one hand they were Muslim refugees being aided by their Sultan, on the other hand they were intended to bring some form of control and security to areas previously made uninhabitable by Bedouins and the existence of swamps.285 Another instance of a foreign ethnic group establishing a village was that of Qira or Qira wa Qamun (‗Qira and Qamun‘ referring to nearby Tell Qamun) in the low lying hills between the Carmel range and Samaria that separates the Jezreel valley from the plain of Sharon. This village mentioned by the PEF as a ruin ‗Khurbet Kireh‘ was said to contain ―a tribe of Turcomans [who] live in the caves; they pronounce the name Jireh."286 It was visited by the PEF in December of 1872. There might be some question as to Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan‘, p. 166, Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, p. 117. Grossman, unpublished book, Chapter 2, p. 21. 285 Accordingly in the same period there were expeditions against the Bedouin; ―Rauf Paşa, against the Bedouins in the vicinity of Gaza. Four excursion of that kind were reported between May 1876 and November 1878, each of them was reported as successful‖ Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan‘ p. 153. Also see Letter from the mutasarrıf of Jerusalem ]Rauf Paşa[ to the Consul of the German government in Jerusalem, 10 May [12]92 (23 May 1876), ISA, RG 83, [no number]; Letter from the mutasarrıf of Jerusalem [Rauf Paşa[ to the Consul of the German government in Jerusalem, 12 May ]12[92 (23 May 1876), ISA, RG 83 [no number]; Letter from the mutasarrıf of Jerusalem ]Rauf Paşa[ to the Consul of the German government in Jerusalem, 31 May [12]93 (12 June 1877), ISA, RG 67 [no number]; Havazeleth, 31 May and 7 November 1878 (in Hebrew). As regards the Swamps Fischel and Kark note that ―Beginning in 1877, the government tried to improve those lands. In the Hullah Valley, engineers tried to examine the reasons for the creation of the marsh, and employing traditional methods tried to drain it. The endeavor was only partially successful, and by 1901 a new concession for the drainage of the marsh was imposed on the Jewish colony of Yisud (Yesod) Ha-Ma‗alah without much success‖, p. 22. The fact that all three of these things took place in the same years is not a coincidence but part of a concerted policy by the Ottoman government to open up new parts of the country for settlement and to extend the governments control over the country. See also Iris Agmon, ―The Bedouin Tribes of the Hula and Baysan Valleys at the End of Ottoman Rule,‖ Cathedra 45 (September 1987): 91-97 (in Hebrew); Zitrin, ‗Hullah Concession‘, pp. 32-40, and Letter from Mr. Hoenhek, JCA office, Haifa, to Dr. Arthur Ruppin, 27 August 1913, Central Zionist Archive, Jerusalem, RG L18, Box 125, File 31 (in Hebrew). 286 PEF Memoirs, map VIII, p. 60. 283 284 146 whether this already constituted a settled hamlet at this point. In 1886 Schumacher found 65 inhabitants there.287 Subsequent Ottoman censuses confirm that it was a village.288 Khalidi notes that ―Bedouin pitched their tents in Qira during the sedentary months of their migratory cycle‖ and that the villagers were said by Jews in the 1932s to be ―tenant farmers.‖289 The village had earlier been noted by Jacotin in 1799 and referred to as ―Qairah‖.290 It was a ruined Khan that had been rebuilt by Dahar al Umar to control the valley. It had fallen into ruin sometime after was initially revived by the Turcomen and in 1936 Jews from newly established Kibbutz HaZorah arrived to set up a seasonal camp which they maintained until 1944.291 A continuation of the Ottoman policy of extending its control over the low country there was the recruitment of local peasants and farmers to inhabit new villages. Beersheba was founded in 1899/1900 for the purpose of bring law and order to the Negev.292 The government purchased part of the land from the Sheikh of the Azazma Bedouin tribe to build the town.293 A mixed multitude of settlers were encouraged to come to the new frontier town, including ―several [Bedouin] sheikhs [who] built their houses in the town along with city dwellers from Hebron and Gaza.‖294 By 1922 there were also 98 Jews and 235 Christians (192 of whome were Greek-Orthodox). A similar G. Schumacher , ‗Population list of the Liva of Akka‘, PEFQst., 1887, pp. 169-191. Nüfus, book 388, RG 39, ISA. 289 Khalidi, All, p. 181. 290 See Jacotin Carte topographique de l’Egypte, 1826. For a comparison of names and palces from Jacotin and the PEF map see Y. Karmon, ‗An Analysis of Jacotin‘s Map of Palestine‘, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1960, p. 155-173. 291 Eliahu Stern, Caravanserais: Roads and Inns in Israel, Beit El: Karta, 1997, p. 147. 292 See: Ha-Megid, 21 August 1900 (in Hebrew). Also, Haim Gerber, Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem, 18901914, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag. 1985, pp. 237-239. 293 Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan‘, p. 161 as well as Yasemin Avcı, ―The Application of the Tanzimat in the Desert: Ottoman Central Government and the Bedouins in Southern Palestine,‖ A paper presented at the International Conference on The Application of the Tanzimat Reforms in various regions of the Ottoman Empire, Haifa University, Haifa, Israel, June 2007 294 Fischel and Kark, p. 161 and Mildred Berman, ―The Evolution of Beersheba as an Urban Center,‖ Annals of the Association of American Geographers 55 (1965): 315-317. 287 288 147 attempt to draw settlers to a settlement at ‗Auja al-Hafīr was a failure.295 Whereas Beersheba was built on state lands purchased from Bedouin the settlements of Auja, Caesaria and Kh. Serkas were built on Abdul Hamid II‘s own land.296 In the area around Gaza and the southern Shephelah there were two daughter villages and three new planned villages. Masmiya es Saghira or Huraniya was a daughter village of Masmiya es Kabira (See Figure 16). It was founded when the Hurani clan had a feud with other clans in Masmiya and it had to flee a short distance away, establishing the new suburb.297 Kh. Al Khisas may have been a daughter village of Ni‘ilya due to its proximity but it was also probably associated with the Abdul Hamid II estate named Khan al-Khisas.298 It is listed as being inhabited in the 1905 Ottoman census.299 Jaladiya, Kaufakha and Muharraqa were established by Abdul Hamid II on his land. The settlers for these villages came from Gaza and they were forced to do military service, probably as Redif or reserve units recruited localy, in return.300 A statement by C.F. Reading, the Settlement Officer of Gaza sub-district in February of 1932 noted that the villagers told him they had settled on the land around 1890.301 The settlers at Kaufakha and Muharraqa may have come from a similar area.302 Fischel and Kark, p 161 for which they rely partly on Aref al-‗Aref, Ta’rīkh Bīr al-Sab‘ wa-Qabā’ilihā (]n.p.[, Madbūli Press, 1999, c1934), pp. 61-65 (in Arabic). In cases such as Auja, Caesaria and Beersheba the creation of a new town or plans for one necessitated the creation of a new administrative region. A Nahiya was created at Caesaria headed by a Bosnian (see Grossman chapter 2) and at Ajwa a new kaza was created. 296 Ajwa was built on 624 dunams of the Sultan‘s land, Fischel and Kark, p. 161. 297 Khalidi, All That Remains, p. 126. 298 Khalidi, All That Remains, p. 123 notes that it relied on Ni‘ilya for services. 299 Nüfus, Kaza Gaza, book 239, RG 39, ISA. 300 Fischel and Kark, p. 152. Sharif Kana‗ana and Rashad al-Madani, Al-Qura al-Filastiniyya alMudammara 8: Al-Kawfakha (Bir Zayt: Bir-Zayt University [n.d.]), pp. 6-7 (in Arabic). 301 Court of Land Settlement Officer, Gaza, Case No. 4/32/Muharraqa, ISA 22/3498/30 302 In 1945 when the Muharraqa land case involving Sultan Abdul Hamid II‘s heirs reached the Jerusalem land court some 500 villagers from both villages arrived and asked to have their rights considered. No author, ‗Litigation began 11 years ago‘, Palestine Post, 4 December, 1945, p. 3. 295 148 Ar Rahiya in the Hebron hills was a daughter village, most likely of Dura which was responsible for creating numerous daughter villages.303 In the area of Tulkarm in the foothills a series of daughter villages developed. Yamma was a daughter village or offshoot settlement of Deir al-Ghussan.304 Kh. Manshiya was either, according to Abraham Granott and Grossman, a daughter village of Attil and Zeita or according to Khalidi it was established by Gazan migrants from the village of Abasan.305 Bart‘a and Zibda were both off-shoots of Ya‘bad.306 In all these cases the off-shoots were at a lower elevation than the parent village and thus represented a slow attempt to spread out feelers or colonies towards the coastal plains by villages in the highlands which had been established for security but lacked the resources to support a large population.307 According to Grossman these were originally izabs or seasonal settlements.308 In the Jerusalem foothills the village of Beit Thul was an unstable village. Nataf was founded by an effendi from Abu Ghosh that built homes near the spring of Ein Nataf.309 Islin was an off-shoot of Eshua (See Figure 17). Deir Amr, later the site of a Mandatory era agricultural school, was located on lands owned by Jerusalem effendis, including the Husseini family310, so the settlers could have been tenants. Nearby Deir 303 See Grossman, Rural Process, pp 133-36. Grossman, Rural, p. 138-139. 305 Grossman, Rural, p. 138. Khalidi claims they came from Abasan, All That Remains, p. 557. Avraham Granott (Granovsky), Property Law in the land of Israel, Tel Aviv: Dvir, p. 164 (Hebrew). 306 Grossman, Rural, p. 140. 307 See Moshe Brawer, ‗Changes in Village Sites and patterns as indicators of Rural Development‘ in Geography in Israel, Jerusalem: 1976, p. 298-299. 308 Grossman, p. 133. 309 Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II and Palestine: Private Lands and Imperial Policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, (2008), 129-166. 310 See various Palestine Post articles for instance February 6th, 1945: ‗Husseini Land Case‘ an action by the Husseini family of Jerusalem for the return of some 2,000 dunams of land near Deir Amr on the Jerusalem Jaffa road. 304 149 Rafat, which was a hamlet in the 1870s, was established when Bedouins from the Negev began to stay close to the site of what became a Latin monastery, eventually settling.311 In the Shephelah the village of Salbit and Beit Shanna (See Figure 18) were seasonal settlements of Qubab. Sajad (Sejed) was an Abdul Hamid II estate which was built at the site due to the existence of the Jerusalem-Jaffa rail line which stopped at the site after its completion in 1892.312 Aerial photos from 1948 show that the village was not planned but resembled other nucleated villages in the area (See Figure 19). A very important document recorded by Shukry I. Salih, an assistant settlement officer explains the history of the village and most likely sheds light on processes that affected other Abdul Hamid II estates that were settled in a similar manner. The villagers recalled in this statement from December 2nd, 1931 that; ―when they and their ancestor settled…there were no buildings..]it[ was a patch of rocks and barren ground…they have undergone a great deal of trouble and expense in converting [it] from barren to cultivatable land.‖313 They paid tithes as renters. They claimed that they had settled on the land around 1881.314 The first settlers were landless and came from areas around 311 Khalidi, All That Remains, p. 287. Along with Tabgha it was one of two villages settled between 1871 and 1922 where religious Christian European investment played a role. Khalidi speaks of the Al-Sani tribe renting land in the 1980s from the monastery and they have settled in the area. But these are not necessarily the same Arabs that inhabited the area in the 1882s. The PEF calls the place a ―A small hamlet on a ridge, with a spring to the west, and many rock-cut tombs‖ (Memoirs, Judae, p. 13), but it is shown as a ruin on the map and they note that ―Traces of ruins. Cisterns, winepresses cut in rock and rough pillarshafts, with ruins of a modern village and a Mukâm.‖ (Memoirs, Judae, p. 155.) There seems to be some confusion. The Monastery was built up between the purchase of the land in 1903/4 and a consecration in the 1922s. See Dorit Ayalon, ‗Between village and monastery‘, 2227, unpublished paper, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 312 For more information on it see Martin Bunton, ‗Demarcating the British Colonial State: Land Settlement in the Palestinian Jiftlik, Villages of Sajad and Qazaza,‘ New Perspectives on Property and Land in the Middle East, Roger Owen (ed.), Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs, XXXIV, Cambridge: Center for Middle Eastern Studies of Harvard University, 2000, pp. 121-160. 313 See Notes by Assistant Settlement Officer, Sajad, December 2, 1931, Central Zionist Archives, 3498/8/30, Heh Tet 22, GM. 314 See Notes by Assistant Settlement Officer, Sajad, December 2, 1931, Central Zionist Archives, 3498/8/30, Heh Tet 22, GM. 150 Hebron, Gaza and Ramla. They first lived in caves and sheds before they build houses. ―a special official of the Jiftlik department came out and distributed lands to the various settlers.‖ After 1928 ―during the Turkish regime the Jiftlik lands of Sajad were ‗farmed out‘ to big landlords or effendis for a fixed amount.‖315 There were no literate people in the village in 1931 except for three children attending a government school in Majdal. Before 1910 a mosque and teacher was employed by funds raised from tithes paid on the Jiftlik lands, a practice that apparently died out with the end of Abdul Hamid II‘s control. In 1931 the village was said to have 274 people in 62 families all of which, save 13 people, were cultivators. The villagers were ruitinely sick from bad drinking water from a well.‖316 This picture of Sajad may well have been true of other Abdul Hamid II settlements, in terms of how it was run and its low level of education and literacy. The Haganah found figs, olives, grapes, 230 sheep, 15 cattle, 10 donkeys and 5 camels on the 7,000 dunams of village lands of Sajad.317 Because the lands had been owned by the Ottoman government before 1917 the Mandatory authorities asserted their rights to the lands, so that by 1945 they were listed as ‗public.‘318 Umm Kalkha was established by an effendi.319 According to Avraham Granott (Granovsky) Beit Susin was a daughter village of Saris and at one point fellahin from Qubeiba had also resided there.320 . Beit Jiz does not have a clear origin. Deir Abu Salama and Nebi Rubin may have attracted local Bedouins due to the presence of a holy site. A Haganah visit to the Deir Abu Salama in the 1940s found stone houses with roofs made of wood and straw, 315 Ibid. Ibid. 317 Sejed, 105/375, no date, Haganah Archives, Tel Aviv. 318 Khalidi, p. 410. 319 See Fischel and Kark presentation ‗Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization processes in Palestine, 1858-1918‘ annals of the Sergui Al George Institute of Oriental Studies, Bucharest, Romania, December 2007. 320 Avraham Granott (Granovsky), Property Law in the land of Israel, Tel Aviv: Dvir, p. 167 (Hebrew). 316 151 500 sheep, 70 sheep, 30 cattle and 12 camels.321 It possessed 11,000 dunams on which olives, figs and grapes.322 At Nebi Rubin the Bedouin settled slowly over time, in the 1890s for instance living on land acquired by Rehovot. A total of 42 families of the Arab al-Suteriya later became the core of the settlement named Abl al Fadl (See Figure 21).323 Wadi Hunein was a unique settlement that was originally established by a German named Reissler who bought the lands and attempted to farm them. When his sons died he moved to Russia and sold the land to Hovev Zion. Meanwhile Egyptian labourers, effendis such as Abdel Rahmen al-Taji and local peasants from Sarafand al-Harab all congregated on the site.324 The swamp Kabara, in the Sharon plain, was part of an Abdul Hamid II estate where local swamp-dwelling Arabs known as Ghawarina (‗people of the valley‘) lived in non-permanent dwellings among the reeds (See Figure 20). Some claimed to have come to Palestine as slaves from Egypt in the 19th century.325 The settlement appears on an Ottoman nüfus (census) compiled after 1915.326 All of the people in this area were nomadic or semi-nomadic Bedouins, some of whome raised buffaloes. One report from 1925 gave the population of Ghawarina as 79 families and Kabara as 13 families who ―lived in tent encampments.‖327 Kh. Damun and Shallala on the Carmel were both 321 Deir Abu Salama, village survey, no date, 105/375, Haganah Archives, Tel Aviv. Ibid. 323 Avneri, Claim, p. 92. 324 See Avneri, pp 84-85. Adbul Rahim Taji(Abdul Rahman Bey el Taji, National Defense party) who was a member of the Supreme Muslim council left the village on September 14 th, 1936 and moved to Ramle after his house came under fire during the Arab revolt. ‗Abdul Rahim Taji moves to Ramle,‘ Palestine Post, September 14th, 1936. 325 Meron Rapaport, ‗A Classic Zionist Story‘, Haaretz, 11, June, 2010, p. 10. 326 Nüfus, Kaza Nablus, book 375, RG 39, ISA; Pagis, Ottoman Census. 327 See letter from Wadi al-Boustany to the Palestine Arab Congress Executive Committee, Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes of the 7th Session, 164-69, Jan. 25, 1925, Opinion on the Arab Claims to the Lands Comprised in the Kabbara-Athlit Concession 5-6, ISA, 2, 9, mem/231, (1923). See also Geremy Forman and Alexander Kedar, ‗Colonialism, Colonization and the Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The 322 152 farmsteads of locals, perhaps from the Druze village of Isifya (17 Muslim inhabitants in 1922). Shallala had 2 Christians inhabitants and 15 Muslims while neighbouring Damun had 19 Muslim inhabitants. The latter became a German-Jewish settlement in 1935 connected with Beit Oron while the former was described as ―damun farm‖ and included in Isifya in the 1931 census.328 Kh. Butaymat might have been associated with Umm al Fahm or other villages in the Wadi Ara. The origins of the sizable village of Mazar are not clear although it is recorded by Schumacher as early as 1886.329 The Ottoman census shows that it was founded between 1893 and 1900.330 Iktaba was a daughter village of Anabta. In the Jenin hills the village of Arrabuna was an unstable village that was probably uninhabited temporarily. Kufeirat and Tilfit appear to have been daughter villages of the large Christian village of Zababdeh because Tilfit was, according to the census, half Christian (19 Christians and 24 Muslims) and Kufeirat had at least one Christian family (55 Muslims and 11 Christians) in the 1922 census. It appears these villages underwent an Islamification because by 1931 there were no Christians left in them. The two Ghubs (Tahta and Fauqa) were situated in the Jezreel valley and a school was built for them in 1888 signifying they were established at that time. Both of them seem to have been homesteads of some kind. During the 1920s another settlement called Naghnaghiya, named after a nearby tribe, was established less than 1km away and Zor al-Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, vol 4: 491, p. 506. 328 Description of the history of the settlement as found on the memorial sign on the site. 329 It had a population of 85. G. Schumacher , ‗Population list of the Liva of Akka‘, PEFQst., 1887, pp. 169-191. 330 Nüfus, Kaza , military list, book 374, RG 39, ISA. 153 the three villages shared the same school.331 Lajjun was a daughter village of Umm al Fahm, according to Gideon Golany.332 In the Baysan area Sultan Abdul Hamid II‘s land purchases also paved the way for the settlement of peasants and Bedouins. At Farwana a number of peasants, probably from the nearby Jenin mountains, were armed and paid by the Turkish government to defend their newly established village at Farwana. It is not clear if this village was part of the Hamra lands owned by the Sultan.333 In other cases the villages of the Baysan areas were settled by Bedouins (See Figure 22). Fischel and Kark write that; ―Some evidence suggests that around Baysān Bedouins were settled on the private lands of Abdülhamid II. The Ghor Mudawara Land Agreement, signed on 19 November 1921 between the Mandatory government of Palestine and the tenants of the former çiftlik estates, regulates the landownership of agricultural land and pasture rights; it states that in 1908, the Ottoman government confiscated the private lands of the Sultan and leased them to the tenants, who had already resided there, some of whom were Bedouins.‖334 The same was the case at al-Ghazawiyya and Bashātwa. Hamidiya was another Baysan settlement named in honor of Sultan Abdul Hamid II probably by the peasants brought to cultivate it.335 Al-Hamma and Dalhamiya, two other properties owned by the Sultan, 331 See Khalidi, All, p. 498. Golany, Geography of Settlements, volume 3, map 54. 333 Person emails with a descendant of the village, Walid al Hajaj, July 12 th, 2008. Also Fischel and Kark map of Sultan Abdul Hamid‘s lands in Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II and Palestine: Private Lands and Imperial Policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, (2008), 129-166.. 334 Fischel and Kark, p. 160. An announcement including the accurate version of the Ghawr land contract signed in 19 November 1921, in The Palestine Gazette, 14 September 1933, Kark Archive, Jerusalem (in Hebrew). 335 Usually places founded by Bedouin incorporated the Bedouin name into the village, such as ‗Arab al Bawati‘ later became Bawati. In contrast Fellaheen were more likely to have another name given to their village, showing their reverence for the person who had founded it or the location on which it had been built. Baysan was but one example, Kafr Misr (‗Egyptian village‘ named by its residents after their place of origin) is another. See also Grossman, chapter 4, p. 26, he notes that the developments of the area are documented in Ben-Arieh, Jordan Valley; and by Nir, Beit Shean. 332 154 were purchased so as to situate his lands along the railway line constructed in 1904-5.336 Dalhamiya was inhabited by the Arab Hinadi (Hanady) tribe who were later granted the lands by the Turkish government in 1908 only to abandon the land in 1912.337 In 1886 Schumacher noted there were 652 inhabitants although he doesn‘t differentiate the settlement from the tribe itself.338 The appearence of Al Hamma particularly suggests it was inhabited by peasants and farmers. Ashrafiya, Bira, Kafra, Samiriyya, Tell esh Shauk and Umm Ajra were all Abdul Hamid II estates in the Baysan valley and it is likely he was involved in some way in their settlement. Only the village of Ashrafiya proves an exception for it appears like it was more a collection of farms than a village and one of those farms was named after the Nablus effendi Abdul al-Hadi.339 In the 1922 census it appeared as two separate enumerations. In the region of the Sea of Galilee the two settlements of Nuqeib and Samra were established by settlers attracted to the sea by the opportunities to fish, a conclusion based on their location near the water‘s edge, but the origins of the settlers is not clear. Samra seems to appear on an 1885 map by Schumacher but it does not appear in his list of villages in the accompanying text he prepared of villages in the Golan.340 However 336 See Fischel and Kark, p. 149. Dalhamiya seems to have been an Egyptian settlement at some point, see Kark ‗Agricultural Land in Palestine, Letters to Sir Moses Montefiore 1839‘, p. 227 in Jewish Historical Studies; transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, Volume XXIX, 1982-86, 1988. 337 See Tiberias Sub-district, Dictrict officer Krishevsky to Director of Lands, July 2, 1923, ISA RG22/7/3599, also Avneri, p. 14. 338 G. Schumacher , ‗Population list of the Liva of Akka‘, PEFQst., 1887, pp. 169-191. 339 Avneri notes that Hadi was a pro-Egyptian clan in the 1832s and rivaled the Tuqan‘s for control of the Nablus area. It was common in the period for Effendis to bring peasants to settle their lands, for instance the Sursuq family which purchased 230,000 dunams (seventy-square miles of land) in the Jezreel valley from the Ottomans in 1872 brought in tenant farmers to Djindjar, Simmoune, Tel el Fir and Jalud. See Fischel and Kark presentation ‗Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization processes in Palestine, 1858-1918‘ annals of the Sergui Al George Institute of Oriental Studies, Bucharest, Romania, December 2007. See also the PEF Memoirs, Volume I, p. 356. See Avneri p. 69. Hadi also owned land near Karkur which Qasem abd el-Hadi sold to Joseph Hankin. See Avneri, Claim , p. 109. 340 Gottlieb Schumacher, ‗Map of the Jaulan‘, 1:63,360, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1885 in Schumacher, The Jaulan, London: Richard Bentley and son, 1888. Inside cover pull out map. 155 Schumacher does mentioned ―Kefr Harib‖ an enumeration that appears with Samra in Mandatory statistics. He describes this village as ―consisting of 72 stone and mud huts with 42 families.‖ It is likely that these people colonized Samra which is around two miles or three kilometers distant. It does not appear on the Ottoman census until 1914. Nuqeib became the property of the Bahai in the 1880s but its settlers included not only a few Bahais but also Bedouins with the same name as the village.341 It is not clear who founded the settlement of Nasr ed Din above Tiberias and it may have had some connection to it. The case of Tabgha and Khan Minya is clear. Tabgha generated great interest among Christian travelers and was mentioned in the accounts of Guerin and Robinson.342 In 1885 a German named Franz Keller took an interest in the land and the subsequent year secured its purchase (See Figure 23). Throughout the 1890s additional development took place so that a pilgrim hostel and chapel were developed along with a farm that included a ―local workforce.‖343 This activity undoubtedly attracted local Khalidi, All That Remains , p. 536, ―during the 1882s all 13,222 dunams of the lands of al-Nuqayb were purchased by Baha‘Allah, the leader of the Babi religious sect…the people of al-Nuqayb continues to farm their lands as tenants.‖ It wasn‘t the only are Bahai‘s purchased around the Sea of Galilee. At Umm Juni a Persian effendi and Bahai named Al Rida…irani had 3,222 dunams which was sold to the JNF and I.C.A and formed the basis for Degania. See Avneri, Claim , p. 105. Schumacher found 90 residents in 1886. G. Schumacher , ‗Population list of the Liva of Akka‘, PEFQst., 1887, pp. 169-191. 342 Goren, Haim, ‗The German-Catholics: Pioneers of European Settlement on the Shores of the See of Galilee‘, in Ben-Arieh, Yehoshua/Ben-Artzi, Yossi/Goren, Haim (eds.), Historical-Geographical Studies in the Settlement of Eretz Israel, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem, 1987, 45-58 (Hebrew). 343 See publication of the German Catholic Pilgerhaus entitled ‗History of the Tabgha Pilgerhaus‘, pamphlet in the authors possession. Also for ―local workforce‖ see Ruth Kark, Dietrich Denecke and Haim Goren, ‗The impact of Early German Missionary Enterprise in Palestine on Modernization and environmental and technological change, 1820-1914. p. 146 and 167-169. See also Schumacher, Gottlieb, ‗Karte des deutschen Besitzungen am See Genezaret von Kapharnaum(Kafr Minÿe) bis Tabka (Ain Tabga.)‘, Haifa, July 1889 (Historisches Archiv des Erzbistum Köln,CR 22.11, 1, published in various places, for example: Sepp, Johannes Nepomuk, Neue hochwichtige Entdeckungen auf der zweiten Palästinafahrt, M. Huttler, München, 1896: last page); Schumacher, Gottlieb, ‗Brouillon einer Karte d. Landes d. Kathol. Deutsch. Palästina-Vereins am See Genezareth, 25. März 1892‘, (an original is kept in the maps collection of the Technion, Haifa). Cf. Peled, Amatzia/Gat, Giora, ‗Two Maps (1892, 1897) of Areas Near Tabgha by G. Schumacher: Geodetic and Cartographic Analysis‘, in Horizons: Studies in Geography, Vol. 7, 1983: 71-84 (Hebrew). For 341 156 Arabs to the area for employment. Schumacher‘s map of 1882 shows clearly that Bedouin used nearby Tell Hum (two kilometers east of Tabgha on the shore) as a settlement which Schumacher called ―Hutton Beduinen ]Bedouin huts[.‖ Pictures from the period show black tents with reeds used to form walls for temporary shelter.344 In addition there was a government owned Mill nearby that attracted Arabs.345 Robinson had mentioned the existence of Mills in the area.346 He noted that they were run by Arabs from Safed and had been established by the government. The mills don‘t appear on the PEF map. In the area around Lake Huleh and in the Safed hills a number of villages developed for which there is no clear origin. Al-Shuna seems to have been a ruined stone structure inhabited by the Bedouin tribe of Arab al-Sayyad and al-Qudayrat (the latter of which would go on to establish Qudeireiya in the valley) who also inhabited a nearby ruin called Kh. Sirin included by the Mandate as part of Shuna.347 However initially it had been constructed by a Mr. Michel Pharaon before 1919.348 Ammuqa, like nearby Marus, was an Algerian settlement. Al Ghabbatiya may have been an off-shoot of Sasa. Kh. Al Hiqab seems to have been a seasonal settlement of Akbara which established it downstream of the village. It is not clear from whence Jahula came, except that a spring attracted people to it. Marus was an Algerian village. Tuleil, another Algerian Schumacher: Metzger, Emil, Württembergische Forschungsreisende und Geographen des 19. Jahrhunderts:Festschrift zur Feier des 25 jährigen Regierungsjubiläums Sr Majestät des Königs Karl, Stuttgart, 1889:159-161; Ben Artzi, Yossi, ‗Unrealized Development Plans for Haifa at the End of the 19th Century‘, in Cathedra, Vol. 73, September 1994, 62-82 (Hebrew). 344 ‗Bedouins at Capernaum 1893‘, Album de Terre Sainte, Paris, http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic42-s.jpg 345 Robinson noted the mill. 346 Ribinson, 1856, III, pg 197-98. See also See Kark ‗Agricultural Land in Palestine, Letters to Sir Moses Montefiore 1839‘, p. 227 in Jewish Historical Studies; transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, Volume XXIX, 1982-86, 1988. 347 See Khalidi, p. 498. 348 See Shuni Jiftlik Lands, From Major A Financial Advisor to General Secretary of the Zionist Commission, December 12, 1919, CZA S25/7433. 157 settlement, was founded just south of the Jewish settlement of Yesod Hama‘ala which was founded in 1883 (See Figure 24). There seems to be no question that the Jewish settlement helped attract the Arab settlement, although the PEF mentions that there were already ‗cattle-sheds‘ there in the 1872s. However Abbasi and Avneri claim its residents, and nearby Husainiya (Huseiniya), were of Algerian origin which means they must have been part of the last wave of Algerians who arrived before 1920.349 Origin Daughter Village Bedouins Foreigners (Algerians, Egyptians, Circassians and Bosnians) Abdul Hamid II's settlers Abdul Hamid II‟s settlers Farm City dwellers (i.e. Gazans) Effendi and settlers Previous villagers Locals Unknown Total Number of Villages 19 9.5 8.5 8 4 4 5 2 2 4 69 Table 2.8 The Origins of the settlers of new Arab settlements 1871-1922 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this study. When comparing the origins of the settlers of new villages it becomes clear that many of them derived from natural village expansion. They usually directed their efforts at colonization of lower lying fertile areas by villagers who came from villages located on high ground and organized for security. Bedouins played a large role in settling new villages as well. Abdul Hamid II‘s settlement efforts stand out for providing the initiative to settle a number of the villages. The top four processes had something in common. The Grossman, chapter 2, p. 18. Also see Avneri, p. 88. They first show up on a 1912 map, see ‗Carte de Terrains de la Haute Galilee‘, Rosch Pina 1:22,222, Adolphe Starkmeth, May 24 1912. CZA. The map hangson the CZA wall without attribution or sourcing. 349 158 more Bedouins that settled, partly due to the efforts of the Ottoman government at controlling the Bedouin, the more lands could be occupied by timid villages from the hills seeking secure lands in more fertile areas. Abdul Hamid II‘s attempts to create planned villages in the south of Palestine and his purchasing of lands in Baysan and elsewhere on which locals were settled was part and parcel to the increasing sedenterization and the expansion of hilltop settlements through the creation of stable offshoots. The origins of other settlers were also related to the issue of increased security. Without security effendis (Nataf), foreigners (Tabgha) and Bahais (Nuqeib) would not have been able to create new settlements in a hostile environment. In fact the imposition of peoples such as the Bosnians and Circassians was meant to bring security to the areas they occupied. The pattern of settlement by origin was not equal. In the south, as mentioned, the villages tended to have been created by the government. In the mountains, for instance all five settlements that became part of the Jenin sub-district, the creation of new villages was entirely due to natural expansion, the creation of daughter villages or the reestablishment of an unstable village by locals. In the Baysan valley, the Carmel mountains and the Jezreel the pattern included farms. In the valleys and plains, from the Rift valley to the Shephelah and Sharon were where the Bedouins choose to sedenterize. This is not surprising given the fact that Bedouins often returned to similar pastures seasonally, for the summer or winter, and it was not uncommon for them to situate their tents near ruins that contained water sources. The next step, the creation of a semipermanent settlement and then a permanent one, was logical in an era where the central government increasingly punished nomadic tribes that were perceived as being in the 159 way. It is no surprise therefore that Bedouins and the Arabs who had long braved the swamps such as the Kabara or Huleh but had not built permanent villages eventually established villages on lands they were familiar with. Settlement structural Patterns: How did the settlements appear? The appearance of the villages owed much to their origin. It depended on a series of factors; what geographical area the village was located in, who lived in the village and by what process the village was established. The appearance of the village, its size, its building materials and its settlement pattern, even including how close it was to neighbouring settlements all provide important information about the new settlements and their process of establishment. The new settlements are discussed from south to north, the regions in bold, with attention placed on describing similar settlements in similar geographic regions when possible. The new settlements in the Gaza, Beersheba and southern Shephelah regions included a disproportionate number of planned settlements, with strait roads and square parcels of land. These included Beersheba, Muharraqa, Jaladiya and Kaufakha. Photos of the remaining mosque of Kaufakha and testimony by Uri Avnery from the 1948 war indicate that the Abdul Hamid II settlements may have been marked by having a unique type of mosque.350 Avnery relates that Jaladiya ―is an Arab village. In the middle is the minaret of a mosque with a very unusual form. We only know one single village with 350 See the photo online at, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Gaza/Kawfakha/Picture332.html. Also in Khalidi, All That Remains, p. 120. 160 such a remarkable minaret.‖351 Avnery‘s assertion that he and his fellow soldiers only knew of one such mosque does not mean that Kaufakha and Muharraqa did not have similar mosques. He was fighting on the Egyptian front in July of 1948 and had never been farther south than Jaladiya, which was the northernmost of the three Abdul Hamid II settlements. The remaining mosque of Kaufakha has a short stout square minaret which was indeed unique in Palestine at the time. In contrast the settlement of Masmiya es Saghira or Huraniya is a classic offshoot settlement, only its proximity to its mother village makes it unique. This resulted from the fact that the off-shoot was not caused by a seasonal settlement but by clan rivalry that resulted in the exile of one clan from the village. The size of Huraniya leads to the conclusion that it was probably created not long after the PEF completed its survey. The Ottoman census records it as existing in 1905.352 The only other village in this region was that of khan or Khirbat Khisas, south Majdal near Gaza. This consisted of a large square building. It was built on a ruin that had been described by the PEF as ―a few heaps of stones with a well near.‖353 This was purchased by Abdul Hamid II who apparently established a khan-like building. The only settlement to develop in this period in the southern Hebron region was that of Ar Rahiya. The PEF had described it as "A large ruin with caves and cisterns; appears to be an ancient site"354 This settlement appears as just two houses in a map from 1919 and was evidently an off-shoot of either Dura or Yatta. It fits the description of what Grossman calls a ‗loose bunched‘ settlement where it forms one of the ―small, semi351 Uri Avnery, 1948: The Bloody Road to Jerusalem, Oxford: One World, originally published 1948, republished in English 2008, p. 97. 352 Nüfus, Kaza Gaza, book 256, RG 39, ISA. 353 Conder, Memoirs, Volume 3, p. 235. 354 Conder, Memoirs, Volume 3, Judea, p. 377. 161 nucleated or amorphous clusters of dwellings…their stem is a feeder road or a stream.‖355 In this case the hamlet was near a stream and its establishment in fact was the first probing offshoots of what was to become an entire region dotted with small clusters around Dura.356 Thus this village fits a pattern of settlement in the Hebron region. In the Central Shephelah the villages of Salbit and Beit Shanna (See Figure 25) were related, probably to the village of Qubab, being offshoots of it. One can see clearly from maps in 1919 that the hamlet of Salbit was hardly more than a few houses, a recent development. By contrast Beit Shanna had the appearance of a typical nucleated Arab village. The two villages of Beit Susin and Beit Jiz seem to be related. Both are nucleated villages and were established in an elevated location. They appear similar and were of similar size and both contained the tomb of a sheikh (Ubiad and Zeid respectivelly). Between the two lay an effendi‘s summer home and watering hole called Bayarat al Effendi that existed in the 1930s. Beit Susin, which was in the Shephelah in the region of what is now the town of Beit Shemesh, was close to Eshua which gave birth to the daughter village of Islin which was established within one kilometer of the parent village. The only village close enough that might have provided settlers for Beit Jiz and Susin was Khulda. A Haganah visit to Beit Jiz in the 1940s found that most of the houses were of wood and straw and that there were some 2,000 sheep on 5,000 dunams.357 A Haganah survey conducted in the 1940s commented that the residents of Beit Susin had moved from the nearby villages of Saris and Qubeiba between 1925 and 1940.358 The 355 Grossman, Rural, p 166. For the growth of Dura see Grossman, Rural, p. 169. 357 Beit Jiz, no date, 105/375, Haganah archives, Tel Aviv. 358 ‗Beit Susin,‘ no date, 125/375, Haganah Archives, Tel Aviv. 356 162 Mukhtar, Mr. Mahmud, was also from Saris. The Haganah estimated there were about 100 inhabitants.359 Deir Abu Salama and Beit Far were both isolated small settlements. One had a noted sheikh‘s tomb of Abu Salama which had appeared in the time of the PEF.360 Beit Far shares a similar first name (‗house of‘) with neighbouring Beit Susin and Beit Jiz, but it doesn‘t seem to have attracted many villagers. It had been noticed by Robinson as an abandoned village361 but by 1922 had only 28 residents and doesn‘t appear to have any dwellings. It seems to have been related to nearby Khulda. Two southern settlements in the central Shephelah were related to a direct outside influence. Umm Kalkha was owned by an effendi and had one resident in 1922. It was thus an isolated farmhouse. It was located near a railway station. Sajad was an Abdul Hamid II estate whose village was built along the railway line near the sponymous station362 (completed 1892) but it appears its residents came from Qazaza, also an Abdul Hamid II estate, and leased the land after 1908 when these lands were removed from the Sultan by the Ottoman government.363 Later the Mandatory authorities described the settlers as ―illiterate and ignorant…unable to properly define their claims.‖364 It was built on two sides of a road but nevertheless resembles other settlements in the area. It had extensive walled fields around it. The lands of Sajad were settled early in the Mandate 359 Ibid. Conder, Memoirs, Volume II, p. 274. 361 See Robinson, Biblical Researches, Travels in 1838, published 1841, III, page 119. 362 Jacob Wahrman, Ron Shafir and Dror Wahrman, ‗The Vanishing Station at Sejed: On the history and significance of the Jaffa-Jerusalem railway‘, Cathedra, no. 125, Jerusalem: yad Ben Zvi, 2007, pp. 31-52 (Hebrew). 363 Khalidi, All, pp. 409-412. See Martin Bunton, ‗Damarcating the British Colonial State: Land Settlement in the Palestinian Jiftlik Villages of Sajad and Qazaza‘, in Roger Owen (ed) New Perspectives on Property and Land in the Middle East, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000, p 121-160. 364 I.N Camp, Settlement Officer (Ramle Settlement Area), ‗Memoradum on Decisions by Settlement Officer, Sajad and Qazaza Jiftlik,‘ 15 March 1932, ISA RG 22, Box 3776, LS 1(12), p.1. 360 163 by a settlement officer directed by the Commissioner of Lands and Surveys. The Director of Development of the Mandate, Lewis French was intimately involved as well. The villagers were granted ―heritable and assignable rights of occupancy and tenancy‖ in 1934, similar to the rights granted in the Baysan area under the Ghor Mudawara agreement.365 In the Gaza area the villages of Muharraqa, Kaufakha and Jaladiya were also provided with land settlement by the Mandate under similar terms.366 Nebi Rubin was a Bedouin settlement of the Abu Sawayrih that was bolstered by the presence of isolated farmhouses that were not necessarily owned by Bedouin. One of these houses is still visible on a hill about a km from Nebi Rubin. Nebi Rubin itself, the site of a major yearly pilgrimage, helped to draw settlement to the area but the settlement appeared as dispersed homesteads and in 1922 it is not clear that there was any real permanent Bedouin settlement despite the 1922 census claim that the site had 120 residents (See Figure 26). The tribe of Arab al Sawarka roamed in the region. A unique settlements developed in the area. Wadi Hunein, consisted of a mosque across the street from the Jewish settlement of Nes Ziona which had been founded in 1883 (See Figure 27). Effendis, especially the Taji and Husseini families, built palatial homes nearby, each a good distance from its neighbour. This pattern of dispersed homesteads could also be found in the Jezreel and Baysan valleys.367 Nearby in the Jerusalem foothills there was hamlet or isolated house of Deir Amr. This consisted of a tiny dwelling and a family, evidently migrants from a nearby village. The lands of Deir Amr were partially owned by the Husseini family, it may be that the isolated house, Bunton, ‗Demarcating‘, p. 141; Ruth Kark and Seth Frantzman, ―Bedouin, Abdul Hamid II, Land Settlement and Zionism: The Baysan Sub-district, 1831-1948‘, in Israel Studies, in press, 2010. 366 Ibid. 367 Grossman, Rural, p. 167-168. It was a common pattern in other places for instance in Gloucester, Virginia and in other parts of the American South. See Fischer, Albion’s Seed, p. 390. 365 164 which was quite simple, was inhabited by tenants hired to watch the property.368 It would later be the site of an agricultural school. Nataf was similar but more substantial, consisting of a group of houses (similar in appearence in Kh. Ismallah). Beit Thul, near Abu Ghosh, was a village that had existed since the 16th century and had certainly existed into the middle of the 19th century. M. Hartmann found 26 people there in 1871 and Albert Socin found 36 in 1870.369 Robinson mentioned it as a village near Jerusalem but did not visit it in 1838.370 Clermont-Ganneau, referring to the year 1874, related that the villagers claimed the village had once been known by Christians as Qal‘at Fertin or the Fortress of Fertin.371 Clermont-Ganneau devotes a number of pages to the village, most of which are interested in the Etymological origin of the name, but he does point out that there are very old traditions among the local villagers and that archeological remains seem to date from the Byzantine period.372 He relates the history of the makam as being devoted to a Sheikh In‘jeim and his sister.373 This was in 1873. Its abandonment probably had something to do with the incessant Qays-Yaman factional fighting that caused temporary abandonment of villages in the area.374 It was a typical acropolis village, situated on a ridge line with deep ravines on both sides. It was evidently abandoned in 1874 and not re-inhabited until after 1882. The Ottoman nüfus See Palestine Post February 6th, 1945: ‗Husseini Land Case‘ an action by the Husseini family of Jerusalem for the return of some 2,000 dunams of land near Deir Amr on the Jerusalem Jaffa road. 369 See Ben-Arieh, Yehoshua. ‗The Sanjak of Jerusalem in the 1872s.‘ in Cathedra, 36. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi. 1985. page 86. 370 See Robinson, Biblical Researches page 123. 371 Clermont-Ganneau, Archeological Researches, page 66. 372 Ibid, page 65. 373 Ibid, page 65. Guerin may have mentioned it as well under the name ‗Beit Oula‘, Judee III page 346347. 374 Grossman page 131. Kline, PEFQSt.January 1881, page 113. For another introduction to the Qays and Yaman violence by Mrs. Elizabeth Finn, wife of the English consul, see her article in the PEFQSt., Finn, Elizabeth. ‗The Fellahin of Palestine: notes on their clans, warfare, religion and laws.‘ PEFQSt. January, 1879. London: PEF, 1879. 368 165 (census) in the Jerusalem region mentions the village as existing in 1885.375 The PEF only mentioned ―foundations and a makam‖ indicating that the village, so recently inhabited, had been almost completely destroyed.376 Had it been in better shape the PEF would have mentioned that it was a ―ruined village‖ as they did in other places.377 Beit Thul should be more properly classified as an unstable village or one that was temporarily abandoned rather than a new village. Two of the three settlements that developed in the Plain of Sharon and the nearby foothills in the areas around Tulkarm had a similar pattern. Yamma and Kh. Manshiya were both daughter villages. Their pattern of settlement was that of a ‗loosebunch‘ or isolated houses, indicating that they were probably the beginnings of settlements since they were not established by Bedouin. In fact Yamma is more of a linear settlement, established along a north-south road although an aerial photo from 1944 shows it to be more clustered than the map does.378 Iktaba was something else. The PEF described it as "a place to which a certain effendi of Nablus comes down in spring, a sort of 'Azbeh or spring grazing-place for horses.‖379 An azbeh or ‘azba, as the quote describes, is a seasonal settlement used by those watching over animals or cultivating lands seasonally.380 Later this seasonal settlement seems to have been settled by people from Anabta, a nearby village. It appears on maps as an isolated house or a small cluster of interconnected dwellings. 375 Nüfus, Kaza Jerusalem, book 85, RG 39, ISA. Conder, Survey, volume III, Judea, p. 86. 377 See for instance ―Khurbet Jemmameh, ―remains of a ruined village‖, Conder, Survey, volume III, Judea, p. 283. 378 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS18, 5038, December 1944. 379 See Conder, Memoirs, Volume II, Section C, pg. 220-223, of Samaria, sheet XI. 380 See Kark and Oren-Nordheim, Jerusalem, p. 275, also Grossman, Expansion and Desertion, p. 44-48. 376 166 East of Nablus the hamlet of Usarin was an off-shoot of Akrabeh and appears as a small cluster of dwellings. Al Kufeir and Tilfit north of Usarin in the same mountainous region appear similarly and have similar origins. In contrast the Jordan valley settlement of Ghor al Faria was a large Bedouin settlement and isolated farms laid out in a linear and dispersed fashion in an irrigated area.381 A report from 1919 notes that ―only a small part of ]Faria‘s[ 12522 dunams is cultivated by Bedouins.‖382 The only comparable settlement to the Bedouins in Ghor al Faria was the Bedouin settlement of the Arab Ghawarina who settled in the Kabara swamps and in the area of modern day Jisr al Zarqa (See Figure 28). Their village, called Kh. Es Somariyya, was laid out in a long linear pattern. The village of Bart‘a in the foothills east of Jenin appears to be a linear settlement stretched out along a dry riverbed named Wadi al Mei but its origins are not Bedouin, rather it was an offshoot of a nearby village. It was established using some of the ruins noted in the PEF ―a ruined Arabic village on a high hill with a spring in the valley to the north 400 feet below.‖383 In the mountains northeast of Jenin the village of Arrabuna appears to be a ruin in the PEF‘s map but is not mentioned in the memoirs. As was the case with Beit Thul it was probably only temporarily abandoned. However its appearance is quite different from Beit Thul, it‘s houses are less bunched together. The village of Zibda, which is located northwest of Jenin, was also a ruin in 1880 has a similar appearance. The village of Mazar is a very interesting and unique settlement. It was located just at the base of Mount Carmel, not far from the ancient Crusader ruin of Atlit. It was 381 This fits the pattern described in Grossman, Rural, pp. 169-171. State Domains: not cultivated, 1919, CZA 525/7433. 383 Conder, Memoirs, Volume II, map 8, p. 51. The PEF referred to the same Wadi as ‗Wadi Samantar‘. The 1 :20,000 map indicated a canal, apparently from an older period. 382 167 not built on a ruin and this allowed the village to have a more haphazard layout without a nucleated center its houses were spread out in a semicircle, facing a major road that ran north-south. It may have been related in some way to the nearby Arab villages of Jaba, south of it on the road, and Ein Haud, north of it. The Carmel range included two isolated farms, Kh. Damun and Kh. Shallala were most probably established by settlers from nearby.384 These farms were similar to the dispersed homesteads at Mansi, Ghub al Tahta and Ghub al Fauqa in the Jezreel valley. Although later maps indicate that Mansi was inhabited by Bedouin of the Baniha tribe, it is apparent that the house first served as a homestead. The settlement spread southwest along a road and included other farmsteads and solitary houses. The presence of four Christians makes it appear the settlement was a mix of Bedouin and others. In the northern Sharon plain Caesaria was a unique settlement not only in its origins (Government) and ethnic group (Bosnians) but also in the fact that it was built within the confines of the ancient Roman and Crusader city. It was not the only settlement constructed this way, Arabs also lived in the ruins of other forts and castles, but this was unique because the Bosnians choose to establish themselves at the ruins, for security reasons or because of the dreadful malarial swamps nearby. The village of Butaymat in the low hills abutting the Plain of Sharon was a classic nucleated village along with another village north of it called Rihaniya. At Rihaniya there was a tomb for Sheikh Rihan, which it was named after. The village was situated 384 It is not clear because the census of 1922 says there were 19 Muslims in Damun and 15 Muslims as well as 2 male Druzes in Shallala. Druze and Muslims usually do not live together and the proximity to Isifiya would lead one to believe it was settlers from the Druze village. 168 on a large ruined village and was founded as early as 1886.385 Its appearance was unique, unlike the nucleated village of Alma, it was layed out in a rectangle, clearly visible and unique in an aerial photo from 1944.386 In the Baysan area there were six nucleated villages with similar appearance: Kafra, Farwana, al Bira, Al Hamidiya, Es Samirrya and Yubla. Yubla and Farwana don‘t seem to have been owned by Abdul Hamid II. The other three were owned by the Sultan. Their form and shape makes them appear to have been settled by farmers and peasants from the hills rather than Bedouins who would have preferred more dispersed homes. In contrast the other settlements established in Baysan included Safa, Umm Ajra, Ghazawiya and Khuneizer. It is not clear but it appears that there were few permanent homes built in these settlements. Ghazawiya at the time was called ‗Abu Hashiyeh and may have been located at the bridge named Jisr al Sheikh Hussein and would have appeared similar to the other bridge settlement in the area, Jisr al Majami (later Gesher). The Ghazawiya Bedouin were a strong tribe that had migrated to the area in the 18th century. It was led by the Zeinati family and in 1920 it was headed by Mohammed Zeinati.387 The tribe briefly rebelled against the British government but by 1923 they were subservient to it.388 The fights with the British may have led to the settlement of the tribe or at least parts of it. The leaders of the tribe boasted in 1923 that they had cordial relations with the Jewish Agency and they described how they were ―cultivating the large 385 PEF: "A ruined modern village, and watch-towers in ruins, with two springs." Map 8, p. 62. G. Schumacher , ‗Population list of the Liva of Akka‘, PEFQst., 1887, pp. 169-191. Schumacher notes 190 residents at Rihaniya. 386 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS14M 6053, January 1945. 387 And the former information both from Hillel Cohen, Army of Shadows, University of California, London: 2008, p. 74. 388 See Hillel Cohen, Army of Shadows, p 73-74. He quotes ‗Sheikhs of Beisan valley to high commissioner, 22 October 1923, CZA S25/517. 169 tracts ]of land[‖ through money received from Jews who purchased other lands of theirs.389 Jisr al Majami had been established by the Ottoman government in or around 1929 and was ―intended for a military guard that would control the Trans-Jordan Bedouins who were raiding the area.390 Khalidi informs us that Khuneizer ‗deminished‘ in size due to later Jewish immigration.391 Perhaps, as was the case in the Jezreel valley, the Arabs removed their homes so that they do not appear on the period maps at all.392 Dalhamiya was another Baysan valley settlement along the Jordan but it seems to have been unstable. Robinson saw it in 1838 but by the 20th century it had moved and according to Khalidi this was due to Jewish immigration: ―It was located on the eastern bank of the Jordan River, but as Zionist land reclaimation projects near Lake Tiberias expanded the villagers were displaced and so they relocated their village farther east, near the Yarmuk.‖393 Maps do show a close up of the original village's ruin but by the 1930s it was impossible to locate the new village, only its lands are indicated. A letter from the District Officer in 1923 claims that nomadic Bedouin were granted the lands in 1908 only to abandon them in 1912 after which the land was declared Mahloul. However some families remained and after 1923 the government leased the lands to these Bedouin who had settled there.394 The Baysan valley also included a number of effendi estates and dispersed farmhouses. This was the case at Ashrafiya, which included Ahrafiyet Kuzma and 389 See Cohen, Army, p. 66. Avneri, Claim, p. 105, the land was owned by the I.C.A, a Zionist land buying organization, and a dispute erupted with the government that was not settled until 1914 when war broke out. Nearby the Jewish settlement of Menahamiya was founded on 6,000 dunams purchased from the Sursuqs. See Claim, p. 105. 391 Khalidi, All, p. 54. 392 See Grossman, Rural, p. 168. 393 Khalidi, All That Remains, p.515. Robinson, ses Travels in 1838, published 1841, III, pg 264. 394 Tiberias Sub-district, Dictrict officer Krishevsky to Director of Lands, July 2, 1923, ISA RG22/7/3599 390 170 Ashrafiyet Rushdi. One of these estates was later named after the Nablus based effendi, Abdul Hadi. Nearby Tell esh Shauk was part of this general settlement pattern of isolated farmhouses and estates northwest of Baysan. On the Sea of Galilee, Tabgha had 18 Christians out of 157 residents listed in 1922. It consisted of three separate places including the hospice at Tabhga, the ruins of khan al Minya, dating from the 14th century, and a Bedouin settlement up the coast two thousand meters.395 Where exactly the Muslims lived is not clear. As was the case with Nuqeib and Samra the settlement was primarily along the shore and although it was for Christian devotional reasons this logic of settlement was similar. Nasr Ed Din was a sheikh‘s tomb above Tiberias and the tomb provided the reason for settlement fixation. The settlement was built in ahaphazard way around it. In the foothills around Safed a number of small hamlets developed, including Ghabbatiya, Kh. Al Hiqab, Jahula and Marus. If they were daughter villages or originally seasonal settlements it is not clear. Esh Shuna was located in the same geographical region but it was apparently a large farmhouse erected by a Christian Arab named Michael Pharaon that attracted the Bedouin tribes of Arab al Sayyad and Arab al Qudayrat (See Figure 29).396 Rihaniya was an exception in the region but its appearance does not reflect other Circassian villages, neither is it laid out neatly nor was it founded on a ruin (See Figure 30). The conclusion one draws from examining the layout of these numerous villages is that the geography and the origins of the settlers played an integral part in the way in which the villages appeared. Grossman has clearly indicated this by classifying 395 396 See khalidi, All, for information on the khan, p. 542. Khalidi, All That Remains, pp. 498-99. 171 settlements in Palestine in 10 different ways and showing in which areas each predominated.397 In the highlands the nucleated Arab village dominates, especially in Samaria. Adjoining these areas are regions where Arab bunched settlements and hamlets exist. Loose Arab bunches predominate in the Hebron and southern Hebron areas. Linear Arab settlements exist in the middle Jordan valley and the Gaza area. Large Arab villages exist in a number of specific places, such as Gaza and Nablus. Grossman‘s map however is meant to indicate the way things appear in the late twentieth century.398 In many ways the villages established between 1871 and 1922 fit this model. In the low lying areas Bedouin linear villages were more common. In the foothills hamlets were more common. Nucleated settlements were common in the hill country. Haufendorf settlements or ‗acropolis villages‘ were also common whereas Strassendorf or linear settlements along streets were less common. This is in line with Brawer‘s characterization of Arab village life in Samaria and Judea.399 What is interesting is the fact that daughter villages were frequently seen in the low lying hills, such as the Shephelah, or as creeping settlement in the mountains with the daughter village being established at a lower altitude than the parent. This fits the general model of security providing incentives to settle new areas. But what is also clear is that this ability of one village to create off-shoots was not enough to provide for the colonization of the plains and valleys. The colonization of these places was left up to the Sultan and effendis who helped establish new settlements and lure immigrants to them. What comes out of an examination of the various types of settlements that developed is their great diversity and the fact that while some types predominated in 397 Grossman, Rural, p. 165. Grossman, Rural, pp. 163-164. 399 Brawer, ‗Changes in Village Sites‘, pp. 298-303. 398 172 certain areas and some types were associated clearly with certain groups there were few types that were isolated to only one area. The exception to this rule was the planned villages of Abdul Hamid II. In some areas it seems the villages may have mirrored the origins of the settlers. This seems to have been the case in Baysan where nucleated villages were found in a landscape that should have produced more spread out villages. Since they were settled by security conscious peasants and farmers they were tightly built to withstand Bedouin assaults, even in a period when those assaults were less common. Which villages existed in 1596? Name Jaladiya Muharraqa Beit Shanna Beit Susin Islin Beit Thul Lajjun Region Southern Shephelah Western Negev Shephelah Shephelah Shephelah Judean hills Origin after 1871 Abdul Hamid II Abdul Hamid II Daughter village 173 Ghub al Fawqa Jezreel Jezreel Bira Tabgha (At Tabigha) Ammuqa Jahula Marus Baysan Tuleil Huleh Tiberias Safed hills Safed hills Safed hills Effendi Effendi Abdul Hamid II Christian Europeans Algerians Algerians Algerians/Jewish immigration Table 2.9 Settlements re-established after 1871 that existed in 1596 Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from Wolf Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah, Historical-Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the late 16th Century. One interesting question is which of the villages established between 1871 and 1922 had existed in 1596? Grossman defined those settlements that existed in 1596 and 1922 as ‗stable‘ settlements.400 A total of thirteen of the settlements established between 1871 and 1922 had existed in 1596. This shows some degree of continuity but also reflects the fact, evidently, that the security of the country had declined so much in the intervening period that settlement had become impossible in these areas. The villages that were repopulated were not equally spread throughout the country. Three were in the Shephelah and the hills around Safed (the Eastern Galilee). This points to the fact that these lower lying hills had been abandoned and that the settlements that did exist in them had to be larger, hearty and nucleated. Isolated farms and hamlets apparently had a much harder time existing in the intervening period. This also shows the predeliction of locals to repopulate places abandoned years before, where generations had come and gone. There is no evidence that the repopulation of these places was accomplished by people who had any ties to the original inhabitants of 1596. In two cases the ruins were simply selected by Abdul Hamid II to build his planned villages on. In the case of Tabgha and 400 Grossman, Rural, p. 70-71. 174 Tuleil it was the arrival of Christians and Jews that helped encourage people to establish a village on the ruins of an old one. Some of the areas, such as at Jaladiya and the Huleh show how some of the landscape changed between 1596 and 1871 so that areas once inhabitable were no longer inhabitable by the late 19th century. What was the physical origin of the settlements: Ruins? Makams? Many of the settlements were founded on the ruins of previous settlements. In total 43 of the 68 settlements were founded on ruins identified by the PEF. Fifteen of the settlements were founded in places where a tomb existed to a famous sheikh.401 Three villages were founded on top of places where villages existed in 1596 but whose ruins seem to have disappeared for they were not located by the PEF. Three villages, all in the Baysan valley, were founded on a place that was known as a ‗Tell‘ as in Tell Farwana. These mounds were ended up being located near the settlements. The PEF described ‗Tell esh Shok‘ as ―an artificial earthen mound with water on either side, (northern) an artificial earthen mound near Jordan; a spring also exists about 1 mile to the west.‖402 At least two settlements, if not three, were founded in the area of a ruined khan.403 This shows the paucity of settlements which were fixated on nothing. Masmiya es Saghira is one example but it proves an extreme exception. In a number of cases the ruins were described as extensive and even ‗modern‘. At Kh. Marus the PEF found ―Modern and ancient ruins; a spring in a rock-cut cave, ancient foundations of good-sized stones, the foundations of a small rectangular building to the 401 Beit Jiz, Beit Susin, Deir Abu Salama, Al Nebi Rubin, Deir Rafat, Beit Thul, Ghub al Tahta, Kafra, Safa, Hamidiya, Nasr ed Din, Islin, Rihaniya and Tabgha. 402 Conder, Memoirs, Vol. II, pg. 128. Samaria. 403 Khan el Minya, Esh Shuna and Kh. Khisas. 175 west of the eastern portion of the ruin.‖404 At Shuna, which they called Kulat esh Shuna, they described the building as ―A modern Arab building of basaltic stone, used probably as a barn, as the name implies.‖405 At Tuleil they found ―modern cattle sheds‖406 and ruins. In other cases they came across entire ruined villages. Kafra was ―a ruined village with traces of antiquity.‖ Al Bira is described as ―ruins of an ordinary village.‖407 Rihaniya southeast of Haifa was ―a ruined modern village, and watch-towers in ruins, with two springs.‖408 Al Mansi was ―a small ruined village.‖409 At Kh. Shallala near Damun they found ―A ruined village in a very good position on a promontory.‖410 Bart‘a was ―a ruined Arabic village on a high hill with a spring.‖ 411 Kufeirat was an ―abandoned village‖ and Zibda was an ―abandoned village.‖412 The ruins of ‗Aslin‘ (Islin) are described as being the ―remains of a ruined village, with a mukam (makam, sacred station or shrine) (See Figure 31).‖413 Beit Thul, which should have consisted of an entire ruined village was described as having only ―foundations and a mukam ]sic[‖ by the PEF.414 The fact that so many villages were established next to the tombs of famous sheikhs is also interesting. The religious veneration of dead leaders is frowned upon by official Muslim theology. However throughout the Muslim world the practice is quite 404 Conder, Memoirs, Vol. 1, pg. 242. Conder, Memoirs , vol. 1, pg. 412. 406 Conder, Memoirs , vol. 1, pg. 257. 407 Conder, Memoirs , vol. II, pg. 114. 408 Conder, Memoirs , map VIII, Vol. II, pg. 62. 409 Conder, Memoirs , map VIII, Vol. II, pg. 67. 410 Conder, Memoirs, Vol. I, page 303. 411 Conder, vol. II Survey, page 58. 412 Conder, vol. II Survey, pp. 243 and 72. 413 Conder, vol. II Survey, page 83. 414 Conder, Survey, page 86. 405 176 common. From India to Egypt the tombs of famous Sufi saints and sheikhs and other holy men are the site of pilgrimages. Bellarmino Begatti has shown how in numerous instances local Christians and Muslims venerated local saints in Palestine.415 The region around Safed was festooned with tombs to famous Jewish sages, such as the tomb of Shimon Bar Yochai in Meron.416 Thus the tradition of having local sheikhs tombs was very much a part of everyday life in Palestine in the 19th century for all the religious communities.417 What is interesting is the degree to which villages grew up around these tombs. In some cases villages simply existed at the site of a famous tomb, as was the case with Meron or Gush Halav (Jish) in the northern Galilee. But the tomb also played an important role in settlement fixation between 1871 and 1922. The PEF mentioned and noted some of these shrines. There was a makam at Deir Rafat, a tomb at Kabara and a shrine at Nasr ed-Din. In places where sheikh‘s tombs later appeared, such as Beit Jiz and Beit Susin, there is no mention in the Memoirs or on the map of their existence. At Rihaniya (Haifa area) where the village was clearly named after the tomb of sheikh Rihan the tomb is not mentioned by the PEF and this presents a problem because the PEF already indicates that the place was named ‗Kh al Rihaneh‘. Either they missed the presence of the tomb, which is unlikely, or a shrine in the village developed later and acquired the name of the ruin. At the ruins of Deir Amr the PEF noted on the map the presence of a tomb for ‗Sheikh Amr‘ and later this became ‗Es Sai Amr‘ or ‗the messenger Amr‘ on maps in the Mandate period. There is a clear link here 415 See Begatti, Ancient Christian Villages of the Galilee, , Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2001. This tomb for the sage and pupil of Rabbi Akiva is famous for composing parts or all of the Zohar while living in a cave for 13 years. Rabbi Shmuel Abu of Algiers redeemed the site in the 1830s and constructed tombstones and a building there. See Rivka Gonen (ed), To The Tombs of the Righteous: Pilgrimage in Contemporary Israel, Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1999, pp. 47-50. 417 The Druze also have several famous tombs to their sheikhs in the Galilee. 416 177 between the name of the hamlet and the tomb. The same was true at Deir Abu Salama where the tomb of ‗Esh sheikh Abu Salame‘ was nearby. At Nebi Rubin and Nasr Ed Din the same was the case: the village took the name of the saint even though Nebi Rubin was settled by a Bedouin tribe (in most cases Bedouin villages had names that were connect to the tribe).418 At Rafat the name of the tomb, ‗esh Sheikh Hasan‘ was not applied to the village because the village took its name from the nearby ‗Dear Rafat‘ which was a Catholic monastery.419 At Tabgha the same was the case. The local Sheikh‘s tomb was called ‗Sheikh Ali es Said‘ but the name of the area was due to Tabgha, the Christian site. Another aspect of settlement fixation was the presence of water sources and springs and wells. For instance at Beit Susin the PEF noted ―a good perennial well called Bir el Haurah.‖420 Kh. Manshiya was founded next to what was called Ayun ed Daly, a major water source. Mansi was the site of a number of springs, one of which was called Ein al Mansi. The village was founded nearby and later in the Mandate another hamlet would arise on the site of the Mansi spring.421 Rihaniya (Haifa area) had ―two springs‖ according to the PEF.422 Bart‘a and Marus also had a spring and Zibda had a well. At Tell esh Shok there was ―water on either side‖ and a spring nearby.423 Ammuqa had ―seven springs‖ which would later form a pond in the village on Mandatory maps.424 Rihaniya (Safed area) had ponds on its site. 418 In other cases the village took the name of the tribe such as Ghazawiya, Bashatwa and Biwati. The settlement, which was a hamlet during the time of the PEF survey was settled by the Catholics who brought local Bedouin to live there. Ayalon, Dorit, ‗Deir Rafat,‘ unpublished paper, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007. 420 Memoirs, Vol III, p. 86. 421 The PEF had called it a ―ruined village with springs.‖ Memoirs, vol II, p. 67. 422 Memoirs, Vol. II, map VIII, pg. 62 423 Memoirs, Vol. II, pg. 128. 424 Memoirs, Vol. I., pg 433-434. 419 178 This shows the predilection for Arabs in Palestine and those seeking to establish seasonal settlements and then off-shoot settlements to seek places that already had once been a village and thus offered the amenities, such as water sources, that were so badly needed. In addition even when new villages were planned they were situated on ruins. This is partly due to the plethora of ruins in the country but also due, apparently, to the way in which the migrants perceived ruins to be places where successful settlement was more likely, rather than foreboding places to be avoided.425 It has been shown that Bedouins in many areas, especially in this period in Jordan, preferred to settle in ruins for short periods of times, usually during the summer or winter. At the turn of the 19th century those places that would be settled after midcentury, such as Amman, were deserted. There were many ruins in this area and ―local arab tribes camped at some the ancient sites‖ while the ―whole country between Salt and Karak [was] uninhabited.‖426 The ruins offered not only water sources but protection from the elements. In the Qara Choq desert near Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan the phenomenon of ruins being abandoned and inhabited was mentioned by British administrator Robert Hay in his Two Years in Kurdistan.427 He notes that ―when there have been two or three fat years the upper end…nearer the hills, is thickly covered with villages, a lean year comes and the population fade away, leaving only a few houses in favoured spots at the fot of the Dagh, while the rest of the desert is scattered here and there with collectons of 425 In some places ruins are perceived as haunted and are avoided. Lewis, Norman. Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1987. The second quote is from the same book but was originally from Seetzen who wrote it in 1806. 427 Paul Rich (ed), Iraq and Robert Hay’s Two Years in Kurdistan, New York: Lexington, 2008, p. 20. 426 179 ruined mud walls.‖428 In this way the ruin also served as a place of settlement fixation, both for nomads and peasants. Name Shuna, esh Sajad Tell esh Shauk Samiriya Jaladiya Muharraqa Ghazawiya and Sheikh Husein (Abu Hushiyeh) Kh. Khisas Umm Ajra Ashrafiya Bira Kaufakha Kafra Dalhamiya Hamidiya Al Kabara, Kh. Shomariyya, Caesaria Ghor al Faria, Qawara al Fawqa/Tahta, Umm Herreira Total Dunams, 1938 2,155 2,795 3,685 3,878 4,330 4,855 5323 6,354 6,443 6,711 6,866 8,559 9,172 9,876 10,302 10,415 31,809 Population, 1922 83 221 58 162 232 204 68 102 86 34 200 203 273 349 192 73 288 80,475 313 214,003 3,141 Table 2.9.1 The size of the landholdings of villages established on Abdul Hamid II‘s lands, organized by size of landholding. Source: Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid II and Palestine: Private land and imperial policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 2008, 129-166. Abdul Hamid II’s role: The southern bloc and other lands he owned On more than a quarter of Abdul Hamid II‘s lands a number of new villages and hamlets were established between 1871 and 1922 (See Figure 32 and 36). His policies also played a role in the establishment of Beersheba, Farwana, Rihaniya (near Alma 428 Ibid, Rich, Iraq and Robert Hay, p. 20. 180 where he also owned land) and later during the Mandate period Arab villages would appear on his lands at Hamma, Husayniyya (Huleh region), Bashatwa, a-Zaba, a-Sakhina and al Hamra. This gives some idea of the overall affect the sultan had on encouraging new settlement and creating opportunities for settlement fixation on his lands. One settlement stands out among the others for its uniqueness and its vision: the new town of Beersheba.429 Beersheba was the pride of Abdul Hamid II‘s attempts to bring law and order to the Negev and southern Palestine, thereby extending governmental control. It was to be an administrative center of a new region when it was founded in 1900.430 Arab engineers and Swiss and German architects were hired to create a planned town on the ruins of the ancient settlement which had become merely a watering place for local Bedouin. Between 1902 and 1911 the number of people settled in the town rose from 300 to 800 and eventually included a diverse community of Christians, Bedouins and peasants.431 But Abdul Hamid II‘s strategy for bringing the nomadic south of Palestine under his control was actually started before the establishment of Beersheba. As early as 1890 Abdul Hamid II began to create plans for three new planned villages in the southern Shephelah and Western Negev: Jaladiya, Kaufakha and Muharaqqa. Jaladiya and Muharaqqa had existed in the 16th century but only ruins remained by the 1870s. The PEF noted of Jaladiya that ―this is the site of a former castle. Only one block of a tower remains standing…there are several ruined cisterns of rubble masonry, and the base of a Yasemin Avci, ‗The application of the tanzimat in the Desert: Ottoman Central Government and the of Southern Palestine,‘, Middle Eastern Studies 45 (2009), 983-969. 430 Berman, M. (1965), 'The Evolution of Beersheba as an Urban Center', Annals of the Association of American Geographers 55, 308-326. 431 See Levin, Kark and Galilee, ‗Historical Maps and GIS: Mapping of Southern Palestine 1799-1948, issues of scale and accuracy and possible applications and Berman, M. (1965), 'The Evolution of Beersheba as an Urban Center', Annals of the Association of American Geographers 55, 308-326. 429 181 column with ornamentation in low relief, also scattered stones.‖432 They were established on jiftlik lands, the Sultan‘s private estates.433 These four settlements were almost without precedent in the history of modern Palestine (Ibrahim Pasha had also created new Egyptian settlements near Gaza in the 1830s).434 They were an attempt in the rural setting to establish planned villages on the European model. The settlement of the Bosnians and Circassians (not to mention Jewish villages established by the Baron Rothschild and the Templer settlements) had introduced a Europeanized element into the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East but the creation of planned settlements for local Arabs was a step further. It was part of a conscious policy to bring settlement to hitherto uninhabitable regions. In a sense the Abdul Hamid II settlements represented the creation of a block of settlement, a buffer between the desert and the sown in the south of Palestine, forming the tip of a spear directed at bringing the Negev under control (See Figure 33).435 In the Baysan valley the story was similar, except here the Sultan made due with local Bedouins and peasants who settled on his lands either to watch over them or to cultivate them.436 Rather than central planning the Baysan region grew naturaly once the initial investment by the Sultan had been made and his lands had been secured and 432 PEF, Memoir, Volume III, p. 424 See çiftliks of Muharraqa, Kawfakha and Jaladiyya, which are attached to Kaza Gaza, Sanjaq Jerusalem, 1:5,000, 1309 [1893], Kark Map Collection, Jerusalem (in Turkish). See Levin, Kark and Galilee. For further information see also, Fischel, R. (2226). ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II (1876-1909) and Palestine: Imperial Policy and Private Lands. Unpublished MA Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel (in Hebrew). Gasit, D. (2000). Settlement processes in the Besor region in the days of the Sultan Abdülhamid II. In Jerusalem and Eretz-Yisrael (Eds. Schwartz, Y., Omer, Z., Tsipar I.) Bar-Ilan University and the Eretz-Yisrael Museum: Jerusalem. pp. 183-186 (in Hebrew).Braslavsky Y. (1946). HaYeda‘ata et ha‘Aretz: Part B, Eretz haNegev. HaKibutz haMeuchad: Israel (in Hebrew). 434 Among the settlements founded in the 1830s by Ibrahim Pasha was Majdal near the site of Ashkelon. W.J. Phythian-Adams, "History of Askalon," in: PEFQS (1921): 163–71 435 Yasemin Avci, ‗The application of the tanzimat in the Desert: Ottoman Central Government and the of Southern Palestine,‘, Middle Eastern Studies 45 (2009), 983. 436 Kark and Frantzman, ―Bedouin, Abdul Hamid II, Land Settlement and Zionism: The Baysan Subdistrict.‘ 433 182 opened up to settlement. The story of the sultan‘s interest in settling new lands is but one part of a larger drama that includes the shaping of the environment by local Arabs and Arab elites. The Role of Effendis A great deal has been written discussing the role of effendis and Arab landowners in the late Ottoman period. One area of concentration has been the question of the degree to which effendi landholdings formed the basis for land sales to Jews and thus helped provide the foundations for Jewish settlement.437 Kark, Aaronsohn and Ben-Artzi note that at least 52 estate buildings became the initial core of the new Jewish agricultural settlements in Palestine.438 Another 15 formed the core of new Templer settlements.439 Effendis exploited the 1858 land laws and played a peripheral, but unique role in establishing new Arab settlements in the period under discussion. Accordingly ―by the end of Ottoman rule in Palestine private estates covered over one million dunams out of a total land area of 27 million metric dunams of Western Palestine (1 metric dunam = 1,000 square meters), comprising over a quarter of the arable land (4 million metric dunams).‖ 440 437 Yossi Ben-Artzi, Ruth Kark and Ran Aharonshon, "Kahns or Estate Buildings? The Question of the Original Function of Jewish Settlement Sites in the Land of Israel Landscape (1882-1914)," Zionism 13 (1988): 263-283 (in Hebrew); Ruth Kark, "Khans or Estate Buildings", in The Khan Museum Catalogue, ed. N. Rudin, (Hadera: The ―Khan‖ Museum,2001). R. Kark, ‗Changing Patterns of Landownership in 19th-Century Palestine: The European Influence‘, Journal of Historical Geography 10 (1984): 357-384. Avnery, Claim of Disposession, generally discusses the issue. Kark R. ―Land Purchase in Emek Hefer prior to Jewish Settlement.‖ The Israel Geographic Society Annual Meeting, December 1978. 438 Yossi Ben-Artzi, Ruth Kark and Ran Aharonshon, "Kahns or Estate Buildings? The Question of the Original Function of Jewish Settlement Sites in the Land of Israel Landscape (1882-1914)," Zionism 13 (1988): 263-283 (in Hebrew); Ruth Kark, "Khans or Estate Buildings", in The Khan Museum Catalogue, ed. N. Rudin, (Hadera: The ―Khan‖ Museum,2001). 439 Kark, ‗Consequences of the Ottoman land law‘, 2228, submitted for publication. 440 Quote if from Kark, ‗Consequences‘, 2228 but the information is also from Kenneth W. Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984); Ruth Kark, 183 For the purposes of the villages examined in this study the role of effendis was influential at Wadi Hunein, Nataf, Iktaba, Lajjun, Ashrafiya and Umm Kalkha where they certainly played a role in settlement fixation. In the upper portion of the Ghor al Faria, at Akrabaniye, Al-Foroush farm and Mazra‘at al Hamra (south of Tammun village near Jebel Tammun between it and Beit Dajan) they also invested in farmland that was adjacent to Abdul Hamid II‘s Ghor al Faria estate. Abdul Hadi of Nablus was one investor who owned four feddans and supported some 50 persons (making up four families of ―servants‖), according to a 1932 report by the Inspector of Lands.441 Abdul Hadi was also an investor at Ashrafiya on land adjoining Abdul Hamid II‘s Jiftlik. At Wadi Hunein it is important to mention the Taji family (See Figure 33). Other settlements, such as Kh. Ismallah, that arose during the Mandate period also included effendi estate houses and khans as the core of the original settlement, or sometimes the entire settlement (See Figure 34).442 "Napoleon to Allenby: Processes of Change in Palestine, 1800-1918," in Shared Histories: A Palestinian Israeli Dialogue, ed. Paul Scham, Walid Salem and Benjamin Pogrond, (Jerusalem: Left Coast Press Truman Institute, Panorama Center, and Yakar Center, Jerusalem, 2005), 13-61; 2nd edition of this book was published by Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California. 441 Inspector of Lands, unclear signature to Director of Lands, February 15, 1932, CZA, 22/7/3340. Ahmad el Easa also owned 40 dunams at Akrabaniye. Sheikh Tewfiq el Kharouf of Nablus was an investor at nearby Mazra‘at el Hamra. These lands were not involved in the GMLA agreement and instead were included in the lands of Talluza, Tammun and Beit Dajan villages. However the 1932 document notes that ―the cultivators of all he above mentioned villages and farms which are Jiftlik areas pay ‗khoms‘ to the government. The Jiftlik to the south, formerly owned by Abdul Hamid, including a settlement named Jiftlik Post was included in the GMLA. Today this area is the site of a small village named Khirbat Beit Hassan and Khirbat al Akrabaniye. The Israeli settlement of Hamra occupies place near that of the Hamra farm. A 1919 document entitled State Domains: Not cultivated seems to imply this had been part of a 11,350 dunams of which 690 were cultivated. See State Domains: Not cultivated, 1919 CZA 525/7433. A document from 1921 entitled ‗Department of Government Lands Annual Administrative Report‘ notes that Mandatory officials offered to lease some 100,000 dunams of this Ghor including Akrabanieh and Ard El Yaraki, Mazrat al hamra and Firush el Kiblieh to ―a syndicate of Palestinian Arab notables‖ They were supposed to drain the marshes and place it under cultivation. See the above mentioned document Deb. 15, 1922, ISA, DL 5/1/222, 22/3519/34A. 442 Author‘s own field work as Ismallah near Kefar Uriah (which was also an effendi estate) which was originally described in the unpublished paper, Seth Frantzman, ‗From Ruin to Inhabitation: five villages in the Jerusalem district‘. See also Brill, Y., Yesud Ha-Maala (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1978 [facsimile 184 The most interesting question is if we can say conclusively that some of the other settlements had effendis who played a role in them. The farms in the Baysan area, the Jezreel valley and on Mount Carmel certainly appear to be the estates of wealthy landlords. There were farms of Jubran, Elias Abdallah, Zamriq, Haddad and Nahlawi in the Baysan area.443 There was also something called Kh. Sursuq in the same area, which seems to relate to the Sursuqs and which Grossman found to be seasonal settlement in the late Ottoman period.444 Some of these farms became ruins in the Mandate period, for instance Tell Esh Shok seems to have been partially ruined eventually. The Sursuq‘s especially would have needed to hire people to look after their lands in the Jezreel valley and it appears they did settle tenants after 1872 at Djindjar (south of Nazareth, became Ganigar), Simmoune (west of Nazareth, became Shimron), Tell al Fir and Jalud (in the Baysan valley).445 In the case of Djindjar (Junjar) and Simmoune (Semunieh), they already existed in the 1872s and Djindjar was described as a ―small mud village‖ when the PEF surveyed the area.446 of 1883], pp. 55-58; See also in Kark Arab Village Exercise file; Map of Kafruria estate, ca. 1910, in Ruth Kark Archive, Jerusalem; Kark, Field Work, 2005-2008. 443 These farms can be located on the 1:20,000 1930 survey of Palestine maps of the Baysan area. 444 David Grossman, Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and its Offshoots in Ottoman Palestine, Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1994, p. 243. 445 Emir Galilee, ‗Nomadism, Land and settlement in the Jezreel Valley, 1858-1914,‘ submitted as an M.A Thesis, February 2007, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.These latter two were for their tenant farmers. See Fischel and Kark presentation ‗Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization processes in Palestine, 1858-1918‘ annals of the Sergui Al George Institute of Oriental Studies, Bucharest, Romania, December 2227. See also Kark, Ruth, ‗Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization processes in Palestine, 1858-1918‘, paper submitted for publication, July 2228. Djinjar had 13 families ―who had been living there only a few years‖ in July of 1921 when the Commissioner of the Northern District wrote to the Chief Secretary‘s office during the Mandate. These 13 families receved 1,300 dunams of land from the Palestine Land Development Company, land they had been tenants on, 100 dunams per family. ―In Tel el Ferr there were fourteen families. In Jalud, nine familes.‖ See Avneri, Claim , p. 118 from CZA KKL 3/file 53 B. 446 Conder, Memoirs, p. 41. The PEF described ‗Semunieh‘ as a ―small village on a knoll…with three springs…less than 122 souls,‖ vol. 1, p. 281. They note also that Germans tried to colonize the place in 1867, perhaps Templers, and most of them died ―of fever‖ and were thus forced to leave. Vol 1, p. 345. Emir Galilee, ‗Nomadism, Land and settlement in the Jezreel Valley, 1858-1914,‘ submitted as an M.A Thesis, February 2007, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 185 The affect of Effendi influence on new Arab settlement creation seems to pall in comparison with the role of Abdul Hamid II. In terms of land area the effendis accumulated only slightly more land than Abdul Hamid II, but their lands were in more arable locations whereas 69% of the Sultan‘s land was in the Rift valley which at the time appeared inhospitable for the most part.447 The role of the effendis overall is comparable to that of minority religious groups, such as Christian Europeans at Tabgha and Bahais at Nuqeib. Unless more evidence comes to light that shows effendis to have played a greater role in creating settlements in the later Ottoman period one must assume that their investments did not lead to the movement and settling of a significant amount of the Arab population. 447 Fischel & Kark, 2008. 186 Name Beersheba Jaladiya Kaufakha Muharraqa Sajad Wadi Hunein Umm Kalkha Beit Thul Caesaria Yamma Ghub al Fauqa Ghub al Tahta Rihaniya (Haifa Dist) Nuqeib Year of establishment 1899/1900 Around 1890 Around 1890 Around 1890 1892 1883 1881 After 1896 1878-1882 1905 1888 1888 Indicator Mosque constructed Rail services Nes Ziona founded Rail services Schick‟s census Guerin's 1882 map Source Avci Khalidi Fischel and Kark Fischel and Kark Khalidi Avneri Khalidi Schick Elementary school Elementary school Grossman Khalidi Khalidi 1880s Elementary school Bahais purchased lands Khalidi Khalidi Tuleil Huseiniya Marus Ammuqa Rihaniya 1883-1908 1886 1878 1875 By 1887 Yesod HaMa'ala founded in 1883 and Schumacher indicated 'Ez Zubed' in its place in 1908 Abbasi Macleod Guerin The year Amman was founded Schumacher Abbasi Macleod Guerin Samra 1890-1908 Schumacher's map and Hans Fischer map (1890) Nuqeib By 1908 Jisr al Majami Before 1908 Schumacher's map Schumacher's map shows the train station and the village Dalhamiya 1882-1908 Schumacher shows it on both sides of the Jordan above where it meets the Yarmuk. Guerin does not. Schumacher (1908) and Guerin (1882) After 1908 Not on Schumache'rs map, neither is there development at Jisr es Sheikh Hussein) Schumacher 1887 Ghazawiya Table 2.9.2 The date of establishment of the new villages, where the date is known Source: Seth J. Frantzman, based on research for this study. 187 Schumacher and Fischer Schumacher (In its place is 'Chirb al Aschik' and 'en Nkeb' is inland) Schumacher When were the settlements established? Dating the establishment of the settlements is not an easy task and in only twenty cases was it possible. A careful check was made of the Turkish nüfus and in cases where the village appears it has been mentioned. One is forced to infer the date of establishment by figuring out when the village could not have been established, usually because it was visited by someone or appears on a map. For instance in 1912 Mudhi Bey, the Mutasarrif of Jerusalem in 1912 visited both Nebi Rubin with the idea of establishing an agricultural school there. Does this mean that there was already enough attraction to the site that it might be considered to have been ‗established‘ by this date? Does it infer the opposite, namely that there was nothing there and the establishment of the school might bring locals to the area?448 By contrast we know that Sheikh Suleiman al-Taji, the patriarch of a powerful family, already owned lands near Wadi Hunein in 1913 because he had disputes with Jews over them (See Figure 35).449 It is assumed the first Arabs moved to Wadi Hunein years before when Nes Ziona was established. Of the villages where dating was possible it appears that half were constructed in 1880s or rather that the initial settlement fixation took place in those years. A total of nine villages were established in the 1880s. This does not account for an additional 46 villages. It appears that the largest ones must have had begun their initial inhabitations very soon after the PEF survey. In some cases, such as at Iktaba, the initial investment of an effendi in the property was already mentioned. In some cases villages such as Samra, Beit Thul, 448 See Neville Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism before World War One, Univ. of California, Berkeley: 1976, p. 134. 449 Mandel, Arabs and Zionism, p. 174. His source is the Central Zionist Archives Z3/116 (16.9.1913) Thon to ZAC. 188 Dalhamiya and Arrabuna appear to have been unstable or to have moved slightly over time. Algerian Settlers There were also Algerian villages, whoser origins in the exile of the rebel leader Abd al Qadir have been discussed above. There were at least seven of these villages in the Galilee and Huleh that were established between 1871 and 1920, one of which, Sha‘ara, was unstable.450 In 1875 Guerin mentioned the village of Ammuqa.451 In 1878 Norman Macleod mentioned an Algerian village near Tel Hassor, probably Marus.452 In 1886 thirty-seven Algerian families, a total of 169 people, settled in Huseiniya. In 1888 some Algerians came through the port of Acre and settled in Kh. Hawsa (Hosheh). In 1892 another 148 immigrants from the Awlad Sidi Arghes tribe settled in Hawsa. The settlements of Hawsa and Kayasir (Kasair) were both established around 1900.453 An aerial photo from 1944 shows that they had developed into small villages (20 houses each) with several large houses and enclosed courtyards.454 The only Algerian village whose foundation date is not known is Tuleil. 450 Mustafa Abbasi presents a population table of these villages, one that he references as coming from Mustafa al-Daba‘a, Biladuna Filastin (n.d), Vol. 6, pp. 167, 195, 209, 221, 407, 414, 416. The statistics presented by Abbasi in some cases are different from those in the census of the village does not appear on the 1922 census because the census did not survey the Huleh, or the village was combined with another. Abbasi‘s statistics show the population of the villages as 2,216 in 1922. He notes that Sha‘ara was deserted after the sale of its lands in 1927. See Mustafa Abbasi, ‗From Algeria to Palestine,‘ p. 51. 451 Victor Guerin, Description Geographique Historique et Archeologique de la Palastine. Three Volumes. Galilee, republished, Amsterdam: Amsterdam Oriental Press, 1969, p. 439. 452 Norman Macleod, Eastward Travels in Egypt, Palestine and Syria, London: 1878, p. 455. Also see Abbasi, p. 46. 453 These two settlements were in constant conflict with Christians from Shafa‘amr over land and because the Algerians, as elsewhere in Palestine, were very confrontational with non-Muslim groups. Eventually a Christian priest, Gregorius Srouji was killed in 1909 and a peace agreement was only signed the same year involving Bishop Gregorius Hajjar, of the Catholic Church Trust. See Mustafa Abbasi, ‗From Algeria to Palestine,‘ p. 49. 454 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS11 5109, 10 December 1944. 189 Bedouin Settlers There were ten villages that were established by Bedouins between 1871 and 1922. At Shuna the Arab al-Sayyad and al-Qudayrat tribes settled near the site. At Umm Ajra, Ghazawiya and Safa near Baysan Bedouins by the same name settled the villages. At Khuneizer a section of Bani Sakr tribe settled the site.455 In the Jezreel valley the Baniha tribe came to inhabit Mansi. Ghor al Faria in the Jordan valley was settled by Bedouins and by individual investors (such ad the Abdul Hadi family) in farms.456 Nuqeib, along the shore of the Sea of Galilee was settled by Bedouins. Some of the settlers who came to Beersheba were of Bedouin origin. The same was true at Nebi Rubin. In each case, except at Shuna, the villages were located in low lying area, in the plains and valleys. This fits what we know about the presence of Bedouins in Palestine. They dominated these areas in Palestine in the 19th century and were threats to the security of peasants who tried to dwell there.457 The pattern of Bedouin settlement was not uniform. Four of the settlements were in the Baysan valley. Umm Ajra, Shuna and Ghazawiya were all properties of Abdul Hamid II. Khuneizer and Safa might have been part of the lands owned by Abdul Hamid II at al Hamra.458 At Beersheba and Ghor al Faria, the former founded by Abdul Hamid II on state land and the latter an Abdul Hamid II property, Bedouins were attracted and settled. Thus Bedouin settlement was facilitated, at least in part by the prior acquisition 455 Khalidi, All, p. 54. Inspector of Lands, unclear signature to Director of Lands, February 15, 1932, CZA, 22/7/3340. 457 Among other sources, see Arieh Avneri, The Claim of Dispossession, Yad Tebenkin, Efal: 1982, p. 2021, from H.B. Tristram, The Land of Israel, 3rd edition, (London: 1876). Robinson and Smith, Later Biblical Researches, Volume 1 335. 458 See Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan Abbul Hamid‘, map of his estates. 456 190 and development of lands by the Ottoman sultan. Even if the Bedouins settled on some of these lands after 1908, as might have been the case on other estates (Sajad for instance) where the lands were confiscated from the sultan by the Turkish government after 1908 and became Jiftlik land, it is still important to emphasize the role that Abdul Hamid II played in creating opportunities for Bedouin sedenterization. In the cases of Nuqeib and Mansi private investment affendis played a role (see description of their settlement above). Bedouin sedenterization was not spontaneous. It may have been a natural outgrowth of changes in the environment of Palestine. The extension of government control and various campaigns against Bedouins launched in the 19th century may have persuaded them that the period when nomads could control large swaths of valleys and plains and extort villagers was coming to an end. However the choice of a place to settle was determined by outside factors, such as private investment and government initiative. To a lesser extent the role of ruins and shrines helped to fix Bedouin settlements in a particular area (as at Nebi Rubin). Bedouins played a unique role in the origins of new settlements and their settlement in numbers throughout the country proved a harbinger of things to come during the British Mandate. The Bedouins of the Huleh and the Bahjat-Tamimi 1915 document The Wilayet Bayrut of Muhammed Rafiq al-Tamimi and Muhammad Bahjat is more than a census, it is a sort of travelouge cum-encyclopedia of Palestine from 1915 written at the behest of the Ottoman Governor of Beirut.459 In the Huleh valley the report Iris Agmon, ‗The Beduin Tribes of the Hula and Baysan Valleys at the End of the Ottoman Rule according to Wilayat Bayrut,‘ International Journal of Turkish Studies (1991) 5: 47-70. 459 191 mentions the Ghawarina tribe, which was visited by the census takers. They recorded their impressions under the section of the qada of Marj Ayun. The Ghawarina tribe was noted to inhabit twelve villages in the valley and the village of Khalisa was its main village.460 In 1906 the population of the tribe was estimated as 3,000-4,000. By contrast in 1937 a total of fourteen villages in the area would include tribal members.461 It should be noted that the Ghawarina tribe were not the only large tribe in Palestine which gave birth to numerous settlements. The Ghazawiyya and Sakr tribes of the Baysan valley populated a half dozen villages.462 Tamimi and Bahjat claimed that the Ghawarina were engaged in draining the swamp since the 1870s and around 13,800 dunams were used by them for some agricultural or living purpouses.463 They were reported to be deeply engaged in agriculture. The Ghawarina were considered a tribe but they had a ―high degree of sedenterization.‖464 However the tribe‘s living structures consisted of temporary tents made of ―bamboo poles, and in winter of cloth woven from goat hair.‖465 The problem with the Tamimi and Bahjat description is that because the 1922 census does not provide a census for the Huleh valley one must wait until 1931 to confirm the growth of the Ghawarina villages. In addition many of them appear on the PEF survey, including Khalisa, Naima, Lazzaza, Salihiya and Qeitiya. The new villages that eventually did develop include Jahula, Gharuba, Beisamun, Buweiziya, Darbashiya, Khayim al Walid, Muftahira and Zawiya. Beisamun, Buweiziya, Darbashiya, Gharuba and Jahula show up Agmon, ‗The Beduin,‘ p. 52. Ibid. 462 They include Safa, Masil al Jizl, Zarra, Umm Ajra, Sakhina, Khuneizer and Arida. 463 Agmon, ‗The Beduin,‘ p. 56. 464 Ibid, p. 59. 465 Ibid, p. 60. 460 461 192 as names as early as a 1910 map, but there is no indication that they are villages.466 Further evidence that they were not villages is their lack of appearance on Schumacher‘s 1885 map of the Golan.467 Other related tribes such as Mallaha also lived in the same manner as the Ghawarina and eventually carved their villages out of the reeds where the swampland had been drained (See Figure 37). A comparison with Jewish settlement patterns in the same period The stirrings of modern Jewish agricultural settlement in Palestine began in the late 19th century and culminated in the founding of Petah Tikva and Rosh Pina in 1878 and Rishon LeZion and Zichron Yaacov in 1882.468 The first Kibbutz was founded in 1910 at Degania. By 1914 Jews owned some 437,000 dunams of land throughout Palestine.469 By 1922 that had increased to between 493,361 and 693,361 dunams.470 These lands were concentrated on the coastal plain from south of Tel Aviv to Haifa. They were also prominent in the Jezreel valley, the Baysan valley, around Tiberias and in the Jordan valley between lake Huleh and the Sea of Galilee after 1921. See ‗Carte de Terrains de la Haute Galilee‘, Rosch Pina 1:22,222, Adolphe Starkmeth, May 24 1912. CZA. The map hangson the CZA wall without attribution or sourcing. See also Ruth Kark, ‗The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,‘ Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, Institute for Neohellenic Research N.H.R.F. Tetradua Ergasias 25/26 (2004), p. 197-220. pp. 202-204. Also see Central Zionist Archive (CZA), Record Group J15M, File 38. 467 Gottlieb Schumacher, ‗Map of the Jaulan‘, 1:63,362, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1885 in Schumacher, The Jaulan, London: Richard Bentley and son, 1888. Inside cover pull out map. This map shows only Salihiyeh and Absiyeh on it. All of the villages northeast of the Huleh do not exist, including Muftahira, Dawwara, Khayim al Walid, Ghuraba, Darbashiya, Kh. Es Summan, El Ureifiya and Zawiya. 468 Moses Montefiore had explored purchasing lands for Jewish settlement much earlier in the century. See Kark ‗Agricultural Land in Palestine, Letters to Sir Moses Montefiore 1839‘, p. 227 in Jewish Historical Studies; transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, Volume XXIX, 1982-86, 1988. He was responsible for constructing the first Jewish community in Jerusalem outside the walls of the Old City in 1860, Mishkenot Sheananim. In the 1850s Elizabeth Finn helped create an experimental farm at Artas to teach Jews agriculture. In the late 1840s, according to the PEF, some Moroccan Jews had tried to settle at Shafa‘Amr but their colony had disappeared by the 1872s. See Vol I, p. 345, Sheet V, section C. 469 Yossi Katz, Battle for the Land, 352, Appendix 3. 470 Yossi Katz, Battle for the Land, 352, Appendix 3. 466 193 This ‗N‘ shape of settlement had much in common with the new lands settled by Arabs and other Muslims between 1871 and 1922 (See Figure 38). The period of settlement was roughly the same. The amount of dunams that came under the control of the new settlements by 1922 was around 515,000 dunams which is right in the middle of the amount purchased by Jews in the same period. The lands were in similar regions, whereas the Jewish lands usually attempted to be contigious with one another, the new Arab and Muslim lands were slightly more isolated (except in the Shephelah and Baysan where they were contigous), although in many cases they were near eachother. The Jewish population had been estimated as 84,660 in 1914 (with 11,660 in agricultural settlements) and 83,794 in 1922.471 When placed side by side it becomes clear the extent to which the Jews and Muslims were settling similar regions in the same period. These areas were the same ones where Templer settlement also arose.472 Other writers have discussed the degree to which this became part of the nascent ‗Arab-Zionist‘ conflict. Neville Mandel in The Arabs and Zionism before World War I has analyzed the conflict and its politics. He illustrates quite clearly the early clashes, such as that at Gedera in 1884 and in 1892 in Rehovot.473 This same story appears in other discussions of the ‗origins‘ of the conflict in Ronald Florence‘s Lawrence and Aaronsohn, Patricia Goldstone‘s Aaronsohn’s Maps, Shmuel Katz‘s The Aaronsohn Saga and Amy Marcus‘s Jerusalem 1914: The Origins of the Arab-Israeli conflict. By far the greatest attention to the issue of land competition can 471 Barron, Census of 1922, p. 3. The Templers bought 40,000 dunams of land and settled in Jerusalem, Haifa, Jaffa, Sarona, Wilhelma, Waldheim and Bethlehem of the Galilee. Alex Carmel, The German Settlements in Palestine during the Late Ottoman Period, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1973 (Hebrew, 2nd edition 1990, also in German 1973, 2nd edition 1997, 3rd edition 2000); Also see Kark, ‗Changing Patterns‘, p. 365. These German settlements also may have encouraged Arabs to settle nearby as paid labourers, as was the case at Jammasin near Sarona. 473 Mandel, Arabs and Zionism, p.37. 472 194 be found in Arieh Avneri‘s The Claim of Disposession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs 1878-1914. This latter book conveniently covers the identical period in question. A total of 58 Jewish rural villages (Kibbutzim, Moshavot and other settlements) were established by 1922.474 As many as 15,694 Jews were residing in these settlements in 1922.475 These numbers are strikingly similar to the numbers of Arab villages and hamlets established in a similar period. When one considers this it becomes clear that the Arab settlement was not a mere trickle, a natural spontaneous process. The fact that so much money and resources was invested in the creation of the Jewish settlements that appeared between 1871 and 1922 and so much history writing has described how they laid the foundations for the Jewish State that was born in 1948 puts in perspective the Arab and Muslim accomplishment. It also shows the degree to which this was in some ways a national accomplishment, albeit one never acknowledged at the time. Since the Arab establishment of new villages was only rarely part of a planned settlement there was no imagery, as there was in Zionism, of Arabs ‗redeeming the land‘. However in many respects this is exactly what this movement was and the comparison to the Jewish efforts shows the degree to which it was not only successful but also laid the foundations for later expansion. It was both a broad settlement of new lands and a deep one that involved large numbers of people and industrious efforts to wrench settlements back from ruin and establish them in the face of inhospitable conditions, such as swamps and nomadic raids. 474 Derived by counting the number of villages that had a Jewish majority. This does not include the Jews in Silwan, Qaloniah or at Pukein, where they were a minority. It does not include other Jewish enumerations in other Arab towns and villages where they were a minority. 475 Derived from the Census of 1922. It was derived from subtracting the total population of Jews in towns from the total Jewish population and thus includes Jews living in some Arab villages where they were a minority. 195 The Arab Muslim settlement of new villages in the late Ottoman period and the degree to which it was mirrored by a Jewish settlement of similar areas begs the question; to what degree did one settlement project influence the other? In two cases the Arab villages that were established were founded very close to nearby Jewish settlements. This was the case at Tuleil and Wadi Hunein. These were very different places. Tuleil was established by local villagers, perhaps originally as a seasonal settlement. An aerial photo of the village from 1948, although it already appears partially destroyed and abandoned, shows that it was not a substantial village. Rather than being built along the nearby Huleh lake its houses were clustered together for protection, as they would have been in the nearby Galilean hills. If this village was not somehow involved with the nearby Jewish settlement of Yesod Hama‘ala it would certainly be surprising. They were situated too close together to have not had some sort of a relationship. Wadi Hunein, originally owned by an absentee Arab land lord, then sold to a German, later consisted of dispersed Arab farms and estates sourrounding a Jewish village. The first Jewish home was built by Reuven Lerer (Lehrer-Patchornik) in 1882-83 on land acquired from the German who had referred to the state as Wadi Al-Khanin.476 Nes Ziona had 319 residents while Wadi Hunein had 195 in 1922. Does this indicate that Nes Ziona attracted Arabs to settle in this area? No. The Arab farms were part of a pattern of dispersed farms that was common elsewhere such as in the Jezreel and Baysan valleys. The geography was more conducive to this type of settlement. Avraham Patchornik recollection, ‗The History of Nes Tziyona‘, Wiezmann Institute, www.wiezmann.ac.il/Organic_chemistry/nestziyona.shtml. Accessed May 20, 2010. 476 196 There is no doubt that the establishment of Jewish settlements did attract Arabs. Around 1,000 Arabs were counted by the 1922 census as living at Jewish villages. At Hadera there were 82 Muslims, including 65 men. At Rishon LeZion there were 23 and at Zichron Yaacov there were 282, along with 1,013 Jews.477 But these Arabs did not, as a rule, form their own villages. Thus the Arab villages and hamlets that were established between 1871 and 1922 were most likely established irrespective of the existence of Jewish settlements in the region. The fact that the settlement patterns had much in common was caused by the fact that both Arabs and Jews were acquiring and setting new lands in the valleys and plains of Palestine in the areas where there was a ―fluid inventory‖ of land.478 Such factors as the role of Abdul Hamid II in this process has been noted, in his purchasing of property he did as much for the establishment of Arab settlements as the various Zionist property funds, such as the JNF and ICA, did for the settlement of Jews. Conclusion: The establishment of new Arab and Muslim villages in Palestine 1871-1922: Trends and processes The period 1871 to 1922 was a period of great change in Palestine. It saw not only the Great War but also the arrival of European and Jewish immigrants. It saw the 1908 Young Turk revolution and the arrival of the British army under general Allenby. But beyond all these well known events it was also a period of intense activity among the Arab population. Sixty-nine new Arab settlements were founded with a total population of 11,700 inhabitants in 1922. While some were tiny hamlets, the majority were villages of more than 100 people. A total of 535,000 dunams of land was included 477 These Arabs were not part of the nearby village of Feredis which had an additional 335 residents. Ruth Kark, ‗Changing Patterns of Land Ownership in Nineteenth Century Palestine: The European Influence.‘ Journal of Historical Geography 12, 1984, 357–384 478 197 in the boundaries of these settlements although, as discussed, these lands did not usually coorespond to the residents of the villages. The creation of new settlements began with the settling of Bosnian and Circassian refugees. The estates purchased by the sultan Abdul Hamid II also helped encourage new settlement. Later Bedouin sedenterization occurred. One of the formost features was the establishment of off-shoot or daughter villages in areas such as the Shephelah. These formerly unstable areas of settlement had been prone at times to nomad raids. Increased security and stability led to the populating of old ruins in the area. This was a phenomenon throughout the country. In some areas outside investment by effendis and others encouraged settlement. When the period was complete the map of Palestine looked dramatically different than it had in 1880. Whereas 1880 found a paucity of settlement in the plains and valleys the new settlements began to inch their way down into these areas, making tentative footholds in these low lying areas. The role of the Ottoman government, at Beersheba, and of Abdul Hamid II at Kaufakha and elsewhere helped extend the law of the state to areas that hitherto had been beyond the pale. All in all the period saw a very real revolution in settlement that extended settlement to areas that had been populated in 1596 and had been deserted in the interveneing period. This late Ottoman period thus saw a beginning of a return to the more widespread settlement that had been the norm in the first years of Ottoman control of the country. However the Ottoman empire was swept away just as these forces were beginning to reveal themselves and the creation of the British Mandate heralded a great change in administration and government control of the land. 198 Chapter 3 New Arab Rural Settlement in Palestine, 1922-1931 The Mandate Period 1922-1931- Introduction The establishment of the British Mandate for Palestine was predicated upon the Balfour declaration of November 1917 and its call for a Jewish national home. The British had long had an interest in Palestine and a great knowledge of its landscapes and laws, in no small part due to religious interest in the Holy Sites and previous expeditions undertaken, primarily by the PEF, to map and record the country and its sites.479 The instrument of British policy in the region through 1918 was General Edmund Allenby and his allied army which conquered Jerusalem in December of 1917. The first years of the Mandate period were caught up with attempts to establish the borders of Palestine. In the east, Transjordan was created in 1920 and would eventually be shepherded to statehood as the Kingdom of Jordan. In the North the border with the French Mandated area of Syria and Lebanon was settled by 1924.480 In Palestine the Mandatory Government set about revising the Ottoman land law. Originally through the Palestine Order in Council Paragraph 46 of July 1922 all Ottoman laws in force at the outbreak of the First World War would remain in force. This created continuity in laws, especially those affecting the land. The military administration of the Mandate did temporarily close the Tabu Land Registration Offices and reopened them in 1920.481 A new Land Transfer Ordinance of 1920 was promulgated which sought, in 479 See for instance Barbara Tuchman, Bible and Sword: England and Palestine from the Bronze Age to Balfour, Ballantine: 1984. Also James Moscrop, Measuring Jerusalem: The Palestine Exploration Fund and British interests in the Holy Land, Leicester: Leicester University Press, 2000. 480 The agreement was signed in Paris in December of 1920 but not confirmed until 1923 and implemented in 1924. Gavish, A Survey, p. 69. 481 Katz, Battle, p. 17. 199 part, to guarantee small landholders rights through forcing the high commissioner to approve any sales of land over E £3,000. It was directed at preventing land speculation and forcing the population to register land deals.482 The District governer‘s were ordered to guarantee that tenant farmers were not unduly dispossessed of lands and that the local peasants received compensation when they were dispossessed.483 Other Ordinances followed in the period including the 1929 Land Transfer Ordinance, the Shaw Commission report and the Hope-Simpson Report (in response to the 1929 Arab riots), as well as a new law for protecting tenant farmers published in 1933.484 The Mahlul Land ordinance of 1920 and the Mewat Lands Ordinance of 1921 also reiterated, on the one hand, the return of uncultivated state lands to state ownership and the prevention of ―unauthorized occupation of waste lands‖ on the other.485 Land settlement and survey: Torrens, Sir Ernest Dowson and the 1928 Land Reform One of the greatest problems affecting Palestine at the opening of the Mandate period was the lack of a complete and up to date cadastral survey of the country. Such a survey would provide for the mapping and location of land boundaries, village boundaries and subdivisions. The decision to implement a survey was taken during the final months of the military administration of the country with the promulgation of the Cadastral Survey ordinance and the creation of a Department of Surveys.486 The survey began in the south of the country near Rafah in the Gaza sub-district. Its main task was 482 Gavish, Survey, p. 109. Ibid, Battle, p. 17. 484 Ibid, Battle, p. 18-19. 485 Gavish, A Survey, p. 110. 486 Gavish, A Survey, p. 42-43. 483 200 to survey agricultural lands and those lands that might conceivably be the target of investment and frequent transfer and for this reason often ignored such areas considered unsuitable such as the Beersheba sub-district. It was to survey private land as well as state land, including the Ottoman category of State land called Miri which was cultivated by individuals and ―held privately in perpetuity.‖487 For these reasons the survey began in the coastal plain and focused primarily on the low lying agricultural areas of Palestine, the same areas where many new Arab villages had appeared during the Ottoman period and would continue to appear during the Mandate.488 By 1929 a total of 2 million dunams had been surveyed (but not subjected to land settlement) in southern Palestine.489 Areas surveyed included Baysan, Ghor Faria, Jericho, Jerusalem, around Haifa, Acre, Caesarea, Jaffa, Ramla, the Shephelah, and Gaza. But settlement of the land, in terms of settling who owned what and registering it, did not proceed at the same pace and by 1928 only in the area of Baysan, due to the Ghor-Mhudawara agreement of 1921, had kushans been distributed based on survey and land settlement and recording in Land Registry books.490 The revolution in land settlement in Palestine came about due to the 1928 Land Settlement Ordinance which ‗recognized the map, for the first time, as a prime statutory tool indispensable for any land settlement.‖491 The Survey Department was thus the main organ for providing services for land settlement, assessment of properties, mapping of 487 Gavish, A Survey, p. 58. ―except for a few essential cases, the survey did not extend to the mountain regions.‖ Gavish, Survey, p. 59. 489 Gavish, Survey, p. 123. 490 Gavish, Survey, p. 126. 491 Gavish, A Survey, p. 108. 488 201 villages and demarcating boundaries.492 This was the brainchild, in many respects, of Sir Ernest Dowson. Dowson had been born in India in 1876 and educated in England. His primary education and knowledge of surveys and land settlement came from his experience in Egypt between 1898 and 1920. Serving in a variety of capacities he became intricately aware of the problems of the land regime in the Middle East and was understood the drawbacks of the Ottoman system. In 1923 he was posted to the Government of Palestine and Transjordan as an adviser on settlement and registration of rights to land and other land questions. He remained for five years, learning through experience the problems encountered throughout the country, and seeing first hand attempts to settle land in the Baysan area. Although he observed differences between Palestine and Egypt, such as the fact that agricultural holdings in Egypt consisted of smaller parcels and were more productive and fertile, he noticed that in terms of land registration and land regime Palestine was deeply behind the times.493 He noted in 1923 that Palestine‘s land regime was ―at the same stage that Egypt‘s had been in the early days of Muhammad Alis‘ rule, a hundred years before.‖494 Gavish notes that Dowson ―over a period of ten years was intimately involved in everything that was done in Palestine in these ]land[ matters.‖495 The reform of 1928 brought in the Torrens system of land registration to Palestine. This was named after Robert Richard Torrens who had invented a system of land registration for use in Australia in 1857. His system abolished the older systems of private conveyance, where anyone may sell land to someone and the sale is not recorded, 492 Gavish, A Survey, p. 107. Gavish, A Survey, p. 92. 494 Gavish, A Survey, p. 128. 495 Gavish, Survey, p. 153. 493 202 and ‗registration of deeds‘ where the deed is registered with the state. The obvious problem with the first method is that someone might easil sell land that does not belong to them and the second method only creates and ―apparent proof‖ because it is ―difficult afterwars to locate the details fo the registration in order to check the correctness of the details.‖496 The Torrens system affixes a map to each area showing the block and parcel of land. Abolishing the Ottoman descriptive system, it also ensures ‗registration of title‘ so that while owners may change the parcel of land does not and it remains an ―immutable unit of land in perpetuity.‖497 The burden of investigation as to the legitimacy of transaction is shouldered by the state and its land registration books. Throughout the Ottoman period and early Mandate period a system of delineation of village boundaries evedently arose that made it so that all the land in Palestine, except for the Beersheba sub-district, parts of the Jordan valley and the Huleh concession, were part of one village or town. In 1912-13 the Ottomans had considered new laws that would consist of the cadastral surveying of village boundaries, but these were never enacted.498 Eventually the village lands were surveyed by the Mandate on scales of 1:2,500 covering around 650 dunams and 1:10,000.499 Smaller 1:625 scale maps, covering around 40 dunams, were made of the built up areas of villages.500 In general parcels in the Arab villages tended to consist of long narrow strips.501 The Palestine village, so Gavish notes, ―was an accepted administrative unit that had to be preserved.‖502 All of the lands of Palestine save those mentioned above and the 496 Gavish, Survey, p. 149. Ibid. 498 Gavish, A Survey, p. 26. 499 See for instance the survey map of Deir Muheisin which is reproduced in Gavish, A Survey, p. 93. 500 Gavish, ibid, p. 95. 501 Gavish, ibid, p. 92. 502 Gavish, ibid, p. 164. 497 203 Beersheba sub-district, thus became part of one village or another during the Mandate. This is in direct contrast to the system in the United States where all the land is included in one county or another as an administrative unit but there is often open land between towns, especially in rural areas. The Palestinian village thus serves the role, administratively, of a county in the U.S, a system suited to the history, geography and size of Mandatory Palestine. To some extent this had been true during Ottoman times in the highlands of Palestine. But the extension of this system to the low lying country produced an interesting network of ‗villages‘, some of which had no population according to the Mandatory Village Statistics and also had no built up area, either on the census, or on the maps. Nevertheless the village lands were first categorized by village and then split into blocks.503 The map of village lands usually showed a small built up area. This was sourounded by fenced gardens and orchards (Hawaqir) and beyond these an ―irregular belt of lands in various stages of cultivation for development, of which part, or most, had clear limits of ownership and were held by individual persons.‖504 Beyond these ‗belts‘ of land were ―communally owned ]sic, should be held] lands that were cultivatable by leading villagers (hamulas).‖505 Holdings also included mafruz lands that were permanently held by individuals and musha lands that were communally held and whose use and shape changed periodically. The Survey of Palestine mapped and delineated village lands into fiscal blocks. In all 963 villages and 1,211 units were 503 In a 1931 report C.H. Ley, The Structure and procedure of Cadastral Survey in Palestine, Jerusalem: Government printing office, 1931, the author notes that ―it is an axiom of modern land registration systems that a register shall be constructed upon a basis of unchangeable unites of land as opposed to a changeable basis of human ownersho. The village, which, as the fixed administrative unit, must remain the general Registration unit, is far too large for convenience as a working unit, and it has been necessary to sub-divide it into permanent Registration blocks‖, page 3. 504 Gavish, ibid, p. 164. 505 Ibid. 204 divided into 9,198 table blocks by the end of the Mandate.506 Blocks tended to consist of around 600 dunams in area and parcels of 15 dunams.507 In some cases, at a later date, village boundaries did change and blocks were transferred from one village to the next. However the process of land settlement and survey was slow. It began only after the opening of the Office of the Commisioner of Lands in 1927. Progress was slowed by the complexity of land disputes and a lack of personell.508 It was not until after the 1931 census that a fiscal survey was carrid out in 1934 and it was here that village boundaries of localities were drawn up and placed on a map (the Index of Settlements 1:250,000 map) and the resulting Village Statistics could be compiled in 1938 based on these boundaries and recognized village units.509 The resulting map of settlement was a departure from the 1922 and 1931 surveys. It also resulted in a confusing system of ―village units‖ that had no population and new settlements, such as Lajjun, that were included in the village boundaries of larger enumerations (in this case Umm al Fahm) when they had previously been listed seperatly on the census (see chapter 5, part 3). In general land survey and settlement proceeded slowly so that by 1936 only 1.4 million dunams had been ‗settled‘ while 2.59 million had been surveyed.510 The outbreak of the Arab revolt (1936-39) and the Second World War (1939-1945) after that and the subsequent 1948 war and the end of the Mandate meant that settlement never encompassed the entire country, instead concentrating on the agricultural low country, 506 Gavish, p. 166. Gavish, p. 166. 508 For instance the District Survey offices had only 23 techincal assistancs for its 8 offices in 1946. See Palestine Department of Surveys, Report for the years 1940-1946, Jerusalem: Government of Palestine, March 1948. 509 See E.J. Salmon, ‗Notes on the Progress of Survey and Settlement‘, December 4, 1935, Palestine Royal Commission Memoranda submitted by Government in Respect of Land Questions, p. 1-4. 510 Gavish, Survey, p. 182. 507 205 ignoring the hill country and the desert. In 1946 the Department of Surveys was still in the midst of completing its work. The survey department created maps on the 1:10,000, 1:250 and 1:625 scales for individual villages. The 1:20,000 maps of 1929 and larger 1:100,000 series of topocadastral maps, created in 1938, covered the entire country. The 1:20,000 series was mostly completed through surveys carried out by 1930 and was supplemented in some placed by the 1:40,000 military maps created during the First World War. Later, in 1942, these maps were corrected and they were later corrected again in 1948 and after by the Israeli government. But this means that in the end the Survey of Palestine maps present a picture of Palestine for the 1920s and again in 1942. This means that new villages built in the Mandate period, or those that experienced great expansion in the period are not always illustrated completely on maps. The 1942 revision should catch any new villages appearing by that date, but any growth after that date would have be tracked using maps produced by the Israeli government in 1948 and after. In some cases there is overlap between the 1:40,000 maps of 1917-1919 and the 1:20,000 maps of 1923-1930 allowing for some comparison, especially in areas around Gaza and the Shephelah.511 Maps in and of themselves cannot always show whether or not a village is inhabited, and therefore Mandatory era censuses must be used together with the various series of maps produced by the survey. This should be kept in mind for discussions of later periods of the Mandate. The importance of the land survey, its maps and its division of the land cannot be ignored for our purpouses of understanding the growth of Arab settlement throughout Palestine and the creation of new villages during the Mandate period. The land survey 511 Gavish, Survey, p. 226. 206 encompassed many areas where new village formation was taking place and it payed an integral part in settling claims to lands, particularly in the Baysan area, but elsewhere as well. It also provides an insight into questions dealing with why there were ‗villages‘ shown on the maps and listed in the censuses that in some cases had no inhabitants. It also sheds some light on the way in which some smaller hamlets were enumerated as part of other villages (see Chapter 5, part 3). One cannot understand the changes in rural settlement in Palestine without examining the sources that provide evidence for them. Maps are key to examining the growth of new settlements. The progress of land settlement and the delineation of state lands provide insights into land ownership and the new villages. Land settlement was primarily carried out in areas affected by new Jewish settlement and in the low lying areas of Mandatory Palestine. In this it mirrored, in many places, the location of new rural Arab settlements. The history of the mapping of Palestine is thus tied, unwittingly, to the areas where new Arab rural settlements were founded and understanding the intricacies of these maps and updates to them is an essential companion resource to the other data sets, such as censuses, that exist from the Mandate period. The Constitution of Villages correspondence and Survey of Palestine during the British Mandate: Evidence for new village formation Maps, aerial photos and censuses provide a great deal of evidence for new village for formation. Mandatory archival documents that show behind-the-scenes discussion of the administrative creation of new villages is also a key piece of evidence for the foundation of new villages during the Mandate. The Mandatory district officers were 207 responsible for compiling lists of villages and enumerations as well as separate entities within village lands. The Commissioner of Lands was then responsible for reviewing the lists and issuing judgements on whether the lists were accurate and if changes should be made to the official list of villages to the Order-in Council which was then forwarded to the chief secretary and published in the Palestine Gazette.512 Discussions were frank, in one the Commissioner of Lands noted, regarding the Jewish settlement of Gesher, ―I have never heard of ]it[ as a village in the Baisan subdistrict.‖513 The Commissioner of Lands made sure to remind district offivers in 1933 that ―While all the land in each sub-district must be included in the fiscal survey…it would of coruse not follow that because a parcel of land, such as sand dunes, is shown as within a particular ‗village‘ boundary that the sand dunes are necessarily in the ownership of that village.‖514 In some cases district officers combined previously separate entities into the same entity, as was the case with Ashrafiya, which had once included numerous separate farms as individual entitites, and Bashatiwa, which had once been Hawifizat al Amri, Hawifizat al Bakkar and Arab Esh Shuheimat.515 In the case of Zaba, which was a new village in the Baysan sub-district, the district officer noted in 1934; ―Zab‘a forms 512 See coorespondence between the Commissioner of Lands and Asst. District Commissioner, Galilee, Government of Palestine, Commissioner of Lands, 14 September, 1934, ISA, ‗List of Villages, Baisan Sub. District, 2607 N/B167/RG30. 513 See coorespondence between the Commissioner of Lands and Asst. District Commissioner, Galilee, Government of Palestine, Commissioner of Lands, 14 September, 1934, ISA, ‗List of Villages, Baisan Sub. District, 2607 N/B167/RG30. 514 This is an extremely important statement because researchers such as Walid Khalidi have often confused this issue, implying that ‗village lands‘ entailed lands actually owned or associated with the village under which they were listed. See 21st February, 1933 from the Commissioner of Lands to the District Commissioners, , ‗Constitution of Villages‘, 3559/7M/RG23. 515 See coorespondence between the Commissioner of Lands and Asst. District Commissioner, Galilee, Government of Palestine, Commissioner of Lands, 14 September, 1934, ISA, ‗List of Villages, Baisan Sub. District, 2607 N/B167/RG30. 208 part of Jabbul and should not be included as a separate entity.‖516 But discussion in December of the same year resolved that ―I confirm that blocks 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 should be regarded as forming the new village area ]of Zaba[.‖517 However coorespondence during 1934 reveals the opposite regarding Wadi al Bira; ―is a detached area and should be considered as a separate village.‖518 The process of creating a separate entry for new entities also entailed receiving a plan ―show the boundaries of the Settlement in order that it may be shown on survey plans.‖519 Sometimes even when Arab villages were absorbed by new Jewish settlements, such as the case with Jisr al Majami, the old name was retained ―the original name must be retained as applying to the Jiftlik block.‖520 In general the Mandatory lists of villages and their borders became more permanent as the era progressed. This shows the degree to which the 1922 and 1931 censuses, which were radically different but, in the case of the 1931 census, very accurate, gave way to a more rigid system. A letter in March of 1940 from the Director of Land settlement to the District Commissioner of the northern district noted that ―it is most desireable in the interests of proper registration of title to land and of fiscal 516 See coorespondence between the Commissioner of Lands and Asst. District Commissioner, Galilee, Government of Palestine, Commissioner of Lands, 14 September, 1934, ISA, ‗List of Villages, Baisan Sub. District, 2607 N/B167/RG30. 517 District Officer of Baysan to Commissioner of Lands, Galilee, Government of Palestine, Commissioner of Lands, 28 December, 1934, ISA, ‗List of Villages, Baisan Sub. District, 2627 N/B117/RG30. 518 See coorespondence between the Commissioner of Lands and Asst. District Commissioner, Galilee, Government of Palestine, Commissioner of Lands, 12 October, 1934, ISA, ‗List of Villages, Baisan Sub. District, 2607 N/B167/RG30. 519 See coorespondence between the Commissioner of Lands and Asst. District Commissioner, Galilee, Government of Palestine, Commissioner of Lands, 15 October, 1934, ISA, ‗List of Villages, Baisan Sub. District, 2607 N/B167/RG30. 520 From the Director of Surveys to the Commissioner of Lands, 11 December, 1934, ISA, ‗List of Villages, Baisan Sub. District, 2607 N/B167/RG30. 209 economy that the units comprising each sub-district unit should be territorially defined with a large degree of permanency.‖521 However the coorespondence dealing with the constitution of villages and village lists only rarely reveal information about the inhabitants of the new villages. We can see name changes develop, for instance the date when Masmiya es Saghira became Huraniya.522 Names of Bedouin tribes and their sub-tribes were determined through consultation with local Arab experts such as Abdul Razzak Effendi, who was consulted for the Beersheba sub-district.523 Sometimes clues are given about the development of a village, for instance Asluj in the Beersheba district is said in 1946 to be ―developing into a little trading center‖ and ―these settlements are all sufficiently large and firmly established now for their names to be included.‖524 In Beersheba sub-district however the Director of Land Settlement noted ―there are no plans or territorial divisions between the tribes and sub-tribes of Beersheba sub-district to enable me to comment.‖525 A Village Administration Ordinance was problematic for the Beersheba sub-district as ―tribal units in the Beersheba sub-district, as at present gazetted, are difficult to fit in to the framework of ]the Ordinance[.‖526 In general the Beersheba sub-district was unique in that other ordinances such as Land Settlment and the Rural Property Tax did not apply to it. 527 From the Director of Surveys to the Commissioner of Lands, 17 March, 1942, ISA, ‗List of Villages, Baisan Sub. District, 2607 N/B117/RG30. 522 23rd of August, 1946, District Commissioner to the Director of Land Settlement, ‗Constitution of Villages‘, 3559/7M/RG23 523 23rd of August, 1946, District Commissioner to the Director of Land Settlement, ‗Constitution of Villages‘, 3559/7M/RG23 524 ibid. 525 th 4 of November 1944, Dir. Of Land Settlement to the Chief Secretary,3559/7M/RG23 526 30th of October, 1944, District Commissioner to the Chief Secretary, ‗Constitution of Villages‘, 3559/7M/RG23. 527 6 September 1934, Commissioner of Lands to the District Commissioner, ‗Constitution of Villages‘, 3559/7M/RG23. 521 210 Beduouin tribes never ceased to frustrate Mandatory officials who seeked throughout the Mandate to control them, physically and administratively. In a letter dated February 21st, 1933 from the Commissioner of Lands to the District Commissioners the official noted that ―the Arab Turkman may be a roving tribe without any land or a tribe who have a definite are of the country which may belong to them. In the former case they are of no interest for land tax purpouses but in the latter case their area will have to be indicated topographically as an administrative entity.‖528 The official Mandatory document called the Survey of Palestine which was prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in December and January of 1945-1946 also provides insights into Mandatory policies on resettlement of Arabs. 68 Arabs of the Zubeid tribe were resettled on ―a new camping site in the Safad subdistrict…in 1944 the ownership of the land was transferred by the Government to the new occupiers‖529 In addition ―three settlements were started in 1934, one at Tell esh Shauk in the Beisan sub-district and the others at Muqeibla and Beit Qad in the Jenin subdistrict.‖530 4,225 dunams were given over to 50 families at around 80 dunams a family and they were given 49 year leases.531 The Arab Sabarji were given 1800 dunams for 122 people near Kafr Misr. 32 dunams were devoted to a ―camp site.‖532 The Constitution of Villages coorespondence and Survey of Palestine both provide unique evidence for new villages and land settlementm during the Mandate 21st February, 1933 from the Commissioner of Lands to the District Commissioners, , ‗Constitution of Villages‘, 3559/7M/RG23. 529 Survey of Palestine which was prepared for the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in December and January of 1945-1946. Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry. A Survey of Palestine, volume 1. Jerusalem: Anglo-American Commission of inquiry 1946. 530 Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry. A Survey of Palestine, volume 1. Jerusalem: Anglo-American Commission of inquiry 1946, p. 298. 531 Ibid, p. 299. 532 Ibid, p. 299. 528 211 period. But they do not always tell whether or not the villagers settled permanently on the land. They rarely give the background of the settlement. Nevertheless they shed an important light on Mandatory policy and the laws and administration affecting village boundaries, their agglomeration and creation. When paired with visual evidence and other Mandatory statistics they provide evidence for new settlement formation. Jewish land purchases During this period the JNF and other Jewish land purchasers sought to extend the holdings they had acquired during the Ottoman period. The JNF began its activities in the Jezreel valley, purchasing some 73,600 dunams in the years 1921-1923.533 It did not begin to invest in the coastal plain until it set its targets on the swath of land called Wadi Hawarith. The JNF noted that ―the area represents the choicest lands in the plantation area, vast plains…abundant water.‖534 Eventually a total of 33,500 dunams would be purchased on which some 19 new settlements were established soon after.535 The ‗Battle for the Land‘ as Yossi Katz has termed it generated a great many disputes between Arabs and Jews in the period.536 The disputes were not new, as there had been frequent clashes in the Ottoman period over land. The JNF also began, in this period, to concentrate its purchases in the Baysan valley purchasing a totle of 26,000 dunams by 1935.537 In the Sharon area Jewish land purchases affected the entire plain from Tel Aviv to Zichron Yaa‘cov. These included a solid block from Zichron Yaacov south to Hadera. Then passing Wadi Hawarith, which was acquired by 1929, it included a swath of beach 533 Ibid, p. 6. JNF Report 1939, pp. 14-15, 33-38, in Katz, p. 11. 535 In total some 46 settlements would arise, populated by Jews. Kark, Changing, p. 376. 536 See Battle for the Land, various pages, 15-25. 537 Katz, Battle, p. 22. 534 212 around Netanya and land inland around Kafr Saba. South of that it there was more land around Petah Tikva and Ramat Gan. This pattern of land purchases may explain why Arab villages did not arise in the Coastal plain in this period. The purchase of much of the Jezreel valley by the JNF and other Jewish organizations also locked out any chance of the formation of new Arab villages in this area. The same was true of the Western side of the Sea of Galilee where much of the land was Jewish owned. Except for a few parcels near the Huleh and southwest of it there was little Jewish land in the Jordan valley by 1929. This is why it is no surprise that it was here, as well as in the Baysan and Shephelah, areas not targeted for Jewish land investment, where more Arab villages arose between 1922 and 1931. In the Huleh valley, for instance, the JNF did not carry out any purchases before 1935.538 Fifty-two new villages and Hamlets 1922-1931 A total of fifty-two Arab villages were established in the nine year period between the 1922 census and the 1931 census (See Figure 39). These included 2,717 houses, 12,457 inhabitants and 203,282 dunams of land. As was the case with the period 1871 to 1922 their distribution and characteristics were not regular. This chapter will analyze the history of these new settlements, where they arose, how they arose, why they arose and when they arose. 538 Katz, Battle, p. 26. 213 The 1922 and 1931 Census: discussion, characteristics, definitions, logic and problems The 1992 census was the first proper census carried out in Palestine since, perhaps, the 16th century. But its directors noted that ―it was to be expected that considerable difficulties would be encountered.‖539 It noted that the public ―regard with suspicion‖ the taking of a census due to their former fear of being pressed into military service or taxed by the Ottomans. For some reason it included both military personell and foreigners in it. It also did not include statistics on the Bedouin tribes of the Negev, although other Bedouin tribal populations were included in other parts of Palestine. In contrast the 1931 census of Palestine was the most thorough and detailed of any census conducted during the Mandatory period. Although it lacked detail on taxation and land use found in the 1938 and 1945 Village Statistics, its concentration on accuracy and its inclusion of a field for the number of houses for each village make it an essential tool for examining village life in the country. Its greatest advantage over the 1922 census and the Village Statistics is its inclusion of ―integral parts of the village…attached hamlets.‖540 These ―attached hamlets were too small to be treated as independent units in the administrative arrangements for the enumeration and , while not losing their identity, were therefore, enumerated as integral parts of the nearest or parent village. In some instances larger estates having small resident populations were similarly treated as attached hamlets, and sometimes appear in the tables under the personal names of their owners.‖541 No other census of Palestine attempted such a revolutionary description of the villages of the country. This type of examination is essential as it makes clear the connection between daughter villages and estate houses and their ‗parent‘ villages. It 539 Census of Palestine, 1922, p, 3. See Census of Palestine, 1931, p. 2. 541 Ibid. 540 214 also allows for the inclusion of miniscule hamlets within larger nearby villages. This helps to clarify which small hamlets were independent and which were clearly related to other villages. It also means that few inhabited places fell by the wayside. For instance the village of Mu‘awiya, which doesn‘t exist in the 1938 and 1945 Statistics because it was part of the land holdings of Umm al Fahm, is delineated as its own village in the 1931 census. Beit Shanna appears under Salbit, Nataf appears under Qatanna and Deir Amr appears under Suba. This excellent detail allows for a better analysis of the villages of Palestine and represents the high point of Mandatory census taking. In terms of Bedouin population a ―special system of enumeration‖ was created because of the ―reluctance of Bedouin in certain areas to co-operate.‖542 The 1931 census defined a house as ―a dwelling place of a commensal adopted family with its resident dependents such as widows and servants [or] the enclosure or residence of one or more families having a separate entrance…a detached or semi-detached residence and the household dwelling known as an apartment flat…it also served to describe the patriarchal form of household still found in villages in the south of Palestine where there is a resident family of two, three, or more generations dwelling in a common enclosure.‖543 The 1931 census should be viewed as a high point of data for Palestine, in much the same way as the PEF survey was for the late Ottoman period. The subsequent population estimates were lacking in many ways. The 1922 census, while reliable, was not as high a quality as the 1931 census and did not include portions of the Galilee panhandle. 542 543 ibid. ibid. 215 The Administrative Distribution of the Villages The British administrative divisions remained, for the most part, the same during the years 1922 to 1945 though there were differences.544 The 1922 census included four districts; the Southern, Jerusalem-Jaffa, Samaria and Northern. The Southern included sub-districts of Gaza, Hebron and Beersheba. The Jerusalem-Jaffa district included Jerusalem, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Jericho, Jaffa and Ramla. Samaria included Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarm and Baisan. The Northern included Haifa, Acre, Nazareth, Tiberias and Safed. However the 1931 census separated the country into three districts; Southern, Jerusalem and Northern. The Southern district contained Gaza, Beersheba, Jaffa and Ramle. The Jerusalem district contained Hebron, Bethlehem, Jericho and Ramallah. The Northern district contained Tulkarm, Neblus, Jenin, Nazareth, Baysan, Tiberias, Haifa, Acre and Safed. Thus the Northern district absorbed the Samaria district of 1922. But the sub-district system remained unchanged. The borders of the sub-districts did not remain exactly the same. There were slight shifts in the border between Jerusalem and Ramla sub-districts and in other areas. These changes did not affect more than a handful of villages and for this reason can be considered of negligible importance. For these reasons all of the analysis in this research concentrates on the sub-district level. Because the Bethlehem and Jericho sub-districts were eventually amalgamated into the Jerusalem sub-district the new villages that appeared in these areas (all of them in the 544 Yacov Reuveni, The Administration of Palestine Under the British Mandate Mandatory: 1920-1948 An Institutional Analysis, Ramat Gan: University of Bar Ilan, 1993, pp. 50-53 (Hebrew); Gideon Biger, Crown Colony or National homeland: British Influence Upon Palestine 1917-1930 A Geo-Historical Analysis, Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1983 (Hebrew); Gideon Biger, The Boundaries of Modern Palestine 1840-1947, London: Routledge, 2004. 216 Jericho sub-district for the period 1922-1931), will be included in the Jerusalem subdsitrct. Another advantage of the British system of sub-districts is that they happen to coorespond nicely with the geographical features of the country in many places. The Jenin, Hebron, Jerusalem, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Nablus sub-districts were all located in the mountainous central highlands of the country. The Ramla district included a large portion of the Shephelah. The Jaffa, Gaza and Tulkarm districts were almost entirely made up of the coastal plain. The Beersheba district was specifically designed to take in the Negev desert. The Tiberias and Baysan sub-districts included mostly the Jordan valley and Sea of Galilee. For that reason there is a very real importance in examining which sub-districts included new villages but it also nececistates some redundancy in examining which villages arose in which geographic areas. The discussion of the subdistricts will be from south to north with the regions in bold. The Beersheba sub-district included three new hamlets, two of which were established around government installations. The third, Jammameh (Jammama), included only 6 Muslim men, was located next to the Jewish settlement of Ruhama, and it is not clear who the Arab inhabitants were. One of the enumerations, Auja al Hafir, had been established by Abdhul Hamid as an attempt to create a smaller version of Beersheba. The settlement had failed but by 1931 it had 9 houses and 29 Muslims. It had not been mentioned in the 1922 census but may very well have been inhabited then as well. Asluj, a settlement noted in coorespondence by Mandate officials had originally been the site of a Turkish bridge and sheikhs tomb (Sh. Alam), a major well and government post.545 545 6 September 1934, Commissioner of Lands to the District Commissioner, ‗Constitution of Villages‘, ISA 3559/7M/RG23. 217 The Jerusalem sub-district included five and possibly six new hamlets and villages. Four of these, Al Nebi Musa, Auja, Nueima and Duyuk, were in the Jericho sub-district of 1931 and Kh. Ismallah was included in the Ramla sub-district in 1931 but was part of the Jerusalem sub-district in 1945. The sixth hamlet, Beit Umm al Meis, was included in Kasla in 1931 and there is no way of knowing whether it was inhabited yearround in 1931. A Haganah report from more than ten years later claimed the village was founded by villagers from Jura in 1900, but this might relate to it being inhabited as a seasonal settlement. Its exact date of establishment is not clear.546 Six new villages and hamlets arose in the Ramla sub-district. Three of them were of reasonable size, including more than 100 residents and 66 houses between them. The other three were smaller. The neighbouring Jaffa sub- district saw the creation of only one new village, Jammasin (‗Buffalo‘). This village would later be called ‗Jammasin al Gharbi‘ (Western Jammasin) and would later have a sister settlement called Jammasin al Sharqi (Eastern Jammasin). It was also a small village with 29 houses and 127 residents (See Figure 40). Just north of Jaffa sub-district the Tulkarm sub-district included one new settlement as well, Wadi Hawarith, which had, according to the 1931 census, 255 houses and 1,112 inhabitants and included 5 Christians and 30 Jewish residents. The Haifa sub-district had three new villages of reasonable size. Jenin subdistrict also had three. In Baysan sub-district sub-district there were seven new settlements, meaning, as a sub-district it had the second largest number of new settlements after Safed sub-district. Acre sub-district had one new hamlet. Tiberias had four new settlements and Safed had 18. Gaza had no new villages and the same was true 546 See survey of ‗Beit Umm al-Mais‘ 125/378 Haganah Archives, Tel Aviv. Page 1. 218 in Ramallah and Nablus. Three sub-disricts thus contained more than half the new settlements; Safed, Baysan and Ramla. The development of the areas around Ramla and Safed was not new, they had seen similar growth between 1871 and 1922. The creation of new villages and hamlets in the Safed sub-district was very unique to this period and will be elaborated upon further. Highlands Judea, Samaria, Hebron Galilee Carmel 2 8 0 Huleh and north Sea of Galilee Baysan Central 12 2 8 3 Judean/Western Negev Sharon Zebulon Jezreel Valley Shephelah Negev 1 1 2 4 7 2 Total 52 Jordan Rift valley Coastal Plain Table 4.1 Geographical location of new villages, 1922-1931 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, based on research for this study with reference to Efraim Orni and Elisha Efrat, Geography of Israel, Jerusalem: Israel Universities Press, 1971. The Geographical Distribution of the Villages As was the case between 1871 and 1922 the geographic distribution of new villages between 1922 and 1931 was not regular. The plains and valleys once again accounted for 63% of the new villages. They had only accounted for 48% between 1871 219 and 1922. This means that there was an increase in the percentage of new villages being formed in the lowest parts of the country. In both cases these areas accounted for 33 new villages and hamlets. There was a slight decline in the absolute number, eleven (16%) versus seven (13%) of new settlements established in the Shephelah. The greatest difference was in the higher elevations. Between 1871 and 1922 twenty-three of the new settlements had been established in the hills. Between 1922 and 1931 only ten new settlements were established in these areas. The Negev accounted for only a tiny percent of the new settlements established in both periods. By 1931 all of the new inhabited settlements that would be established by 1945 in Judean, Samarian and the Hebron hills had been inhabited. In the Galilee most of the settlement that would be carried out by 1945 had already been finished by 1931, a total of 88%. In the Huleh and northern Rift valley a total of 82% of the settlements that would be established had been established by 1931. This was a result of settlement activity that occurred between 1922 and 1931. In total 12 settlements were established in this region in the period. In the Central Rift valley the establishment of three new Bedouin villages around Jericho, in addition to the settlement of the Ghor al Faria before 1922, meant that all of the new villages that would be established in this region by 1945 had been established. This was also the case in the Jezreel valley where three new settlements had been built by 1922 and four more had been built between 1922-1931. No new Arab villages or hamlets would be formed in the Jezreel. This was also the case on the Sea of Galilee, where two more settlements were established by 1931, a total of five. No more settlements would be established around the Sea of Galilee. Around Baysan the 220 formation of new villages by 1931 was almost complete. Only two new villages would appear in the following years. Overall the period 1922-1931 saw an extension of the trend found before 1922. The creation of new villages was primarily something that happened downhill so that settlement fanned out from the high country to the low country with outlying areas being colonized last. Whereas the first period saw villages created in the hills, Shephelah and Baysan the next period saw that pattern extend outward to the Huleh region and the Jezreel valley with less expansion occurring in the higher elevations. Areas that had been settled in the low lying areas of Baysan and Tiberias continued to be populated. The place that continued to elude settlers in this period was the coastal plain, particularly the plain of Sharon. In that area five new villages had been established by 1922 but by 1931 only two new villages had been built. By 1945 there would be an additional 14. The Judean plain south of Jaffa would experience greater growth later as well. 221 Name Imara Jammama Auja Mu'awiya Kh. Ismallah Fatur Zaba Kh. Hawsa Khirbat Buweiriya Ulmaniya, al and Arab al-Zubayd Ein al Mansi Jammasin al Gharbi Yarda Hamma Kh. Suwwana (Arab al-Samniya and Arab Tauqiya) Beisamun Mallaha and Arab Zubeid Kirad al Baqqara Arida Sinbariya/Sanbariya, Es Naghnaghiya Kharruba Total Dunams 0 0 0 0 568 789 898 901 1150 1169 1278 1365 1368 1626 Zalafa Kirad al Ghannama Masil al Jizl Zawiya Khayim al Walid Kh. Zakariyya Wadi al Bira Kh. Lid Dawwara Khisas Sakhina al Manara Wadi Hawarith North Muftakhira and Barjifyat 1872 2076 2168 2262 2281 2512 3333 3374 Deir Muheisin Es Samikiyya Bawati al (Hakimiya) Ajanjul Qudeiriya Mukhazin Buweiziya and Al Meis Duyuk Zanghariyeh (Zuhluq) and Khirbat Karraza Nueima Al Nebi Musa Al Auja Kh. al Wa'ra es Sauda, Al Mawasi, al Wuheib 3377 Gharuba 3459 Huseiniya 3556 Nebi Yusha 3617 GRAND TOTAL Table 4.2 Size of land holdings of new villages 1922-1931 Source: Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938. The Size of the land holdings of the villages The 1931 census does not include the size of the holdings of each village. Therefore the holdings from 1938 are used here. In all a total of 512,598 dunams of land was included in the areas allotted to new villages that arose between 1922 and 1931. The holdings of each village and its boundaries did not neccesarily reflect land ownership. In many cases village lands were not owned by villagers. This was especially the case in 222 3789 3808 3878 3935 4518 4538 5195 5369 5569 5696 6401 6797 7106 8829 9947 10526 10641 11401 12487 12548 15081 21301 27918 52594 83023 106900 512598 places where Jewish investment was widespread, such as in the coastal plain, Jezreel valley and later in the Baysan valley. Thus many of the lands of Wadi Hawarith were not owned in any way by the tribe‘s members who resided there. Between 1869 and 1894 Antuan Bishara al-Tayan, a Lebanese Maronite, purchased the lands of the Hawarith Arab tribe along the Wadi by the same name. In total he purchased 30,826 dunams.547 In 1929 the lands were purchased by the Jewish National Fund. Nevertheless a 1:250,000 Index to Villages map from the Mandate still shows the entire area as ‗Wadi Hawarith‘ in 1938. By 1940 the land had been subdivided into sixteen separate Jewish settlements.548 This was, however, one of the few examples where a land area was subdivided to such an extent during the Mandate. There was a very clear correlation between villages with large land holdings and those that were located in both marginal undeveloped areas and populated by Bedouins. Auja, Nebi Musa, Nueima, Zanghariya and Duyuk were all Bedouin villages. The size of the landholdings was not related to their population. Four of them were located in the Jordan valley or the area adjoining it and it is clear that the allotment of so much land to these villages was entirely due to the fact that there was nothing on that land, it was entirely desert. The other new villages with large landholdings were found in the Shephelah and Jordan Rift Valley. This fits with a pattern of larger land areas being allotted to villages where the lands were in newly populated areas that had not been agriculturally viable before the period. They were also areas of low elevation that had been used by nomads See Kark, ‗Changing Patterns‘, p. 374. Also see Wadi Hawarith (Emeq Hefer), location of Jewish settlements, December, 1937, compiled from Israel State Archive, Division 22, Box 3487, File GP/5/36. Reproduced in Kark, ‗Changing Patterns‘, p. 377. 547 548 223 before the 1920s and in some cases were still frequented by nomadic and semi-nomadic Bedouin populations. There were four settlements (Imara, Auja, Jamama, Mu‘awiya) that had no landholdings. Three of these were in the Beersheba dub-district and their lack of land holdings resulted from this fact; the British did not parcel out the region of the Negev into individual villages with boundaries. Mu‘awiya, the other settlement that had no holdings, was included in the holdings of Umm al Fahm. Four settlements had less than 1,000 dunams. This was not reflected in their population size. It was due to where they were located. Kh. Hawsa was actually included in Shefa‘amr‘s landholdings in 1942 and 1946. Kh. Ismallah‘s small size resulted not just from how small a hamlet it was but by the fact that it was sandwhiched between Jewish Kefar Uriah and the Catholics at Deir Rafat. Fatur was located at the extreme southern tip of the Baysan sub-district. Zaba was also located in Baysan and its size seems to be a result of the fact that much of the area had already been settled by the time it was recognized as an independent village with its own boundary.549 Its land was also cut off from its parent village, Jabbul, and in cases like this the new village usually received less land in the new administrative boundaries. In general land distribution by village during the Mandate was irregular but it contained no extreme patterns. The hill country contained villages with large land holdings and some without. For instance in the Galilee the villages of Sakhnin and Beit Jann which each had more than 20,000 dunams. In the highest elevations of the central highlands, along the ridgeline from Jenin to Hebron there was a tendancy to have villages with smaller land areas. In general large villages located at lower elevations and In a Oct. 1924 document it was shown to be part of Jabbul, ‗Statement of Areas Covered by Beisan Land Agreement,‘ ISA 3599/5/22. 549 224 bordering on the plans and valleys tended to have large swaths of land. This was the case with Qaqun, Umm al Fahm, Turin, Ar‘ara, Tira, Taiba, Saffuriya and Shafa‘amr. These historical villages all had large landholdings in the Mandate and were located in a similar middle-ground between the highlands and the plains and valleys. In areas with Jewish land settlement the areas allotted to settlement tended to be smaller, such as in the western Baysan valley and Jezreel valley. Once Wadi Hawarith was brocken up this was also the case. 225 Population 1931 3 6 9 13 18 19 29 Total Dunams 83023 0 0 1368 568 11401 0 40 50 52 66 69 72 73 79 1872 2076 3617 789 4538 12487 1278 12548 83 86 2512 17804 Khirbat Buweiriya Wadi al Bira Deir Muheisin 101 112 113 Kharruba Gharuba Jammasin al Gharbi Mu'awiya Zaba Hamma Name Al Nebi Musa Jammama Imara Yarda Kh. Ismallah Ajanjul Auja Kh. Suwwana (Arab al-Samniya and Arab Tauqiya) Beisamun Nebi Yusha Fatur Kh. Zakariyya Qudeiriya Ein al Mansi Mukhazin Sinbariya/Sanbariya, Es Kira/Qira Population 1931 181 182 197 198 202 214 231 Dunams 4518 2281 3878 3789 901 6797 8829 Kirad al Baqqara Al Auja Kirad al Ghannama Huseiniya Es Samikiyya Duyuk Buweiziya and Al Meis Sakhina 245 253 265 274 290 291 318 374 2262 106900 3808 3556 10526 21301 15081 6401 Khisas Naghnaghiya 386 416 5696 3333 1150 5195 9947 Ulmaniya, al and Arab alZubayd Kh. Lid Bawati al (Hakimiya) 432 451 461 1169 5369 10641 119 124 127 141 3374 3459 1365 0 Zanghariyeh (Zuhluq) and Khirbat Karraza Dawwara Zawiya Mallaha and Arab Zubeid 526 552 590 654 27918 5569 3935 2168 147 172 898 1626 Kh. al Wa'ra es Sauda, Al Mawasi, al Wuheib Wadi Hawarith 1060 1112 3377 7106 Khayim al Walid Arida Masil al Jizl Zalafa Kh. Hawsa al Manara Muftakhira and Barjifyat Table 3.3 Population Size of new villages 1922-1931, according to the 1931 census. Source: Census of Palestine, 1931. E. Mills, Superintendent of Census, Jerusalem, July, 1932. The Size of the population of the villages The villages with the largest population that developed between 1922 and 1931, or which first appeared on the 1931 census, tended to be located in the Rift valley and 226 concentrated in the area near the Huleh swamps. This was the case with Mallaha, Zawiya, Dawwara and Ulmaniya. There is strong evidence from a 1910 map of the region that Mallaha and Ulmaniya existed long before 1931.550 When one adds to this Kirad al Ghannama, Kirad al Baqqara and Huseiniya one finds that there was a heavily populated contigious stretch of villages from south of the Huleh lake and along the Huleh Concession Area north of it, the area of the Huleh swamps. In all it accounted for roughly 2,500 inhabitants. This means that more than 10% of the 12,371 residents of new villages for the period could be found in this one strip of land. In total 5,048 residents of new settlements were located in the Safad sub-district. That‘s around 42% of the total new residents. This means that the region around the Huleh lake accounted for a great deal of new settlement and was a draw for migrants and settlers. This is partly explained by the fact that the area was not included in the 1922 census and is being discussed here instead. One unique piece of information supplied by the 1931 census was the number of houses in each village. This figure is very interesting because it gives an idea of the overall development of the new villages. The 1938 and 1945 Statistics also provided information on the ‗Built up area‘ in dunams for each village. When viewed side by side the number of houses and ‗built up area‘ do not coorespond in any way. The village of Nebi Yusha had only 12 houses in 1931 but by 1938 was supposed to have had 24 dunams of built up area. Unless this includes the police fortress established nearby it is not clear how so many dunams could have been built on. The village of Zawiya, See ‗Carte de Terrains de la Haute Galilee‘, Rosch Pina 1:22,222, Adolphe Starkmeth, May 24 1912. CZA. The map hangson the CZA wall without attribution or sourcing. See also Ruth Kark, ‗The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,‘ Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, Institute for Neohellenic Research N.H.R.F. Tetradua Ergasias 25/26 (2004), p. 197-220. pp. 202-204. Also see Central Zionist Archive (CZA), Record Group J15M, File 38. 550 227 established at the northern tip of the Huleh swamp had 141 houses in 1931 and 208 taxable dunams of built up area in 1938. The built up area data seems to indicate that the villages in the Safed sub-district were more spread out than other villages. This becomes clear when examining the maps and aerial photos. Thus Sinbariya had 24 dunams of built up area and Kirad Ghannama and Dawwara both have more than 50 dunams. But the village of Ulmaniya which had 100 houses and 432 residents in 1931 is listed in 1938 as having no built up area and 490 residents. This seems like a mistake. The same problem occurs with Zanghariya, shown to have no built up area in 1938, but having 97 houses in 1931 and 526 residents. The maps do not bare out the 1938 census which seems to be either incorrect or operating under a unclear logic. This fact dovetails with the general impression hat the 1938 and 1945 estimated were much less reliable than the 1931 census. The unreliability of the census was hinted at its introductory comments relating to other data; ―it has not been possible to allow for inter-village migration since 1931.‖551 Given these facts it seems best to use the 1931 statistics for the number of houses as a guide to the development of the new villages. 551 Village Statistics, 1938, p. 3. 228 Name Jammama Al Nebi Musa Imara Yarda Kh. Ismallah Ajanjul Auja Kh. Zakariyya Beisamun Nebi Yusha Qudeiriya Ein al Mansi Fatur Khirbat Buweiriya Mukhazin Sinbariya/Sanbariya, Es Kira/Qira Kharruba 1931 Houses 1 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 Khayim al Walid Nueima Zalafa Hamma Masil al Jizl Muftakhira and Barjifyat Kh. Hawsa Kirad al Baqqara Kirad al Ghannama Es Samikiyya Huseiniya Duyuk Khisas Buweiziya and Al Meis Naghnaghiya 42 43 43 46 47 51 53 54 54 60 64 66 73 75 78 20 21 21 Sakhina Bawati al (Hakimiya) Kh. Lid Zanghariyeh (Zuhluq) and Khirbat Karraza Al Auja Ulmaniya, al and Arab alZubayd Dawwara Zawiya Mallaha and Arab Zubeid Kh. al Wa'ra es Sauda, Al Mawasi, al Wuheib Wadi Hawarith North 454 78 86 87 Gharuba Deir Muheisin 27 28 Jammasin al Gharbi Mu'awiya Wadi al Bira al Manara 29 30 31 33 Zaba Arida 37 38 Total Table 4.4 Number of houses in new villages 1922-1931, according to the 1931 census. Source: Census of Palestine, 1931. E. Mills, Superintende nt of Census, Jerusalem, July, 1932. 97 100 100 106 141 161 190 255 Houses in new Arab villages: accuracy of the 1931 census The innovation contained in the 1931 census to provide the number of houses in each settlement appears to provide another layer of information about the settlements themselves. It certainly appears to provide evidence for the permanency of Bedouin settlements in northern Palestine and the Baysan valley. However, as mentioned above, the definition of what constituted a house was sufficiently broad to mitigate some of the 229 accuracy of the category itself. There is no good way to check the accuracy of the 1931 census‘ statistics on houses. The Survey of Palestine maps from 1929 do not have a level of detail that allows for the counting of individual houses in nucleated villages. Aerial photos provide the best comparison but they only exist for the 1940s and the Haganah photos from 1948, a full 18 years after the census, are the most detailed. An examination of a few settlements is worth carrying out nonetheless. Consider Salbit and Beit Shanna which appear on a Haganah aerial photo from 1948.552 The smaller of the two, Beit Shanna, was included with Salbit on the 1931 Census. A count of their houses reveals that a loose-definition of ―house‖ would render 72 structures in both settlements with about 50 constituting actual houses. A more conservative count would yield only 34 single family dwellings. The 1931 Census claims there were 71 houses in both settlements. Is one to conclude therefore that no new houses were built between 1931 and 1948? According to the 1931 census there were 406 residents in both settlements (about 6 people per house). The 1945 estimate found 720 in both settlements. Where were all the new people living? A 1948 aerial photo of Sajad shows 28 houses.553 The 1931 census found 66, almost twice as many. Considering that in an Arab nucleated village one house might well be described as two depending one must still ask where are the new houses that would have been constructed after 1931? The village was said to have grown from 300 residents in 1931 (about 5 residents per house) to 370 in 1945. An even more extreme example can be found at Mallaha in the Huleh valley. 552 553 ‗Salbit‘, 1488_1418, July 4, 1948, Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Shai103_644 . ‗Sajad‘, 1399-1323, February 2, 1948, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, 103_0243. 230 Here the 1931 census found 161 houses and 654 inhabitants (4 people per house). An aerial photo taken in April of 1948 shows 45 structures and 72 reed huts.554 Taken together they do not add up to 161 even being quite liberal here with the definition of ―house.‖ So is one to conclude that some of the residents of Mallaha left after 1931 and took their houses with them? Not according to the 1945 estimate, which claimed there were 890 residents of the village. Zalafa near Jenin is more reasonable. A count of houses from the aerial photo of 1948 found 40 and the 1931 census lists 43.555 An aerial photo of Jammasin al Gharbi shows 64 houses in 1948.556 The 1931 census found 29 houses and 127 people. However the estimate of the population of Jammasin al Gharbi in 1945 claimed there were 1,080 people living in those 64 houses (most of which were small huts and shacks), not a very reasonable number. Likewise an aerial photo of Deir Muheisin from 1948 shows 70 houses while only 28 were found in 1931.557 Here the population was estimated to have grown from 113 to 460, not unreasonable according to the aerial photo. The investigaton of the accuracy of the 1931 census‘s ―house‖ category seems to indicate that there were enough exaggerations of the number of houses to point to a very real problem with that category of the census. But what is more disturbing is what it says about the 1945 estimate. If the 1931 ―house‖ category was slightly exaggerated or too liberally applied than it spells even worse news for the 1945 estimate. How did the 890 residents estimated as having lived in Mallaha live in the 117 huts and houses counted ‗Mallaha‘, 1399-1323, April 21, 1948, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, 103_0233. ‗Zalafa‘, no date, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Shai 103_0289. 556 ‗Jammasin el Gharbi‘, no date, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Shai 103_0275, 557 ‗Deir Mukheisin‘, Aerial photo, no date, Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, Shai 103_0394. 554 555 231 there in 1948? Were they crammed 8 to a house? This would seem problematic considering that the 1931 census consistently found the average number of people per house to be around 4 to 6. Name Comment Imara layout dispersed Bedouin settlement Jammama Nucleated two parts Wadi al Bira Auja planned village Abdul Hamid II Zaba layout dispersed Bedouin settlement nucleated daughter village Bedouin or offshoot of Jabbul nucleated daughter village Kh. Suwwana (Arab al-Samniya and Arab Tauqiya) Single Bedouin home single building Hamma Planned village Deir Muheisin nucleated Kh. al Wa'ra es Sauda, Al Mawasi, al Wuheib Kharruba spread out village al Manara Mukhazin Dispersed homesteads Es Samikiyya Ajanjul Khirbat Buweiriya Kh. Zakariyya Al Auja (Jericho subdistrict) Kh. Ismallah Al Nebi Musa Duyuk Single house dispersed Bedouin settlement estate house large building dispersed Bedouin settlement dispersed Bedouin settlement Jammasin al Gharbi Strassendorf Nueima Wadi Hawarith North Kh. Hawsa dispersed homsteads nucleated daughter village Name Sakhina tomb Beisamun dispersed Bedouin settlement dispersed Bedouin settlement Dispersed village tomb Buweiziya and Al Meis Dawwara Gharuba Dispersed village Strassendorf single house Huseiniya Khayim al Walid Khisas tomb Kirad al Baqqara Kirad al Ghannama 232 nucleated hamlet dispersed Bedouin settlement dispersed Bedouin settlement dispersed Bedouin settlement Dispersed village Comment tomb railroad station Christian holy site Large buildings tomb tomb Kh. Lid Naghnaghiya Name Ein al Mansi Zalafa Mu'awiya Arida Bawati al (Hakimiya) Fatur Masil al Jizl spread out village dispersed Bedouin settlement Layout dispersed Bedouin settlement nucleated daughter village nucleated daughter village dispersed Bedouin settlement Strassendorf Mallaha and Arab Zubeid Comment Muftakhira and Barjifyat Dispersed village dispersed Bedouin settlement Name Layout Comment Nebi Yusha three houses tomb Qudeiriya Sinbariya/Sanbariya, Es three houses dispersed homesteads tomb tomb Yarda large building large building (Khan) Zanghariyeh (Zuhluq) and Khirbat Karraza dispersed Bedouin settlement Zawiya Large spread out village Ulmaniya, al and Arab al-Zubayd Bedouin settlement dispersed Bedouin settlement dispersed Bedouin settlement Table 4.5 Physical appearance of new villages 1922-1931 Source: The 1:20,000 series of Survey of Palestine maps, Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this study.. The physical appearance of the villages The appearance of the villages shall be discussed south to north with the regions in bold. In the Negev three new settlements arose. One of which, Auja, has been discussed above and was a planned settlement created by Abdul Hamid II. It did not appear on the 1922 census. In appearance and layout it was not dramatically different than Beersheba with the exception that it never attracted very many inhabitants. Imara and Jammama were both Bedouin settlements. The former was a series of isolated houses strung out along a road while the latter was a more nucleated settlement in two clusters. 233 tomb In the Shephelah seven new settlements appeared. Kh. Ismallah was close to the former effendi estate at Kefar Uriah and consisted of one interconnected building. For this reason it appears that it may have been built as an estate house of some sort. Kh. Buweiriya and Ajanjul were both daughter villages and located close together. The former had the appearance of one large house while the latter was a nucleated cluster of houses with a few more scattered about. In appearance it was comparable to another nearby new settlement, Kharubba. Kharruba had been a hamlet when Guerin visited it and was re-established in the 1920s. Nearby Kh. Zakaraiya consisted of a lone house constructed next to the tomb for the prophet Zakaraiya, ‗En Nebi Zakaraiya‘. It thus had the characteristic of other hamlets established next to famous tombs, such as Nebi Rubin. Mukheizin was a series of isolated houses scattered about which seems to indicate that it was settled by Bedouins. The opposite was true of Deir Muheisin which was a full fledged nucleated village on the model of Beit Susin and Beit Jiz. The pattern of settlement in the Shephelah followed the pattern that had appeared before 1922. A series of nucleated settlements and a few isolated houses, all of which were grouped together in an area that eventually became the Ramla sub-district. The Jerusalem sub-district saw new villages appear only in the Jericho area. Nebi Musa was of the type found at other famous pilgrimage sites. There was no village at this site, just the large complex associated with the tomb of Moses. To the North and northwest of Jericho a series of Bedouin encampments, Nuema, Auja and Duyuk, became permanent settlements. All of them had a similar appearance of isolated line of houses strung out along roads and wadis near a spring and monastery. A report from 1932 noted that in the Jericho Jiftlik area that there were 220 cultivators who had ―taken over 234 cultivation rights in the last forty years ]i.e since 1892[.‖558 In the plain of Sharon north of Jaffa two new settlements were established. One was a village named Jammasin that was constructed in the Strassendorf manner along a road. Its appearance resulted from the fact that it was not established on a ruin, unlike, for instance, the settlements in the Shephelah. Thus the villagers could construct a village without the burden of an existing ruin dictating where they might build. With the increaseed security found on the plain their village took on an appearance different than the one found before 1922. North of Jammasin the hamlet of Kh. Esh Sh. Mohammed (one of numerous tombs to sheikhs named Mohammed found throughout central and northern Palestine at the time) was similar in appearance to many other hamlets constructed next to tombs. It consisted of three small inter-connected houses. This hamlet was part of large landholding of Wadi Hawarith and was inhabited by Bedouins from that tribe, the tomb serving as a point of settlement fixation for them.559 One settlement was established near Shefa’amr named Kh. Howsa. It contained a tomb for ‗Nebi Husan (or Hushan)‘. It was very close to another settlement named Kh. Kayasir that would be established later. Both had a similar appearance of being nucleated Arab villages and both were populated by Algerians. In the Jezreel valley three new villages appeared. The first, Naghnaghiya had much in common with the two Ghubs that had been established very close to it before 1922. It was a series of isolated homesteads constructed by the tribe which had 272 558 Inspector of Lands, unclear signature to Director of Lands, March 22, 1932, CZA, 22/7/3340. The maps do not show where the rest of the inhabitants lived. Avneri notes that in 1930 when some of the tenants were evicted from the area the JNF found only tents that they had been living in. Avneri, Claim , p. 142. When the southern portion of Hawarith was evicted in 1933 there were 139 tents and 113 families, a total of 563 people. The British government offered to resettle them on a 10,000 dunam tract of land in the Baysan area. See Avneri, Claim , p. 147. 559 235 members in 1922 and evidently settled the area. Kh. Lid had the appearance of many of the villages that were established between 1922 and 1931 in the Huleh valley. It was constructed over a sizable area without a clear nucleus and rather than the houses being inter-connected they were all detached from one another. Nearby Mansi was a sister settlement of the settlement of Mansi (Arab Baniha) that had been constructed before 1922. It grew up around a spring by the same name and contained one bunch of houses. The two settlements in foothills northwest of Jenin named Zalafa and Mu‘awiya were related in their appearance. They were both constructed in low foothills and both were nucleated. This owed not only to there geographic location but also the fact that they replicated, in appearance, what they were constructed upon. Mu‘awiya was built on a Khan that had been noticed as ruined by the PEF.560 Zalafa was built in two parts on the ruins of a village (See Figure 41). In the Baysan valley the initial construction of nucleated villages that had been the case more prominently before 1922 was replaced by the construction of a more diverse set of patterns. Bawati (Hakimiya), which was named after a tribe, were spread out and grouped near a road (See Figure 42).561 Arida, Zaba, Masil al Jizl, Fatur and Sakhina all consisted of isolated homesteads and dwellings constructed with no particular pattern but usually in proximity to a road, an appearance which was connected to their Bedouin origins, although Zaba may have been a seasonal settlement of Jabbul.562 Wadi al Bira‘s hamlet Taqa was the only nucleated village in the area and it was quite small. In 560 Kh. El Mawiyeh p. 61 "a small ruined khan, of no great antiquity, on the road, near a spring." map 8. The village first appears on a 1913 map but appears on the 1922 census as a 'tribal area'. Ruth Kark, ‗The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,‘ Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, Institute for Neohellenic Research N.H.R.F. Tetradua Ergasias 25/26 (2004), p. 197-220. pp. 202-204. Also see Central Zionist Archive (CZA), Record Group J15M, File 38. 562 Included in Jabbul in, Statement of Areas Covered by Beisan Land Agreement, Oct. 1924, ISA 3599/5/22. 561 236 the Baysan area we see a pattern that was developing in the Jezreel where new villages were constructed irrespective of existing ruins and were not constrained by the needs for security to be self contained. In the Acre sub-district, the hills of the northern Galilee included one new hamlet called Suwwana. This was an isolated house which was inhabited by Bedouins of the Arab al-Samniyya tribe. The area of the Sea of Galilee had a diverse group of new villages, none of which were similar in layout. Hamra was a semi-planned village that was established next to a train station on Abdul Hamid II‘s land. Es Samikiya was a typical dispersed Bedouin settlement with the exception that it was clustered around the Christian pilgrimage site at Capernaum. Wa‘ara es Sauda was similar in appearance to other Bedouin settlements but more spread out (See Figure 42). Al Manara was a typical acropolis type nucleated hamlet. Each village in its way reflected its origins and location. In the area above the Sea of Galilee and Lake Huleh 18 new settlements appeared. Of all the places where new villages appeared this was the place of greatest settlement activity. The majority of the new settlements in this area also had unique characteristics in their appearance. Twelve of them had a layout that was dispersed. Rather than being clumped together with interconnected dwellings in a nucleated mass these settlements had individual houses spread out in no particular pattern. In many instances this was partly because these settlements were not built on ruins.563 This gave those who settled these areas a blank canvas on which to establish their settlements. The layouts also were due to the origins of the people who settled these places, some of 563 Vol. 1, Pg. 235, map 4, 'Kh. Almaniyeh', "A few cattle-cheds and traces of ruins." PEF, Khurbet es Sanbariyeh "A few ruined Arab houses." pg. 121, Galilee. 237 whome had been dwelling in the area as semi-nomads and converted their previous reed huts into houses. Unlike the Arabs living in the hill country who resided in acropolis villages on high ground built from stone those who were used to residing in swamps had enjoyed a different settlement pattern before and, as was the case with settled Bedouin, this manifested itself in the layout and appearance of the villages (See Figure 43). Security played a role as well. The decision to settle permnanetly was due, in part, to increased security in the area, and increased economic opportunity, leading to a more free-flowing layout of villages that did not face threats from attacks or raids and did not need to seek safety in numbers and walls. The villages that had the most pronounced of the forms associated with this area were Zayiwa, Beisamun, Buweiziya, Khisas, Al Muftakhira, both the Kirads and Mallaha. These villages were all located in a similar geographic region and were all carved out, for the most part, from land that had previously been malarial infested swamps whose main product was ten foot tall reeds that made passage through it difficult if not impossible.564 There were other villages that developed in the Huleh region that did not fit this pattern. Six of the villages arose around Sheikh‘s tombs and in the case of Nebi Yusha, Huseiniya, Yarda, Qudeiriya and Gharuba they were influenced greatly by this fact. They were usually centralized around the tomb and consisted of only a handful of houses. This was in line with all the other villages in Palestine that arose around tombs. Whether or not these tombs predated the establishment of the villages is not clear in all cases, but in the case of Nebi Yusha the tomb is clearly marked on Map IV of the PEF‘s survey 564 Yehuda Karmon, ‗The drainage of the Huleh Swamps,‘ American Geographical Society, 1960. 238 although it is not mentioned in the Memoirs.565 A few villages took their names from the tombs (or vice-versa), including Huseiniya (esh sh. Al Huseiniya), Khayim al Walid (Esh. Sh. Ibn al Walid) and Ulmaniya (esh sh. Muh. Al Almani). Dawwara had a very unique appearance. It arose along a road in swamp land and was constructed of poor materials, perhaps metal sidings with some houses still constructed of reeds in the fashion of the Arabs of the area, similar to that of Mallaha.566 The appearance and layout of the villages that arose between 1922 and 1931 was heavily influences by various factors including the social origins of the inhabitants, the physical origins of the village (i.e ruins), the geography of the location of the village and the existence of specialized buildings such as tombs or khans on the site. The appearance of the villages was also influenced by the time period in which they arose, in this case the early Mandate period. The security of this period and the sedenterization of Bedouins led to unique village patterns that had not been as common in Palestine previously. These free-flowing dispersed villages were more common in the plains and valleys where they were established and in the case of the northern rift valley above the Sea of Galilee the new villages arose in an area where there had been few any Arab settlements in the 1870s. Beginning with Jahula and Tuleil which were constructed before 1922, which were some of the first Arab built outposts in this valley, a great number of new villages arose around the Huleh and their layout was in line with the manner and time in which they were formed. 565 The tomb is a substantial one, comparable to Nebi Rubin and with many of the typical features described by Tewfik Canaan in Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine, Ariel: 1927 first publication. A major British Taggert fort was built across the road from it which was the site of a major battle in 1948. 566 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS26 5028, January 1945. 239 Name Imara Origin Comment Bedouin Jammama Bedouin Arab al Atawina Auja Bedouins and Hamid's settlers Abdul Hamid II Ajanjul Khirbat Buweiriya Daughter village of Beit Nuba Daughter village of Beit Nuba or Qatanna (ClermontGanneau) Mukhazin Kh. Zakariya Off-shoot of Khulda? Off-shoot of Innaba? Bedouin village (Khalidi) Tomb Al Auja Kh. Ismallah Al Nebi Musa Bedouin Estate house Bedouin Nueima Duyuk Bedouin Bedouin Deir Muheisin Kharruba Jammasin al Gharbi Wadi Hawarith North Unstable village Arab al Wuhaydat tomb Name Wadi al Bira Zaba Unknown Dispersed Bedouin settlement Kh. Suwwana Bedouin Abdul Hamid II estate Arab al-Samniya and Arab Tauqiya Hamma Arab settlers Railroad, Abdul Hamid II and effendi investment Kh. al Wa'ra es Sauda, Al Mawasi, al Wuheib Bedouin Arab al Mawasi, Wuheib al Manara Bedouin Es Samikiya Beisamun Buweiziya and Al Meis Dawwara Gharuba Bedouin Bedouin Huseiniya Khayim al Walid Khisas Bedouin Hawarith tribe Kirad al Baqqara Kh. Lid Unknown Naghnaghiya Ein al Mansi Bedouin Unstable village, Bedouins Zalafa Unstable or seasonal settlement Neby Hushan Naghnaghiya tribe Abdul Hamid II estate 240 “Arab es Sakhine”, Abdul Hamid II Estate Bedouin Bedouin Algerians Comment Sakhina laboured for Germans in Sarona Kh. Hawsa Origin Unknown Unknown Unknown Algerian Bedouin Unknown Arab al Manara Arab al Samakiya Beisamun tribe Estate? tomb Arab Zubaydat Unknown Bedouin (Khalidi) Arab al Baqqara, Ayalet al Shahar Kirad al Ghannama Mallaha and Arab Zubeid Muftakhira and Barjifyat Bedouin Arab al Ghannama, Ayalet al Shahar Bedouin Arab Zubayd Nebi Yusha Lebanese Pilgrimage site Qudeiriya Unknown Shrine to sheikh Rumi Unknown Sinbariya/Sanbariya, Es Unknown Mu'awiya Arida Bawati al (Hakimiya) Fatur Masil al Jizl Daughter village Bedouin Arab al Arida Tuba (Arab Heib) Ulmaniya, al and Arab al-Zubayd Bedouin Arab al GhazawiyaBawati Yarda Effendi estate Arab al Zinati Zanghariyeh (Zuhluq) and Khirbat Karraza Zawiya Bedouin Unknown Bedouin? Bedouin Bedouin Unknown tomb Ayalet al Shahar Table 4.6 Origins of the settlers of new villages 1922-1931 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this study. The origins of the inhabitants of the villages The one distinguishing characteristic of villages that were established before 1922 and those established after was the fact that so many of those that appeared after 1922 were clearly established by Bedouin tribes. In total 27 of the new villages established between1922 and 1931 were settled by tribes. By contrast only 9 or 10 of the villages established between 1871 and 1922 were Bedouin settlements.567 Bedouin settlements were common throughout the plains and valleys of Palestine in this period (1922-1931) but they were especially conspicuous in the Jericho area, the Negev and Baysan. Some of these tribes had been mentioned on the 1922 census, for instance the tribe of Tuba (Arab al Heib) had 175 members in 1922.568 One reason for the sudden appearance of what appears to be large numbers of settled Bedouin is the way in which the census of 1931 dealt with the Bedouin of Palestine. The Census described nomads as ―non-synchronous enumeratons‖ and those Mohammed Yusuf Sawaed, ―The Bedouin in Palestine 1824–1928‖ (MA thesis, Bar- Ilan University, 1992) [Hebrew] 229–30. 568 There were other Huleh tribes listed in the 1922 census; Buaizia, Baisamun, Mallaha, Ulmaniya (Almanniyeh), Husainiyeh, Wazia, Waqqas, Arab Zubaid, Kerad al Khait, Arab al Jesr, Zangharia, Suiad, Suwailat, Numairat, Mawasi, Shamalneh, Qudairiyeh [sic]. 567 241 Arab al Zanghariyeh who were nomadic were ―classified in the summaries as nomadic as distinct from settled.‖ However it was ―not, outside the Beersheba sub-distict, a strict division of the people by habit, it is the best that can be devised in these circumstances.‖569 What this meant in practice is made clear from the statistcs. The Southern district (sub-districts: Beersheba, Ramle, Jaffa, Gaza) included 57,265 nomads of which 47,981 lived in the Beersheba sub-district. That left roughly 5,000 nomads in Jaffa sub-district, 530 in Gaza sub-district and 3,800 in Ramle sub-district. In contrast the Jerusalem district (subdistricts: Hebron, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho and Ramallah) had 9,072 nomads of which 6,944 resided in the Jericho sub-district. The only other nomadic population, 2000 people, resided in the Hebron sub-district. The only other nomads listed in Palestine were the 216 in the Nablus sub-district.570 This 1931 Census presents a picture of a country that had a large number of Bedouin in the south, smaller numbers in the lower altitudes of the center (coastal plain and Rift valley) with almost none in the north. This is a contrast with the 1922 Census which defined ―tribal areas‖ as areas where Bedouin nomads were present. That census had found thousands of individuals meeting this description in northern Palestine. The Safed sub-district had 18 tribal areas.571 All of these were considered as settled in the 1931 census. Is this because of some great revolution among these groups between 1922 and 1931? Probably their settlement was part of an ongoing process that had begun before 1922. The largest of these groups was the Zanghriya tribe which had 374 members in 1922 and 526 in 1931. In 1931 it was listed as having 97 houses. There is no doubt that there was sedenterization between 1922 and 1931 but does the census tell 569 E. Mills, Census 1931, p. 1 of preface. Mills, Census 1931, summary pages 4-8. 571 Barron, Census 1922, sub-district of Safed, Northern District, table XI. 570 242 us that none of the Bedouin listed as settled in 1931 were still nomadic? Does it tell us that none of the Bedouin listed as being in a ―tribal area‖ in 1922 were settled? No. The 1931 and 1922 censuse provide a snapshot of a given moment. The presence of large numbers of houses on the census and on maps add evidence of sedenterization. However as aerial photos from the 1940s and comparison with maps illustrate the Census of 1931 was loose in its description of what merits a ―house.‖ The census takers admitted as much when superintendent Mills noted ―in a few instances the definition was not applied with a nice discrimination‖572 The conclusion must be that a slight change in definitions and process of enumeration was partly responsible for the different numbers of Bedouin described as being in a ―tribal area‖ in 1922 and settled in 1931. Maps from 1929 and after clearly show increased sedenterization and generally backup the census data. Undoubtedly sedenterization took place between 1922 and 1931, the chances that it was sudden and complete is remote but what is clear is that most of the Bedouin living in Northern Palestine were settled by 1931. The precursor to Bedouin settlement in the Baysan area was the Ghazawiya tribe, which was actually a parent tribe of Bawati and related to other tribes in the area. The Ghazawiya had an interesting and worldly knowledge of the British and Jews. In a letter to the British high commissioner, Herbert Samuel, inviting him to visit them, they noted that ―we are pleased with these Jews, and we are convinced that we will work together to improve our region.‖573 The tribe‘s settlement was thus one that took into consideration the developing politics of the region, the power of the British and the arrival of Jewish immigrants. Some Jews even came to the Baysan area to live with the local Bedouin, 572 573 Mills, Census, preface. Hillel Cohen, Army of Shadows, p. 66. 243 including a man named Pesach Bar-Adon.574 What role these outsiders played in the settlement of the Bedouin at this time is not known. Masil al Jizl, Zainati and Bawati were all sub-tribes of the Ghazawiya according to the 1922 census. In 1922 they had 64, 519 and 348 members respectively. The origins of the settlers played a great part in where the villages were established and how they arose. Walid Khalidi describes the circumstances of the settlement of Imara in the Negev, ―inhabitants of al-'Imara depended on seasonal cultivation in the beds of the nearby wadis. A major watercourse, Wadi al Shalala ran about 2.5 km to the west....A police station was built on village land about 1 km south of the village during the Mandate."575 At Jammama he notes that ―"members of the 'Arab al-'Atawina Bedouin tribe lived in the village before 1948, al Jammama contained about 120 buildings called bakiyas [sic byka=baika=temporary building]; made of stone and mud…an elementary school was established in 1944.‖576 A field study of the village site by the author noted stone dwellings and an aerial photo from 1944 shows a square settlement not usually of the type Bedouin constructed in the area so it is not entirely clear that the inhabitants were Bedouin.577 The Jewish writer Braslavsky mentioned Jammama in his descriptive book and noted that it was an Arab village and they lived in peace with their Jewish neighbours.578 574 See his book Pesach Bar Adon, Be-Ohaley Midbar [In Desert Tents], Jerusalem, 1981 [Hebrew]. Rehavam Zeevi, a well known Israeli military commander, right wing politician who was assassinated in the Second Intifada, also lived with the Bedouin in this region during the 1930s (he was born in 1926). Other Jewish shephers resided with the neighbouring Beni Sakhr tribes and the Arsan family, see Cohen Shadow, note, p. 74. 575 Khalidi, All, p. 72. 576 Khalidi, All, pg 74. 577 Conducted May 2010; Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive,PS 15 6027, 10 January, 1945. 578 Yaacov Braslavsky, HaYeda’ata et ha’Aretz: Part B, Eretz haNegev. HaKibutz haMeuchad: 1946 (Hebrew). 244 Some of the tribes had been in Palestine for a long time and were mentioned in the 1596 Ottoman census. For instance the Jammasin tribe was mentioned on ―Ottoman tax registers of 1596 [and] Jammasin is mentioned as a tribe in the nahiya of Bani Sab in the Liwa of Nablus...paid taxes on water buffalo [hence its name, which means buffalo[.‖579 Conflict with neighbouring Jews could also lead to settlement by Bedouins. Rosh Pina came into frequent conflict with the Zanghariyeh tribe in the 1880s and after. One Jewish settler at Rosh Pina recalled that ―there is a Bedouin tribe, Arab al-Zangariya. The tribe owns a lot of livestock, its land is very good for grazing, but they have no souces of water. Every summer the tribesmen pitch their tents near the Jordan and make use of its waters for their livestock. Now the almighty has provided them with a readymade ditch dug by the Jews, they no longer need bother to go to the Jordan for water.‖580 Similar conflicts over land in Wadi Hawarith led to breaking up of the large swaths of lands accumulated by Antuan Bishara al-Tayan in the Wadi Hawarith area. The tribe was clearly shown on the PEF, map X.581 This tribe had previously been much more numerous and extensive. By 1928 however it could muster some 1,000 members, 1,500 cows, 50 camels, 32 horses, 600 goats, 150 donkeys and 300 buffalos and they had worked as tenants since Tayan purchased the land in the late 19th century.582 But movement and waxing and waning of power was typical of the Bedouins. The Wuhaydat tribe that settled Mukhazin (whose name means ‗storehouse‘) had once ―reigned supreme‖ and was ―very powerful and enjoying a great deal of autonomy‖ in the 18th Khalidi, All, pg. 244. See also Mohammed Yusuf Sawaed, ―The Bedouin in Palestine 1824–1928‖ (MA thesis, Bar- Ilan University, 1992) [Hebrew] 229–30. 580 See Avneri, Claim, p. 87, footnote 30 on pg. 293, Memories of the Land of Israel, part 1, pg. 510. 581 See Kark, Changing, p. 365-378. 582 For the figures see Avneri, Claim, p. 136. 579 245 century.583 But 130 years later the tribe was a pathetic shadow of its former self, relegated to settling a small wretched hamlet which had only 19 houses and 79 residents in 1931. The Arabs of the swamps of the Huleh were unique and similar to those that inhabited other swamps in Palestine, such as the Kabara. They had adjusted to the inhospitable environment to the extent that the PEF noted that the swamps of the Huleh were ―a dense marsh of reeds…it is quite impenetrable, except for a short distance and then only by Arabs and buffaloes.‖584 H.B Tristram made similar observations when he noted ―a belt of tall reeds…an impenetrable wilderness of papyrus.‖585 Some Bedouins from the hills frequented the swamp to pasture animals but succumbed to the malaria of the area. One tribe was known to inhabit the area, the ―Zubeid…which bravely settled in the dangerous zone at a time of year when malaria was not at its height‖ according to one early Jewish settler of Yesud Ha‘mala in 1883.586 The swamp dwelling Arabs were called Ghawarina, as was the case with swamp dwellers near Jisr al Zarqa (Ghawarina). They had lived in the swamps for centuries according to Grossman ―most of them probably preceded even the arrival of the Ottoman Government.‖587 These Huleh dwelling Arabs constructed their huts from the grasses of the swamp, something that is evident from photos. Even when permanent villages arose such as Mallaha in the 1920s, built from white stone, the grass huts were still interspersed within and near the villages 583 See Cohen, Palestine in the 18th Century, p. 111, he quotes Volneyp. 208-210. Memoirs, Vol. 1, map IV, section A, p. 195. 585 Avneri quotes him, Claim, p. 40. 586 Avneri, Claim. p. 40-41. 587 See Grossman chapter 2, unpublished manuscript, footnote 34 as well, See 1596/7 tax lists in Hütteroth and Abdulfattah, p. 158. 584 246 as is clear from a Shai aerial photo taken on April 21st, 1948.588 Another Huleh settlement of Muftahira may have been populated by Egyptians.589 Bedouins of other areas also constructed huts and tents that were precursors to their creation of dwellings. Because nomadic Bedouins preferred to inhabit former ruins that they previously used as summer or winter residences one finds that at Capernaum the Samakiya Bedouin first built huts with camel hair roofs that used bunched reeds as walls.590 This suited an environment that was not harsh. In the Baysan area and elsewhere we see that there were several settlements that were constructed on the former estates of Abdul Hamid II. These estates had become government land in 1908 and the nomads and others may have inhabited them as tenants or simply moved to the abandoned property. At Zaba, Sakhina, Zalafa and Hamma this was the case. In the Baysan area this was due to Bedouin settlement. At Zalafa it is probably due to the creation of an off-shoot settlement established by villagers from the nearby hills. Zalafa was the site of a ‗Development Scheme‘ for state domain in February of 1932 and it noted that the ―the cultivators of the village in question are considered as the cultivators of Zalafe [sic] village since very long.‖591 It was not clear what ‗very long‘ meant but the village was said to have 222 people in 42 families of which only 19 families were cultivators. Hamma was a railroad station that had very potent sulfur sprngs nearby that were exploited as a tourist attraction (See Figure 44). According to Khalidi the area had been 588 Yad Ben Zvi aerial photo archive, 103_233, March 21, 1948, Mallaha. See Avneri, Claim, p. 13. 590 See an 1893 photo of Bedouins at Capernaum, http://www.eretzyisroel.org/~dhershkowitz/pic42-s.jpg, Album de Terra Sante, Paris. 591 Inspector of Lands, unclear signature to Director of Lands, February 15, 1932, CZA, 22/7/3340. 589 247 abandoned by the 1922s and was ―visited only by Bedouin.‖592 Schumacher in 1885 mentioned the ―action of the bathers‖ who included Bedouin, Arabs from the Galilee and Europeans. Schumacher‘s detailed map of the site shows numerous ruins and, on the other side of the Yarmuk, ―huts of ‗Arab el Mukhaibeh‖ and lists the same tribe as inhabiting the site.593 However a Lebanese investor named Sulayman Nasif was ―given a concession in 1936 to exploit the springs. Afterwards Palestinians and other Arabs flocked to the area for relaxation and therapy.‖594 An article in the Palestine Post in December of 1947 included a description by M.W Jacobs of Hamma‘s ―olde Inn‖ where ―thousands of Arabs come.‖595 He also mentioned Arab labourers at the site. The 1945 Index Gazaeter describes it as being owned by ―people from Mukheiba in TransJordan.‖596 Aerial photos of the site show that the houses for any Arabs residing there were evidently planned and constructed identically. 597 The common creation of daughter villages, seasonal settlements or izbas was responsible for the creation of at least 7 new villages; Ajanjul, Kh. Buywayra, Deir Mukhazein, Kharruba, Kh. Hawsa, Zalafa and perhaps Ein al Mansi. These villages were all located in the hills or Shephelah area and fit a pattern already established before 1922 where villages at higher elevations populated areas lower then themselves by sending out seasonal settlers who eventually transformed old ruins into new villages.598 592 Khalidi, All , p. 519. Gottlieb Schumacher, ‗Map of the Jaulan‘, 1:63,362, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1885 in Schumacher, The Jaulan, London: Richard Bentley and son, 1888. Inside cover pull out map. The detailed map is fount between 148 and 149 and is titled ‗Plan of el-Hammeh‘, June 1885. No scale. 594 Ibid. 595 ‗Hamma‘, Palestine Post, December 21, 1947. 596 Palestine Index Gazeter, 1945, p. 34. 597 Yad Ben Zvi, 103_543, aerial photo of site, also see Khalidi photos on pp. 519-520, in All That Remains. 598 See previous discussion on azabehs and seasonal settlements; See Kark and Oren-Nordheim, Jerusalem, p. 275, also Grossman, Expansion and Desertion, p. 44-48. 593 248 The causes of settlement fixation of the villages One the main factors that allowed for settlement fixation in this period and previous and subsequent periods was the draining of the swamps throughout Palestine. In 1911 the Ottoman government had granted the Huleh area as a concession to Arabs (including Mishel Sursuk and his partner, Mohammed Omar Behum) to develop.599 The concession would be paid in installments over 18 years.600 In 1914 a company called the Syrian Ottoman company for Agriculture was finally set up to reclaim the land in the concession but because of the war it failed to begin work. In the same year the I.C.A, a Jewish organization, was granted a concession over 25,510 dunams near Caesaria and the Kabara swamps (the swamps accounted for 6,000 dunams). Later the Mandate accepted this concession with the exception that 2,500 dunams was set aside in 1921 for local Arabs who lived on the land.601 One of the resulting settlements in this area was Jisr alZarqa. The Huleh concession was renewed by the Mandate in 1923 with the same Syrian-Ottoman Company and its director, Salim as-Slam. He was unable to carry out his obligations toward reclaimation and negotiations followed which resulted in another agreement in 1931. Finally the concession was sold to the Palestine Land Development Company (PLDC)602, a Jewish organization, in 1934 with the proviso that 15,000 dunams would be turned over to Arabs, apparently totaling some 1,500 people, residing in the 599 Avneri, Claim, p. 169. Avneri also claims that some 10,000 dunams of the concession was supposed to be set aside and sold to the ―fellaheen resident in the concession.‖ 600 Ibid. 601 Avneri, Claim, p. 108. ISA RG2 CSO, L24/34 DHAI, 11, 108. Some say the Arabs received 1,200 of rocky land that had once been a Roman quarry where modern day Jisr al Zarqa arose., Meron Rapaport, ‗A Clsssic Zionist Story‘, Haaretz, 11, June, 2010, p. 10. 602 The PLDC was founded in 1908 by the World Zionist Organization and it was a partially owned subsidiary of the JNF and Karen Hayesod. See Katz, Battle for the Land, p. 48. 249 concession.603 The concession amounted to some 57,000 dunams of which 15,000 went to the local Arabs and 5,000 of which contained lake Huleh.604 Avneri makes it clear in his study that nothing was done in the way of reclaimation between the time the first concession was granted in 1911 and its transfer to the PLDC in 1934.605 However Avneri appears to either be incorrect in this assertion or the conditions around the swamp must have improved slightly in this period for it is clear that in the early Mandate period a great number of new settlements were established all around the concession area, in areas previously described by travelers and the PEF as inhospitable and unbearable where disease was sure to strike down any who terried in the area year round (except for those few Arabs, the Ghawarina, who remained ensconced deep in the swamps). Settlement fixation around the swamp was due to both the presence of springs and local tombs. At Beisamun there was Ein al Horat and at Mallaha there was Ein Mallaha, which was, according to Khalidi, ―one of the most copious springs in Palestine.‖ Edward Robinson had observed in 1838 that al-Mallaha lay northwest of lake Huleh although he did not describe what type of settlement it was.606 At Dawwara, Khayim al Walid and Gharuba there were sheikh‘s tombs. Settlement fixation in this area may also have been due to the presence of three Jewish settlements, including Ayalet Ha-Shahar607 which was settled between 1915 and 1918, Mishmar Ha-Yarden which had been first settled as a farm in 1884 by the 603 Avneri, Claim , p. 172. CZA A238 /File 11/48/1721. 605 See also Yehuda Karmon, ‗The drainage of the Huleh Swamps,‘ American Geographical Society, 1960. 606 Khalidi, All pg 473. Robinson, 1841, III, pg. 341, noted the village apparently on the northwest of lake Huleh. 607 Its lands had been purchased in 1892. 604 250 Lubowsky brothers608 and Yesud Ha Ma‘ala which was settled in 1883. Yesud Ha Ma‘ala was established on the shore of Lake Huleh and just southeast of it on the Jordan was Mishmar Ha-Yarden. Just West of Mishmar Ha-Yarden was Ayalet Ha-Shahar. Thus the three Jewish villages formed a triangle. Inside this triangle three Arab villages were established. Tuleil was formed before 1922 and Kirad al Ghannama and Biqqara were formed after. Both of the Kirads were Bedouin settlements. Nearby was Yarda and Huseiniya. North of Yesud Ha Ma‘ala were three new villages in a row, Ulmaniya, Mallaha and Beisamun and above Beisamun on the ridge was Nebi Yusha. It is not clear if the Jewish settlement of the area helped to attract local Bedouins to settle permanently. According to a descendant at Nebi Yusha the settlers were Shia from the Lebanese village of Mais al Jabil in southern Lebanon.609 The creation of Zawiya (Arabic: ―corner‖), deep within the Huleh swamp, an area the PEF had not even bothered to map and which was indicated merely as impassable swamp, is an interesting case and there is no clear answer to how it was carved out of the swamp or why it was built in the location it was. In a 1944 aerial photo is appears to be constructed of similar materials as used at Mallaha and Dawwara, a combination of metal and grass huts.610 Farther north Sinbariya was built upon a ruin near a tomb by the same name, a typical type of settlement established in the period after 1871 where the ruin provided the means for fixation. Al Qudeiriya was built around an important sheikh‘s tomb, Rumi, as Ran Aaronsohn and Ruth Kark, ‗Shoshanat Ha-Yarden‘, Land and Nature, Vol. 24, 1982, pp. 55-57, (Hebrew). 609 Mohamed Alghoul, posted at ‗Palestine Remmembered‘, Sept. 2222. It was not the only Shiite village in Palestine. Hunin. Qadas, Salha, Tarbikha, al-Malikiayyah were also Shia. See Asher Kaufman, ‗Between Palestine and Lebanon Seven Shi‘I villages as a case study of boundaries, identities and conflict‘ in Middle East Journal, 2006. pp. 687-694. 610 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS3 5108, 10 December, 1944. 608 251 was Nebi Yusha and Ulmaniya‘s tomb, esh sheikh Almani, was named after the Bedouin tribe. The role of Sheikh‘s tombs in settlement fixation for new Arab rural settlements in Palestine in the period studied was significant. It is a subject that deserves further examination by itself. One of the only existing studies on such tombs in Palestine is Tewfik Canaan‘s Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine published in 1927.611 Around the Sea of Galilee settlement fixation was also due to ruins and outside investment. Capernaum was a major Christian holy site and ruin which Catholics and Greek-Orthodox began taking interest in during the 1890s. Eventually a Greek-Orthodox convent would be established not far from where the Bedouins would establish their village. Hamma, as discussed above, was a case of settlement fixation caused by the railroad, the springs and investment in tourist facilites at the site. Manara was ―"ruined Arab Houses, all basalt‖ when the PEF visited it.612 Wa‘ara es Saudi was described as 'Kh. El Wereidat', ―Heaps of Stones of small size‖ before Bedouins of the Wuhayb and Mawasi clans settled it (See Figure 45).613 In the Baysan area the main elements of settlement fixation were not ruins but the presence of Abdul Hamid II estates, roads and springs. Zaba and Sakhina were both constructed on lands previously owned by Abdul Hamid II and the later was a referred to as Bedouin tribe in the 1922 census. There was also an Ein Sakhina, evidently connected to the name of the tribe, which supplied the Bedouins with water. Its main settlement, Et 611 Tewfik Canaan in Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine, Ariel: 1927 first publication. Some other research has examined sacred trees and Bedouin burial sites but has not mentioned this in relation to settlement fixation; Amots Dafni, ‗On the typology and the worship status of sacred trees with a special reference to the Middle East‘, Journal of ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, vol. 2, number 26, 2006. No page numbers, appears to be published online. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1500805/; Aref Abu-Rabia, S. Bar-Zvi and Gideon Kressel,’The Charm of Graves, Mourning Rituals and Tomb Worshipping among the Negev Bedouin, TelAviv: Mod publishing, 1998. 612 Memoirs 'El Menarah', "ruined Arab Houses, all basalt; no cisterns", pg. 413, Vol. 1. 613 Memoirs pg. 409, vol.1, also see Khalidi, All , p. 546. 252 Taqa had the appearance of a typical nucleated settlement but it was not founded on a ruin, rather it was next to the Wadi al Bira where there were a series of mills. These mills had not been located by the PEF and were evidently built sometime later. There was an old Roman road and acqueduct nearby as well. ‗Khurbet el Hakeimiyeh‘ which served as the foundation for the settlement of the nomadic Bawati tribe was described by the PEF as "ruined walls and a few modern deserted houses-a small deserted village.‖614 Al ‗Arida was another Bedouin settlement that was established close to Ein es Safa, but a sufficient distance away that it is not clear what encouraged the Bedouins to establish their houses at this particular location. Fatur was established on a ruin. In the Jenin Sub-district the three new villages were all established on ruins. At Ein al Mansi, a major spring which helped to provide fixation for two villages, the first Arab Baniha before 1922 in the Haifa sub-district, and the second Ein al Mansi after 1922. This second village was described by the PEF as ―a small ruined village with springs.‖615 The PEF described 'Zelefeh' as ―a small ruined village with a well.‖616 Mu‘awiya‘s origin was slightly different. It was established as a daughter village of Umm Al Fahm on and around a khan.617 The PEF called it ‗Kh. El Mawiyeh'; "a small ruined khan, of no great antiquity, on the road, near a spring.‖618 In the Jezreel valley the one new settlement that was established in this period, Naghnaghiya, was built by Bedouins next to two other settlements Ghub al Tahta and Fauqa. The Ottomans had built a school for these first two villages in 1888 and a shrine 614 Memoirs, vol II, pg 122, Samaria. Memoirs pg. 67, vol. 2 map 8. 616 Memoirs pg. 72, Vol. 2, map 8. 617 Golany, Geography of Settlements, volume 3, map 54. 618 Memoirs , Vol. II, map 8. p. 61 615 253 for Al-Shaykh Ahmad existed in Ghub al Fauqa.619 At Kh. Lidd the PEF had found only "traces of ruins, with a pillar-shaft near a spring.‖620 Its second name ‗Al Awadin‘ indicates that it may have been established by Bedouins. The ruins at Hawsa and its shrine to Nebi Hushan provided the source of settlement fixation for this village near Shefa‘amr while in the Acre sub-district the ruin of Suwaneh provided the same for nearby Bedouins.621 In the plain of Sharon, which extends along the coastal plain and east of it, from Atlit south to the Yarkon river, the two new settlements of Jammasin and Wadi Hawarith were both Bedouin in origin and neither had existed as ruins previously which means locating the source of fixate on is harder. For the Arabs of Hawarith there were a number of ruins they could exploit in their area, one of which was Kh. Esh sh. Mohamed, named for a tomb located there. Jammasin, by contrast, was not established on a ruin but was near to a large river, the Yarkon and the Wadi Musrara as well as the German settlement of Sarona and the Jewish ones of Ramat Gan, Bnei Barak and Ir Gannim. Arab villages such as Sh. Muwannis and Jerisha were nearby as well. This was an area of intense settlement activity, including effendis estate houses. In the Jericho region the main cuase of settlement fixation was roads and springs. Auja was established next to a very large gushing spring name the ‗Auja spring‘. Duyuk was built close to the monastery called Deir al Quruntul and near a spring wih which it shared a name. Nueima was located just up the same road not far from two springs from which the settlements took their names. Nueima‘s houses were built near the Makam of Imam Ali, a well known Bedouin pilgrimage site mentioned by Conder in his Tent Work 619 Khalidi, All, p. 160. PEF map VIII,Memoirs pg. 66, "Ludd". 621 Memoirs Kh. Suwaneh "heaps of stones and cisterns" pg. 181 map 3. 620 254 in Palestine.622 The road they were both on led directly southeast to Jericho. Auja, by contrast, was north of Jericho on the road parrellel to the river Jordan and near a spring. In the Judean hill to the West Nebi Musa‘s cause of fixation was the important shrine reputed to be the resting place of Moses which was the site of a very important Bedouin pilgrimage that occurred around Easter. In the Shephelah settlement fixation was due to the presence of ruins. The PEF noted them as ―Khurbet Junjul‖ (Ajanjul), ―Et Buweirah‖, ―Deir Muheisin‖, ―El Khurabeh‖, ―Khurbet el Mukheizin‖ (Mukheizin) and ―Khurbet Zakariya‖. Some were insignificant, such as Ajanjul, which was described as ―traces of ruins.‖623 At Deir Muheisin the PEF marked it on the map as a ruin called ―Deir el Muheisin‖ but provide no description of it in the Memoirs.624 In the Negev outsiders seem to have played a role. At Imara (Amara) there was a police post nearby. Imara was essentially just one Bedouin family living in two houses in 1931 that probably worked for the British police post. At Jammama the Jewish settlement of Ruhama had been established in 1911. The Jews were expelled by the Ottomans in 1917 and it was not reoccupied by Jews until 1944. The earlier Jewish settlement thus provided fixation for the Bedouin settlement. A 1919 map shows that the ―Jewish colony‖ existed across a main road from a ―ruined village.‖625 Thus the Jammama village was probably established before 1919 but was of an impermanent nature. At Auja al Hafir, as mentioned previously, there was a planned town of Abdul Hamid II. Thus each Bedouin settlement in this region did not arise in a natural manner irrespective of 622 See Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, Vol. 2, p. 11. Conder and Kitchener, Survey: Judae , p. 116. 624 Conder and Kitchener, Survey: Samaria , Sheet XVI. It should not be confused with ―Deir Muheisin‖ on PEF sheet XX which was a ruined village in the Mandate‘s Hebron sub-district. 625 th 7 Field Coy Survey, R.E.E.E.F, Jan. 26 th, 1919. Survey of Egypt, 1919, Z2. 623 255 external factors but rather was concentrated around settlements and buildings constructed by others. Name Imara Jammama Auja Ruin Other Police Post Name Sakhina Wadi al Bira Zaba yes Government Ajanjul Khirbat Buweiriya yes yes Deir Muheisin Kharruba Mukhazin Kh. Zakariya yes yes yes yes Al Auja Kh. Ismallah yes Kh. Suwwana (Arab al-Samniya and Arab Tauqiya) Hamma Kh. al Wa'ra es Sauda, Al Mawasi, al Wuheib al Manara Es Samikiya Beisamun Buweiziya and Al Meis Dawwara Spring Al Nebi Musa Nueima Duyuk Jammasin al Gharbi Wadi Hawarith Kh. Hawsa yes yes Kh. Lid yes Naghnaghiya Ein al Mansi Zalafa yes yes Shrine Spring Spring and Christians Gharuba Huseiniya Unknown/Germans Khisas Kirad al Baqqara Kirad al Ghannama Mallaha and Arab Zubeid Muftakhira and Barjifyat Nebi Yusha Qudeiriya Sinbariya/Sanbariya, Es Ruin yes yes railroad/effendi yes yes yes Spring none Shrine Spring and esh Sh. Mahmud yes Khayim al Walid Existing village Other spring river Shrine none yes yes Spring yes none Shrine Shrine Yes Mu'awiya Arida Bawati al (Hakimiya) Fatur Masil al Jizl yes Khan spring Tuba (Arab Heib) Ulmaniya, Arab alZubayd none Yarda Zanghariyeh (Zuhluq) Zawiya yes yes Table 4.7 Physical origin of new villages 1922-1931 Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research carried out for this study. 256 yes yes Effendi estate yes None Physical Origin of the settlements Twenty-nine of the new villages built between 1922 and 1931 were established upon ruins. The existence of shrines and sheikh‘s tombs (or Makams) were ubiquitous in the new settlements, although not all of them appear to have pre-dated the existence of the settlements. At Nebi Yusha, Nebi Hushan and Nebi Musa major shrines and pilgrimage sites aided in fixation. Effendis and khans also played a role (as at Yarda, See Figure 46), as did government institutions such as police posts and railroad stations. Important springs, such as that at Auja and Mallaha also served to attract Bedouins and settlers.626 These patterns were found in the first period as well. The ruin, which was a staple of the landscape of Palestine was a major factor in the establishment of new settlements. It was an exception when settlements were established in open country that had no previous historical inhabitation. This may be no surprise. Ruins provided building materials, were usually located near springs and wells and resources and represented the fact that other people had been successful, even if temporarily, in settling these places. Miscelaneous topics: The date of establishment of the villages; How many settlements existed in 1596? Problematic villages that show up on the 1917-1919 maps but not on the 1922 census In contrast to the period 1871 to 1922 there was only one village founded on a site that had been a village in 1596. This was Naghnaghiya and only because it was founded 626 Yarda was a khan built in 1310, abandoned and then re-established as an effendi estate by Ayman Al Hisham from Safed in the late 19th century. He settled fellahin on the farm. In 1936 it was acquired by the KKL (JNF). It was located next to the sheikh tomb of Musharafi. Eliahu Stern, Caravanserais, Beit El: 1997, 114-115. It was the site of a major battle in 1948. 257 in the same location ad Ghub al Fauqa and Tahta which had existed as al-Ghubbaya. The Haritha (Hawarith) and Jammasin tribes both existed as Bedouin tribes in 1596. It is hard to date the establishment of the villages between 1922 and 1931. This is not only because this is a much shorter span of time than 1871-1922 but also because the settlement processes that led to the foundation of these new villages did not take place immedatly but were a gradual process. In the case of Bedouin sedenterization or the creation of a daughter village from what was once a seasonal settlement the process may have begun long before a permanent settlement appears. Thus it is almost usually impossible to date the exact year of foundation for these new villages. One of the problems with villages in the Shephelah is that two of them appear to have existed on Survey of Egypt maps from 1917-1919. These 1:40,000 maps of the south and center of Palestine reveal what appear to be settlements in places that did not exist according to the 1922 census. In other instances, in northern Palestine, the village of Hamma appears to exist in a 1908 map. Bawati and Zaba both appear on maps before 1922, specifically the 1913 maps of Abdul Hamid II's estates.627 However Zaba does not appear on the 1922 census and Bawati is listed as a tribal area. One explanation could be an amalgamation of villages in the 1922 census. But this doesn‘t seem reasonable considering the fact that the 1922 census was accurate down to the smallest settlements. There does not appear to be a clear explanation and therefore it is safe to conclude that with the Shephelah villages Kharruba and Deir Muheisin that there is a very real possibility that they existed before 1922. It is possible Kharruba had already been built up as an off-shoot of nearby Innaba at this time. Ruth Kark, ‗The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,‘ Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, Institute for Neohellenic Research N.H.R.F. Tetradua Ergasias 25/26 (2004), p. 197-220. pp. 202-204. Also see Central Zionist Archive (CZA), Record Group J15M, File 38. 627 258 The Jordan’s Rift Valley, the new villages, the Bedouins, Mandatory Policy 1922-1931 and the Ghor-Mudawara agreement One of the key factors in the settlement of Bedouin in the Baysan valley was the Mandatory government‘s Ghor-Mudawara (Mudhawarra) agreement of 1921.628 The name of the agreement comes from the word ‗Ghor‘ which relates to the Jordan Valley (also as in Ghor al Faria, or Faria valley which was also included in the agreement) and Mudawara which means ‗transferred‘ or ‗turned around‘ due to the land having been expropriated by the Young Turks from the Sultan.629 The Mandatory authorities had empathy for the Bedouin and other tenant farmers of the valley that it felt had been cheated by the Ottomans and the Sultan out of their lands which had been nationalized as State lands. An agreement was signed in November of 1921 between the government and Bedouin tribes in the region that affected 381,096 dunams of government owned land in the valley.630 Under the agreement lands could be purchased for a nominal feee payable in installments over 15 years. Locals could purchase up to 150 dunams of land and families with more than five people could purchase an additional 50 dunams per person. Herbert Samuel, the high commissioner, wished to prevent Arab opposition to Jewish calls for acquisition of State land near Caesarea and Haifa Bay and the Kabara swamps, and thus offered to lease lands to the villagers in the Baysan region. They refused. So they were offered the chance to receive the land fully an dbe granted deeds of kushan to the property as Miri. Kark and Frantzman, ‗Bedouin, Abdul Hamid‘. Gavish, Survey, p. 119. 630 See Avneri, Claim, p. 164 he quotes the agreement in its entirety. 628 629 259 In November of 1921 Hebert Samuel ―concluded the negotiations with the Arabs regarding the lands in the Jordan and Baysan Valleys and the most extensive settlement of state domain lands ever to be undetaken in Palestine.‖631 The agreement was signed on 19 November 1921 between the government of Palestine and representatives of the Fellahin and inhabitants of the Jiftlik of the Baysan valley. At the time it was one of the two largest blocks in the country, the second being the Huleh, and among the few that were watered. In total eighteen villages were included and three tribal lands. Supposedly 48 maps had been made of the Sultan‘s ands in 1926 and placed in the care of a Dr. Kruger. Seven were located in Beirut and 18 in Demascus, and 40 were with the JCA in Haifa.632 In addition, Joseph Treidel, a Jewish surveyor, had been hired by the advisory committee on Settlement of the Zionist Executive to survey and map the jiftlik lands of Baysan, the Huleh Valley and Jericho and conduct the survey and mapping of all the lands of Palestine in 1904-1909.633But there was still the need for a modern cadastral survey of the lands in order to settle who owned what. Survey began in 1922. The standard scale of Survey Department cadastral work for Baysan was 1:4,000.634 Villagers were requested to divide their parcels in an efficient manner, and official boundaries of blocks and parcels were marked on the ground. The villagers were expected to divide among themselves the division of the land.635 Boundaries of cultivated blocks were demarcated for settlement and a Settlement Commission decided on the size of parcels., one map sheet to each block. In some instances local inhabitants attacked the surveyors from time 631 Gavish, A Survey, p. 111. Gavish, p. 119. 633 see Gavish, A Survey, p. 26. 634 Gavish, A Survey, p. 91. 635 Gavish, p. 122. 632 260 to time. By May 1924 a total of 220,000 dunams had been mapped. By 1926 it was reported that half the area had already been given over to the new local Arab owners.636 It was the first complete cadastral project carried out by the Survey Department.637 According to Avneri the outcome was not as intended. Lewis French in 1932 found in the valley 922 ―families of peasants and 422 families of Bedouin.‖638 Some 93,000 dunams were acquired by wealthy Arab landowners who were not from the valley. During the same period Jewish organizations approached the Mandate to see if they too could purchase lands in the valley.639 In 1936 the Royal Commission, studying the Palestine problem, was briefed on the fact that much of the land belonged to wealthy landowners such as the Alami and Husseini families and the commission criticized the Mandate for failing to follow through on its own law.640 Comparison with Jewish settlement in the same period 1922-1931 By 1930 Jews owned a total of 1,007,000641-1,200,000642 dunams of land in Palestine. Some 450,000 had been purchased from foreign landowners, 680,000 from local effendis and 75,000 from small holders, or Arab peasants.643 The JNF owned a total of 288,605 dunams of this land in 1931.644 The Sursuq family alone had provided large swaths of this land, including 70,000 sold in 1920, 15,500 in 1924, 25,000 sold the same year by Alexander Sursuq and 28,000 in 1925. In 1927 the JNF owned 164,000 dunams 636 Gavish, p. 121. Ibid, p. 117. 638 Claim, p. 165. For a total of as many as 13,000 people if each family had ten individuals. 639 See Claim, pp. 166-167. 640 See Claim, pp. 167-68. 641 Katz, Battle, Appendix 3. 642 Quoted in Cohen, Army, p. 31, footnote 52, ―The Aliya and the Question of Settlement, memorandum by Moshe Smilanski, 1930, CZA S25/3542. see notes p. 273. 643 See Cohen, Army, p. 32. 644 Katz, Battle, p. 352. 637 261 in the valleys (primarily in the Jezreel), 19,000 in the Judean plains, 6,000 in the Sharon, 4,000 in the Galilee and 4,000 in the Judean hills.645 By 1927 there were 111 Jewish settlements of which 43 were on JNF lands. Jewish settlement targeted the coastal plain and Jezreel valley heavily. It also established itself on the Sea of Galilee and in the area around lake Huleh. In general however the Arab settlements that developed during this period, except for the ones in and around Ayalet Ha-Shahar and Yesud Ha Ma‘ala, were away from Jewish settlement. In the Baysan, Jericho and Shephelah there was no connection to Jewish settlement. But what is interesting is the fact that the new Arab settlements seem to have been established, since the 1870s, increasingly in the low elevations of Palestine in the areas where there was, what Ruth Kark and others have described as a, ―fluid inventory‖ of land.646 This meant that there was a sort of competition between Jews and Arabs to develop these new lands in the plains and valleys of Palestine in the early Mandate period. This was not a matter of two national movements colliding to develop the exact same lands because in many cases Arab villages arose in areas where there were few Jews and their establishment did not conflict with Jews, but there was a sort of nibbling around the edges in terms of developing lands in the plains and valleys that were not already purchased by Jews. Thus one sees that while there had been the development of Arab settlement in the Jezreel valley, partly due to the Sursuqs' settlement of Arabs on their estates, the 1920s saw only the establishment of Mansi and Naghnahgiya, the former 645 Katz, Battle, Appendix 5. Ruth Kark, ‗Changing Patterns of Land Ownership in Nineteenth Century Palestine: The European Influence.‘ Journal of Historical Geography 12, 1984, 357–384; Ruth Kark. ‗Land Acquisition and New Agricultural Settlement in Palestine During the Tyomkin Period, 1890–1892.‘ Zionism 9 (1984): 179–93 (in Hebrew with English Abstract). 646 262 at the foot of the hills leading up to Jenin and the latter being a Bedouin settlement established near two existing Arab hamlets that had been recently established. What is remarkable is the comparison in the overall number of new settlements. Roughly sixty-nine Arab settlements arose between 1871 and 1922 and between 1922 and 1931 an additional Fifty-two arose. That amounts to 120 new Arab settlements. There were 111 new Jewish settlements established between 1880 and 1931. By 1914 there had been only 53 new Jewish settlements.647 The extraordinary similarity in numbers cannot be ignored. The explanation for it and the conclusions that must be inferred is remarkable. Whereas the Jewish immigration to Palestine was backed by great financial resources and a national movement, including systematic direction of resources to the foundation of settlement and the employment of the latest technologies, the Arab establishment of new settlements was backed by nothing. It was not, as far as we know, part of an Arab national movement to carve out new settlement. There was no national committee directing Arabs to establish themselves in new areas. There was no great investment in the Arab settlements, especially after the demise of Abdul Hamid II and the confiscation of his estates. Yet by 1931 a total of 29,694 Arabs were living in the new villages in some 6,118 houses. Considering the lengths to which Jews went to establish their new settlements one must reconsider the extent of the Arab endeavor and accomplishment in this period. Without attempting to have done so the Arab settlement had laid claim, at least in terms of village boundaries, to 185,578 dunams of land between 1922 and 1931.648 By contrast the JNF had purchased 216,000 dunams in the period.649 Numerous studies have focused on the conflicts in the coastal plain and at Wadi Hawarith 647 These numbers according to Katz, Battle, Appendix 7. My own calculations. Between 1871-1922 it was 360,431 dunams in the new villages. 649 Katz, Battle, appendix 3. 648 263 as evidence of the growing conflict between Jewish and Arab settlement. But these conflicts ignore the proverbial ‗elephant in the room.‘ While some Arabs and Jews were fighting over tens of thousands of dunams on the coastal plain and the Mandatory authorities were hemming and hawing over the fate of the Arab tenant farmer,650 many thousands of other Arabs were on the move settling and developing new lands elsewhere, seemingly under the nose of this conflict and yet unaffected, at least in this period, by it. Understanding and appreciating the scope and magnitude of the Arab development of the low country of Palestine requires a re-consideration of the classic discussion of the nature of the ‗conflict‘ in this period and a re-evaluation of what was actually taking place in regions such as the Baysan valley and the Shephelah. In fact the cornerstones of an interesting symbiotic relationship formed in this period between Jewish and Arab settlers. In 1923 a relationship began to develop between the Ghazawiya sheikhs and Jews.651 Soon the sheikhs were, according to Hillel Cohen, working with the PLDC. The Zeinati‘s received a salary for their cooperation. Lord Balfour, architect of the Palestine Mandate, was invited to dine with the Ghazawiya Bedouin.652 The Bedouins also provided security for Jewish settlements. But the sheikhs did not invest money in settlement, but rather in livestock. Moshe Goldenberg, a JNF representative, recalled that ―they received a lot of money and they could buy livestock…he ]Zeinati[ undertook the sale of land of his entire tribe.‖653 These lands would lead, in the 1932s, to the establishment of Tirat Tzvi and other kibbutzim. It didn‘t end well for the Bedouin leader. Emir Mohammed Zeinati was gunned down in 1946 in The famous ―class of landless Arabs‖ is quoted often in studies. See Katz, Battle, p. 19 and Avneri, p. 62. 651 Cohen, Army, p. 74. 652 Cohen, Army, p. 75. 653 Quoted in Cohen, p. 75. 650 264 Haifa, accused of being a collaborator. The same was the case at Huseiniya where Hasan Omar also became friendly with local Jews and was later killed in July of 1936.654 At nearby Tuleil Musa Hajj Hussein, the mukhtar of the village was both friendly to Jews in neighbouring Yesud ha Ma‘ala and in conflict with them.655 But Kemal Hussein Effendi, who Cohen describes as ―one of the most influential men in the Hula [sic]‖ realized that ―the way of terror would destroy the inhabitants of the region.‖656 At Nuqayb there was also cooperation with the nearby kibbutz of Ein Gev after its establishment.657 Cohen‘s view of the logic of this cooperation, especially as concerns Bedouins, was that ―as a Bedouin, he himself was a stranger in the area‖ as the Jewish settlers were.658 Whatever the true nature of the relationship between Jewish settlements and Arab settlements that were established in the same years it is clear that in some cases relationships were formed that grew into close alliances in the 1930s. Conclusions on the period 1922-1931 Settlement trends and processes In contrast to the period before 1922 the villages created after 1922 did not have a patron in the form of Abdul Hamid II. Nevertheless settlement activity continued apace and given the fact that 52 villages were created in the space of only nine years one must view this period as the high point in new settlement activity by Arabs in Palestine during Cohen, p. 123. For discussion of relations in an earlier period see, Sawaed, ‗The Bedouin.‘ Mustafa Abbasi identified a number of Algerian families who were leading Arab nationalists and gang leaders during the revolt. He noted Mousa Haj Husein al-Kabir of Tuleil. There was also Mohammed Salim al-Salah and his brother from Ammuqa, Abbasi, ‗From Algeria to Palestine,‘ p. 53. See also Haganah Archives, File No. 105/226: Report of Intelligence Services, 1942, report on Tuleil and Ammuqa. The British blew up the house of Al-Kabir. 656 Cohen, p. 153. 657 Teddy Kollek was among the liaisons between the two, see Ruth Bachi-Kolodny, Teddy Kollek: The man, his times and his Jerusalem, Gefen: Jerusalem, 2008, p. 13, and photos following page 123. 658 Cohen, p. 119. 654 655 265 the periods under discussion. This resulted, it seems, from the increased security of the British Mandate. Many of the processes observed during the period after 1871 were prominent in the period after 1922. Ruins continued to be a place of new settlement, along with tombs of various saints and prophets. In addition settlement continued to creep down from the hills and into the valleys, plains and lower elevations of the country. In fact the settlement of the hills was completed in many areas. For instance in the Jenin sub-district there would be no more new settlements formed between 1931 and 1945. The same was true for the Tiberias sub-district. Several geographic areas would experience almost no additional Arab settlement activity including the central highlands, the Sea of Galilee, the central rift valley, the Jezreel valley and the Negev. There would be little more settlement activity in the Baysan or Shephelah either. The Galilee too would see very litte additional settlement. It was in the plain of Sharon and other areas, farthest from the mountains, where settlement was still yet to be truly attempted by Arabs. It was these areas, still populated in some cases by semi-nomadic Bedouins, that were open to settlement. The early Mandate period shows that there was no single clear cause of settlement. There was no uniform size of the settlements. There was no common location where they all concentrated. The new Arab settlements that appeared in the period were quite diverse and although they followed several patterns, such as being settled on ruins, or being built in a more spread out manner, they were not all related to one process. Bedouin sedenterization and the creation of off-shoot villages both provided settlers. External and internal influences were both found. 266 Chapter 4: Settlement fixation in the middle and late Mandatory period, 1931-1938 and 1938-1948 This chapter examines the period 1931-1948 and is divided into two parts. The reason for dividing it into two parts is due to the data sets from the 1938 and 1945 Village Statistics. The paucity of new settlement creation in the years is the reason for including all 17 years in one chapter. Part 1 1931-1938 An Overview The Arab revolt broke out in this period and pitted Arab bands against the British army, Jews and other Arabs. In total some 4,000 Arabs were killed by the British. In 1938, the worst year, the rebels killed 498 Arabs, 1,624 Arabs were killed by the British and 69 British soldiers died along with 292 Jews.659 Given that this chaotic environment enveloped the country between 1936 and 1939 it is reasonable to conclude that this must have put a damper on some of the settlement processes affecting the Arab population. With daily searches of Arab villages being carried out by the British and the houses of rebels being demolished as well as ambushes being common on the roads it is clear that normal processes affecting the population would have been truncated, as they were during the First World War when the population of Palestine declined due to the conflict. Jewish land purchases were pronounced in the period as well. During the middle Mandate period the JNF increased its activities greatly, buying a total of 231,000 dunams.660 In total Jewish landholdings in the country now neared 1.3 million dunams.661 The JNF had purchased most of the Jezreel (169,000) and had 55,000 659 Cohen, Army, p. 143. Katz, Battle, Appendix 3, it had 188,000 in 1931 and 419,000 in 1938. 661 Ibid. 660 267 dunams in the Sharon and 38,000 in the upper Galilee along with 64,000 in the Jordan and Baysan valleys by 1939.662 By 1936 there were 199 Jewish settlements throughout the country. Following the outbreak of the 1936 Arab rebellion the JNF found those willing to sell to them decreased. However they were able to purchase the lands of Nuqayb for the settlement of Ein Gev.663 In the Baysan valley new Jewish settlements were established such as Tirat Tzvi and Ma‘oz. Hamra was also purchased in the Baysan valley. JNF activity in this area had began at the edges of the sub-district and quickly spread inwards. Name (Sub District in Bold) Hebron Kh. Umm Burj Jaffa Abu Kishk Jammasin al Sharqi Haifa Abu Zureik Jisr es Zarqa, Arab al Ghawarina Baysan Bashatiwa Safed 1938 Jubb Yusef Shauqa et Tahta and Mughr esh Shab'an Tuba (Arab al Heib) GRAND TOTAL Dunams Region Origin 133 13086 Judean hills unknown 1629 459 19136 359 Sharon Plain Sharon Plain Bedouin Bedouin 406 853 6014 724 Jezreel Sharon Plain Bedouin Bedouin 488 20574 Baysan valley Bedouin 104 11325 Huleh and Northern Khan 154 1529 420 4646 9619 82366 Galil hills Huleh and Northern unknown Bedouin Table 4.1 Population of new settlements 1931-1938, 1938-1945 Source: Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945. 662 663 ibid, appendix 4. Ibid, p 88. 268 Nine new settlements 1931-1938 Between 1931 and 1938 nine new Arab settlements appeared in Palestine according to the 1938 Village Statistics. They included 4,646 inhabitants and 82,366 dunams of landholdings (although they didn‘t necessarily own the land included in their holdings). During the years 1922-1931 an average of five new villages had been established a year. During the following seven years however that average drops to only a little bit more than one a year. This may be partially due to the increasing scarcity of land for settlement as Jewish land purchases spread. It may also be due to the chaos of the 1936-1939 Arab revolt (violence tends to mitigate against the natural creation of new rural agricultural settlements which require peace to prosper). Another reason that should be considered is that the creation of a new settlement does not take place overnight, it is part of a long process that is not documented in a cross section of data such as a census or population estimate (1938). What is interesting about the new settlements that appeared in 1938 is that they all had a relatively high population. This is due to the fact that many of them were established by Bedouins and the Bedouin tribe was thus enumerated with the village.664 For instance Abu Kishk was a well known large tribe. It had 155 members in the 1922 census and 1,227 in 1931. The Arab Bashatiwa were defined as a ‗Tribal area‘ in 1922 and had two branches, the Baqqar with 511 members and Shuheimat with 439 members.665 Arab al Ghawarina had been part of Kabara prior to 1938. The fact that many of these settlements had a large number of dunams was related to the fact that they were established in areas that had little settlement. The opposite is true of Jammasin and 664 665 Tuvia Ashkenazi, Tribus Semi-nomades de la Palestine du Nord, Paris: n.p, 1938 1922 census. 269 Jisr al Zarqa. Jammasin was established near its sister village and it was established in an area of Jewish settlement. Jisr al Zarqa was also established in the midst of Jewish concession land that had been granted to the PICA in 1921.666 In contrast Umm Burj was established in the middle of an unpopulated hilly region at the extreme west of the Hebron sub-district. Jubb Yosef too was established just above the famed Mount of Beatitudes and in an area with little settlement.667 Bashatiwa was established on lands formerly owned by the Ottoman sultan, along the river Jordan. The Abu Kishk sheikhs were well known land holders who had sold extensive lands to Jews in 1925, including the lands on which Bnei Barak and Ramat ha-Sharon were built.668 The geographic location of the settlements tended towards the valleys and plains. This was no surprise given the fact that six of the settlements were Bedouin or tribal groups. Jisr al Zarqa was established by a tribe (Arab Ghawarina and Arab Kabara) who had previously lived in the reeds of the Kabara swamps. The other Bedouin tribes also settled in the areas they had once used as camping grounds. Settlement fixation was provided by a variety of factors. At Jubb Yosef a large Khan or Caravanserai provided the incentive (See Figure 47). It is listed as being inhabited by the Arab Es Suyyad in 1939.669 At Umm Burj Khalidi notes that "its name was probably derived from a tower that had been erected in the center of the site. Khirbat Umm Burj was described in the late ninteenth century as a ruined village with a central Geremy Forman and Alexander Kedar, ‗Colonialism, Colonization and Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya land disputes in Historical Perspective‘, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, vol. 4, number 2, July 2003 490-525, p. 515. 667 This important khan was built in the 14th century and in 1810 it was found to be inhabited by Muslims from North Africa. What became of these residents or from where the new residents came is not clear, but the khan remained in very good condition into the late 19 th century and was still used by traders in that period. Stern, Caravanserais, 102. 668 See Cohen, Army, p. 32. 669 ‗List of Villages, Safed District‘, 16, Februayr, 1939. ‗Constitution of Village‘, ISA RG22/3553/8-M 666 270 tower that was thought to be recently built."670 The site also appears on a map from 1918. Shauqa et Tahta was established in the area west of Banias near the Jewish settlement of Dafna, in area with a great deal of water sources. Jisr al Zarqa was established in the area where the swamps of Kabara were in the process of being drained (See Figure 48). Abu Zureik was established next to a spring of the same name. It was built in the middle of the Jezreel valley northeast of Abu Shusha. The appearance of the settlements matched their origins and locations. All of the Bedouin settlements appeared in the typical Bedouin manner of dispersed households. Abu Kishk consisted of a series of isolated homesteads, aerial photos from 1944 show that little had changed by that period.671 Jammasin al Sharqi consisted of the same. Jisr al Zarqa (bridge over the Zarqa) began around a ruin called Kh Shomariya (See Figure 49). This ruin could not have been too extensive for it was not located by the PEF. Umm Burj and Jubb Yosef were built around their points of fixation, the one around the Caravanserai and the other around the ruin and tower. The period 1931-1938 represents a deep drop in the establishment of new Arab settlements, evidently due to Arab Revolt that took place from 1936. The period, however, did represent a high point in Bedouin sedenterization with six of the nine villages being Bedouin tribes. The sedenterization part of a wider process of sedenterization being encouraged by the political situation, the scarcity of land and Mandatory policy. The past patterns which saw so many new villages established upon ruins was also not as important in this period, once against owing to the fact that the new villages were primarily Bedouin. There was also more settlement activity in the Sharon Khalidi, All ,pg 224. See also the pamphlet put out by Zochrot, Noga Kedmun, ‗Remembering Umm Burj‘, Tel Aviv, 2228. 671 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS3 6160, 10 December, 1944. 670 271 plain, where three new settlements appeared. This may have been due to the fact that these Arabs were hemmed in by Jewish settlement and felt compelled to settle their lands. This was the case at Kabara where the Mandatory authorities had ratified, in November of 1921, an earlier concession granted in 1914 to to the I.C.A. The I.C.A had received 25,000 dunams near Caesaria of which 6,000 were swamps. The Mandatory authorities compelled the I.C.A. to set aside 2,500 dunams for the local Arabs which, according to Forman and Kedar, ―came to constitute the core of the modern day village of Jisr al Zarqa.672 This was consistent with Mandatory policy throughout the periods that attempted to protect tenant farmers from being dispossessed and was similar to what took place at Wadi Hawarith. By 1929 Pardes Hanna was founded in an area abutting the swamps. In and around Tel Aviv the Arab settlements of the two Jammasins and Abu Kishk were also completely sourounded by Jewish settlement, with Petah Tikva and Bnei Barak to the south and Kefar Saba and Ra‘anana to the North and Herzliya to the northwest. The lands of Abu Kishk reflected this in their appearance, with Hadar, a Jewish settlement (since 1964 part of Hod Ha-Sharon), almost dividing the Kishk lands into two fingers. In the end ―the members of Abu Kishek‘s ]sic[ family built houses and settled permanently on their land with the cash indemnities that they received from the sale of the lands of Ein Hai (Kefar Malal) and Ramatayim.‖673 In the Baysan area there was a clear attempt by the British government in this period to settle the Bedouin and others. Those forced off their land at Wadi Hawarith, for instance, were offered twenty to sixty dunams per family in the Baysan valley in 1932. 674 A total of 109 families were considered for the relocation and there was a proposal to Claim, p. 128, ISA RG2 CSO l24/24 DHAI, 11, 128. See Forman and Kedar, ‗Colonialism‘, p. 528. Quoted in Claim, p. 177, CZA S25/File 7621. 674 Claim, p. 146. CZA S25/File 9835. 672 673 272 purchase 7,165 dunams for them. By June 1932 the area referred to as Southern Wadi Hawarith was evacuated.675 A total of 139 tents and 563 Bedouin were relocated to Tell Shauk. In Northern Wadi hawarith some 90 families of Bedouins refused to be moved and received 240 dunams instead from the JNF and a lease on 2,695 dunams.676 Legal cases and Jewish investment in this case led to the settlement of the tribe and it would not be surprising if such forces were affecting other tribes as well. 675 676 Claim, p. 147. Ibid. 273 Name Gaza Pop. 1945 Total Dunams Region Arab Sukrier 390 40722 Kh. Ikhza Ramla 990 8179 Abu al Fadl 510 2870 Bir Salim Kh. Duhayriya Kh. Kunnisa, (Kh. Kunaiyisa) Jerusalem Beit Um al Mais Jaffa Sawalima, al Muweilih al Jalil al Shamaliya Tulkarm Ghabat Kafr Sur Kafr Bara Raml Zeita (Kh. Qazaza) 410 100 40 Judean and West Negev Judean and West Negev Origin Bedouin 3409 1341 3881 Judean and West Negev Judean and West Negev Shephelah Shephelah Bedouin Bedouin and Military base Ruin Daughter of Innaba 70 1013 Judean hills Daughter village 800 360 190 5942 262 2450 Sharon Sharon Sharon Bedouin Bedouin Al Mallaha Daughter of Jalil 740 150 140 20801 3959 14837 Sharon Sharon Sharon Wadi Hawarith South Wadi Qabbani Haifa Arab al Fuqara Arab Zahrat al Dumayri Arab Nufayt 480 320 0 9812 Sharon Sharon Seasonal encampment Ruin Ruin Bedouin, land purchases Ruin, effendis 310 620 820 2711 1387 8892 Sharon Sharon Sharon Bedouin Bedouin Bedouin Kh. Sasa Warrat Sarris Baysan Hamra Acre Kh. Iribbin Arab Qulaytat, Arab al Aramisha, Jurdayh and Khirbat Idmith Safed 130 190 0 0 Zebulon Zebulon 730 11311 Baysan Bedouin 360 11463 Galil Bedouin (Qulaytat and Aramisha) Darbashiya, ed Ghabbatiya Mansurat al Kheit 310 60 200 2852 2938 6735 Huleh and North Galil Galil Shrine Seasonal settlement Sheikh, ruin Mazari ed Daraja, Dureijat, Ein Tina, Jalabina, Weiziya (Alamin) and Urifa 100 5328 Zuq al Fawqani (Zuq al-Hajj) 160 1832 274 Huleh and North Huleh and North Table 4.2 Population and area of new villages 1938-1945 (note: there were no new villages in the Beersheba sub-district in this period) Source: Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945 Part 2 1938-1945 New settlements and some older settlements Judging by the differences between the 1938 and 1945 Village Statistics it appears that 28 new villages arose in this seven year period. In fact this is not entirely the case. Daughter villages such as Beit Umm al Meis and Kh. Kunnisa (Kunaiyisa) arose earlier and they were included under other enumerations in 1931. Arab Nufayt and Dumeira were included in Al Khudeira in 1931. Both Kh. Sasa and Warrat Sarris were included in Shfar‘amr suburbs in 1931.677 Darbashiya in 1938 was listed with no population and does not appear in Mandatory records until 1940 when it was subjected to land settlement.678 Almin is also listed in 1938 with dunams but no population. Maps from the period indicate that many some of these villages were established before 1938 but in the interest in remaining systematic and having this study remain census driven they are included here. To include them in earlier periods would cause problems because it would necessitate including many of the other daughter villages and separate enumerations that existed in 1931 as separate entities. In the final analysis to claim that 28 new villages were established in these seven years is not accurate. It is fair to say that 28 new villages appeared in the Statistics as separate entities with populations during this period. The settlement of some of them predated 1938. On the 1945 Village Statistics it also appears as part of the Rural Shafa‘amr, with a population of 132, p. 15. 678 Chief Registrar, L.A.W Orr to Registrar, District Court of Haifa, 10 June, 1940, ISA RG22/3503/36-M, Darbashiya-General. 677 275 However when dealing with the Bedouin settlements it is better to conclude that they did, in fact, arise in this period. In some cases this is illustrated on later Mandatory 1:20,000 series maps which were corrected in 1942 and show newly constructed houses. Aerial photos illustrate the same process. One reason for the appearance of more Bedouin settlements is that settlement processes in the plains and valleys of Palestine were gaining momentum in this period and with increased settlement of land there was simply no place for the semi-nomadic Bedouin to go. Others had little choice but to settle, especially in the wake of the 1942 Bedouin Control Ordinance passed by the British Mandate. The Bedouin control ordinance of 1942 was used not only to compel tribes to stay within certain areas but mitigated against tribal migration in general. It provided for the punishment of entire tribes rather than individuals for certain crimes.679 In the case of the Arab Subaih the British rule led to ‗defensive registration‘ in regards to land, due to encroachments by Jewish settlements.680 In the south the Arab Sukreir settled. A village that had appeared in 1596 in 1596 in the nahiya of Gaza with a population of 55, Khalidi notes that ―the original inhabitants of Arab Suqrir were Muslim nomads who gradually settled on the site.‖681 The Abu al Fadl tribe settled in the same manner (See Figure 50). Originally the tribe had come from the area of Khan Yunis and slowly migrated north over the centuries, and had usually been referred to as al-Satariyya.682 The PEF had located this tribe in the dunes near Nebi Rubin. Its houses were built along a road junction that linked Sarafand al Amar with Bir 679 See Ghazi Falah, The role of the British Administration in the sedenterization of the Bedouin Tribes in Northern Palestine: 1918-1948. Occasional Papers Series No 17(1983). Durham: University of Durham, 1983. 680 Falah, page 17. See also, Claim, p. 156-157 for the story of thi tribe which was located near Mount Tabor. 681 Khalidi, All, pg 80, Hütt. And Abd., p. 47. 682 Khalidi, All, pg 356 276 Jacob. It was also hemmed in by Rishon Le Zion, Sarafand al Harab and Ramla. Maps from the period show the increasing development of this land and a 1944 British aerial photo shows the degree to which the tribe could no longer practice any sort of nomadism. In 1922 it had 400 members and by 1931 a total of 1,565. In 1945 this had decreased to 510. The fluctuation in number might result from parts of tribe settling elsewhere or the 1931 numbers could have been inflated. The estimate for 1945 could also be wrong. The story of the Bedouin of the Jaffa sub-district has been described above. Hemmed in by settlement they too were sedenterized. This had begun with the settlement of Jammasin and was followed by Abu Kishk. Sawalima and Muweilih (Arab al Muweilih) were the last to settle. Muweilih consisted of a few houses across the al Auja stream (a tributary of the Yarkon) from Al Mirr, not far from Antipatris or Tel Afek. Aerial photos from 1944 confirm the growth of settlement to include around 30 poorly built structures.683 In the Haifa sub-district along the Sharon plain three new Bedouin settlements appeared; Fuqara, Nufayt and Dumeira. The story of the Nufayt is well known. The Nufeit inhabited an area that had once been part of Wadi Hawarith and their claims to the land became a political issue in the 1930s.684 They were also involved in disputes with nearby Hadera.685 Although records exist of this dispute there appears to be very little visual evidence that any of these tribes actually built houses. The corrected versions of the 1:20,000 maps for 1942 do not show additional settlement activity in areas indicated to have been inhabited by these Bedouin. In a case from 1941 before Palestine‘s high court the Nufeit appealed a decision by the Land Settlement officer that denied them 683 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS3 5143, 10 December, 1944. See Claim, p.156. 685 Palestine Zionist Executive to the Zionist Executive, Mr. Sacher, February 26, 1929, ISA 22/525/5700. 684 277 rights to land on which they had pitched tent and used ―for many years.‖ The court found that they had moved ―hither and thither over a tract of land‖ and that it did not ―establish prescriptive title‖ for the tribe.686 The case evidently testifies to the continuing seminomadism of much or some of the tribal members. There were other Bedouin settlements as well, such as in the Baysan area of Hamra. At Iribbin, a fortified crusader farm built into a fort by Dahar al Umar in the 18th century, and neighbouring ruins there were a series of single houses evidently inhabited by the Arab al Qulaytat and Aramisha, the former of which in 1922 had only 11 members.687 Owing to its layout the settlement of Kh. Ikhza which was not surveyed by the PEF was probably a Bedouin settlement (perhaps of Arab Sweirah). Its large population relevant to the few houses located on the maps indicate this to be the case as well since its population, as with other tribes in 1945, included the entire tribe, settled and un-settled. There were a number of small hamlets that arose in the period that were daughter villages of nearby villages. Kh. Edh Dhuheiriya was noted by the PEF as ―foundations of buildings apparently modern, ruined kubbeh."688 Clermont-Gueaneau also noticed it.689 It was located near Lydda along a road. It appears in maps from 1918 to 1930 as a ruin and seems to have been inhabited by 1942. Its inhabitants were probably seasonal settlers, from whence they came is not clear. At Kh. Kunnisa (Kunaiyisa) Khalidi claims the settlers came from ―the adjacent villages of 'Innaba and al-Qubab to farm the land, 686 Village Settlement Committee of Arab en Nufei‘at v. Aharon Samsonov and 73 others, Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1940, decided April 22, 1941. The Law Reports of Palestine, volume 8, 1941, compiled by henry Baker, Jerusalem: Government Printer, 1941. 687 Khalidi, All, p. 17, also Village Statistics 1945. 688 Conder and Kitchener, Survey: Samaria, p. 265. 689 Clermont-Ganneau, II, p. 99, 278 and gradually they settled there.‖690 The appearance of both hamlets, as nucleated settlements founded on ruins, gives credence to this view and was typical of the Shephelah. In the Survey of Western Palestine ‗Beit Meis‘, as it was called, is described as having ―ruined walls.‖ The authors noted that there was ―no indication of date‖ as to the nature of the ruins.691 On the 1880 map the ruin was shown to be at the junction of two small streams. It was surrounded by a number of other villages, two miles to the north was Saris, two miles to the northwest was Kasla, two miles to the northeast was al Ammur and two miles to the south was Akur. There were also a series of other ruins nearby such as Beit Fajus and Khirbat Jeba. Beit Fajus was described as being the ―Ruins of a small village, with a spring to the south and a mukam.‖692 This is further illuminated in the Village Statistics of 1938 where Beit Umm al-Mais is listed but shown to have no population. A village mukhtar list produced by the British authorities from 1936 however lists 72 residents.693 Nonetheless the 1938 Village Statistics claims the village has a ‗built up area‘ of 2 dunams, 52 dunams of ‗plantations,‘ 273 dunams of cultivated land and 687 dunams of ‗uncultivatable‘ land.694 The village is listed under the Jerusalem district. Finally in 1945 the village is shown to contain 70 individuals. Walid Khalidi provides no additional information about the village except to claim that ―the layout of the village was trapezoidal, and its older houses, which were built of stone, Khalidi, pg 391. See also Noya Carmon, ‗Arab villages in the area of Modi‘in: The examples of Inaba, Berfiliah, Al Burj, and al Kunayyisa‘, March 2229, paper presented to Prof. Ricav Rubin, Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew). 691 Conder, vol. 3, Survey. Page 85. 692 Conder, Survey, page 83, vol. 3 and page 116. 693 ‗Remmuneration of mukhtars‘ October 24th, 1936. 105/95 A 130, Haganah Archives, Tel Aviv. 694 Palestine Department of Statistics, Village Statistics, Jerusalem, 1938. 690 279 were clustered closely together.‖695 A survey carried out by the Haganah sometime after 1940 reveals a great deal more information.696 According to this document the village was founded around 1900 by villagers from al Jura, a village about 12 kilometers to the southeast of Beit Umm al-Mais. The report confirms that the village was built on ruins and notes that the houses were mostly built from wood and stone. There were 400 sheep and fifty cows. The report notes that about 700 dunams were put to agricultural use with new fruit trees having been planted. According to this survey the villagers learned new planting techniques from the Jewish moshav of Kiryat Anavim and that these techniques allowed for the planting of 300 of those 700 dunams between 1936 and 1941. It noted that the village lands were owned by an effendi but doesn‘t indicate who. There were estimated to be 25 men between the ages of 25 and 48 and they were all from the Hamula of Hamdan which was related to a Hamula in al Jura by their common progenitor, Daud al Sharif Hamdan.697 Jalil al Shamalina was also a daughter village. Khalidi describes it; ―Islil alShamaliyya, 100 meters north of twin village of Ijlil al Qibliyya (southern Ijlil). Perhaps named after Shiekh Salih Abd al Jalil. Adobe bricks and concrete, Muslim….school 695 Khalidi, All That Remains, page 281. The Shai(Haganah intelligence) and the Palmach(elite striking force of the Haganah) carried out village surveys beginning in 1942. See for instance Slomon, Shimri, ‗The Arab news service of the Haganah and the Arab settlement Survey Project in the Land of Israel, 1940-1948‘ in A Page from the Stash. Booklet 910, December 2001. The idea of the surveys was to gather information on large numbers of Arab villages in the wake of the revolt and with the Second World War waging things were relatively quiet in Palestine. Due to the consequences of the revolt and its affects on the Jewish Yishuv there was a feeling among the Haganah that should fighting resume it was important to have detailed files on Arab villages especially relating to their involvement in the revolt, the number of rifles in each village and possibilities for influencing the village. The surveys were quite detailed covering everything from village origins and connections to names of criminals in the village, water sources and building materials. 697 For an in depth study of this village and Islin, Kh. Ismallah, Beit Thul and Deir Amr see Seth J. Frantzman, ‗From Ruin to Inhabitation; The lives of five villages in Palestine 1880-1948‘ unpublished case study, 2006. 696 280 founded in 1945, 64 students enrolled, 183 dunams of citure and bananas in 1943.‖698 Kh. Sasa and Warrat Sarris were probably off-shoots of nearby Shafa‘amr.699 In the Huleh regions Mansurat al Kheit and Darbishiya were both built on sites of holy tombs, in the case of Darbishiya the shrine was for Al Samadi and and Sheikh Mansur at Mansurat al Kheit. Mansurat al Kheit was an isolated series of houses connected together. Ghabbatiya was built on a ruin described as ―foundations of walls and one olive press.‖700 The same was true of the villages Raml Zayta and Kafr Bara in the Tulkarm sub-district. Kafr Bara may have been inhabited by peasants from Sanniriya, a village east of it along a well trodden path.701 Zuq al Fawqani (Fauqani, Upper Zuq), consisted of, according to research carried out by David Grossman, settlers from the village of Qelia in Lebanon and ―maintained close contact with their place of origin.‖702 An aerial photo from 1944 shows just a few huts and one house, a relatively poor hamlet or small village.703 The villages that were inhabited by Bedouins tended to have more people because the entire tribe was classified under the village. The Village Statistics did not distinguish between settled and unsettled tribes that were in the process of settling. When a tribe began to build houses it seems the Mandatory authorities classified it as a hamlet or a village and included the entire tribe in that enumeration rather than splitting it up into its 698 Khalidi, All That Remains ,pg 243. A nice map exists of it ISA RG22/3482/LP 1/46., from 1931. Shafa‘Amr had numerous enumerations included in it in the 1945 Village Statistics. These include Arab Zubeidat, Arab Ameriya, Ibtan Farm, Sasa, Ras Ali, Warrat Sarris, Arab el Khawalid, Arab es Sawaid, Arab Kadiya, Hosha (Hawsa), Arab Sufsafe, Arab el Janali, Kh. Khayasir and Arab Hilf. The total population of these settlements was estimated at 3,562, almost as much as the population of Shf‘Amr itself, 3,560. According to the Statistics the population of the rural area was completely Muslim while the town itself had 690 Druze, 1,560 Christians and 10 Jews. 700 Khalidi, All That Remains pg. 237 Galilee. 701 Grossman and Safrai noe that it was settled by people from a village 12 kilometers east; David Grossman and Zeev Safrai, ‗Satellite Settlements in Western Samaria‘, Geographical Review, vol. 70, No. 4 (Oct 1980), p. 455. 702 Coorespondence with David Grossman who references, Shelomo Ben Elkana files, 8/202. 703 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS23 6008, January 1945. 699 281 component settled and unsettled parts. While logical this probably exaggerates the numbers of people living in many of the settlements associated with Bedouin. As was the case in previous periods ruins and tombs provided the basis for settlement fixation. In addition the government may have played a role. Bir Salim, which had once been the site of Schneller agricultural school and orphanage704, was a military base and Darbashiya was the site of a police post. Except for Sukreir, which had been a village, none of these settlements had existed in 1596 showing the degree to which the Arab settlement of low lying regions in the middle and late Mandatory period was, for the first time in 300 years, outpacing the extent of settlement found in 1596, owing to the security of the land and other factors, such as competition and the forced settlement of Bedouins. One of the most marked contrasts between the periods 1931-1938 and 1938-1945 with earlier periods is that a much greater degree of settlement activity was found in the Sharon plain. A total of 14 new settlements arose there, according to the population estimates. These were primarily Bedouin in origin and arose probably due to the fact that land for grazing and roaming had become so scare. Some of these areas were caught up in the nationalist struggles of the period, particularly Wadi Hawarith and Nufayt. What the settlement of the Sharon represents is a sort of last gasp of colonization by Arabs of one of the few areas that had not seen much Arab settlement activity. Except for a few historic settlements such as Tantura and the re-establishment of Caesaria by Bosnians in the 1870s the Arab settlement of this area, even in 1596, was primarily left up to N. Thalman, ‗German influences (not including the Templers) on the settlement development of Palestine in the nineteenth century and up to the First World War‘, M.A. thesis 1982, (Jerusalem, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem). 704 282 nomads.705 This was no surprise given the fact that the area was made up of sand dunes and swamps and the swamps were only drained in the 1930s and 1940s. However the advent of Jewish settlement and Mandatory policy, combined with other factors of modernity, led to the settlement of nomads in this area. The fate of nomadic groups in this region is part of the larger fate that has affected nomads in the region and throughout the world. Dawn Chatty, an expert on nomads has written ―with the consolidation of state power and authority after the Second World War, however, many newly-created nations turned on their 'nomadic' peoples with the determined aim of settling them in one place.‖ In Palestine the government policy was reflected in the 1942 Bedouin Control Ordinance, but the expansion of Jewish settlement, the insuing scarcity of lands to roam and grave freely on, also encouraged sedenterization.706 705 PEF map, 1880, sheet XIV. Public Record Office(PRO), London, Bedouin Control Ordinance, No. 18, 1942, signed by Harold Macmichael, High Commissioner, 4th, June, 1942. PRO, CO /765/10. 706 283 Recognized New Settlements with No population in 1945 Sub-districts in Bold Hebron Kh. Ammuriya Kh. Jamjrura Ramla Kh. Zakariyya Tulkarm Ghabat Abibisha Birkat Ramadan Ghabat Jaiyus Ghabat Miska Ghabat et Taiyba Ghabat Kafr Sur Kh.Khureish Haifa Kh. al Burj Ghub al Tahta Al Mazar Acre Kh. Jiddin (Kulat Jiddin) Safed Weiziya Unrecognized Settlements of Interest Sub-districts in Bold Beersheba Kh. Es Sawarika Kh. Al Jebba Khalasa Hebron Kh. Beit Awwa, Kh. Sikka, Kh. Umm ash Shaqaf, Kh. al Burj, Kh. Biet Mirsim, Kh. ar Rush al Fauqa, Kh. ar Rush al Tahta, Kh. Deir al Asal, Kh. Umm ash Shaqaf, Kh. Deir Samir, Kh. al Majd. Ramla Kh. Tannur Ein Rafa Tulkarm Kh. Al Burj and Bir Burim Kh. al Majdal Kh. Ras Atiya (and Kh. Ras Et Tireh) Kh. Es Sheikh Meisar Nablus Kh. Sir Kafr Atiya Kh. Kashda Haifa Barrat Qisarya Al Kureiba Kh. Kasayir Kh. Al Manara Kh. Mansura Kh. Ras Ali Kh. Sasa Warrat Sarris Umm al Alaq Umm al Katouf Nazareth Shibli and Umm al Ghanam 284 Acre Kammana, Jalasa, Arab Suweid, Salame Kh. Mansura Masub Safed Harrawi Kh. Es Summan Kh. Uqeima Table 4.3 Unrecognized settlements 1931-1948 Source: Palestine, Survey Directorate. Palestine Index Gazetteer; Index to Place Names on the 1:100,000 Palestine Series Maps. Cairo: Palestine, Survey Directorate, General Headquarters, Middle East, MDR 599/12077. Reproduced by 17 Map Reproduction Section, Royal Engineers, January 1945. Part 3 1945-1948 Settlements without people and unrecognized settlements Through the course of this study of new Arab settlements that developed in Palestine between 1871 and 1948 a number of places were identified that raise questions about their identification as settlements. The reason for this has to do with the Mandatory 1945 Village Statistics, the Palestine Index Gazetteer, the 1:20,000 series of maps and Walid Khalidi‘s All That Remains. There were 16 places listed in the Statistics as having no population that deserve attention as potential new Arab settlements. Walid Khalidi generally referred to these places as ―villages‖ in his study and even provided histories of the settlements and settlers in most cases.707 During the course of this study a further 29 settlements of interest were identified that were not listed in the 1938 or 1945 Statistics and did not previously appear on the 1931 or 1922 census. Furthermore they were not 707 Out of Walid Khalidi‘s list of 418 villages a total of 144 were new settlements, several of which this study has identified as probably not being inhabited. A significant number, one third, of the ―villages‖ depopulated as a result of the 1948 war had been established relatively recently before that war. This is due to the fact that Israel was established in 1948 in the lower elevations of Palestine, primarily along the coastal plain, the Galilee and the Jordan valley, thus including the areas that had experienced the most new settlement; Front cover and page xx, Khalidi, All That Remains. 285 listed in the Gazetteer as recognized village units. They were identified through an examination of the maps and through examination of Khalidi‘s work where he made reference to several of them. One method for dealing with these places that could potentially be labeled settlements for the purpouses of this work would be to simply ignore all the unrecognized places and all the places with no population. But this method would seemingly ignore what appear to be several medium sized villages such as Lajjun that were included by the Mandatory authorities in the boundaries of other villages and thus do not appear as independent settlements in the Statistics. Furthermore some of these places were previously included in the 1931 census which was a far more accurate census than the estimates of 1938 and 1945. The decision to examine the places in the context of this work was made after examining archival documents that detailed the Mandatory system behind what entailed a ―recognized‖ village and an un-recognized one and after examination of what the village unit was intended to represent. It was also taken in light of the fact that it is widely known that even modern states in the 21st century cannot always keep up with the development of settlements that exist within their administrative systems.708 This study relied on Mandatory statistics for its statistics and did not attempt estimate the population of these settlements, so they do not affect the statistics mentioned in this work. This discussion then seeks to shed light on some of the problems with 708 Israel, for instance, has numerous unrecognized Bedouin settlements in the Negev that include tens of thousands of people. While they are unrecognized this does not mean they do not exist. A history of settlement of the Negev between 1948 and today could not be written without mentioning them. In the U.S it is not uncommon that settlements remain ―unincorporated‖ for tax reasons. But their lack of incorporation as towns does not mean they do not exist. 286 defining which of these enumerations and unrecognized hamlets deserve attention as new settlements and which most likely do not. Establishing which unrecognized settlements deserve attention as new permanent settlements is hard because it means showing that they were permanently inhabited which, absent of written records, is near impossible to do with maps as the only piece of evidence. Discounting the numerous villages that Khalidi included in his work and yet do not appear on the censuses, estimates or maps as having any population is easier. But this too must be done systematically and only after researching the history of these places. The first two examples of villages that show up on the map but had no population in 1945 were Quz al Jabba and Kh. Es Sawarika in the sub-district of Beersheba. Both were located north of Jammama (Ruhama). They show up on the 1:20,000 Survey of Palestine maps but don‘t appear at larger scales. It is clear that, judging by their size, they might have been hamlets. Furthermore the fact that between them were some 45 structures and another concentration called Kh. Tannira and Tel Keshet means that they should have appeared on the census. However the Beersheba district did not divide up land according to villages and thus the Index to Villages and Settlements 1:250,000 does not show these settlements either. The 1931 census, which in cases throughout Palestine included the smallest inhabited hamlets and structures also does not include them. Under the al Jabarat (Jbarat) tribe on the 1931 census, an enumeration of Sawarkeh Ibn Rafi appears. But there is no way of knowing if this was associated with the ruin. It was said to have 464 members in 1931. The 1945 census merely notes that there were 47,900 members of seven tribes in the Beersheba with no enumeration by sub-tribe or settlement. 287 A British aerial photo of the area appears to show structures and Bedouin tents at Sawarika.709 A site visit in May of 2010 however did not reveal any ruins. Quz al Jabba does not appear on aerial photos although a 1:122,222 scale map indicates an ―arab school‖ at the site.710 The nearby site of Tel Keshet appears to have a large house and several Bedouin tents.711 The discrepancies noted between the aerial photo and the 1:20,000 map regarding Quz al Jebba raise some questions about the site‘s existence. It should be noted it is a rare discrepancy, the 1:20,000 series of maps are otherwise very accurate when compared to the British aerial photographs. Khalasa is an enumeration found in Khalidi‘s All That Remains. It was located far south of Beersheba to the southwest, putting it northwest of Auja (See Figure 51). It was not surveyed by the PEF. Khalidi notes that it was ―identified with the Nabatean town of Elusa by Robinson in 1838…In 1925 the Ecole Biblique of Jerusalem studied the archeological remains there, and the British survey drew up a plan of the entire site in 1914…coincided with the decision by the Bedouin from the al-'Azazima tribe to settle there...their houses were made of stone and wood...an elementary school was established in 1941.‖712 This Khalasa was a police post clearly marked on Mandatory maps in the 1942s but there is little evidence that it was settled in the period. For instance ‗Aref al‗Aref, who was Governor of Beersheba claimed that all the area in the District of Beer Sheba was nomadic or semi-nomadic Bedouins.713 Braslavsky714 who wrote that in the mid-1940s claimed that south of Huj, Jammama, Kaufakha and Al Muharraqa there were 709 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, 680 PS 15, 10 January, 1945, number 5108. Gaza, sheet 9, Palestine 1:100,000 BB 900 c-[21], 1944. 711 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, 680 PS 15, 10 January, 1945, number 5110. 712 Khalidi, All That Remains, pg 76 713 El ‗Aref, A. (1937) The History of Beer Sheba and its Tribes. Shoshany: Tel Aviv (in Hebrew, translated from Arabic). 714 Braslavsky Y. (1946). HaYeda‘ata et ha‘Aretz: Part B, Eretz haNegev. HaKibutz haMeuchad: Israel (in Hebrew). 710 288 no permanent settlements. But the British Mandate did maintain three outpatient clinics within the District of Beer Sheba (Al ‗Auja, Al ‗Imara, and Jammama), and nine police stations, at Beer Sheba, Bir ‗Asluj, Al ‗Auja, Kurnub, Ras ez-Zuweira, Al-Ghamar, UmRashash, Al-‗Imara and Jammama.715 An aerial photo from 1944 of the Khalasa police post shows several other outlying buildings.716 A visit to the site in May of 2010 revealed that most of the stone dwellings remain intact. It appears that there were too many buildings to have been used merely by the police and the others provided shelter of some sort for loval Bedouin. Levin, Kark and Galilee note that ―many Bedouin built mud-brick storerooms for grain (baika); These also doubled as shelters in winter, so that the Bedouin could be viewed alternately as settled when they engaged in farming, and as nomadic when they engaged in herding.‖717 Materials for the buildings came from ruins in the area.718 Levin, Kark and Galilee counted in the Negev variously; 153 houses on the 1:40,000 Survey of Egypt maps, 159 houses on the1:100,000 1936-39 Survey of Palestine maps and 566 houses on the 1:20,000719 1945-46 maps.720 Thus it is clear that a number of houses appeared in the area, sp,e of which appeared in the northern area around Quz al Jabba and Kh. Es Sawarika, which certainly should be considered as the formation of one village, given the fact that numerous hamlets and villages that appeared in the other Mandatory Noam Levin, Ruth Kark, Emir Galilee, ‗Historical Maps and GIS: Mapping of Southern Palestine 17991948, issues of scale and accuracy and possible applications.‘ Unpublished paper, 2228, p. 19; Other authors have provided similar lists of more or less the same number of posts, Mansour Nsasra, Bedouin Resistance to the Imperial State: Memories from the Naqab1 during the British Mandate 1917-1948, University of Exeter, U.K, p. 8; Aref Abu Rabia, A Bedouin Century: Education and Development among the Bedouin tribes of the Negev, New York: Berghahn, 2001, p. 35. 716 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS36_6167, 26 April, 1945. 717 Ibid, ‗ Historical maps‘, p. 19 718 Musil, A. (1907-1908) Arabia Petraea. Wien, : A. Hölder. Also Marx, E. (2000) Land and work: Negev Bedouin struggle with Israeli bureaucracies. Nomadic Peoples, 4, 106 121 719 1:20,000, Jammama. 720 Noam Levin, Ruth Kark, Emir Galilee, p. 20. 715 289 censuses were smaller. There is evidence, although it could not be located on maps or aerial photos that the Wheidi sub-tribe of the Tarabin had become sedenterized in the period as well. In a case before Palestine‘s High Court from 1944 testimony was given by Sheikh Sani of theTayaba, a member of a Bedouin court, that for all his life (53 years) they had been sedentary.721 The sub-tribe had 468 members in the 1931 census, but its location is not shown on Mandatory maps. However the Tarabin tribe was located west of Beersheba in the area around Imara and the Wadis Shallaha and Besor, between Kh. Khasif and the tomb of Sh. Nuran. Maps indicate a large number of houses in this region, there is reason to believe that somewhere among them was the Wheidi.722 Salmon Abu Sitta, without explaining his sources, places the tribe northwest of Imara close to the modern day border with Gaza on a map he prepared.723 Oddly Khalidi choose to include Khalasa, which was not a hamlet or a village, as a settlement. Another village Khalidi identifies as being inhabited was Khirbat Jamjura in the Hebron sub-districe. He writes that "There were at least twenty khirbas on village land [of Umm Burj] including Jamrura, perhaps to be identified with Gemmruris in Roman times."724 The PEF found "foundations, Caves, cisterns, and heaps of stones."725 Grossman notes that it was a seasonal settlement, apparently of Idna.726 The 1:20,000 Survey of Palestine 1933 map doesn‘t show any houses.727 Given this evidence it seems 721 Fayez Dariwsh Wheidi on behalf of the Wheidi tribe, Beersheba v. Assistant District Commissioner, District Commissioner, Attorney General, High Court no. 50 of 1944, Palestine Law Reports, volume 11, Jerusalem: Government Printers, 1944, p. 198.. 722 Beersheba and Rafah, 1:100,000, F.J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, 1937, Mt. Scopus map library BB 900 C – [1] 1937/1. 723 Salman Abu-Sitta, Palestine 1948: Commemoration of Al Nakba, the towns and villages depopulated by the Zionist Invasion, 1988. 724 Khalidi, All That Remains, pg 224. 725 Memoirs p. 354 of Judea, 45-2. 726 See Grossman, Process-Pattern, p. 135. 727 1:20,000 Survey of Palestine 1933 map, Beit Jibrin. 290 wrong to characterize this as a village, although given time it would probably have grown into one. Kh. Ammuriya in the same area was also not a settlement. In the Sub-district of Hebron the large Arab village of Dura had numerous off-shoots. A list of them from 1931 shows 69 individual hamlets inside the 250,000 dunams that the Mandatory officials allotted to Dura. Dura was a unique village and the administrator of the census noted that ―the village in the Hebron sub-district commonly known as Dura is a congeries of neighboring localities each of which has a distinctive name.‖728 According to Amiran the villagers had gradually occupied numerous sites to the west and southwest of the village during times of peace and security. He even claims that during certain times of the year the daughter villages had a combined population that was actually more than Dura.729 This was especially true in some seasons at Kh. al Burj. Because there is no official Mandatory evidence that these off-shoots were inhabited a careful examination was carried out of period aerial photos of the sites and other sources. A discussion of ten off-shoots of Dura is organized according to their size and evidence that they may have been inhabited. The most prominent of Dura‘s offshoots was Kh. Beit Awwa. The PEF, which visited the site in 1875, found a ―group of ruins which have separate names‖ here, including a Byzantine building.730 An aerial photo from 1945 shows two groups of ruins and a small village built among them.731 A mandatory 1:20,000 map created in 1945 shows the village and a tomb for Esh Sh. Dawud, a feature not mentioned by the PEF which probably indicates it was either founded or revived by the settlers from Dura. David Amiran called it a ―double village‖ 728 Census of Palestine, preface, p. 1. Kalner (Amiran), ‗Dura‘, p. 36. 730 Conder and Kitchener, Survey, sheet XXI, p. 321. 731 680PS 15, Jan 10, 1945, 6010, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive. 729 291 in 1948, owing to the fact that it was built on two sides of a small valley.732 The aerial photo shows that the area is cultivated but it is not clear to what extent the ruins are all inhabited. Kh. Beit Awwa can‘t be taken as representative of the rest of Dura‘s khirbats and off-shoots, most of them were much smaller or un-inhabited during the Mandate. Amiran lists six other off-shoots that he argues were inhabited from the fact that students registered at Dura‘s school claimed they came from these settlements in 1944.733 Kh. al Burj was supposed to be the largest of these off-shoots. The PEF described ―Burj el Beiyarah‖ as ―remains of a fort 222 feet side, with a fosse on the east and south, hewn in rock…Round it are caves in the rocks.‖734 The aerial photo from 1945 and the Mandatory maps do not bear out the claim that it was a major village.735 If it was inhabited it is very hard to tell from the photo and appears more like the ruin indicated on Mandatory maps. This may be due to the fact that a common habit of some of the Arabs in this region was to live in caves, a unique practice that continues to this day.736 Another ―large village with a mill‖ that Amiran described was Kh. Umm ash Shaqaf.737 The PEF called this ―Deir Muheisin‖ and noted; ―traces of a former village; a conspicuous white mound, with cisterns and caves; a large site, also known as Umm esh Shukf.‖738 The Mandatory maps show only a ruin and the aerial photo shows likewise a semi-ruined village with cultivated fields that appears may be inhabited. A site visit by Kalner (Amiran), ‗Dura‘, p. 36. Kh. Al Burj, Kh. Umm ash Shaqaf, Kh. Al Majd, Kh. Deir al Asal, Kh. Deir Samit and Kh. Beit Mirsim; Kalner (Amiran), ‗Dura‘, p. 36. 734 Conder and Kitchener, Judea, Sheet XX, p. 274. 735 680 PS 21, 28 Jan., 1945, 5143, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive. 736 See for instance, Yaavoc Havakook, Live in Caves of Mount Hebron, Tel Aviv: Defence Ministry publications, 1985. 737 Kalner (Amiran), ‗Dura‘, p. 36. 738 Conder and Kitchener, Sheet XX, Judea, p. 274. 732 733 292 photographer Uri Zackhem in November 2009 shows ruins not unlike in the aerial photo, with no modern construction materials, and not dissimilar to how the PEF found it. If inhabitants from Dura made improvements to it during the Mandate it is not obvious.739 Kh. Sikka and Kh. Ar Rush at Tahta both appear on a 1942 map as if they are small settlements.740 The later settlement does not appear on the PEF map. Both appear in a very ruinious condition in aerial photos. The fact that Kh. Rush at Tahta and its nearby neighbor, Kh. Ar Rush at Fauqa, were both not recorded by the PEF point to the fact that rebuilding of the site and cultivation was carried out by the end of the Mandate. Other interesting sites include Kh. Al Majd, Kh. Deir al Asal, Kh. Deir Samit and Kh. Beir Mirsim. These are all of a similar appearance on the aerial photos, semi-ruinous but with well maintained cultivated areas and clearly worn paths connecting them to eachother and thence back to Dura. Guerin had been especially taken with Kh. Beit Mirsim which he described as; ―a little city, not a village…it is now cultivated, but it appears to have been formerly surrounded by an enclosing wall rudely constructed. Materials from this wall or from other buildings new destroyed lie about here and there.‖741 Almost all Dura‘s off-shoots discussed here exist as villages today (except for Kh. Umm ash Shaqaf). Some other off-shoots, for instance, Al Far, Al Harav and Al Hajira, all of which are hamlets or small villages today, show only the most marginal beginnings of settlement in 1945.742 The reality is that the examination of Dura‘s off-shoots show some of the short comings of aerial photos, which otherwise are very helpful. Absent of 739 Uri Zackhem, November 21, 2009. http://www.palestineremembered.com/GeoPoints/Kh__Umm_al_Shaqaf_7476/Picture_57861.html 740 Survey of Palestine, 1:100,000, West Hebron, 1941-1942. 741 Guerin, Judea, ii, p. 349 742 680 PS 15, 10 Jan., 1945, 6083, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive. 293 maps that show the villages as inhabited and an accurate census the aerial phots simply cannot conclusively say either way. What they do show is that there was an intensive cultivation taking place at these ten sites and that many of them had been built up to a greater extent than the PEF had found them. In the sub-district of Jerusalem on the Jerusalem-Jaffa road the settlement of Ein Rafa‘s foundations were first laid in the 1922s (See Figure 52). A few studies have been done on this village and interviews were conducted with its members by Dror Barak for his paper with Ruth Kark, ‗A micro-study of an Arab village in Palestine/Israel, The case of Suba-new methodologies and sources.‘ In addition D. Hassidian has written an unpublished paper titled ‗The nature and development of land use in Ain Rafa 18821994‘.743 The settlers of Ein Rafa, an extended family, originally began moving down to the area around the spring and summer to use it as a seasonal settlement or izba for the purpouses of agriculture. This began as early as 1924 when the al-Nasrallah/Barhoum clan began residing there in the summer.744 According to Barak‘s interviews with local residents in 1936 the village ―was given the status of an independent village and the right to appoint a mukhtar of its own, the first being Mahmud Ali Musa Awal.‖745 It doesn‘t seem that the village was ever recognized as its own independent village by the Mandatory officials, it never shows up on any maps as such, neither in the 1:20,000 series or the Index to Settlements and Villages, nor does it appear in the censuses or Statistics. Dror Barak and Ruth Kark, ‗A micro-study of an Arab village in Palestine/Israel, The Case of Suba-new methodologies and sources.‘ 2226, Unpublished. D. Hassidian, ‗The nature and development of land use in Ain Rafa 1880-1994‘, unpublished seminar paper, 1995. 744 Dror Barak and Ruth Kark, ‗A micro-study of an Arab village in Palestine/Israel, The Case of Suba-new methodologies and sources.‘, p. 21. 745 2000, Interview conducted by Dror Barak with Jamil Barhum in December 2000 in his home in Ain Rafa. Lisser, Y. 1940, Report on the Villages Bordering on Kiryat Anavim, [prepared for] the Political Department of the Jewish Agency, 8 Sept. 1940. In Kiryat <Anavim Archives, File of villages bordering on Kiryat <Anavim 1.2.3.4. 743 294 But there is no doubt that the Barhum family and others began to live in the area around Ein Rafa and established houses, as is clear from the map.746 What began as a seasonal settlement was a permanent settlement by 1948. Aerial photographs from 1944 show a number of houses, adding further evidence to the hamlets existence.747 In the Tulkarm sub-district the 1945 census mentioned 11 settlements without population. Only one of these, Kh. Majdal, was mentioned by Khalidi. This village is similar to another that is not mentioned on the census but appears to be a village, Kh. Sheikh Meisar. Khalidi described Majdal; ―it was built next to a well, the village attracted the Bedouin of the area; they gradually settled in the village. Next to the well lay the tomb of a Shaykh Abdullah, whome the villagers revered.‖748 At Sheikh Meisar the PEF found "foundations near a modern Mukam [sic, makam]"749 Another cite named Majdal appears under Taiyiba in the 1931 census but this appears to be a different Majdal as Taiyba was nowhere near the one under discussion. Meanwhile the village of Yamma also does not appear on the 1931 census except as a daughter village of Deir al Ghusin. Later it disappears entirely in the Village Statistics. The disappearance of these villages is apparently due to the Mandatory divison of the landscape into villages and in some cases including numerous hamlets in the boundaries of one village. Thus Yamma ended up in the boundaries of Deir al Ghusun while Majdal ended up under Raml Zeita and Sheikh Meiser ended up under Qaffin, of which it may have been a daughter village since it was connected to it by a road. The 1931 census does show the later two as daughter villages. Sheikh Meiser shows up in aerial photos from 1944 near the Jewish settlement 746 1:20,000, Ein Karem, corrected for 1942. Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive,PS 1 5012, 10 December, 1944. 748 Khalidi, All, p. 556. 749 Khalidi, All , Sheikh Meisir, map VIII, Samaria, pg. 65. 747 295 of Ma‘anit. It is a typical nucleated village with a cluster of a dozen or more dwellings at the intersection of two well travelled paths.750 Majdal appeared in the Survey of Egypt 1919 maps as a tiny hamlet. Why neither showed up on the 1922 census is not clear but it is apparent that they existed from Mandatory 1:20,000 series maps updated in 1942. Two more villages existed in the Tulkarm suburbs that were established after the PEF survey. These were Bir Burim and Al Burj. These two small hamlets existed on the road west of Tulkarm. Jacotin‘s map surveyed in 1799 show both of them as villages called Al Borg and Barin.751 Granott (Granovsky) mentions them in his study of the lands of Palestine in the period as two ruins populated by people from Tulkarm.752 Both were quite small and neither appear on the 1931 census or the estimates. Both should be considered to be examples of new hamlets established in the period. Another hamlet not mentioned on the census was Kh. Ras Atiya which was south of Tulkarm in the village boundaries of Habla during the Mandate. It was located 2km Southeast of Habla. Grossman and Safrai illustrate that it was first shown as a permanent settlement in 1918.753 They write ―according to a headman, Ras Atiya was settled when the Turks urged cave dwellers from adjacent areas to adopt other forms of habi- tation. The resettlement occurred in the late nineteenth century.‖754 Kh. Zababida, near Gan Shlomo, existed on the census and also showed up on the Index of Settlements, but it had only a few houses. The PEF had noted ―a small modern 750 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS 4 5014, 10 December 1944. See Jacotin Carte topographique de l’Egypte, 1826. For a comparison of names and palces from Jacotin and the PEF map see Y. Karmon, ‗An Analysis of Jacotin‘s Map of Palestine‘, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1960, p. 155-173. 752 Granott, Land law, p. 164. 753 Conder and Kitchener, footnote 21 above; Survey of Egypt, 1:40,000, Sheet D4-Bidieh (London: Royal Air Force, 1919); and Karte von Palastina, 1:50,000, Sheet 59-Kalkilje (Berlin: Reichskarten- stelle, 1918). 754 David Grossman and Zeev Safrai, ‗Satellite Settlements in Western Samaria‘, Geographical Review, vol. 70, No. 4 (Oct 1980), pp. 446-461, p. 456. 751 296 ruined village.‖755 Khalidi claims, without a source, that it was inhabited by the alNusayrat Bedouin tribe ―who had settled in this area at an unknown date…in the late nineteenth century.‖756 The censuses did not indicate that it had any residents. Another interesting settlement, Kh. Khreish (Khureish) was southwest of Kh. Ras Atiya and was slightly larger in appearance, as if it was a decent sized hamlet. It appears on the Index of Settlements in the Nablus sub-district but does not appear on the censuses and in 1945 is listed with no population. There is no explanation why and it appears quite clearly to be a small village or hamlet.757 Aerial photographs from 1944 show it to be about the same size (15 houses) as Kafr Bara which it was just a kilometer north of.758 Grossman and Safrai list it as an early off-shoot of Kafr Thulth. Based on interviews with Haj Mustafa Hatib, a villager, they conclude that it was founded after 1880 by peasants, one of whom amassed 40 hectares at the site.759 In contrast to these hamlets there were four Ghabbats (Arabic: forests) that existed on the census. These were summer pasturing areas for villages in the interior including Miska and Jaiyus. Ghabbat (Ghabat) Jaiyus was described by the PEF as ―a few mud hovels occupied as an 'Azbeh, or summer residence for those in charge of the herds and 755 Memoirs, Samaria, map X, page 141. Khalidi, All, p. 566. The rest of Khalidi‘s description shows the level of inaccuracy in his text. He notes that Zababida ―was described as a moderate sized village situated at the south edge of an arable place‖ and he quotes ―Survey of Western Palestine, 1881, Vol. II, p. 229.‖ But when one goes to this citation they find themselves under Sheet XII and there is an entry for ―Zebabdeh‖. Yet this Zababdeh was not the Kh. Zababdeh located in Tulkarm sub-district but rather a village two maps away on the survey northeast of Nablus in the Samarian hills. This is one of many inaccuracies, another occurs on Khalidi p. 515 where he states that Dalhamiya was ―predominantly Christian.‖ There is no evidence of this fact. The 1931 census shows 13 Christians at the site and 1 Jew and 226 Muslims. In 1945 the village had 390 Muslims and 20 Christians. 757 1:20,000 Qalqilya. 758 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS 3 6166, 10 December, 1944. 759 David Grossman and Zeev Safrai, ‗Satellite Settlements in Western Samaria‘, Geographical Review, vol. 70, No. 4 (Oct 1980), p. 455. 756 297 flocks sent down to graze on the plain. It had a cistern to the north.‖760 Birkat Ramadan was not a pasturing area but a swamp which appears in the Village Statistics for no apparent reason.761 Given these disparities in the Tulkarm region it seems clear that it is necessary to call into question the 1945 estimate. In the Nablus sub-district there were another three hamlets that should be considered. Kafr Atiya was a seasonal settlement of Jurish and this apparent from the fact it appears as part of Jurish in 1931 and 1945. It was a ruin with a tomb for al Hajj Abu Aminor. Kh. Sir was a seasonal settlement of Qiryat Hajja and was recognized as a separate village by the Mandatory authorities after 1941 although there was some protest from the assistant District Commissioner who felt it should remain a daughter village of Qiryat Hajja.762. Kh. Kashda had the appearance of the Khan although the PEF only found ―traces of ruins.‖763 It was a seasonal settlement of Tubas, as evidenced by a letter from the District Commissioner of Nablus, dated 1944 in which he mentioned its lands belonged to Tubas and had the same Mukhtar..764 Both Kashda and Atiya were located on the eastern slopes of the hills of Samaria, overlooking the Jordan valley whereas Kh. Sir was on the western side overlooking the coastal plain. Although the 1:20,000 maps show the settlements as being more than just houses or abandoned ruins it is not clear if they were populated year round. With the knowledge that Ein Rafa, which had the appearnece of only solitary houses was populated it would not be surprising if they were. 760 Memoirs, pg 135, map X. Although other researches have tried to provide this cite with a history that involves settlement and Bedouin with land rights dating to the 19th century. See Geremy Forman and Alexander Kedar, ‗Colonialism, Colonization and the Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al-Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, vol 4: 491, p. 506. 762 Department of Land Settlement to District Commissioner, 3 August, 1941, ISA RG22/3547/LS28. The ADC argued that the Ghor al Faria settlements had a better case to be enumerated seperatly. 763 Memoirs, vol. 2 map 12, pg. 238. 764 District Commissioner Nablus to Land Settlement Department, 21 September, 1944, ISA RG22/3547/LS28,/Constitution of Villages, Nablus. 761 298 In the Haifa sub-district there are four settlements mentioned by Khalidi as inhabited but which had no population on the 1945 census and were nonetheless listed as places; Barrat (Arabic: Dunes) Qisarya, Kh. Al Burj, Kh. Al Manara and Kh. Al Mansura. Manara was a seasonal settlement of Ein Ghazal judging by their proximity. Khalidi neglects to mention Kh. Sawamir which was also a seasonal settlement of Ein Ghazal to the southwest. Barrat Qisarya had no Arab settlers athough it apparently had a number of nomads, as many as 41 families in the 1920s, who had resided or pastured there since the 1870s.765 Much of its lands, stretching all the way down to the Kabara swamps, were State land leased to Jews.766 Al Burj had the appearance of a Khan on the road from Caesaria leading inland. The PEF noted ―Walls and foundations without any indication of date.‖767 Kayasir was an obvious hamlet that was in the suburbs of Shefa‘amr and is listed in a footnote to the 1945 Village Statistics as being part of Shafa‘amr‘s rural area and having 292 inhabitants. According to Khalidi its residents traced their ancestry to North Africa.768 Abbasi includes it in his list of Algerian villages, and this is probably accurate, as its sister settlement of Hawsa was also Algerian.769 Manshiya Zabda is worth exploring, as are two Bedouin settlements around Tabor called Kh. Umm al Ghannam and Shibli. In the case of Manshiya Zabda it seems clear that there was no settlement there in the 1940s. Later villagers from Ilut would establish a small hamlet in an area north of Nahalal. However at Umm al Ghannam and Shibli, which were included in the village of Mount Tabor for census purpouses, there is a clear See Geremy Forman and Alexander Kedar, ‗Colonialism, Colonization and the Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al-Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, vol 4: 491, p. 506. 766 See M. Shertok to Canon Bridgeman, July 1st, 1936, CZO S25/6563. This included the 34,600 dunam Kabara concession. 767 Memoris Map VIII, pg. 53 El Bureij, 768 Memoris, p. 171. 769 Abbasi, ‗From Algeria,‘ p. 42. 765 299 indication from late Mandate maps that houses had been constructed in a dispersed Bedouin manner on the south and northeast sides of Mount Tabor.770 However aerial photos from 1945 show no houses or tents in Umm al Ghannam, only in Shibli.771 Evidently if this was a settled area it was established in the last days of the Mandate. Grossman has described them as seasonal settlements.772 Another settlement near Shefa‘amr but mentioned in the Statistics in a footnote to Shfa‘Amr was Kh. Ras Ali, a collection of houses, described by Gideon Golany as a Bedouin settlement.773 An aerial photo from 1945 shows seven houses.774 Not mentioned in the statistics Umm al Alaq in the area inland from Jisr al Zarqa and near the Jewish village of Benyamina in the line of hills that rises up west of the shoreline in that area. A very small hamlet which had been an estate of Salim Khuri, it does not appear on any lists except on the map.775 In the 1942 revision of the Survey of Palestine map (1:20,000) a tiny Jewish settlement named ―Tel Tsur‖ appears for the first time near it. An examination of an aerial photo from 1944 reveals one house with a walled dunam and it appears to be abandoned.776 Umm al Qatuf, west of Wadi Ara, not far from Barta‘a and Sheikh Meiser, was another settlements that does not appear on the census. It is apparent from the maps that it grew from a ruin into a small seasonal settlement with a collection of seven houses, much like Ein Rafa. 770 771 See 1:20,000 Survey of Israel Map, Tabor, 1950. Mount Scopis aerial photo archive, PS8 5024, 2 January, 1945. 772 Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and its offshoots in Ottoman Palestine. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, 1994 (Hebrew). See maps and appendix. 773 Village Statistics 1945, p. 15; Gideon Golany, Bedouin Settlement in the Alonim Shfar’am Hill Region, Jerusalem: Ministry of the Interior, 1966 (Hebrew), p. 25. 774 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS11 5096, 4 January 1945. 775 Salim Khuri, from a conversation with Ruth Kark, December 21, 2010. 776 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS18, 4 January, 1945. 300 One thing that marks these settlements that appeared in Tulkarm, Nablus and Haifa sub-districts is that they appeared in the hills. This does not fit the pattern of settlement seen after 1931 where most new Arab settlements appeared in the plains and consisted of Bedouins. What these daughter villages represent is a continuation of the pattern that was common between 1871 and 1922 where villages gave birth to off-shoots. These settlement such as Majdal, Khreish and Umm al Qatuf also originated in similar areas where there was little Jewish settlement and few settlements whatsoever. They all appeared on former ruins. In the Acre sub-district there were four interesting places that appeared. At Kammana there were a few scattered houses which eventually became a number of small Bedouin hamlets after 1948 including Kammana, Arab Suweid, Ras al Ein and Salame. As was the case with Ein Rafa, this settlement only consisted of a few homes built in a greatly scattered pattern in a semi-circle around the base of the ridge of Kammana in the central Galilee. It was a Bedouin settlement of the Arab Suweid tribe. The Christian village of Bassa seems to have used the area around Masub, which was to the east of it, as a seasonal settlement or pasturing area but not as a permanent settlement.777 Farthur to the north on the Lebanese border a small Christian hamlet arose at Mansura (See Figure 53). This had been mentioned by the PEF as ―Scattered stones, Birkeh near (See Figure 54).‖778 Maps from the Mandate period show the hamlet, some scattered homes nearby and a church named Mar Hanna.779 In the 1946 version of the 1:250,000 Index to Settlements it appears with Fassuta. What is most interesting about this settlement is that it was a Christian settlement and is probably one of the few examples of the 777 Khalidi, All, p. 6. Memoirs, Vol. 1 map Iv, page 242. 779 1:20,000, Sasa, Survey of Palestine 1932, corrected 1942. 778 301 establishment of a new Christian Arab settlement in the period. Khalidi mentions it but only to note that it was ―part of Lebanon until 1923… predominatly Christian…church.‖780 It was probably a daughter village of some sort of Fassuta. One descendant of the villagers claims the settlement‘s church, which still exists in a ruined condition, was called ―Mar Youhanna Mansoura‖ and was constructed by the Maronite Matar family from Ein Ebel in southern Lebanon in 1929.781 Could the residents have come all the way from Ein Ebel, a dozen kilometers to the northeast? The last interesting place in the Acre sub-district is that of the castle of Jiddin which Khalidi noted was ―built by the Crusaders…not used again until 1780, when Zahir al-'Umar ]refurbished it[…Ahmad Pasha al-Jazzar razed the fortress in about 1772….Until 1948 the 'Arab al-Suwaytat Bedouin lived in the ruined fortess…pitching their tents."782 From the PEF‘s 1882 map it would appear the place was inhabited if it were not for the fact that the PEF noted the place was ―A Saracenic castle built by Dhaher al'Amr during his rebellion against Turkish power. Some parts of the castle are still in a fair state of repair, thought it is entirely deserted and is rapidly falling to pieces…a photograph in the PEF new series shows the general characteristics of the buildings.‖783 Jiddin would not be the only example of an inhabited former fortress in Palestine, Belvoir near Baysan was also inhabited year round in the 1870s and known as Kaukab al Hawa. According to the 1945 Village Statistics the ‗Arab es Suweitat were living in the nearby substantial Arab villageof Tarshiha and not in the fortress. Jewish settlers arrived in 1946 and established Kibbutz Yehiam at the site and there is no 780 Khalidi, All ,pg 24. Issam Matar, Palestine Remembered web site, posted Feb. 26, 2010, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/al-Mansura/Story16789.html. 782 Khalidi, All pg 19 783 Memories Vol 1. pg 185, map 3 781 302 mention of a struggle with the local Bedouin, indicating that the Bedouin were gone by that time. In the Safed sub-district there were five places mentioned by Khalidi that have no population in the census or estimates; Arab esh Shamalina (Kh. Abu Zeineh), Harrawi, Hamra, Urayfiyya, al Wayziyya. Hamra was part of another new settlement named Muftahira and was associated with it. At Kh. Abu Zeineh or Shunet Esh Shemalneh the PEF found ―modern Arab graneries and slight traces of modern ruined houses."784 Khalidi concurs that ―it was inahbited by the settled members of the Arab al-Shamalina Bedouin tribe.‖785 The PEF map seems to show it was already inhabited at that time but no mention is made in the memories. It is clear that by the 1940s it was inhabited as a Bedouin village stretching north from where the Jordan pours into the Sea of Galilee.786 It was on the border so only a few houses of the tribe were located inside Palestine according to aerial photos from 1944.787 Harrawi, by contrast, was not inhabited at all despite Khalidi‘s claim that ―the people of Harrawi were descendants of Bedouin from the Arab al-Hamdun tribe. Some of them continued to migrate in winter to the lowlands."788 Urifiyya was a small hamlet of five homes located on the Syrian border. Weiziya was a full fledged hamlet and Khalidi adds that there was ―a shrine for Shaykh al-Wayzi lay about .5 km from the site; to the west of the shrine there was a stone quarry. The bulk of the villagers were Bedouin who earned their livelihood from animal husbandry."789 The tomb is clearly visible on Mandatory era maps and was not far from 784 Memoires pg 396, map VI. Khalidi, All, p 435. 786 1:20,000 Tabigha, overprirnt 1942. 787 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS 10 5039, January 1945. 788 Khalidi, All ,pg 454. 789 Khalidi, All pg 503. 785 303 the Jewish settlements of Mishmar Ha-Yarden and Mehanayim. In 1922 the tribal area of Waziya had 30 members. It was included in Rosh Pina in 1931. The Birzeit University Documentation and Research Center claims that it had a population of 100 in 1945.790 A Mandatory official coorespondence from 1938 mentions the village as including a locality or hamlet known as Juraba.791 There were a number of small hamlets that should be considered as well from the Safed region. These include Kh. Jeisi and Kh Khati, which were in Zanghariya (See Figure 55), Kh. Sirin which was in Esh Shuna, Kh. Es Summan which was east of Dawwara on the Syrian border and Kh. Uqeima which was in Kh. Al Hiqab‘s lands. Uqeima was probably a Khan from its appearance. The PEF noted ―foundations of walls of well dressed stones, medium sized heaps of stones, some larger than ordinary, several lintels and door posts, three sarcophoga, and cisterns.‖792 These were all small homesteads with just a few dwellings but each probably represents a daughter village of the nearby enumeration. They represent the increasing populating of the areas north of the Sea of Galilee and its environs. The phenomenon of hamlets that appear to have been populated in the mid 1940s that either do not appear on the census or appear but have no population cannot be entirely solved. Maps clearly show that some of these settlements were probably inhabited. Aerial photographs would not solve the problem. Even if they showed people in the settlements they would not prove that they were inhabited year round. Because some of the settlements were clearly daughter villages or seasonal villages one way of 790 Khalidi, All Khalidi pg. 503. Land Registry to Director of Land Registration, 8 December, 1938, ‗Constitution of Village‘, ISA RG22/3553/8-M. The word ‗locality‘ was used by Mandate officials to describe place names that were not inhabited but were known by people in the region. 792 'Kh. UKmeih', pg. 248, Vol. 1, map 4. 791 304 determining when they became inhabited would be to interview their inhabitants. However even with Ein Rafa, where the history is well documented, it is clear that there are mistakes and holes in the memories of individuals. Examining the ownership of the lands would add to the picture but not complete the answer. Some villages were owned completely by the government or almost completely by Jewish organizations and yet neither necessarily affected whether or not people resided in them. To sum up, this research identified 43 settlements who were candidates for inclusion in this study of new villages. Twenty-seven of these settlements appear on the 1945 census without a population. In total they included 109,000 dunams. This is due to the fact that most of them were located in regions that were relatively uninhabited. Khureiba for instance was located in the Carmel and although it was probably not inhabited (it appears as one house) there was very little around it. The closest village was a dozen kilometers to the northwest. Kh. Ammuriya, which was also not inhabited, was located in a vacume of population. The closest village was to the southeast, Al Burj, and to the north there was nothing for many kilometers. Walid Khalidi‘s All That Remains only mentioned sixteen of these hamlets but he choose to mention many that were clearly uninhabited and missed many that were clearly inhabited. For instance in the Beersheba district he mentions Khalisa but not Al Jebba or Sawarika. He also misses Kh. Jeisi, Khati, Sirin and Summan which were settled and instead mentions Harrawi, which was not. This inconsistency calls into question his method for choosing what constituted a ―village‖ and what did not. He based his final village list on the works of others, culling some and adding others, as well as relying on the censuses and estimated. Since the 1945 census included some of these places Khalidi 305 evidently felt compelled to include them as well. What is surprising, given the nature of his work, is that he missed some of these inhabited hamlets and does not include them in other enumerations in which the Mandate included them, such as Zangariya (Kh. Jeisi and Khati) and Shuna (Sirin). He overlooked them apparently due to the fact that these places were included in other enumerations on the census. This research found, tentatively, that 26 of these settlements were inhabited.793 It cannot be said conclusively that they were inhabited year round in every case. This is especially true of the ten off-shoots of Dura that were discussed, where the aerial photos and period maps unfortunately do not provide the final word on their status. Of these, 9 exist today as Arab villages; Ein Rafa, Kh. Beit Awwa, Kh. Ras Atiya, Kh. Sheikh Meiser, Kh. Sir, Kafr Atiya, Kh. Kashda, Kh. Ras Ali and Umm Qatuf. Of these, two were Bedouin villages and the rest were daughter villages that began as seasonal settlements. In total, 8 settlements were Bedouin settlements and 18 were daughter villages. One cannot ignore the fact that Bedouin tribes figure prominently in these new settlements and this process of Bedouin sedenterization was clear throughout the Mandate. In the wake of the Bedouin Control Ordinance of 1942 it was clearly Mandatory policy to settle and control Bedouins throughout the country and this manifested itself in their increasing lack of mobility and decision to settle. The existence of these hamlets points to a very interesting phenomenon. The processes that affected the Arab population of Palestine after 1871 generally encouraged 793 Kh. Zakariyya, Kh. El Burj, Kh. Beit Awwa, al Tahta, Kh. Jiddin, Weiziya, Kh. El Jebba, Kh. Sawarika, Ein Rafa, Kh. El Burj and Bir Burim, Kh. Majdal, Kh. Ras Atiya, Kh. Es Sh. Meisar, Kh. Sir, Kafr Atiya, Kh. Kashda, Kh. Kasayir, Kh. El Manara (Haifa sub.), Kh. Mansura (Haifa sub.), Kh. Ras Ali, Kh. Sasam Umm el Alaq, Shibli/Umm al Ghanem, Kh. Mansura, Kh. es Summan, Kh. Uqeima. 306 new settlements to be established in the plains and valleys of the country. However these 26 new settlements were not concentrated in these areas. Two of them were in the Negev. One was in the Judean hills. Six were in the Samarian hills and foothills. One, and possible more, were in the Hebron hills. Eight were in the Galilean hills. That is fourteen total settlements in the hill country. This is more than fifty percent which is quite a difference compared with the general trends seen in the Mandate period. As pointed out previously part of what accounts for this was a lack of room in the coastal plain which by this time had been parceled out to new Jewish and Arab settlements. The other process that is clear is that of a continuing expansion of Arab villages by way of the creation of seasonal villages. Thus two things stand out; the villages were either located in marginal environments away from other settlements (i.e the Negev) or very cloe to existing villages. There was not a middle ground in this because these villages were not full fledged villages the way Farwana or Beit Jiz had grown into, these were hamlets and their appearance generally occurred in middling areas between geographic areas; such as in the northern Negev or the area where the Samarian foothills pour out into the coastal plain. 307 Chapter 5: The demography of the villages, 1922-1948 Establishing the fact that new settlements arose in the various periods under consideration and analyzing those settlements is the primary goal of this study. However it is also necessary to examine the continued growth of the settlements throughout the periods under consideration. Thus we must examine what became of the villages established between 1871 and 1922 and we must also examine what became of villages established between 1922 and 1931. Maps, newspaper accounts, censuses and aerial photos provide a great deal of information on this subject. In most cases the development of these villages was similar and demographically consistent, not only with eachother, but also with neighbouring villages. Thus is it is not worthwhile to examine every village studied but rather to examine a number of cases that will provide both unique examples or exceptions and those that illustrate the general rule. Population increase The Village Statistics of the Mandate period are often referred to, incorrectly, as censuses. They were not. They were population estimates based on mathmetical models that examined what had happened between 1922 and 1931 and, with modifications, applied that model of population growth to the period 1931 to 1938. The statistics were derived for whole districts and then ―allocated to each locality.‖794 Few researchers have examined in detail the methodology of these estimates or asked important questions about their accuracy. In examining the growth of the new Arab settlement we are provided with a chance to do just that and to draw conclusions about what the estimates may or may not accurately tell us about these settlements. 794 Explanatory note, Village Statistics, 1945. 308 The Ramla district‘s population increased from 72,579 in 1931 to 92,342 in 1945.795 The nomadic population of Ramla district increased from 3,531 in 1931 to 3,780 in 1945.796 The 1945 Village Statistics admits that ―the estimates for the whole of Palestine are to be considered as more reliable than those for the sub-districts, while the sub-district estimates can, in turn, be considered as more reliable than those of the individual localities.‖797 Like the 1938 Village Statistics it was also based on the 1931 Census of Palestine. The average growth of 10 of the newly established villages for which we have consistent statistics for from 1931 to 1938 was 14%.798 Between 1938 and 1945 it is 209%. This is due to massive increases at Wadi Hunein, Khirbat Beit Far, Deir Muheisin, Mukheizin, Umm Kalkha and Beit Susin which increased over 100% in just seven years. The 1945 estimate does not explain where it came up with these extraordinary numbers. In the Jerusalem sub-district we can examine the case of Islin. If we compare it to the population growth of Artuf, a village that existed in 1880, we find that Artuf had 181 people in 1922, 253 in 1931, 290 in 1938 and 350 in 1945. If one examines the growth rates of these villages they appear to be remarkably similar: 1922 Islin 132 Percent increase 1931 186 40.90% 1938 214 15.05% 1945 260 21.49% Artuf 181 253 290 350 Percent Increase 39.77% 14.62% 20.68% Table 5.1 Population increase of selected villages 1922-1945 Source: Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938. 795 It was 78,663 in 1938. It was 4,316 in 1938. 797 Census of Palestine, 1945, ‗Explanatory Note,‘ pp. 1-2. 798 Beit Jiz, Beit Susin, Kh. Buweiriya, Deir Muheisin, Kharruba, Kh. Beit Far, Mukheizin, Sajad, Umm Kalkha and Wadi Hunein. 796 309 This is not a conclusive survey of the villages west of Jerusalem but because these villages appear to have been so close to one another it is safe to assume similar characteristics affected them both. That was apparently the assumption of the Mandatory compilers of the Statistics who ―allocated‖ the same growth rate to each settlement. It appears that villagers from Eshua probably expanded into Islin but that is not reflected by subtracting villagers from the parent village. If we had population figures for the first two decades of the 20th century it is likely this movement would have been evident. Like many other places in Palestine Islin was a daughter village, a seasonal settlement that became permanently occupied. The growth rate of Beit Thul is almost identical to the village of Islin, which like Beit Thul had been a ruin in 1880 and became a village by the time of the 1922 census. In addition it is almost identical to the growth rates of other villages, for instance: Qabu, Beit Naqquba and Sharafat, that had existed before 1871. Nevertheless there are other small villages whose growth rates were not identical or were in fact very different. 310 Sample Villages and growth rates 1922 – 45 1922 1931 1938 Beit Thul 133 182 36.84% 209 14.84% 1945 260 24.40% Villages in the Jerusalem District with similar growth rates „Artuf 181 253 290 350 39.78% 14.62% 20.69% Islin 132 186 214 260 40.91% 15.05% 21.50% al-Qabu 139 192 221 260 38.13% 15.10% 17.65% Beit Naqquba 120 177 204 240 47.50% 15.25% 17.65% Sharafat 106 158 182 210 49.06% 15.19% 15.38% Villages in the Jerusalem District with different growth rates Qalandiya 122 120 138 190 -1.64% 15.00% 37.68% Judeira 122 139 160 190 13.93% 15.11% 18.75% Wadi Fukin 149 205 219 280 37.58% 6.83% 27.85% al-Nebi Samwil 121 138 159 200 14.05% 15.22% 25.79% Table 5.2 Village growth rates 1922-1945 Source: Palestine Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922, taken on the 23rd of October, 1922. Compiled by J.B Barron, printed in Jerusalem by the Greek-Convent Press; Census of Palestine, 1931. E. Mills, Superintendent of Census, Jerusalem, July, 1932; Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938; Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945. This list tells us a number of significant things. First of all it illustrates that in the case of Islin and Beit Thul, both of which were ruins in 1880, there was extraordinary similarity in their population growths. Even in the case with villages that had different growth rates, the rate for 1931-1938 was almost identical across the board. This was because the Mandatory authorities simply applied a similar multiplier to villages in similar areas, assuming that they all grew at the same rate and not taking into account 311 inter-village migration or the creation of new villages where some of the population of an older village might transfer to the new one.799 When examining the growth rates of various villages one finds that the Village Statistics never took into account the history of a village. Thus if a village had been a daughter village of a neighbouring village the statistics do not then lower the growth of the parent village in regards to the fact that some of its population might have transferred to the new off-shoot. In the Gaza sub-district one finds that the growth rates for the five villages that appear on all the censuses and estimates have very different growth rates between 1922 and 1931 than they do after.800 Thus Jaladiya declined by 1.7% between 1922 and 1931 while Muharaqqa doubled in population. Between 1931 and 1938 all the villages have a growth rate of 14-15%. From 1938 to 1945 Jaladiya and Kaufakha have a growth rate of 37% (See Figure 56). This points to the fact that the estimates for 1938 and 1945 may be unreliable. Is it logical to assume that villages all grew at very different rates from 1922 to 1931 and then suddenly grew at the exact same rate for the next seven years? The problem with a population estimate is that it must be uniform within certain bounds. Thus it is no surprise that the estimate would have averaged the growth rates for the five villages and applied them to the next period under consideration, but this statistical work may not reflect, in any way, the actual demographic development of these villages. In the end the growth for these villages between 1922 and 1945 is shown to be far from uniform. While Muharraqqa grew 187%, Jaladiya only grew by 55%. 799 See Village Statistics, 1938, p. 3 and the introduction to Village Statistics 1945 for the explanation of the shortfalls of this system, readily admitted by those who created it. 800 Jaladiya, Kaufakha, Muharaqqa, Kh. Khisas and Masmiya es Saghira. 312 The Jenin sub-district‘s new village population growth between 1922 and 1931 was highly irregular. Arrabuna grew by 1% while Zibda declined by 12%. Yet Tilfit grew by 422% and Kufeirat grew by 182%. Barta‘a grew by 47%. These irregularities appear to be solely due to geographic location. The hamlets located on the eastern edge of the Samarian hills grew greatly while those located on the western slopes grew or declined only slightly. Yet the 1938 estimate tells us that they all grew at exactly 16% between 1931 and 1938. Between 1938 and 1945 we see them growing between 20 and 35%. This points to the fact that the 1938 estimate was just that, an estimate. It had, apparently, little basis in reality. The 1945 estimate attempted, it appears, to be more selective in appling growth rates so that not all the villages in a given sub-district were shown to grow by the exact same rate. But it too produced an estimate that was showed regular growth rates. Jewish settlement and the abandonment or relocation of villages One process that affected many of the new Arab settlements was the constant pressure from expanding Jewish settlements. In regions such as Baysan, Jezreel, the Huleh and the Sharon a great deal of the land came under Jewish ownership by 1948. By 1948 the JNF owned 954,843 dunams and Jewish owned land amounted to more than 1,850,000 dunams.801 The purchasing of land by Jewish organizations increasingly led to the construction, once (1946) in the course of a single night using pre-fabricated materials, of ‗tower and stockade‘ settlements. The first of these was built at Kafr Hittim in December of 1936. More than fifty such settlements were built. One example of these was Ein Gev, a settlement constructed in July of 1937 next to Nuqeib. Maps indicate the 801 Katz, Battle, appendix 3. 313 change in landholding from Nuqeib to Ein Gev between 1940 and 1946 whereby the name attached to the holding changed from Nuqeib to Ein Gev on the Index of Settlements map. The settlement of Nuqeib also moved during the period, originally Schumacher put it where Ein Gev stands today, then it was marked as ―ruined‖ south of Ein Gev and appears in a 1944 aerial photo north of Ein Gev along the shore in one appear to be newly fabricated huts.802 Ein Gev was established on land purchased by the JNF in 1936 because JNF officials felt that ―it is desirable that the entire vicinity of the Sea of Galilee will be located within areas of Jewish-owned land.‖803 One of the leaders of the Kibbutz, Teddy Kollek, became friendly with the Arabs of Nuqeib and was known as ‗Hawaja Teddy.‖804 The establishment of the Jewish settlement does appear to have affected the population growth of Nuqeib which rose from 103 in 1922 to 287 in 1931 to 331 in 1938 but then declined to 310 in 1945. In contrast nearby Samra rose from 273 to 290 between 1938 and 1945. This was not the case at Dalhamiya, which was of one the estates owned by the sultan, Abdul Hamid II. This village had been noted by Edward Robinson on the eastern bank of the Jordan.805 Later a map from 1908 by Schumacher noted it on both sides of the river.806 Grossman marks it on his maps in Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and its offshoots in Ottoman Palestine as a seasonal settlement.807 It also became a stop on the railine linking Haifa to the Hijaz railway. Khalidi notes that ―Zionist land reclaimation projects near Lake Tiberias expanded the villagers were displaced and so 802 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS1 5012, December 1944 Katz, Battle, p. 88. 804 Teddy Kollek: The man, his times and his Jerusalem: Gefen, Jerusalem: 2008, p.15. 805 Robinson travels in 1838 published 1841, III, pg 264. 806 Karte de Ostjordan Landes, Dr. G. Schumacher, 1908. JNUL map library. 807 David Grossman, Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and its offshoots in Ottoman Palestine. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, 1994 (Hebrew). See maps and appendix. 803 314 they relocated their village farther east, near the Yarmuk.‖808 Two Jewish settlements arose near it, Ashdot Yaacov (founded 1924) and Menahamia (founded 1901). Maps from the Mandate period show both the ruins of old Dalhamiya and the new area of Dalhamiya to the east which was composed of a few houses. This movement and dispersion of the settlement is reflected in the census. In 1922 it had 349 Arab residents and by 1931 this had declined to 240. In 1945 it had 410. Jisr al Majami, near Baysan, and Kh. Sarkas, near Tulkarm, are two examples of villages that once existed and due to Jewish settlement and other factors ceased to exist during the period. Jisr al Majami had 112 residents in 1922. By 1931 it had only 3. In 1939 the Jewish settlement of Gesher was established on its lands. Over the years the settlement of Kh. Sarkas had been unstable and had been abandoned at least once and repopulated.809 It had 70 residents in 1922 and 383 by 1931 but afterwards apparently ceased to exist although it continues to show up in aerial photos.810 Nearby Pardes Hanna (purchased in 1913 and settled in 1926) and Gan Shmuel (established intermintadly between 1898 and 1924) encroached and eventually subsumed the village's lands. Irregular growth rates Other villages experienced negative growth rates. Kh. Butaymat declined by 19% between 1922 and 1945 from 137 to 110 residents. Nasr ed Din declined by 17% from 109 to 90 villagers. Qira wa Qamun declined from 134 to 86 residents between 1922 and 1931 and then, oddly, rose to a population of 410 by 1945. This could be due to involvement with Jewish residents from nearby Kibbutz HaZorah at the site, which they 808 Khalidi, All, p. 515. Fischel, Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, p. 164. 810 Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS4 5008, 10 December 1944. 809 315 were known to have used in 1936 and 1944 as a temporary camp.811 Tell esh Shauk declined from 58 to 41 reisdents between 1922 and 1931 before jumping to 120 in 1945. In some cases the tremendous growth of a settlement can be seen on Aerial photographs. Deir Muheisin is one such example. This village had 113 residents in 1931, 129 by 1938 and 460 by 1945. Normally one might consider this 307% increase in only 14 years extraordinary and perhaps problematic. Yet Shai aerial photos from 1948 show clearly that the village truly expanded greatly, increasing in size by a factor of five in terms of the total area covered by houses (See Figure 57). It grew out along a road, expanding from a small core to a large dispersed settlement. What precipitated this growth is not clear and it does not logically follow that it could have been due to natural increase. But if the village was established as an off-shoot, it had not existed in the 1922 census, then where did the villagers come from? If they came from a nearby village it is not clear if the census took this population transfer into account. At Jahula we see an increase of 96% between 1922 and 1945. The Shai photos show that this is quite reasonable. When compared to the map the photos show a large growth from a few houses to a village on both sides of a road. Some new settlements experienced extreme growth. Wadi Hunein, for instance, increased from 195 residents in 1922 to 1,620 in 1945. But this may not have been completely unreasonable. We know that the JNF was induced to purchase an 800 dunam property near Nes Ziona in 1942 precisely because, as Katz explains it, the fear that ―the orchard would be sold to an Arab party who would establish an additional Arab neighbourhood at the location in addition to the already existing neihgbourhood on the 811 Stern, Caravanseries, p. 147. It was include in Yokneam in the 1945 Village Statistics, p. 15. 316 other side of the Moshava.‖812 This makes clear that this area was experiencing an expansion of the Arab estates which had been established, partly by the Taji effendi family who resided near the Jewish Moshav. At Mansi (Haifa sub) the population increased 1600% between 1922 and 1945 but this must have been due to the inclusion of the entire Arab Baniha tribe in the statistics from 1945. Ghazawiyya‘s 1422% increase in population was due to the same inclusion. Sometimes the growth of a village can be seen on the Mandatory 1:20,000 maps, thus providing clear evidence for the census data. At Bawati, Barta‘a, Ghawarina (Jisr al Zarqa) and Kafr Bara and Yamma the growth is clearly illustrated on the map. At Bawati and Ghawarina the growth is pronounced and clear on the 1942 overprint of the 1930 Survey of Palestine map as well as on the first maps made by the Survey of Israel after 1948 in which the 1:20,000 British maps were updated with an overprint. At Bawati the 1942 overprint in purple shows nine new houses. Unfortunatly in most cases the maps do not show this growth, either because it took place after 1942 or because the growth of villages did not result in the creation of isolated houses away from the nucleus of the settlement but merely the addition of more houses to the nucleated settlement. In fact it is primarily Bedouin settlements where one is most likely to see the growth since the typical nucleated settlements grew in a very different manner, especially in the early Mandate. Later, as was the case at Barta, they spread out with dispersed individual houses unconnected to the village being established, along with villas and farmsteads. 812 See Katz, Battle, p. 200 and KKL 10, minutes of the JND directorate, 23/4/1942. 317 The Case of the ‘Constitution of Villages’ 1941 The Censuses and estimates were official documents published by the Mandatory administration. However there exists an interesting record from 1941 entitled the ―Constitution of Villages, 1941‖813 compiled by Sami Hadawi, a Palestinian Christian who was born in 1904 in Jerusalem and worked for the Office of the Commissioner for lands and Surveys. Before 1941 he had worked for the Land Settlement Department between 1920 and 1927 and was involved in the compilation of the 1945 Village Statistics.814 This data set includes all the villages mentioned on the 1938 Statistics and provides an interesting window into changes that took place between 1938 and 1945. Logically very little change could have taken place demographically between 1938 and 1941. It is not the only ‗Constitution of Villages‘ prepared during the Mandate. Similar lists were prepared during the 1930s and after 1941, some were used as source material for the 1938 and 1945 estimates. The district officers kept these in special files named ‗Constitution of Villages‘ and they were expected to update them.815 It is here where coorespondence sometimes sheds light on the additions and subtractions of enumerations, such as recognized villages, from the official Mandatory lists. It is worth examining this specific one because we know a great deal about who prepared it and because the author has obtained a complete set of the sheets on which it was prepared. The 1941 Constitution of Villages can shed light on population changes and other information Copies in the possession of Ruth Kark‘s archive at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt. Scopus, Geography Department. Also List of Villages, Baisan sub-district, B117, 2607 N, RG23 ISA, RG22. 814 See Sally Bland, ‗Sami Hadawi, the scholar who could‘nt go home‘, April 2224, http://middleeastwindow.com/node/360. On June 20th, 1939 his colleague, Dakran Ohaniyan was killed in a terrorist attack in Jerusalem and he attended the funeral, ‗Government Land Officer Buried in Jerusalem‘, Palestine Post, June 21st, 1939. He was laid to rest at St. Paul‘s church. 815 For instance, Sub-district Land files, Constitution of Villages, Nablus, ISA RG22/3547/LS28M. 813 318 regarding settlement in Mandatory Palestne. In the cases where population changes are dramatic it is worthwhile to pause and examine what this implies. The first place we see an irregularity is at Salbit where there is a population increase of 176%. There is no explanation for this except that a nearby ruin named Deir Nahla is included in Salbit. At al Nebi Musa there is an increase of 31% and at Duyuk it is 50% (346 to 550 residents). At Abu Kishk there was a decrease of 26% (from 1629 to 1200). At Manara in Tiberias sub-district there was an increase of 102%. At Jahula there is an unexplainable 517% increase (405 to 2500). At Mansi in the Haifa sub-district we see that Hadawi recorded the population of Mansi (Arab Baniha) was 2,000. In 1945 it was recorded as only 1,200, one of the few instances where Hadawi recorded a higher number in 1941 than that found in 1945. None of these increases can be explained through the Mandatory maps and they may shed light on accuracy problems with the 1938 and 1945 estimates. In some instances the 1941 estimate does not shed any light on large iregularlities found in the 1945 estimate. For instance at Wadi Hunein we see that there were 319 residents in 1938 and 400 by 1941. In 1945 there were 1,620 residents. At Jammasin al Gharbi Hadawi reported that the population decreased from 459 to 450 in 1941. Subsequently the 1945 estimate shows it increasing to 780. How can this be possible in a period of merely four years? At Ghub al Fauqa in the Haifa district we see that the population remained the same between 1938 and 1941 and then in 1945 jumps to 1,130 from 225. There is no explanation. At Qira wa Qamun Hadawi noted an increase from 97 Arab residents in 1938 to 100 in 1941. In 1945 the estimate tells us that there were 410 residents. In the Jenin district Hadawi reported increases of 0-3%. Yet the 1945 319 census subsequently reports increases from 1941-1945 between 6% and 50%. At Barta‘a the population increased from 822 to 1222 and at Zalafa it increased from 232 to 340. Once again there is little explanation. At Bashatiwa the population increased from 488 to 500 in 1941. In 1945 it was recorded as 1,560. In all these cases the 1945 estimates logic is not explained and cannot be explained using maps or aerial photos. The only place where an aerial photo shows such an increase is at Deir Muheisin but the estimates tell us the population increased from 129 people in 1938 to 130 in 1941. Then in 1945 there are 460 people. The Shai aerial photo of the site from 1948 shows expansion since the 1930 1:20,000 map but can it truly be believed that this expansion all took place between 1941 and 1945? Obviously not. The 1941 record sheds light on the history of villages that appear on the 1945 estimate but do not appear in 1938. In the Gaza distict Arab Sukreir and Kh. Ikhza first appear in the 1941 record. respectivelly. Their populations are recorded as 500 and 1000 In Ramla sub-disrict Kh. Duhariyya first appears with 80 people in 1941. By contrast Kh. Zakariyya appears deserted. In Jaffa Sawalima first appears in 1941. In Tulkarm, Kafr Bara first appears (See Figure 58 and see Figure 59). In Haifa sub-district Arab Fuqara and Arab Nufayt first appear. Kh. Sarkas is still mentioned in Pardes Hanna with 800 Arab residents. In Acre sub-district Kh. Iribbin (140 residents) first appears along with Kh. Idmith (100 residents). In Safed sub-district Arab Shamalina (Abu Zeina), Ghabbatiya and Mansurat Al Kheit first appear in 1941. At some point it may have been an Abdul Hamid II estate known as Mansour.816 The appearance of these villages in 1941 is not a surprise. Almost all of them were Bedouin settlements and Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II and Palestine: Private Lands and Imperial Policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, (2008), 129-166. 816 320 evidently this shows a further degree of sedenterization. Even if Hadawi‘s estimates were wrong it still shows the fact that numerous new Bedouin settlements were first noted at this time. In general what this record shows is a trend towards estimation that cannot be squared with maps or aerial photos from the perod. Hadawi was apparently involved in the creation of the 1945 Village Statistics and his estimates from 1941 were thus taken into account. As an expert in land settlement his description of the blocks composing each village and the number of dunams included in each village was no doubt correct. However his population estimates are questionable. Post-script: the Villages and the 1948 war Only 32 of the new settlements that were established between 1871 and 1948 exist today (See Figure 60). Of these 11 of them were in the category of villages that were established in the last years of the Mandate or do not show up on the censuses and estimates. The fact that some of these villages still exist means a follow up study could be done on their development. That so many no longer exist in the wake of the 1948 war means that this study provides essential information on their history. 321 Chapter 6 The Baysan valley: Case Study Introduction This case study focuses on the settlement history of beduouins in the areas included in the Mandatory sub-district of Baysan. The Baysan sub-district was chosen as a unique area because of the high percentage of settlements in the sub-district that were new settlements between 1871 and 1948. The vast majority of these settlements were settled by Bedouins. This case study examines the history of Bedouin tribes of the Baysan valley that were settled on lands formerly owned by Sultan Abdul Hamid II and which were subsequently included in the British Mandatory administration's Ghor Mudawwara Land Agreement of 1921. It follows the development of fifteen different Arab villages, twelve Bedouin tribes and sub-tribes in an area of more than 380,000 metric dunams. The topic under consideration is unique because it involves the settlement of numerous Bedouin groups and the Mandatory administration‘s attempt to transfer a large swath of former government land into the hands of the local inhabitants. The study takes a long view of the processes affecting the valley, observing its development from the middle of the 19th century to the 1948 war. This allows for a complete examination of the legal processes affecting land ownership in the area, including private acquisition by the Ottoman Sultan, confiscation by the government of the Young Turks and subseqeunt development by the madatory authorities as privately owned lands of the local Arab inhabitants. This study relies on maps from the Ottoman and Mandate periods and on aerial photographs of the Baysan valley to trace land settlement, settlement fixation and the growth in Bedouin settlement in the study area. It employs archival documents from the 322 Mandate period as well as travel itineraries of surveyors and explorers from the 19th century. The use of maps, aerial photographs and archival materials allows for the tracing of land settlement patterns and changes in the landscape throughout the period under consideration. Previous to this study period Aerial photographs have not been employed to such an extent in the study of land transformation in the study area. The history of Abdul Hamid II‘s extensive land acquisitions in Palestine have been covered by Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark.817 In addition Dov Gavish has researched the history of the Ghor Mudawwara Land Agreement.818 There have been studies of the Bedouins of the Baysan valley by Warwick Tyler and Iris Agmon.819 Dov Nir was a pioneer in researching the geography of Baysan region. Yossi Katz and Orna Lotan (Erlich) have studied the role of Jewish settlement and acquisition of land by the Jewish National Fund (KKL) in the valley.820 Danny Godman has done research on the German settlement in the valley and its role on the architecture and settlement pattern.821 In addition Geremy Forman has examined the changes in landscape, population and Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II and Palestine: Private Lands and Imperial Policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39, (2008), 129-166. 818 Dov Gavish, The Ghor Mudawwara (Beit-Shean Lands) Agreement and Land Settlement in Eretz Yisrael, 13 Mehkarim b‘Geografia 13 (1992) (Hebrew). 819 Warwick Tyler, The Beisan Lands Issue in Mandatory Palestine, Middle Eastern Studies 123 (1989); Iris Agmon,, 'The Beduin Tribes of the Hula and Baysan Valleys at the End of the Ottoman Rule according to Wilayat Bayrut', International Journal of Turkish Studies (1991) 5: 47-70. 820 Dov Nir, The Geography of the Area of Beit Shean, 110-123 , (Jerusalem: Heser Mul, 1960), (Hebrew),. Dov Nir, La Vallée de Beth-Chéane; : la mise en valeur d’une région à la lisière du désert. (Paris: A. Colin, 1968) (French). Yossi Katz, ‗Tora VaAvoda BeVinyan HaAretz, Tora and Labor in the Building of Eretz Israel: The religious Kibbutz during the British Mandate‘, Research Institute for the History of the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael (Jewish National Fund) Land and Settlement: Symposium on the Occasion of the Publishing of Prof. Yossi Katz’s Book, September (1997), Vol. 29; Yossi Katz, Battle for the Land, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2005); Yossi Katz, The Religious Kibbutz Movement in the Land of Israel, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1999). 821 Danny Goldman, ‗German Settlement in the Beit-Shean Valley between the World Wars,‘ Cathedra 129, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, (2008) (Hebrew). 817 323 settlement in the valley.822 Most of the studies did not focus on the Bedouin and their sedentarization process, and this paper intends to fill this gap. The Baysan Valley: An overview The Baysan valley has always been of strategic importance as an entryway to Palestine from which invaders or mauraders can easily cross the Jordan and gain access to the interior of Palestine and through the Jezreel Valley (Marj Ibn ‗Amer) to the coast around Haifa. In the 2nd century B.C.E the city of Scythopolis arose where the modern town of Baysan exists. This Greek settlement was one of the primary administrative centers of northern Palestine. The valley‘s fertility was increased by the Roman administration through the development of aqueducts and in the 4-6th centuries it was home to an important Byzantine Christian community with some 40,000 inhabitants. It was renamed Baysan in 634 during the Arab conquest of the area and was subsequently ruined by an earhtquake in 749. During Crusader rule it was again an important strategic location, with the Crusader fort of Belvoir perched on a high point not far from the town. Following a short lived recovery under Mamluke rule the town and its environs suffered a serious decline so that by the 1872s it was described as ―a miserable hamlet of mud hovels, amid the ruins of the important town of Scythopolis.‖823 The 1596 Ottoman Geremy Forman,'The Transformation of Eastern ‗Emeq Yizre‘el/Marj Ibn ‗Amer and ‗Emeq Beit Shean/Ghor Beisan Changes in Population, Settlement and Land Tenure due to the 1948 Palestine War and the Establishment of the State of Israel', Thesis submitted for M.A degree, Supervised by: Prof. Yossi Ben-Artzi, University of Haifa, Department of Land of Israel Studies, November 2000. 823 Claude Reignier Conder, Tent Work in Paestine: A Record of Discovery and Adventure, Vol III, 69, (London: Richard Bentley, 1878). 822 324 census showed seven settlements in the valley (including Farwana and Zarra), by the 19th century these had all vanished so that only Baysan remained.824 Since the time of the Arab conquest, and especially in the 16th to 18th centuries, the valley has served as the location of numerous Bedouin tribes, the Arab al-Sakr originating from the Hijaz or Najd in Arabia and the Ghazawiya that belonged to the Misl al-Jizel (Masil al Jizl) Tribes from the Houran.825 They trasnformed the agricultural areas into grazing lands and some of the land was allowed to fall fallow and become swamp land. In the 18th century the extent and power of these tribes were frequently in competetion with the local and Ottoman government and the settled population. The Turkish Population register or salname from 1871 provides some insight into the population of the Baysan valley and the settled areas recorded by the Ottoman government. It records 13 settlements in the Baysan area, all in the hills to the northwest of Baysan. In the valley only the town of Baysan is recorded with 164 residents.826 This follows the travelers accounts and period maps that do not show any settlement among the Bedouins prior to the acquisiton of the lands by the Sultan Abdul Hamid II. The Private Lands of Abdul Hamid II (ruled 1876-1908) The Sultan acquired his private estates in the Baysan region after 1881 when large swaths of lands that were grazed by Bedouin were put up for auction after an 824 See Wold Dieter Hütteroth and Kamal Abdulfattah, Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria in the Last 16th Century, 168, (Nurnberg: Palm and Enke, 1977), and accompanying maps. 825 E. Baumann, Yon Galilaischrift Meer "Kinauf Gem Jerusalem", Pal. 5, Jahrcrich, 1906, pp. 127-128, in: Aharon Yaffe, 'Lines to the Land Redemption of Baysan Valley Lands', Karka, 35, (1992), pp. 52-59. See also article on the tribe: Taufiq Canaan, 'The Sagr Bedouin of Besan', Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, 16, (1936), pp. 21-32 (in the national Library). 826 See David Grossman, Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settement in Palestine: Distribution and Population Density during the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004), Appendix 2, Hebrew translation of the salname 1871. 325 investigation carried out between 1870 and 1872 showed that they were both uncultivated and that the nomadic inhabitants did not have rights to them.827 In 1882 a decision was made by the Ottoman government to register the lands in the name of the Sultan Abdul Hamid II.828 The Bedouins however ended up paying tithes or rent of one tenth of the produce to the sultan after he acquired the land.829 One case of the way in which the sultan acquired lands is at Bashātwa in the Jordan Valley, north to Baysān. According to a report from 1922. In 1881, 8,728 metric dunam were registered on the name of thirty individuals; in 1898, twenty-one of them sold 7,021 dunam of those lands to the Sultan. In parallel to that, other 7,720 dunam were registered on the name of other sixteen owners in 1881. In the subsequent year they sold 12/24 of their rights over these tracts to a certain Salim Efendi Mulki, and the lands came under shared ownership; the lands were sold to the Sultan in 1890. In addition, another six landowners sold fifteen tracts comprising of 3,304 dunam to the Sultan in 1898. In the title deed of 1900 in regard to this last transaction it is stated that the selling was of half the rights over the land (i.e. 12/24 shares), and it is apparent that it is the other half of the rights on the land sold by Salim Efendi Mulki in 1882. The size of the tracts mentioned here is not clear; according to the details, the Sultan should have possessed around fifteen thousand dunams, but according to the registration of lands transferred to the state after his dethronement, he held merely 7,283 dunam.830 See Depatch No. 249, Reference No. adm. 306, Government House, 23 rd, July 1921, Herbert Samuel‘s letter on the history of the State Domains around Beisan, Israel State Archive (ISA) Box 3599/File 576/RG 22, in all subsequent ISA footnotes our notes will be in the form Box/File/Record Group. . 828 Lewis French, Reports of Agricultural Development in Palestine, 3, 34-35, (London: Government of Palestine, 1932). 829 Ibid, 2. 830 ―Appendix II: Bashatweh‖, a Mandatory report of an unknown source in regard the lands of Bashātwa, found in the rear side of the file in Israel State Archive, Jerusalem (ISA), probably from 1922, see: ISA, RG 22, Box 3599, File 7. 827 326 According to a very interesting report on the Baysan çiftlik written by Baruch Basin a government agricultural agronomist who helped the German agronomist Dr. Kruger survey for two and a half months in 1917 the Ottoman Government decided to realize the reform they had wanted to carry out in the Baysan Valley since 1908. They invited Dr. Kruger from Germany (who was a scientist who also directed an agricultural experimental station in Cameroon) to prepare a detailed plan for the Baysan çiftlik. The survey included the history of the region and its land ownership, the climate, land's quality, crops, and the nomad, semi-nomad and farming population of the region and its settlement potential. The size of the çiftlik given was 550,000 dunams. In his report he mentions three large scale irrigation and settlement projects, by Nuri Bey the former administrator of the çiftlik, the German Engineer Frank, and in 1917 by Dr. Kruger. They aimed to stabilize the region and to increase the Sultan's and later the Ottoman government's income from taxes. The first two, during Abdul Hamid II era, intended to use the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan river water to improve the irrigation of the çiftlik lands. Basin himself added a few ideas in this respect as well as building or improving the bridges on the Jordan River. Since the Sultan had no income from part of his lands in the upper çiftlik he ordered his administrators to attract farmers to cultivate the land. He offered each of them a 1-2 Fedan plot (100-150 dunams) and gave them wheat, dura, and exemption from tax in the first year. This was not very successful. Most of them had to give up their lands and leased lands for a fifth of their crops or became tenants. Many of them came from the Jenin district near Nablus. Some of the fellahin in Ashrafiya came from Morocco.831 831 Baruch Basin, 'The Baysan çiftlik', 21 January 1919, The Kressel Collection, Oxford Center for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Yarnton UK, 30. 327 An interesting piece evidence for an endeavor related to transportation, which might be affected by the presence of lands in the possession of the Sultan, is the route of the Haifa branch of the Hijaz railroad. The history of this line provides us with an interesting piece of evidence for the possibility that the private lands of the Sultan were a factor in its construction. The first concession of the Haifa branch was given in 1882 to a British company, which failed to construct it, and by 1903 the Ottoman Empire took over the project. The line possessed economic importance, and its construction was motivated by the Ottoman desire to free themselves from the dependency on the French-controlled Beirut-Damascus line.832 However, the private lands of the Sultan and his wish to develop commercial agriculture in the Jordan Valley seems to have a role in this project.833 Evidence for that is suggested by comparing the route suggested by the British in 1890 and the route constructed by the Ottomans in 1904-05. The first route crossed the Yarmuk River at Al-Hamma and continued towards southwest, crossing the Jordan River in Jisr al-Majāmi‗.834 In contrast, the new route continues from al-Hamma to Samakh, thence south to Zab‗a and southwest to Khān al-Ahmar, where the Baysān station was located.835 Most lands along this route were çiftliks: the Sultan possessed lands in the following locations along the new route: al-Hamma, Samakh, Dalhamiyya, Bashātwa, David Kushner, ―The Haifa-Damascus Railway: The British Phase (1890-1922),‖ Cathedra 55 (March 1990): 89-99 (in Hebrew); Walter Pinhas Pick, ―Meisner Pasha and the Construction of Railways in Palestine and Neighboring Countries,‖ in Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914: Studies in Economic and Social History, ed. G.G. Gilbar (Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp. 190-193; Ruth Kark. ‗Transportation in 19th Century Palestine: Reintroduction of the Wheel.‘ In The Land That Became Israel. Ed. Ruth Kark, 57-76, (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1989). 833 Kushner, ―Haifa-Damascus Railway,‖ p. 89; Kark, ―Lands of the Sultan,‖ 221. 834 See map in Kushner, ―Haifa-Damascus Railway,‖ 92. 835 Beisan, 4, 1:100,000, F.J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, 1937, Mt. Scopus map library BB 900 C – [1] 1937/1. 832 328 Khān al-Ahmar and Baysān. It is apparent, therefore, that the reason for this shift was Abdülhamid II‘s desire to connect as much of his lands as possible to the railroad.836 The Sultan acquired as many as 15 estates in the Baysan valley including Bashatwa, Kawkab al Hawa, Jabbul, al-Zaba, al Murassas, Khan al Amar, Al Ghazawiyya, Baysan, Al Sakhina, Tell es Shauk, Ashrafiya, al Mafraq, Umm Ajra, Al Samariya, Al Hamra. The majority of these were in the valley and particularly along the Jordan river, culminating southeast of Baysan and then stretching from that point to the northwest, forming a large acr around Baysan. They included all the areas inhabited by Bedouins, including the lands of the Ghazawiyya and Sakr tribes. The Sultan invested in land and helped to settle people on it. At Baysān the Sultan owned 7,817 dunams.837 It is not clear when the town became the administrative center of the region or when the Ottoman government originally decided to invest in establishing the town beyond the mud hovels that had been noted by 19th century explorers. What is known is that as part of a policy to block or settle the Bedouins in southern and eastern Palestine, Transjordan, and the Syrian desert, modern urban administrative centers were established on the fringe of the settled land. In 1899, Beersheba was established, in order to enforce Ottoman control over the Bedouins in the Negev. Thus, in 1922 an urban administrative center was establishe in Baysān, with a sarai (government house), and other official buildings. While in 1891 Luncz reported that in the town 500 inhabitants resided as well as a müdir (manager or director).838 Bäedeker Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid', p. 129. Fischel and Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid‘, 2228, 158. 838 Avaraham Moshe Luncz, More Derech Be Eretz Israel Ve Surya, (Guide Book for the Land of Israel and Syria), publishe by A.M. Luncz, Jerusalem 1891, 219, 836 837 329 reported in 1904 that the population rose to 2,500 inhabitants, and that the town is located in the middle of a çiftlik.839By 1904 the town had a population of 2,500 inhabitants.840 The central government aimed at changing the way of life of the Bedouin as well. Two parallel tendencies are evident, the first is internal changes among the Bedouin communities, and the other is the endeavor of the government to turn the Bedouins into sedentary and tax paying subjects. The success was not equal in all parts of the country, as can be demonstrated by comparing Baysān and the Negev. In the 1922s, the Bedouins around Baysān usually resided in one place and were involved in agriculture. They were supervised by the local administrative system and for most paid the taxes over their crops, which were probably produced for local consumption and some were sold in the towns of northern Palestine. The Bedouin villages had a mukhtār responsible for the administration of taxes and connections with the representatives of the government, but the tribal hierarchy persisted.841 Basin relates in his 1919 report to the Bedouin and "semi-Bedouin" who immigrated to the ruined Baysan çiftlik. He claims that they came recently during the immigration waves of the Houran Bedouins, and stayed in the Joradan Valley where they found water and grazing. They divided between them, after many fights, the low lands of the çiftlik. The Ghazawiya tribe, settled on the lands of Bint al-Hamrat al-Ghazawiya, Manshiya and Sa'ina, the "Segers" (Sakr) went to west Baysan, the Bashatiwa had to settle in the plain to the north of the Ghazawiya, and the Ghor al Ghor tribe settled east of the Jordan and in Sulaimaniya. Different sections of those tribes also gained control on 839 Karl Bädeker, Palästina und Syrien: Handbuch für Reisende (Leipzig: Karl Bädeker, 1904), p. 194 (in German). 840 The Survey, PEF sheet IX, Vol II, p. 83. Karl Bäedeker, Palästina und Syrien: Handbuch für Reisende (Leipzig: Karl Bädeker, 1904), 194. 841 Gerber, Ottoman Rule, p. 23; Agmon, ―Bedouin Tribes,‖ 94-101. 330 other parts of the Valley. This was a slow process of "progressive metamophosis" among the Bedouin. They bagan farming for self consumption, and even grew irrigated vagetables. However alongside this semi-settled existence a nomadic tradition was still kept, and they preserved their political freedom in the Ottoman framework. They managed to escape conscription to the army, and paid only part of the high land, goats and sheep taxes (22.5%). Basin,noted that Dr. Kruger did not have detailed population numbers in certain points of the çiftlik. Basin's general impression was that the estimated population of the çiftlik in 1917 was 4,000 fellahin and 6,000 "semi-Bedouin".842 Names 1. Al Bira 2. Baysan 3. Bashatiwa* 4. Jabbul 5. Dana 6. Al Ashrafiya 7. Umm Ajra* 8. Al Zaba* 9. Khan Al Amir 10. A Hamiriya 11. Kaukab al Hawa 12. Kafr Misr 13. Kafra 14. Al Mafruq 15. Al Murassas 16. Al Sakhina* 17. Al Samiriya 18. Al Ghazawiyya* 19. Al Safa* 20. Tell al Shauk Total Amount (Dunams) 3870 7817 7283 4999 8200 14704 949 10145 6987 10960 4230 6536 5585 414 12878 13785 577 23894 483 3676 Acquired by 1883 1883, 1902 1892/1901 1883 1883 1883 NA 1883 1887 1883 1883 1883 1883 1883 Table 6.1 Lands purchased by Sultan Abdul Hamid II in the Baysan valley. * indicates Bedouin land. (From Roy Fischel, Sultan Abdul Hamid II, Imperial Policy and Private Lands, Submitted for an MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, August 2006.) Source: Seth J. Frantzman, research derived from Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark, ‗Sultan Abdulhamid II and Palestine: Private land and imperial policy‘, New Perspectives on Turkey, 39, 2008, 129-166. 1883 1883 147972 842 Baruch Basin, 'The Baysan çiftlik', 21 January 1919, The Kressel Collection, Oxford Center for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Yarnton UK. 331 The Young Turk revolution and its aftermath 1908-1917 After Abdülhamid II was overthrown and imprisoned by the Young Turks his land was confiscated and transferred to the state, which considering the fact that the finances for the purchases had come from the sultan‘s privy purse, and was thus financed by the state, was not surprising. The Bedouins residing on the sultan‘s lands, according to a story that appeared in The Truth in 1913, resented the fact that the nationalization of the land did not result in it being turned over to them; ―this protest states that while the ex-Sultan dispossessed the inhabitants of their lands, it was expected that the constitutional Government would return them to their rightful owners.‖ According to the report the government refused to consider these proposals and opted instead to ―realise the value of these lands‖ although it is not clear how much of the land the government choose to sell.843 From archival correspondence in 1913 it appears that several Jewish bodies (the Jewish Colonization Association and the Palestine Office of the World Zionist Organization) were interested in purchasing from the Ottoman Government 355,000 dunams out of 595,000 in the potentially fertile Baysan Valley. The rest was settled by 1500 fellahin families or 12,500 souls. They insisted that a there must be a solution for the local settlers in which each family will be left with 100-125 dunams, out of which 3040 dunams were irrigated, and water rights were similar to those in Egypt. They consulted with Nuri Bey the ex-Mudir of the jiftlic, who advised them to expell the Bedouin, about 100 families, from the land bought.844 The Truth, ‗Intelligence from Beyrout, the Ex-sultan‘s domains,‘ Vol. 4, no. 146, 9 September 1913, 1. Correspondence in French re Baysan jiftlic, between Jil Rosenhak, Arthur Rupin and Henry Frank, Haifa and Jerusalem, 26 and 27 August 1913, CZA RG L18, File 125/31. 843 844 332 A 1908 map made by Schumacher was intended to provide a survey of the east side of the Jordan river so it does not provide detail beyond those Bedouin tribes that appeared directly across the Jordan in Palestine. These include the tribes of Ghazawiyya and Al Bashatwa.845 According to David Grossman there was no Bedouin sedenterization in the Baysan valley prior to the advent of the Mandate. He notes that Beit Sursuq, Tell es Shauk, Ashrafiya and Zaba were seasonal settlements.846 He describes Zara as a settlement that had once been established in the Ottoman period but was ruin by the end of the Ottoman period. The only other settlements he notes as having been established in the period before 1917 in the low country of Baysan are Jisr Majami in the far north of the sub-district and Samariya south of Baysan.847 A series of Ottoman maps from 1913, analysed by Ruth Kark, provide evidence of changes in land settlement patterns in the Baysan valley. These were sketch maps copied in French by the Jewish Colonization Association (ICA) in March of 1913 at the Tiberias Ottoman offices. They are all of the Jiftlik lands of the sultan.848 The maps were originally drawn because the JCA was interested in purchasing some of the former lands of the sultan.849 The most impressive map in the series is a 1:100,000 map entitled Carte Generale des dependences de Bissan. This map shows many of the Sultan‘s estates. The 845 Karte des Ostjordanlandes aufgen von Dr. G. Schumacher, 1:63,360, Deutschen Verein Zur Erforschung Palastinas, 1908. Jewish National and University Library (JNUL) map library, 34V1052 ul. Sheet 4. 846 Hamadiya, in the hills north of Baysan was also noted as a seasonal settlment. See David Grossman, Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and its Offshoots in Ottoman Palestine, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1994, p. 243. Zaba may have been a seasonal settlement of Jabbul, it is included in it in a document from Oct. 1924 entitled ‗Statement of Areas covered by Beisan Land Agreement, ISA 3599/5/22. 847 Grossman, Expansion, 243. 848 Ruth Kark, ‗The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,‘ Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, Institute for Neohellenic Research N.H.R.F. Tetradua Ergasias 25/26 (2004), p. 197-220. pp. 202-204. Also see Central Zionist Archive (CZA), Record Group J15M, File 38. 849 See letter from the chairman of the land commission in Jerusalem for the Zionist Commission to Mr. Abrahamson, December 5, 1920 and coorespondnece included, ISA 3599/6/22. 333 Bedouin tribes of the area often shared names with the sultan‘s estates, but whereas the map indicates existing settlements at Baysan and Sirin, it does not indicate any settlement of the Baysan Bedouin tribes. The names, such as Arida, Hamra, Sahne and Umm Ajra must relate to the estates and not the tribes. A 1:10,000 map in the series entitled Bissan: Plan des routes construites en 1316 et 1317 (1913) shows two interesting additions to the settlement pattern north of Baysan. The first settlement is named 'Mazraa de Hakmie' and the second, just north of it on the road to Tiberias, is named 'Mazraa de Zia' (See Figure 61). The first of these is a settlement that later appears as Bawati on Mandatory era maps but is also referred to as Hakamiya and the other settlement is one that later appears as Zaba or Kh. Zaba. Both of these were noted as ruins by the PEF with ‗Khurbet el Hakeimiyeh‘ described as "ruined walls and a few modern deserted houses-a small deserted village."850 Zaba was referred to as Zeba and described as ―Heaps of stones.‖851 Baysan valley Bedouin in 1915: Wilayet Bayrut by Bahjat and Tamimi The Wilayet Bayrut of Muhammed Rafiq al-Tamimi and Muhammad Bahjat is more than a census, it is a sort of travelouge cum-encyclopedia of Palestine from 1915 written at the behest of the Ottoman Governor of Beirut.852 For the Baysan valley the report mentions five Bedouin tribes that are covered by this study; Bashatiwa, Bawatiyya, Ghazawiyya, and Saqr tribes. Tamimi and Bahjat visited only the Ghazawiyya and Saqr 850 Conder and Kitchener, Memoirs, Vol. 1, 122, Samaria Conder and Kitchener, Memoirs, Vol. 1, 130, Samaria. 852 Iris Agmon, "The Beduin Tribes of the Hula and Baysan Valleys at the End of the Ottoman Rule according to Wilayat Bayrut," International Journal of Turkish Studies (1991) 5: 47-70. 851 334 but noted that the other two are similar in custums, lifestyle and culture.853 They claimed that the population of the tribes was as follows: Ghazawiyya 2,000 and Saqr 2,500-3,000. Iris Agmon has estimated, based on other information provided in the Wilayet Bayrut that the Bashatiwa and Bawatiyya both numbered and additional 1,500.854 The Bedouin tribes were deeply involved in agricuture. The Saqr supposedly sowed some 12,500 dunams while according to Agmon the ―segment of the al-Ghazzawwyyi ]sic[tribe that‘ settled with Amir Bashir, its head, in Kefar Jarm on the lands of the sultan (al aradi almudawwara) worked 24.5 feddan (about 3,500 dunums [sic Palestine old Feddan = 80160 metric dunams[).‖855 Unless this Kefar Jarm was outside the Baysan valley it was not located on any of the maps from 1880 to 1930. According to Bahjat and Tamimi the Ghazawiyya tribe was broken down into smaller units (fariq or qabila) and these operated mostly independently of one another. The tribe followed a migratory cycle, moving to the east bank of the Jordan in the winter and to the western valley in the summer. Bahjat and Tamimi stressed that the tribe was no longer ―true Bedouin, because they kept in touch with inhabitants in the city, their leaders had houses in Baysan.‖856 In addition a degree of order had been imposed by the central government, dilineating tribal boundaries and forcing the tribes to refrain from their former habit of raiding. But they had not ―completed the process of settlement or registering their ownership of lands.‖857 The tribes resided on the former sultan‘s land and paid a 1/5 tax on their crops in kind to the State‘s property manager (mudir) who resided in Baysan. The leaders of the tribes, Agmon, ‗The Beduin‘, 51. Agmon, ‗The Beduin‘, 54. 855 Agmon, ‗The Beduin‘, 57. 1 feddan according to CZA correspondence in 1913 (see above) = 140 dunams and not 200 dunams. The incorrect calculation appears in the original. 856 Agmon, ‗The Beduin‘, 61. 857 Agmon, ‗The Beduin‘, 62. 853 854 335 Amir Yusuf of the Saqr and Amir Bashir of the Ghazawiya compalined of harrassment by the government‘s representatives and arbitrary taxation in times of drought.858 According to Agmon the general tone of the Wilayet Bayrut is towards encouraging the government to settle the Bedouins in a permanent way.859 When war had broken out in 1914 the tribesmen were not forced to submit to conscription but the Saqr tribe elected to support the war effort through financial means and wel as supplying the army with butter.860 The German World War One map A German First World War map at 1:50,000 scale861 provides evidence of more settlement activity in the valley. Zaba appears as ‗Ch. Al Eschsche‘ and Hakamiya appears as ‗Ch. El Hkemije. Just south of Hakamiya is a group of houses at ‗Ain es Soda‘ which appears on Mandatory era maps with the same name. To the north of Hakamiya, in the tribal lands of Bashatwa, is the new settlement of ‗Ch. Esch Schech Kasim‘ which later appears as Kh. Al Mazar on Mandatory era maps. Another group of houses appears south of a Sheikh‘s tomb named ‗Sch. Es Smad‘ and is called ‗ch. El Maadscher‘. This settlement does not appear on Mandatory era maps.862 Al Ashrafiya appears as ‗el Eschrafije‘ and Tell Es Shauk appears ‗Ch. Esch Shok.‘ Thus the German map includes a total of 4 new settlements relevant to this study, one of which does not seem to appear again on later maps. Agmon, ‗The Beduin‘, 64. Agmon, ‗The Beduin‘, 65. 860 Agmon, ‗The Beduin‘, 65. 861 Hargestallt nach dar Palestine Exploration Fund Karte erganzt nach aigenen Messungen, Verm Abt. 27. Mabstab 1:50,000, sheet 44, Besan. 862 Two new villages of fellahin, not included in this study because they were not settled by Bedouins, of Samiriya and Farwana appear on the 1:50,000 map as well. 858 859 336 As mentioned above, in 1917 the Ottoman Government invited Dr. Kruger from Germany to prepare a detailed plan for the Baysan çiftlik. Dr. Kruger suggested a detailed plan for the establishment of new modern settlements and an experimental agricultural station. He recommended the introduction of new technologies including steam plows, organic and chemical fertilization, and the planting of mulberry trees and a silk plant, sugar beet and sugar plant, cotton, and a modern dairy farming. The main conditions for the realization of the plan were: the disarming of the Bedouins who robbed people on the roads and in the settlements; drying up the 26,000 dunam swamp of Baysan and the all the other swamps near the Jordan River to prevent malaria and flooding; building a modern irrigation network; building 2 bridges over the Jordan; building and improving the road system; the division of the lands of the çiftlik settlements by a commission of experiences agronomist allocating 200 dunams to each farmer in the irrigated area and 260-300 dunams in the dry farming lands, plus grazing areas for each settlement. Only when finishing the locating and detailed planning and building of the new colonies, their houses, warehouses, and hospitals etc., with the help of agronomists, architects and government officials, they would they be populated by about 2,550 farming families, as well as agricultural laborers and industrial workers. It appears the Bedouins were not included in this plan, either because they were ignored or not seen as potentially productive agriculturalists. What was to be done with them is not clear either.863 863 Baruch Basin, 'The Baysan çiftlik', 21 January 1919, The Kressel Collection, Oxford Center for Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Yarnton UK. 337 The First years of the Mandate 1918-1922 The retreating Turkish army left behind a land system in Baysan that had the nucleus of new settlements but which also left a confusion over the ownership of large swaths of the Baysan valley. The nationalization of the Sultan‘s lands had not led to dramatic changes on them, except at several places such as Ashrafiya and Tell es Shauk. After the British conquest of Palestine, Bedouin tribes formed the majority of the population of the valley and continued to live in a semi-nomadic manner. For the British one of the immediate concerns was to bring some sense of order to the lands through cadastral survey, mapping and registration. The British inherited the Ottoman land law in its entirety and because the Mandatory administration choose to adopt the rest of the existing Ottoman laws as they stood in 1917 the existing state lands, which had previously been owned by the sultan, came under the control of the British government. Fischel and Kark note that ―after the British occupation of Palestine in 1918, the government conducted a systematic survey and registration of the lands. Çiftlik lands were registered as state domain.‖864 The British continued the same terms as the Bedouins had enjoyed under the sultan and Ottoman government or paying a tithe for living and cultivating the land. However Herbert Samuel, the first British high commissioner of Palestine ―the land commission in the course of its inquiry into the use of the Government lands and the possibilities of colonization in Palestine, recommended that the cultivators should be required to make a definite contract of lease with the Government which would secure them and their descendents the full benefit of their 864 The similarity between the map of the private lands of Abdülhamid II and the state domain in 1936 is striking; a large portion of the lands marked as state domain are formerly çiftliks. See: Administration map (State domain and forest reserves), 1:250,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1936, Mt. Scopus map library 900 B (Adm) – 61. 338 tenancy right.‖865 . The commission argued that those who had been in possession of the land for more than 10 years should be allowed remain on the land they had cultivated. In addition ―proposals were also made for the securing for each village or tribe a sufficient area for the grazing of their cattle.‖866 Although the land remained with the state those living on it continued to become more sedentary in a process that had been developing since the 1880s. The precursor to Bedouin settlement in the Baysan area was the Ghazawiya tribe, which was actually a parent tribe of Bawati and related to other tribes in the area. The Ghazawiyya had an interesting and worldly knowledge of the British and Jews. In a letter to the British high commissioner, Herbert Samuel, inviting him to visit them, they noted that ―we are pleased with these Jews, and we are convinced that we will work together to improve our region.‖867 The tribe‘s settlement was thus one that took into consideration the developing politics of the region, the power of the British and the arrival of Jewish immigrants. Masil al Jizl, Zainati and Bawati were all sub-tribes of the Ghazawiya according to the 1922 census. In 1922 they had 64, 519 and 348 members respectively.868 The 1922 Census reveals eight settled enumerations and seven tribal areas that are pertinent to this study for a total population of 4,000 (3,909 without Ashrafiya and Tell es Shauk) individuals. These include Ashrafiya and Tell es Shauk which clearly appear as settlements on period maps. It also includes Abu Hashiyeh, a settlement of the See Depatch No. 249, Reference No. adm. 306, Government House, 23 rd, July 1921, Herbert Samuel‘s letter on the history of the State Domains around Beisan, ISA 66 Box 3599/576/22. 866 Ibid. 867 Hillel Cohen, Army of Shadows, 66. 868 J.B. Barron, Report and General Abstracts fo the Census of 1922, Jerusalem: Government of Palestine, 23 October, 1922, 4. 865 339 Ghazawiyya, Safa, Khuneizer, Umm Ajra and something called Umm Quaiq. It also includes three tribal areas divided into sub-tribes as follows; Bashatwa: Baqqar, Shuheimat, Ghazawiyya: Bawati, Zainati, Masil al Jizl, Al Saqr: Yusel al Arsan and Abdullah al Husain. What is surprising about the 1922 census is that it includes Safa as a settled enumeration while Bawati is included as a tribal area when in fact the opposite, at least according to period maps, was the case. The 1922 Census remarks that while the Bedouins of the Beersheba sub-district refused to submit to the census in the Baysan subdistrict ―the tribes had submitted to the usual census procedure so that for this area accurate figures are available.‖869 In addition J.B Barron, the superintendent of the census noted that the ―Baisan tribal area were compared with the Beersheba figures…the Baisan area is in a more settled condition and is more densely populated.‖ But Barron provides no further detail on the logic which seems to have classified some settled Bedouin as being in a ‗tribal area‘ while others who were in a lesser state of settlement were enumerated as if they were settled. The Ghor Mudawara Land Agreement (GMLA) and its aftermath 1921-1935 One of the key factors in the settlement of Bedouin in the Baysan valley was the Mandatory government‘s Ghor-Mudawara (Mudhawarra) agreement of 1921. The name of the agreement comes from the word ‗Ghor‘ which relates to the upper part of the Jordan Valley including the Ghor al Faria (Faria valley which was also included in the agreement) and Mudawara which means ‗transferred‘ or ‗turned around‘ due to the land having been expropriated by the Young Turks from the Sultan.870 The Mandatory 869 870 J.B. Barron, Census of 1922, 4. Gavish, Survey, 119. 340 authorities had empathy for the Bedouin and other tenant farmers of the valley that it felt had been cheated by the Ottomans and the Sultan out of their lands which had been nationalized as State lands. An agreement was signed in November of 1921 between the government and Bedouin tribes in the region that affected 381,096 dunams of government owned land in the valley.871 The origins of the agreement lie not only in the land commission‘s investigation of the history of the land, but also in a visit by Herbert Samuel in April of 1921. He ―put forward to the Sheikhs and notables these proposals for the settlement of their rights… [the government] was anxious to secure their rights much more completely than they had been secured in the past.‖872 However the Bedouin leaders rejected the proposals and made it clear that nothing less than total freehold ownership was acceptable to them because they ―had never recognized the ownership of the Turkish Government which had been obtained by force and illegal means.‖873 Although Samuel believed the government had a ―good legal title‖ based on the Turkish nationalization he also felt the tribes had been subjected to ―a certain measure of oppression.‖874 Samuel realized that a departure from the normal policy of not selling state land and in fact transferring it to Arab tenants, rather than Jews as the Palestine Mandate had originally intended, would be unique.875 Herbert Samuel, the high commissioner, also wished to prevent Arab opposition to 871 See Avneri, Claim, p. 164 he quotes the agreement in its entirety. See Depatch No. 249, Reference No. adm. 306, Government House, 23rd, July 1921, Herbert Samuel‘s letter on the history of the State Domains around Beisan, ISA 3599/576/22., 873 Ibid. Also see letter from The Arab Committte for the Ghor Lands by W.F. Boustany to Herbert Samuel, August 4th, 1921, ISA 3599/6/22. ―The holders of these lands maintain that these lands never became legally…the private property of Abdul Hamid.‖ 874 ibid. 875 A letter from the President of the Demarcation Commission to the Director of Lands dated 19 January, 1926 notes however that ―the agreement does not apply exclusively to Arabs‖ because there are ―a few Egyptians and Kurdish cultivators‖ in Baysan and ―one Persian claimant at Samakh ]also Samack[‖ as well as ―two Jewish settlers‖ at Samakh, ―a Jewish claimant‖ at Ashrafiya and ―there may be other Jewish claimants at Jisr al Majami.‖ ISA 3599/5/22. 872 341 Jewish calls for acquisition of State land near Caesarea and Haifa Bay and the Kabara swamps, and thus offered to lease lands to the villagers in the Baysan region.876 In November of 1921 Hebert Samuel ―concluded the negotiations with the Arabs regarding the lands in the Jordan and Baysan Valleys and the most extensive settlement of state domain lands ever to be undetaken in Palestine.‖877 At the time it was one of the two largest blocks in the country, the second being the Huleh, and among the few that were watered. The result of Samuel‘s investigation was the Ghor Mudawwara Land Agreement (GMLA) signed on November 19, 1921 between Wadie Eff. Bousany representing the Arab tenants and Major Albert Abramson representing the Government of Palestine. Under the agreement lands could be purchased for a nominal fee payable in installments over 15 years. Locals could purchase up to 150 dunams of land and families with more than five people could purchase an additional 50 dunams per person. They were granted deeds (kushan) to the property as Miri. Lands for public institutions such as mosques and schools would be set aside. Women would be equal to men in terms fo their right to land if they were the heads of families. If the recipients of the land failed pay the installments on it after 15 years they would or 10% of the yield of the land (as under the old law) and forfeit their right to the land.878 However in 1927 there were discussions regarding extending the period of repayment.879 876 See Avneri, Claim, 164 Gavish, Survey, 111. 878 See text of the Ghor Mudawwara Lands Agreement, 19, November 1921, The Palestine Gazette, 14 September, 1933. 879 Chief Secretary to Director of Department of Lands, 13 September, 1927, ISA 3599/5/22. Also J.E. Shuckburgh to the Field Marshall at the British Residency in Baghdad regarding Sir Ernest Dowson, Abramson, Stubbs and discussions about revising the GMLA, 29 th March, 1927, ISA 3599/5/22. 877 342 A unique aspect of the agreement was that in dealing with the tribes the lands would be transferred communally to the tribe and ―the chiefs of the tribe shall be entrusted by the Government with the just allotment of the areas to individual and with the collection and payment of taxes and tithes.‖880 Tribes would also receive grazing areas which would be leased to the tribe based on the number of goats, sheep and other animals they possessed. In total eighteen villages881 were included and three tribal lands (―Ashirat el Sugr/Saqr, Ashiret el Ghazawieh/Ghazawiyya, Ashiret el Bashatweh/Bashatwa).882 In total 202,361 dunams were transferred to the villages and 179,545 to tribal areas (See Figure 62).883 To determine the boundaries and extent of the lands old maps were consulted. Forty eight maps had been made of the Sultan‘s lands in 1926 and placed in the care of a Dr. Kruger. Seven were located in Beirut and 18 in Demascus, and 40 were with the JCA in Haifa.884 In addition, Joseph Treidel, a Jewish surveyor, had been hired by the advisory committee on Settlement of the Zionist Executive to survey and map the jiftlik lands of Baysan, the Huleh Valley and Jericho and conduct the survey and mapping of all the lands of Palestine in 1904-1909.885 But there was still the need for a modern cadastral survey of the lands in order to settle who owned what. Survey began in 1922. The standard scale of Mandatory Survey Department cadastral work for Baysan was 880 Text of the Ghor Mudawwara Lands Agreement, 19, November 1921, The Palestine Gazette, 14 September, 1933. 881 Sereen, Semach, Kefr Misr, Tireh, Denna, Kefra, KawKab al Hawa, Mutileh, Jebbool, Yubla, El Beereh, El Murasses, Samrieh, Farwaneh, Tel el ShaK, Ghor el Faraa. 882 Text of the Ghor Mudawwara Lands Agreement, 19, November 1921, The Palestine Gazette, 14 September, 1933. 883 ‗Land Settlement in 1932,‘ Palestine Post, from the annual report by A. Abramson, C.B.E, Commissioner of Lands, April 20, 1933, ISA 3599/5/22. 884 Gavish, Survey, 119. 885 Gavish, Survey, 26. 343 1:4,000.886 Villagers were requested to divide their parcels in an efficient manner, and official boundaries of blocks and parcels were marked on the ground. The villagers were expected to divide among themselves the division of the land.887 Boundaries of cultivated blocks were demarcated for settlement and a Settlement Commission decided on the size of parcels, one map sheet to each block. In some instances local inhabitants attacked the surveyors from time to time. By May 1924 a total of 220,000 dunams had been mapped. By 1926 it was reported that half the area had already been given over to the new local Arab owners.888 It was the first complete cadastral project carried out by the Survey Department.889 According to Arieh Avneri the outcome was not as intended. Lewis French in 1932 found in the valley only 922 ―families of peasants and 422 families of Bedouin.‖890 Some 93,000 dunams were acquired by wealthy Arab landowners who were not from the valley. During the same period Jewish organizations approached the Mandate to see if they too could purchase lands in the valley.891 In addition by 1932 a total of 19,000 dunams had been sold by the transferees who had received it under the GMLA.892 In 1936 the Royal Commission, studying the Palestine problem, was briefed on the fact that much of the land had one to wealthy landowners such as the Alami and Husseini families Gavish, Survey, 91. See also ‗Procedure of Baisan Demarcation Commission‘, 22 January, 1926, ISA, 3599/5/22. 887 Gavish, Survey, 122. 888 Gavish, Survey, 121. 889 Ibid, Survey, 117. 890 Avneri, Claim, 165. 891 See Avneri, Claim, 166-167. 892 See Schedule showing installments and interest due under the Ghor Mudawara Land Agreeement up to the 31st March 1932, wrongly labelled ‗ca. August 15, 1924‘, ISA, 3599/5/22. 886 344 and the commission criticized the Mandate for failing to follow through on its own law.893 The three tribal lands of the Ghazawiyya, Saqr and Bashatwa each included numerous encampments and sub-tribes and as time went by also physical settlements. While the 1922 census had been slightly confused in terms of the various tribes and settlements a document from 1923 provided by the chairman of the Demarcation Comiission gives some idea of the overall breakdown of the lands by tribe. Tell es Shauk and Ashrafiya, in 1923, were considered to be three large farms. By contrast the Ghazawiyya tribe included Masil al Jizl and Bawati (Hakima) as well as an areas included in Ghazawiyya known as Teineh, Abu Husheh (Abo Hashieh) and Manshieh. The Saqr tribe included Umm Ajra, Safa, Arida, Al Hamra, Khuneizer, Zarra‘a, Fatur and Sakhina.894 Bashatwa included Hawafza Amri, Hawafza Baqqar (Hawafzeh) and Sheimat (Shehaimat).895 The 1931 census found 4,917 inhabitants in 16 settlements in the areas covered by this study. The 1931 census did not include tribal areas but nevertheless preficed the names of all the Bedouin areas with the word ‗Arab el‘. In 1922 the Bedouin tribes and the areas they had settled in accounted for 41% of the population of the sub-district (4,000 out of 9,682). In 1931 the tribes and their settlements accounted for 40% of the population of the sub-district (4,900 out of 12,769). The Jewish population of the subdistrict increased from 700 in 1922 to 1953. This was due to the increased efforts of the 893 See Avneri, Claim, 167-68. From the Chairman of the Demarcation Committion to the Director of the Survey of Palestine, May 25 th, 1923, ISA 3599/7/22. 895 See ‗Statement of Areas Covered by Beisan Land Agreement, Oct. 1924, ISA 2599/5/22, RG 22. This also shows Zaba to be part of Jabbul, perhaps meaning it was a seasonal settlement of it. 894 345 JNF to concentrate its purchases in the Baysan valley which totaled 26,000 dunams by 1935.896 The best place to look for evidence of the Bedouin settlement of the environs of Baysan on the former lands of the sultan covered under the GMLA is the 1930 series of 1:20,000 maps created by the Survey of Palestine. Bashatwa consisted of at least three separate settlements; Kh. al Mazar, Kh. Ez Zawe (ez Zawiya) and Kh. Umm Sabune (Sabuna). Mazar was the smallest, located near the Jordan, with the other two having similar appearences a loosely nucleated clump of individual Bedouin houses. At Bawati (Hakimiya) we find a small village that had already developed during the Ottoman period. Ghazawiyya does not appear to have any concentrations of settlement, save a few dispersed houses around Jisr Sheikh Hussein and Kh. Muh. Al Bekir. Masil al Jizl is the same, except no houses are located on the map. Safa has only a few isolated houses as Al Beit al Ahmar, Kh. Sursuq and Sheikhet Fadda. Umm Ajra has one house at Kh. Hajje Makke. Arida appears deserted as does Khuneizer, Fatur, Hamra and Sakhina. By contrast Ashrafiya and Tell es Shauk both contain a number of farms and estate houses of effendis such as Abdul Hadi. One of the cocntradictions between the 1931 census and the 1930 series maps is that the census shows there to be 544 houses in the settlements included in the study including 48 in Umm Ajra, 78 in Sakhina, 47 in Masil al Jizl, 47 in Khuneizer, 16 in Fatur and 38 in Arida. These houses were not located on the maps. The 1931 census defined a house as ―a dwelling place of a commensal adopted family with its resident dependents such as widows and servants [or] the enclosure or residence of one or more families having a separate entrance…a detached or semi-detached residence and the 896 Katz, Battle, 22. 346 household dwelling known as an apartment flat…it also served to describe the patriarchal form of household still found in villages in the south of Palestine where there is a resident family of two, three, or more generations dwelling in a common enclosure.‖897 If we take the last meaning of an ‗enclosure‘ and assume it was applied liberally for the Bedouin settlements of the Baysan sub-distrct this is the only way to explain the discrepancy between the maps, which are of a high detail, and the 1931 census which is the most detailed and the most accurate census conducted during the Mandate period. After the Ghor Mudawwara Agreement: Jewish Settlement 1935-1948 1:20,000 Series Maps and 1944/45 Aerial Photos and settlement The period from 1935 to 1948 offers a wealth of material that shows the continued settlement of Bedouins in the Baysan valley and sub-district. The 1942 corrected 1:20,000 series map provides information the growth of several of the Bedouin settlements. This is especially true at Bawati where the map indicates the existence of 10 or more additional houses strung out along the nearby road (See Figure 63). A British aerial photo from 1945 indicates a similar growth and shows the continued use of camel hair tents by the Bedouins.898 At Safa there is no growth on the map. Aerial photos reveal scattered tents.899 At Arida only Sede Eliahu is shown as a new settlement. An Aerial photo of the site reveals only tents.900 Maps do not show any evidence of settled Bedouin at Sahina, most liely because by this time they had been resettled elsewhere (see 897 Ibid. Bawati Zaba-PS18_No.6007-02-25.01.1945. Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Geography, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo archive. 899 Safa + Ariba+Masli-el-Jizll-PS18_No.5113_25.01.1945, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo archive. 900 Safa + Ariba+Masli-el-Jizll-PS18_No.5113_25.01.1945, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo archive. 898 347 below). Maps do not show additional growth at Bashatiwa beyond the settlements already mentioned and shown on the 1930 1:20,000 addition. At Masil al Jizl, except for Kefar Rupin, there is no more settlement shown. Aerial photos reveal only a few tents.901 At Zaba there is the addition of the Jewish settlement Beit Yosef and aerial photos show only the houses that were previously shown in 1930 maps.902 At Al Khuneizer, Umm Ajra and Hamra there is no evidence from maps or aerial photos of Bedouin settlement. At Ghazawiya the Jewish communal settlement of Neve Eitan appears for the first time as does Maoz Hayim (See Figure 64). An Aerial photo from 1945 reveals the Jewish settlement as well as numerous Bedouin tents and what appear to be semi-permanent structures. There are also several houses with enclosed yards. Another map from 1941 shows three small Bedouin settlements and two Jewish settlements, Neve Eitan and Maoz Hayim and indicates that much of the northern part of the land had been acquired by Jews, the central part was state land and the southern part was partly cultivated by Arabs.903 At Fatur there are several scattered homesteads in the aerial photo, evidently Bedouin built, only one of which appears on the map.904 The results therefore from studying the aerial photos and 1:20,000 updated maps were quite disappointing from the standpoint of revealing increased Bedouin sedenterization and the formation of new villages. 901 Safa + Ariba+Masli-el-Jizll-PS18_No.5113_25.01.1945, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo archive. Kh.Zaba-PS18_No.6007_25.01.1945, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo archive. 903 State Domains: Lease of Umm Ajra and Ghazzawiya lands, ISA, B156/5/2608M/23. Map of Ghazzawiya, Dept. of Land Settlement, Serial No. 23/41, Jerusalem 10.8.41, General Plan, 1:10,000. 904 Al-Fatur-PS4_No.5052_12.12.1944, Mount Scopus Aerial Photo archive. 902 348 JNF Land purchases, settlement, conflict and relationships with the Bedouin By 1939 the JNF had acquired 64,000 dunams in the Jordan and Baysan valleys. Between 1939 and 1946 they acquired another 11,000 dunams. It is not clear from the sources how much of this land was in the Ghor Mudawara lands, but maps of the purchases indicate that they were outside the GMLA, primarily in the western end of the valley contigous with Jewish settlement in the Jezreel valley.905 By 1947 a total of 12 Jewish settlements were established on JNF lands in the Baysan valley. Only five or six of these affected the Bedouin areas of the Baysan valley that had been settled under the GMLA. It was the only geographical area, outside the Negev, where all the Jewish settlements were built on JNF land, illustrating the degree to which the JNF played the central role in settling Jews in the Baysan valley.906 By 1936 the pattern of Jewish land purchases in the valley had been haphazard, concentrated west and north of the town of Baysan, with another concentration by Gesher on the Jordan river and a series of scattered lands to the East and south of the town. By 1947 the pattern included about half the land of the sub-district and included land throughout the sub-district except for in the southwest, around Ashrafiya and Farwana.907 In general JNF land purchases after 1939 increasingly targeted lands that had been settled under the GMLA, leading in many instances to conflict with the local Bedouins and Arabs. The arrival of Jewish settlers beginning in the late 1930s led to numerous clashes over land (See Figure 64). The background to some of this animosity was, besides the general tensions between Arabs and Jews in the wake of the Balfour declaration, was the 1936-1939 Arab revolt which led to hundreds of deaths among Arabs, Jews and British 905 Katz, Battle, Appendix 4. Ibid, appendix 8. 907 Ibid, appendix and maps 16 and 17. 906 349 soldiers. In the Baysan valley‘s Bedouin villages the main actors on the Arab side were tribal leaders and the Sunduk al Umma (Arab National Fund) and the Palestine Arab party. Archival material from the British Mandate preserved in the Israel State Archives reveals that the Arabs relied both on lawyers and individual petitions to secure their rights to the land. In one instance in the Safa village the Mandatory authorities recorded that ―certain parcels of land in Baysan sub-district (in blocks 1, 2 and 5 of Es Safa lands) are the subject of a long-standing dispute. The lands in question, which amount to approx 335 dunams, are a part of the state domain which was handed over to the actual occupants in 1921 under the Ghor Mudawara agreement. The occupants however failed to carry out their part of the bargain and it is therefore doubtfull whether or not they have forefeited all right to the land. In any event the registered owners (Palestinian Arabs) disposed of their lands by irrevocable powers of attorney to the KKL….It is highly unlikely that Government will move further in the matter pending settlement of the Palestine problem as a whole.‖908 The trouble was that that the ownership of these lands was then disputed both by the Arabs, who appear to have also sold, or intimated that they would sell, the land to the Arab National Fund and also by the government of Palestine. This story reveals the process by which lands settled under the GMLA found their way into the hands of the JNF by way of middlemen, such as wealthy Arab landowners. At Umm Ajra similar clashes broke out between Jews attempting to farm land and the previous Arab residents of the land. One district officer in Baysan reported that ―it is reported by the Mukhtar and elders of Umm Ajra that the settlers of Ain Hanatziv an 908 Dispute between the JNF and Sunduk el Umma (Arab National Fund), First page of file, ISA, 22/5/1945, Lands Safa Village, B92/23. 350 Avoka have been trying for the last 3 weeks to take over State Domain land transferred to KKL by show of force.‖909 As Arida it was the same story.910 At Masil al Jizl the KKL was able to gain access to lands through an exchange of lands with state land in Safa. In a letter to the Lands department the KKL spelled out the history of their land acquisiton; ―under the Ghor Mudawara agreement, Government did not allocate among the Arabs all the land of Masil al Jisl in the Baysan sub-dist., but only certain areas [were] suitable for cultivation, retaining in its own possession the areas unsuitable for cultivation. Most of the last mentioned were swamp and covered with rushes…these areas, constituting a large part of the Masil al Jisl land and inconveniently dividing the areas suitable for cultivation remained in this condition until the KKL acquired the land from the Arabs. As a consequence the settlement of Massad established there last year was severely visited by malaria.‖911 In some cases lands that were eligible for distribution under the GMLA ended up back in the hands of the state, either due to disuse by the inhabitants or through reacquisiton by the Mandatory authorities. In one case a member of the Commossion for Lands and Surveys revealed that ―an application to purchase the 152 dunams and the 112 dunams from the Mukhtar of Hawafiyat Amri section of the Bashatiwa tribe was forwarded with the Distirct officer Baysan‘s letter No. 9/12, dated 12, March 1937…the question of afforesting the registered area was raised by the director of agriculture and Forests early in 1933. I consider the land should be handed over to the conservator of 909 ISA, B156/98/2608N/23, State Domains Umm Ajra Village, 21 January 1948 to Supt. of the police, Beisan, signed by the Distict officer of Beisan, 910 Mohammed Teufiq Yahya, ISA, 587/44/23, 15 July, 1944 Lands Safa Village ISA, 4058/B92/23, encroachments at Arida by Jews. 911 To Mr. Bennet of the Lands Department, from the KKL, October 9 th, 1939, State Domain, Maseel al Jizl, Exchange of land with Safa, ISA, B155/7/2608N/23. 351 forests for afforestation..‖912 In another case the military authorities acquired land at Ashrafiya that had previously been Mandated for the GMLA.913 Criticism of the GMLA Agreement 1930-1934 Lewis French, an expert on agricultural development who wrote an influential report on the agricultural development of Palestine in 1932 and who served as the British director of development for Palestine in that year, claimed that on the land suitable for irrigation 3,500 families could be settled and in fact in 1932 only around 950 were settled. The sedentary population included only 400 families. The only advantage was in comparison to 1921, the permanent ownership of the land.914 Abraham Granot, whose criticism, at least partly, represents the Jewish settlement institution's views on the GMLA was similar. He claimed that the division of land failed. It did not increase the number of "mefarnesim" or gainfully employed people on the land. The plots of 150 dunams per family of 5 people were too big and based on a calculation of dry farming. However half would have been sufficient for irrigated plots.915 A few families received 400-1000 dunams as each adult in the family was considered as a head of family. From the lands of Tell al-Shok 1 household received 3,500 dunams or 69% and in Ashrafiya 6 households received together 7,072 dunams (2 of them absentees in Syria).916 912 State Domains No ISA, Gp/10/3 (62)/23, Bashatiwa Beisan S/D, ISA, B230/2609N/23, From the commissioner for Lands and Surveys to the Developemnt Officer of Northern dist, 2 Mar, 1938. 913 ISA, B84/4/23, Gov‘t land at Ashrafiya required for direct farming, Ashrafiya Land Dispute Memorandum by the Palestine Arab Party to the ―Officer Administering the Government Lands‖ 12 July 1945. 914 Dov Nir, Geography, 120 (Hebrew) also Nir, 119-120 f.n. 13-19. Also see Lewis French, Reports of Agricultural Development in Palestine, 3, 34-35, (London: Government of Palestine, 1932). 915 Abraham Granott, The Land System in Palestine: History and Structure, 120, (London, 1952). 916 Ibid, Granott, The Land System in Palestine. 352 According to a Memorandum written by Berl Katznelson, a leader of Mapai, one of the founder of the Zionist Congress and a major Hebrew cultural figure of the period917, to the Jewish Agency in 1930 all the lands (thousands of dunams) of the village of Ashrafiya (called also Ashrafiat Abdul Hadi) had been transferred to the family of Rushdi Abd al-Hadi, a wealthy landlord whose clan was one of the most powerful in the area of Nablus. In the Hamra region that was held by the "Siger" (Sakr) Tribe, 4,500 dunams were divided between members of the Mutlek family. The same phenomenon happened in Zarin, where most of the village land belonged to Haj Abdul Latif.918 In addition the price of the land was not high, but when the annual income of a Bedouin family was 4-7 Palestinian pounds in 1934, the sum of 1.5 pounds per dunam was very high. No wonder that soon after the GMLA wealthy Arab families and companies bought the lands allocated to the fellahin and the Bedouin and it was concentrated in their hands. Among those were Arab absentee landlords mainly from Syria and Egypt, Germans from the German Colonies in Sarona, Wilhelma, Jaffa, Jerusalem and the Jewish JNF.919 The Hope-Simpson report of 1930 noted that "At the same time the result of the Agreement, and specially of the modification of the Agreement made in September, 1928, published in the Official Gazette of 16th September of that year have taken from the Government the control of a large area of fertile land, eminently suitable to development and for which there is ample water available for irrigation…The whole of the Beisan lands have been distributed, and large areas have already been sold. Further 917 See Rona Yona, 'Zionist Terminology and the Jewish Sources: Berl Katznelson and the Creation of the Term 'Hanhalat Halashon' (bequeathing the language), in Hebraic Political Studies, vol. 2, No. 4, (fall 2007), 448-469, f.n 13, 'Dov Ber Be'eri Katznelson (1887-1944). 918 Berl Katzenelshon, 'To whom was Baysan land Given', Davar, 3550, 14 January 1937. 919 Nir, 120. 353 large areas are in the market. The grant of the lands has led to land speculation on a considerable scale.. It was made in order to provide the Arabs with a holding sufficient to maintain a decent standard of life, not to provide them with areas of land with which to speculate."920 Thus the GMLA, at the time, was considered to have been only a partial success. Mandatory officials fretted that government land had been given away. While it had been given out under the positive intention of helping landless Bedouin who were perceived to enjoy residual rights due to having inhabited the land and who the Mandate was sympathetic to, the land nevertheless found its way to speculators and then to Jews and others. Jews complained that the land had been incorrectly parceled and that it had anyway resulted in the concentration of land in the hands of a few wealthy or perceptive individuals. Other officials and development experts simply noted that the land was never cultivated and that not all of the claimants even came forward or paid the fees for the lands they were entitled to. The failure of the GMLA resulted, as will be seen, not only in acquisition of the land by the JNF and effendis but also in renewed Mandatory involvement to try to settle disputes over the land. The Landless Arabs Settlement Schemes 1936-1948 One of the most intriguing stories revealed by documents at the ISA is the attempt by the Mandatory authorities to settle ‗landless Arabs‘ and displaced Bedouin at a variety of settlement schemes in the village lands of Tell al Shauk and Ashrafiya. Previous to these attempts the lands, particularly in Ashrafiya, had been the province of effendi 920 John Hope-Simpson, Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development. London: His Majesty's Stationary Office, October 1930, 81. 354 estates, especially a large farm owned by the Hadi family. The impetus for changes in the land regime came from the nearby village lands of Sakhina where the JNF had purchased much of the land and created at the settlement of Nir David (Tel Amal) in 1936. Lewis Y. Andrews, at the time a district officer, described the situation in a letter from 1936: ―I will now address Government on the whole question of re-settlement It must be borne in mind that the Sakhina Arabs are not strictly speaking landless Arabs…it seems that a camping site with suitable grazing must now be found for 92 families, consisting of 403 persons and 1,034 animals, this department has an estate of some 1700 old dunams called Ashrafiyat Haddad quite close to Sakhina and I propose to recommend to Government that I be allowed to settle the ]Sakhina Bedouin[ Arabs on this area.‖921 The land that was located was in nearby Tel Shauk and the displaced Sakhina Arabs were expected to pay 20% of their crops as payment in kind to the Mandatory authorities for their lease.922 According to a memo from the Department of land Settlement: ―The Tel Es Shok scheme was the child of the former Department of Development and was inaugurated with the idea of settling landless Arabs on a tract of State Domain under the supervision of a special government officer they would have the chance to make good. It would be idle to pretend that the scheme has been a success….In the autumn of 1939 a new manager was appointed and about the same time a number of the Arab Sakhina, who were landless were settled on the estate. No agreements were ever concluded between 921 Signed by the dist. Officer Andrews, probably L.Y Andrews. Sakhina Lands, ISA, B84/2607N/23, 11 April 1936, to the Asst. Dist. Commissioner of the Northern dist. From the Department of Development, Subject: Sakhina Lands. 922 Landless Arabs ISA B11/2607/23, Tell Es Shauk settlement scheme inaugurated in 1934, (Asst. Dist. Commissioners Office, Tel Esh Shok lands, November 23, 1939) ―Settlement of Displaced Arabs.‖ Lease government land. Tell Esh Shok lands, ―The Sakhne Arabs who have recently been settled at Tel Esh Shok occupy the land on the same tenure as the original settlers and will pay 22% of thir crops.‖ 2 February, 1940, Asst. Dist. Commissioners Office, Tiberias. ISA, 1028/B114/ 2607/23. 355 Government and the settlers and the latter paid 1/5 of their crop in kind.‖923 In some cases documents show that the Arabs themselves wrote the Mandatory authorities requesting resettlement and the allotment of lands. A certain Fayyad al Majli Al Khalaf, an applicant described as being from ―Arab el Saqir‖ claimed in a 1942 letter that ―since I was grown up I have been engaged in farming and passed a major part of my life in cultivating the land of Sakhneh [sic]…I should be greatful if you would reccoment me to be granted a plot of land in Tell Esh-Shouk.‖924 The village lands of Ashrafiya also became the home of a resettlement scheme for displaced Bedouin. In 1933 the Mandatory authorities acquired 5,071 dunams of land in Ashrafiya ―for the express purpose of resettling landlesss Arabs were obtained partly by purchase from Arabs and partly by exchange with the Jewish National Fund.‖925 The entire lands of Ashrafiya were only 6,710 dunams, so this constituted the majority of the land.926 A memorandum from the Palestine Arab Party to a government land officer gave a more detailed history of the land and people who were settled in Ashrafiya, ―Al Zubeidat Arabs…part of the Al-Saqr tribe of Beisan sub-dist…used to own alSakhinah within the lands of Beisan. These Arabs were deceived by some people who purchased from their lands on condition that they will either remain on the land or else removed to other lands which will be placed at their disposal. Later the purchaser of the ‗Landless Arabs‘ 18 Dec 1942, Director of Land Settlement memo ‗State Domain occupied by ‗Landless Arabs‘ or others such as Sakhina Arabs, reference your SD/2 (6) of 20;.10.40, Landless Arabs, Beisan Scheme No. 1, ISA, B114/2607M/23. 923 924 ‗Landless Arabs‘, Fayyad el Majli El Khalaf, 22 March, 1942 ISA 5A/2627/23. ISA, B84/4/23, Gov‘t land at Ashrafiya required for direct farming, Ashrafiya Land Dispute. 4 Sept. 1947, J. Kennedy, Director of Land Settlement and Water Commissioner, to Messrs Horowitz and Co. B84/4/23, Gov‘t land at Ashrafiya required for direct farming, Ashrafiya Land Dispute. 926 ISA, B84/4/23, Gov‘t land at Ashrafiya required for direct farming, Ashrafiya Land Dispute. 4 Sept. 1947, J. Kennedy, Director of Land Settlement and Water Commissioner, to Messrs Horowitz and Co. B84/4/23, Gov‘t land at Ashrafiya required for direct farming, Ashrafiya Land Dispute. 925 356 land sold it to the Jews, whereupon the Jews instituted legal proceedings against AlZubeidat Arabs and obtained judgements for the eviction of the Arabs. Government enforced the judgment and allotted to the Arabs Al-Ashrafiyat lands, which government acquired in 1931 and 1932 for the purposes of the development scheme by way of lease, for a period of three years. The area of the al-Ashrafiyat lands which were placed at the disposal of the Al-Zubeidat Arabs amounts to 5,400 dunams. 3,900 dunams were handed over to the military authorities…1,222 dunams for grazing purposes and 522 for dwelling…it now appears Jews are demanding the expropriation of these lands for the benefit of demobilized Jewish soldiers…the Al-Zubeidat Arabs who number over 2,000 persons.‖927 Over the years the landless Arabs and Bedouin from Sakhina that were settled in Ashrafiya did not prove to be stable or prosperous tenants. According to a 1946 letter from a local official involved with the settlement scheme to the Chief Secretary dated 24 September 1946; ―many of the pre-1942 tenants were certainly neither good agriculturalists nor good tenants. They were merely petty sheikhs who had sold their lands in the Sakhina and either did nothing on the Ashrafiya and, leased to them, or alas employed some miserable labourers to scratch the soil and scatter seed on it…I do hope that an effort will be made to hand-pick good cultivators.‖928 The result was a new scheme to lease some of the land to the JNF. This caused a reaction among representatives of the Bedouin tribes and the local Palestinian national organizations. In a letter signed by Ahmad Hilmi, chairman of the board of directors of 927 Memorandum by the Palestine Arab Party to the ―Officer Administering the Government Lands‖ 12 July 1945. ISA, B84/4/23, Gov‘t land at Ashrafiya required for direct farming, Ashrafiya Land Dispute. 928 ‗Acting Director‘ to the Chief Secretary 24 September 1946, Gov‘t land at Ashrafiya required for direct farming, Ashrafiya Land Dispute ISA, B84/4/23. 357 the Arab National Fund to the district commissioner of the Galilee, dated February 2nd, 1947, which included a telegram from the heads of the Saqr Tribe, Al Buruj family and the Mukhtar of Um Ajra he noted that ―the Ahrafiyyat land in Beisan Sub-district which the government proposes to hand over to the Jews…This village lies in Zone A where your laws prohibit the sale of land to non-Arabs…one wonders how the Jews were able to get into it and in what manner they managed to swallow it…the Arabs ought to record this incident so that the future might show the annihilating injustice and the sinful aggression of the Jews…we ask for justice.‖929 In another letter dated January 11th, 1947 the chief secretary of the Arab National Fund noted that ―it is determined to Judaise the Beisan sub-district and evict the Arabs from it. This fills the Arabs with anxiety and fear regarding their future and will doom to extinction the life of the whole Saqr tribe…….the Arabs are prepared to safeguard the Arab character of the land at any cost.‖930 The letter was also signed by the sheikhs of the Saqr tribe, Raja Abdul Rahman, Su‘ad Al-Alami al Diab, Nimer al-Irean and Khadr al-Qishi Fadl al Irean. In the end the petitions were for naught as the Partition plan for Palestine was passed in November of 1947 civil strife soon followed. It was not the only settlement scheme in the valley. Those forced off their land at Wadi Hawarith, for instance, were offered twenty to sixty dunams each in the Baysan valley in 1932.931 A total of 109 families were considered for the relocation and there was a proposal to purchase 7,165 dunams for them. By June 1932 the area referred to as 929 To Board of directors to D.C Galilee L/175/40, from the Arab National Fund , 2 Feb. 1947, which included a telegram from the heads of the Saqr Tribe, Al Buruj family and the Mukhtar of Um Ajra. Gov‘t land at Ashrafiya required for direct farming, Ashrafiya Land Dispute ISA, B84/4/23. In the letter, "zone A" is a reference to the Land Law of 1940 which forbid slaes to jews in certain areas of Palestine, particularly areas where Arab settlement was dense. 930 11th January 1947, To the Chief Secretary Jerusalem, from the Arab National Fund, Gov‘t land at Ashrafiya required for direct farming, Ashrafiya Land Dispute ISA, B84/4/23. 931 Avneri, Claim, 146. CZA S25/File 9835. 358 Southern Wadi Hawarith was evacuated.932 A total of 139 tents and 563 Bedouin were relocated.933 In Northern Wadi Hawarith some 90 families of Bedouins refused to be moved and received 240 dunams instead from the JNF and a lease on 2,695 dunams.934 There is only one tribe that is known to have relocated itself in this period and that is part of the Ghazawiya tribe. This tribe had once reigned supreme over portions of the Baysan valley. As Hillel Cohen describes it their dealings with Jewish land buyers made them flush with cash. Instead of sharing the cash with their tribe the leaders squandered it. One person recalled that Yusuf Zeinati was a ―drinker who had a nargileh permanently between his lips.‖ His brother Nimer ―lived in the city in a two-story house, and didn‘t pay much attention to farming.‖935 They purchased cars. They not only wasted the money they received but the fact that they were paying maintenance to tenant farmers on their lands also brought them closer to financial ruin.936 When the tribal leader was assassinated in Haifa in 1946 the tribal leaders ―sold all their property to the KKL ]JNF[ and moves to land they bought in Transjordan.‖937 Such was the fate of one tribe. 932 Avneri, Claim, 147. From the time of the 19th century it was not uncommon for census takers and travellers to enumerate Bedouin by the number of 'tents' in the tribe. This was not only an easy way to count them but also was neccesary in cases where the Bedouin refused entry to census takers or were wary of people seeking information about them. In general the number of Bedouin was then estimated as a certain number of people per tent, usually between 5 and 10. As is clear from this enumeration the correlation of 5 Bedouin to a tent would have been accurate in this case. 934 Ibid. 935 Cohen, Army, 76. Also Aharon Yaffe, 'Lines to the Land Redemption of Baysan Valley Lands', Karka, 35, (1992), 52-59. 936 Avira in ‗Briefing on the Arabs of Beisan Valley,‖ 4 September, 1942, CZA S25/22518. 937 Cohen, Army, 77. 933 359 Case Study Conclusion In the Baysan sub-district, mostly due to the GMLA in 1921, there were 14 new Bedouin settlements and 17 other Arab settlements by 1945 (See Figure 64). These Bedouin settlements had all fallen under the Ghor Mudawara agreement and were established on lands formerly owned by the Ottoman sultan Abdul Hamid II. Six of these Bedouin areas became Jewish settlements by 1945. The changing land regime and settlement pattern for the area of the Baysan valley during the period under consideration reflects many of the general changes in land ownership in Palestine but is also unique. It is representative in the sense that it follows the general pattern whereby effendis and the sultan used the 1858 Land Law to accumulate around 2 million of the total 4 million metric dunams of arable land in the valleys and plains of Palestine (Effendis: 1.3 million, the Sultan: 800,000 of land throughout Palestine). By1948, some of these lands had been purchased by Jews and their organizations such as PICA [open], Palestine Land Development Company and the JNF. This was especially true of large tracts, such as those owned by the Sursuq family in the Jezreel valley.938 The Baysan region is also unique because such a large extent of it was privately owned by the sultan and the fact that these lands again became Ottoman state lands in 1908 and were subsequently turned over to the local inhabitants by the Mandatory authorities under the GMLA in 1921. This agreement was unique and represents a departure from Mandatory policy in other parts of Palestine, where the trend was to turn concessions over state land mainly to Jewish organizations or develop it for other means. What is interesting about Baysan is that the land nevertheless, for the most part, found its 938 See also Ruth Kark, ‗Acquisition of land in Emek Hefer 1800-1932‘, Studies in the Geography of Israel 12 (1986): 31–51 (in Hebrew with English Abstract). 360 way via sale by Arab landowners, into the hands of the JNF by 1945. However at the same time the valley became the scene of a number of the Mandatory government‘s experimentation with settlement schemes. These were partly the brainchild of a number of local administrators, L.Y Andrews among them. He was later assassinated in Nazareth during the Arab Revolt, an act which encouraged the British government to use the full weight of the military to crush the revolt. But his relationship with the locals did not end with his death. The settlement schemes at Ashrafiya and Tell es Shauk appear to have both been failures. The Baysan region is also unique because it provides evidence for the sedenterization of Bedouin tribes, something that has been noted by in other studies among the Abu Kishk of the Jaffa area and the Sawahira and Ta‘amira tribes of Jerusalem and Bethlehem areas.939 Most relevant for this study was the extent of settlement in the Baysan and the fact that the Bedouin represented 30% of the Arab inhabitants of the Baysan sub-district and fully 50% of the rural Arab inhabitants. However aerial photos and maps reveal that the settlement process among them was not completed by 1948 and in many places they remained at least partially nomadic, at least in terms of the fact that they still resided in camel hair tents. The history of settlement in the Baysan valley is important because it provides nuance to the history of the land regime in Palestine and the transition of the low lying countryside to Jewish ownership. In a recent paper by Geremy Forman and Alexander Kedar they claim that ―the [Mandate] legal system extinguished most indigenous rights to uncultivated land through its use of colonial law—the interpretation of Ottoman law by 939 A. Shmueli, End of Nomadism: Beduin Societies in Sedenterization , Tel Aviv: 1980, pp. 5, 71, 95, 134135, 136. (Hebrew). 361 Western colonial officials, the use of foreign legal concepts like moral rights and rights of common, and the transformation of Ottoman law through supplementary legislation such as the Mewat Land Ordinance of 1921.‖940 Their conclusion was based on a study of the Zor al Zarqa and Barrat Qisarya land dispute of the 1920s. When one compares their findings to what took place in Baysan under the GMLA and the subsequent attempts by the Mandatory authorities to re-settle displaced Bedouin and ‗landless Arabs‘ there cannot be a greater contrast. In fact the British Mandatory regime sought, in Baysan, to empower the local Arab residents through the distribution of extensive holdings to each family. When these lands were later left uncultivated or sold to investors the British stepped in once again to help the displaced residents. Geremy Forman and Alexander Kedar, ‗Colonialism, Colonization, and Land Law in Mandate Palestine: The Zor al-Zarqa and barrat Qisarya Land Disputes in Historical Perspective‘, Theoretical Inquiries in Law Vol. 4:49, 536. 940 362 Chapter 7 Discussion This chapter will examine a number of discussion topics relating to the new Arab villages. Topics include the total number of villages, geographic distribution and origin of the settlement. The number of settlements, their landholdings and population According to the 1945 Village Statistics there were 146 new Arab and Muslim settlements established between 1871 and 1948 (Figure 65), out of around 900 Arab villages recognized by the Mandatory authorities. To this must be added the twenty-six Arab places of settlement that existed by 1948 but were not included on the census (as discussed in chapter 4) (Figure 66). In addition one must take into account that this figure might be affected if we were to include unstable and temporarily inhabited villages such as the Sursuq tenant farmer settlements and villages that were established and subsequently abandoned such as Kh. Sarkas and Jisr al Majami. Thus we can conclude that a total of 170-195 new villages, hamlets or settlements appeared during the period. There were also some 17 uninhabited places that existed on the 1945 estimate and are described as villages in Walid Khalidi‘s All That Remains and other similar sources and yet were clearly uninhabited (Figure 66). The population of these villages increased from 11,700 in 1922 to 66,940 in 1945. In general the population increases were most extreme in the last years of the Mandate, with the population estimates recording an increase of 102% in the settlements between 1938 and 1945, an increase due partly to the fact that more villages were recorded in 1945 and partly because of large population increases logged on this estimate, which has 363 been shown to be erratic and, perhaps, untrustworthy. In 1931 the new villages and hamlets contained 6,118 houses. They had roughly 831,486 dunams included within their boundaries of which 1,243 was recorded as ‗built up‘ area. The number of dunams, which equaled roughly 3% of the land area of Palestine (26,000 sq. km or 266,256,600 dunams) at the time does not indicate that this was land owned or registered to the inhabitants of the villages. As has been discussed earlier, these lands were in many cases not owned by the villagers themselves but rather by the state, effendis or Jews. To take but one extreme example, Jaladiya in the Gaza sub-district was recorded in 1945 as having one dunam of Arab owned land and 4,328 dunams of public land. This was due to the fact that it had been an Abdul Hamid II estate and its lands had reverted to the state after his overthrow in 1908 and they had been subsequently transferred to the Mandatory authorities. By contrast the lands of Arab Zubeid were recorded in 1945 as 1,838 dunams owned by Arabs, 294 dunams owned by Jews and 36 dunams owned by the public. What the 800,000 figure represents is thus the extent of these villages and their affect on the landscape more than their actual landholdings. The geographic distribution of the settlements 1945 If one compares the partition plan adopted by the U.N for Palestine on November 29th, 1947 with a map of the Arab and Muslim villages established between 1871 and 1948 they will find a high level of continuity between the two. Almost all of the newly established Arab villages occurred on the Jewish side of the partition line or in areas that became the State of Israel in 1948. This fact is not a coincidence. The newly established Arab villages existed in areas that attracted Zionist settlement and in many cases were 364 established in the very same period that Jewish settlements were being established, although, as has been seen, different regions attracted settlers at different times. Baysan was settled first by Arabs, primarily on Abdul Hamid II estates, and only later attracted a great deal of Jewish attention. The Sharon, by contrast, first attracted Jewish attention. 108 of the villages were established in the plains and valleys of Palestine, a total of 58%. Twelve percent or 23 of the villages were established in the Shephelah. Thirty percent were established in the mountains and hills and 2% were constructed in the Negev. If we examine the geographical distribution more closely we see that in the mountains and hills the distribution was about equal between the Judean/Samaria/Hebron highlands and the Galilee with 23 villages in the former and twenty seven in the latter. If we were to examine this closer we would find that in both cases almost all the new villages appeared on the outskirts of settlement or in the lowest elevations of the foothills. In the Jordan Rift valley two areas stand out for the location of new settlements; Baysan and the region north of the Sea of Galilee which includes the Huleh valley. These two areas each accounted for 25 and 21 settlements respectively. If we look at the Coastal Plain we find that there were 28 new settlements in the Sharon and 10 in the region south of Jaffa, called variously the Western Negev and Judean plain. We find five hamlets (Kh. Sasa-pop. 130, Hawsa-pop. 400, Ras Ali-pop. 80, Warrat Sarris-190 and Kayasir-pop. 292) in the foothills of Shafa‘amr bordering on the Zebulon plain that cannot easily be classified as belonging to either geographical area. They are the only villages that appeared in or around the Zebulon plain however. In the Jezreel valley there were eight new settlements and in the Negev there were four. 365 The geographic distribution is irregular to the extent that conclusions about it are obvious. More than 50% of the new settlements were established in the lowest elevations of Palestine, in the plains and valleys. If we were to record the exact elevations at which each village was established we would find that there were almost none at the highest elevations and that as the elevation dropped to around 400 meters above sea-level there would be an ever increasing number of new settlements. As that elevation dropped below 150 meters above sea level the increase would become most pronounced. A number of new settlements established in the Rift valley were actually below sea level. The distribution by Mandatory sub-district Selected subdistricts Gaza Hebron Ramla Jaffa Tulkarm Haifa Baysan Tiberias Safed Percent of settlements that were new settlements 12.07% 5.56% 29.41% 23.08% 23.73% 56.86% 68.75% 34.62% 59.15% Percent of Rural population in new settlements 3.50% 0.72% 9.19% 12.11% 3.97% 18.38% 73.34% 24.34% 28.75% Table 7.1 Distribution of new settlements compared with existing settlements Source: Seth J. Frantzman derived from research and Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945. The percent of settlements that were new settlements varied by geographic region as well as by sub-district. Thus in a sub-district such as Hebron which was in the central highlands we find that only 5% of the settlements had been established between 1871 and 1948. In contrast in the Baysan district we see that 68% of the settlements were new and 366 that they accounted for 73% of the population of the rural portions of the sub-district. In general we see that while the number of new settlements might have been quite high as a percentage of the total number of settlements, reaching past 50% in three sub-districts, the actual population of these settlements, except in Baysan, did not account for more than 30% and was usually much lower. This is because these new settlements, while there were a large number of them in certain places, did not have large populations. If we were to go through the time-consuming process of comparing the total number of new settlements in each geographic region and comparing it to the total number of settlements in that geographic region we would find that there were places, such as the plain of Sharon, the coast of the Sea of Galilee, the Jezreel valley and the Baysan valley where almost all the settlements were new. In the Baysan valley the only settlement the PEF located was the town of Baysan, which at the time consisted of, according to Conder, ―a miserable hamlet of mud hovels, amid the ruins of the important town of ancient Scythopolis.‖941 Around the shores of the Sea of Galilee the PEF found only Tiberias, Kh. Abu Shusha, Majdal and Samach. In the Rift valley north of the Sea of Galilee the PEF located Lazaza, Zuq al Tahtani, Khalisa, Na‘ima, Qeitiya and Abisiyeh. The areas of the Huleh and along the Jordan to the Sea of Galilee were deserted. Thus we can quite clearly see that in some areas, particularly these low lying areas, almost all the villages and hamlets that existed in 1948 had been established after 1871. Ruins: Ruined villages, Sheikh’s tombs and Khans In total 115-123 of the new settlements were built on ruins, some of which were ancient and some of which were more modern (Figure 67). Palestine in the period was 941 Claude Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, vol. 2, London: Richard Bentley and Son, 1878, p. 69. 367 dotted with thousands of ruins during the period. This is apparent from the PEF map which only rarely found a place empty of such ruins and then only in the cases such as where there were swamps or dunes. It shouldn‘t be entirely surprising that many of these villages were established on ruins. Some of the ruins consisted of entire villages that had only recently been abandoned, such as at Beit Thul, and some consisted of heaps of stones. Many of the ruins were former villages, some of which had existed in the early Ottoman period. Many of them were in good defensive positions, included wells and or springs, had holy sheikh‘s tombs next to them and included the building materials necessary to construct houses. Well known Sheikh‘s tombs of one kind or another were present at fully 24 of the new village sites and many more sites of new settlements included lesser known tombs, perhaps established during the period in question. Ruined khans accounted for another 6 sites. All of these factors, including the fact that many of them had access to lands that could be turned over to use for agriculture, made the choice of these sites ideal. What is interesting is the relative lack of new villages established on virgin landscapes. These villages usually were undertaken due to outside factors. In the case of some of the Abdul Hamid II settlements these villages were planned. In other cases these new villages were constructed on virgin landscapes because of the drainage of swamps, such as the Huleh. Bedouin settlements choose ruins as a place of fixation in many cases but they were more likely to be established in areas where no ruins existed. The Bedouin pattern of settlement, the construction of houses in a dispersed pattern, did not lend itself to construction around a ruin, which would have necessitated the creation of a more nucleated settlement pattern. Thus we find Arab Zanghariya, Arab Heib (Tuba), Nuqeib, 368 Samakiyya, Ghazawiya and Arida settling along the Jordan‘s Rift Valley in settlements that were not based around ruins, although ruins were present nearby. Bedouins In total some 47 of the new settlements consisted of members of individual Bedouin tribes (Figure 68). This was most pronounced in the Jaffa, Beersheba and Baysan sub-districts but it was common throughout. The same was true in the new settlements around Jericho. In the Nablus and Jenin sub-districts there was only one new settlement that included Bedouins, the Ghor al Faria. The rest of the new settlements in these sub-districts did not. This is not surprising as Bedouins were more common in the low lying country where they had been the dominant force in the 19th century. The 1931 census thus records a population of 57,265 nomads for the ‗Southern District‘ of Gaza, Beersheba, Jaffa and Ramle. In the Jerusalem district of Hebron, Bethlehem, Jerusalem, Jericho and Ramallah the nomadic Bedouin population is only 9,072. In the Northern district it is only 216 nomadic Bedouin. The fact that the Northern district was said to contain so few Bedouins was because the census of 1931 enumerated most of the tribes under various settled hamlets and villages. The passage of the Bedouin Control Ordinance by the Mandatory authorities in 1942 seems to indicate that the 1931 census was presumptive in showing that so many Bedouins were settled. If that had been the case the 1942 ordinance, which was aimed at limiting lawlessness and nomadism around settled areas, rather than in Beersheba or around Jericho, would not have been needed. Evidently enough tribes were sufficiently nomadic in 1942 as to necessitate the passage of the law. 369 In general the settling of Bedouin tribes was a distinctive feature of the period 1871 to 1948. Most of the tribes in Palestine, except for those in the regions of Jericho and Beersheba, were settled in this period. This was quite a revolution when one compares the situation to the middle of the 19th century. A combination of Ottoman campaigns against the Bedouin, British policies, the advent of modernity and increased immigration to the low lying country, which had once been the preserve of Bedouins, all contributed to the sedenterization of the Bedouin. In some cases, as we have seen, this even led some tribal leaders and members to relocate to other countries, as was the case with the heads of the Ghazawiya tribe. Daughter Villages Around 43-48 of the new settlements were daughter villages of other villages that had existed before 1871 (Figure 69). If the most prominent off-shoots of Dura are included then this number could risee to 58. They were prominent in the sub-districts of Ramla, Nablus, Tulkarm, Jenin and Haifa. Thus the pattern for Bedouin settlements and daughter villages was quite different. A historical animosity existed between the two groups as is common in any country where pastoralists compete for resources with agriculturalists. Conder, perhaps overstating the conflict, notes about an area near the village of Fusail that ―in reality the country here belongs to the Fellahin and I imagine no Arabs ]Bedouin[ had a right to camp there.‖942 It was not the only time Conder mentioned being in the midst of a struggle between Bedouins and settled Arabs. Daughter villages appeared in places where security allowed for the cultivation of crops and eventually attracted year round settlement. Usually these places were ruins and they included ample sources of water as well as easy access to agricultural areas. Typically 942 Conder, Tent Life, vol. 2, p. 51. He describes another such incident on the way to Jenin, p. 73. 370 they were established downhill from the parent settlement but rarely were located in a completely exposed location in flat country, usually choosing to settle in the foothills. Outside influences: Adbul Hamid, Jews and Effendis Twenty-five of the new settlements were established on lands that had been purchased by the Sultan Abdul Hamid II. Some of these appeared during the lifetime of the sultan and some appeared later, after his lands had been turned over to the government in 1909. What is clear is that his lands played a tremendous role in the creation of new settlements. In some cases he himself played an active role in this, setting out new villages on the borderlands of the Negev and settling Muslim Circassian and Bosnian refugees in other places. In some cases his influence can be seen in the names of the villages, such as Hamidiya, which was named after him. He also helped establish security around his lands by arming the settlers and agreeing to bring them in as tenants in exchange for military service. The pattern of Abdul Hamid II‘s landholdings was a precursor to the creation of new settlements and one can see that the two were interrelated. The sultan purchased land that was open and abandoned. Later these same lands appealed to local Arabs and Bedouins who were establishing new villages. In several of the settlements the initiative to settle local Arabs was clearly the Sultan‘s, such as at Kaufakha and Farwana. At others, such as the Bedouin settlements in the Baysan valley, it seems the nomads were already pasturing their animals on the Sultan‘s lands and came to settle them later. Fifty-two of the new settlements were located near Jewish settlements that were established in the same period. In many cases the Jewish settlements were established 371 after the new Arab settlements, such as was the case in the Baysan area or at Nuqeib. But in other cases, such as at Yesud Ha‘Mala, which was founded in 1883, the Jewish settlement predated the Arab settlements that grew up around it. This research has documented a few cases where the two were connected and has also shown how some of the new Arab settlements were later considered ‗collaborators‘ for working with Jews. The landholdings of the new Arab settlements frequently became surrounded or at least bordered by Jewish, particularly JNF, landholdings. Fourteen of the new settlements appear to have been effendi estates or have been connected with effendis in some way. Prominent among these are Nataf, Kh. Yarda, Wadi Hunein, and Ashrafiya. The latter two included the prominent Arab families of Taji and Abdul Hadi respectively. Some other settlements included what appear to be effendi villas and homesteads, such as those located near Mansi in the Haifa sub-district and the aptly named Kh. Sursuq in the Baysan district in the village of as Safa. There was a large Christian effendi owned house near Kh. Ismallah at Kefar Uriah and may have been related to the latter settlement (See Figure 70). The PEF noted one of these examples at Iktaba, ―a place to which a certain effendi of Nablus comes down in spring, a sort of 'Azbeh or spring grazing-place for horses (See Figure 71).‖943 In some cases, such as at Yarda and Kafruria (Kefar Uriah) we know that the effendis brought people to settle on the land. In other cases one would have to assume this but the details are far from clear. Further research would need to be done to see the degree to which effendis settled people as tenants or agricultural laborers in these individual places. Ruth Kark has provided evidence of effendis settling people in other lands that they invested in.944 943 944 Memoirs, Section C, pg. 220-223, of Samaria, sheet XI. Kark, ‗Consequences‘, p. 12, submitted for publication, 2008. 372 The Progress of Settlement formation The progress of village and settlement formation changed over time. In the Ottoman period more new settlements were formed in the hill country, the Western Negev, Baysan and Shephelah. In the period 1922-1931 there was more new settlement formation in the Huleh area, Baysan and the Shephelah. The Jezreel valley saw the most new settlements established between 1871 and 1931. All the new settlements that appeared on the Sea of Galilee were established by 1931. By contrast the Sharon plain experienced settlement later in the Mandate period. Rate of new village formation: Comparisons The Middle East has experienced a great deal of change since the 1870s. In terms of settlement processes there have been great changes as well. It would be interesting to have a comparative study with which to compare the processes that have been documented in Palestine between 1871 and 1948. A good place to start would be an examination of Jordan in the same period. Norman Lewis‘s Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan provides one such example.945 Transjordan was an unpopulated country consisting primarily of ruins in the mid- 19th century with few permanent settlements south of the town of Salt.946 The land was populated by a large number of Bedouin tribes that ranged far beyond the borders of modern day Jordan, into what is now Iraq and Saudi 945 Lewis, Norman. Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1987. 946 Claude R. Conder, Survey of Eastern Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, Archeology, etc.., London: Committee for the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1889, vol. 1, p. 291. 373 Arabia.947 However there is no systematic study employing the methods that have been used here to examine rural settlement in Jordan. But another example may exist within present day Israel for a different period. Between 1948 and 2008 as many as 49 new ‗unrecognized‘ villages have appeared in the Negev. These are all Bedouin settlements. This rate of new settlement formation, 49 in 60 years, is not dramatically different than what this study has found. If one were to examine only the rate of Bedouin sedenterization found in this study, some 47 in a 77 year period one finds that the correlation is quite strong. Given the fact that modernity has tended to increase the rate of sedenterization for nomads one could examine the settlement processes that took place in the Negev after 1948 and compare them to the processes affecting the Bedouin tribes in Palestine before 1948. In addition the creation of new settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, particularly the growth of villages such as Dura that Grossman has documented provide interesting comparisons with those villages that formed between 1871 and 1948 and still exist today. Ramifications for further study: The use of maps, censuses and aerial photos to examine historical settlement In their study on ‗Historical maps and GIS‘, Levin, Kark and Galilee propose that; ―Through a careful analysis of these maps with respect to their scale we were able to delineate the boundary between the sown land and the desert, to follow the establishment of new villages and settlements, and to quantify the sedenterization process of the Bedouin population. We conclude that historical maps can be effectively used to study settlement changes, and that an accuracy assessment of such maps aids in determining their reliability.‖948 947 The Howeitat were recalled by T.E Lawrence to have raided as far as Baghdad from their bases near Akaba. See Lawrence, Seven Pillars of, Pp 33-35, (first published 1926). Page 413. 948 Levin, Kark and Galilee, p. 1. 374 This study has followed in these footsteps and pursued the same goal through the use of maps, aerial photos and censuses. In general the study has had to compromise between the uses of the two. Thus the PEF‘s 1882 map was used as a basis while in the Mandatory period the censuses were used as the primary data set. It reveals that the reliability of maps and population estimates can be questioned through a careful analysis of the two side by side with aerial photos and other information. This study has shown that this process can be useful and is a key to researching the development of rural settlements and their patterns when written sources are absent. This is especially true in cases where the rural settlers were illiterate and there is an absence, or lack of government information on them. In the aftermath of wars and mass population movements this can be a key to providing a history of such settlements. This could have a further application for the study of Greek settlement patterns in Turkey before 1922, Armenian settlements in Turkey before 1915 and Hindu and Sikh settlements in Pakistan before 1948. 375 Conclusion The increase in Arab rural settlement in late Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine was due to a significant internal migration of people who contributed to the development and spread of habitation to outlying marginal areas. The Arab settlers who established villages and hamlets throughout Palestine increased the map of settlement in a major and profound way and the settlements they established marked a break with hundreds of years of Ottoman rule in which fixed Arab settlement had been primarily confined to hilly areas or major dispersed towns and villages in the low lying regions. Understanding the new map of Arab settlement that appeared in the years studied contributes to our understanding of the history of Palestine in the period and provides a unique lens through which to examine the period. It is worthwhile to provide answers here to the original three questions asked at the beginning of this study. 1. There were 146 inhabited new Arab settlements recognized by the Mandatory authorities in 1945. This study concludes that 172-195 new Arab settlements were established and permanently inhabited between 1871 and 1948 in Palestine. 2. The primary cause of the creation of the new Arab settlements involved both external and internal factors. Security in the countryside enabled settlement expansion to formerly marginal areas. Demographic growth contributed, as did the processes of modernity that affected nomadic groups. Government, both the Ottoman and British, played important roles especially as regards land policies. The inhabitants of the new settlements were mostly local Arabs from nearby areas who gradually settled daughter villages or moved to new lands to work as tenants for effendis, 376 local Jews or the Sultan. A significant number, 52 of the settlements, were settled by Bedouin. Several settlements were founded by foreign non-Arab groups. Christian Arabs played almost no role in founding new rural settlements. Very few of the Arab settlers were from outside the borders of Mandatory Palestine. 3. The new settlements were almost entirely built in the lower altitudes of Palestine; along the coastal plain, in the Shephelah and in the Rift valley. Ruins, including sheikhs‘ tombs and khans, provided the most common form of settlement fixation. Fully 97 settlements were founded on ruins. 66,940 settlers were found living in the new settlements and 831,486 dunams was classified administratively with the newly settled villages by the Mandate. This figure does not indicate that these lands were owned by the villagers in the settlements, in most cases it appears the land was not owned by them. The settlers engaged in typical rural agricultural then common in Palestine. The building materials of the settlements ranged from villages and hamlets of grass thatched huts in the Huleh to large villas in Wadi Hunein. Generally however materials included rocks. The settlements were generally poor and construction was in line with the poverty of the people involved. Settlements were bunched together in certain regions, primarily in the Shephelah, the Baysan valley and the Rift valley north of the Sea of Galilee. In general the origins of the settlers tended to determine the type of settlement created. Settlements founded by Bedouin tended to be in flat country and consisted of a more dispersed layout. Settlements founded as daughter villages by Arab peasants (fellahin) tended to either be close to water sources or along ridges and hilltops. 377 This study has contributions beyond those it provides for the history of Palestine in the period. It provides a systematic example of a way to study settlement patterns and processes when the settlers themselves are absent and unable to tell their stories. The situation in Palestine is not unique. The fact that a great majority of the villages examined no longer exist after the 1948 War is not unique. In other places the movement of populations, such as the Greeks from Anatolia or the Sikhs from Pakistan or the Armenians from Turkey have left behind ruined villages and abandoned places. Ancient periods also provide us with ruins that cannot speak for themselves. In the case of small hamlets the researcher rarely has access to written records of the place. This study combines maps, aerial photos and censuses to fill in the gaps and through analysis of the settlement patterns can provide a reasonable degree of accuracy in terms of describing the processes that formed the settlement and even who the settlers were and what the history or origin o the settlement was. The Arab settlement of new areas in Palestine has generally been overlooked because of three circumstances. First there is the issue of romanticism. The romantic view of Palestinian Arab life has been hard to disabuse. It was prominent in the writings of 19th century travelers. It is equally prominent today. In the June 12th, 2008 issue of The Economist a book review of Raja Shehadeh‘s Palestinian Walks: Forays into a Vanishing Landscape describes ―a land whose timeless beauty has survived basically unchanged since biblical times is being transformed by a people who base their claim to it on biblical history…Arab villages that once blended organically into the landscape are little more than besieged ghettos.‖949 This people who are changing the land are, ‗Walking in Palestne: Lost Land‘, June 12th, 2008 issue of The Economist a book review of Raja Shehadeh‘s Palestinian Walks: Forays into a Vanishing Landscape, books and Arts section. 949 378 according to the reviewer, the Jews. The idea of the organic Arab village is quite strong. To shatter that idea and show that the landscape has been changed dramatically by the creation of new Arab villages and the settling, tilling and exploiting of the landscape by Arabs would paint a very different picture than the one that is commonly held. This problem, of the romantic conception, blends into a further problem which is political. Since the destruction of hundreds of Palestinian Arab villages in the 1948 war a literature has grown up describing those villages. From Walid Khalidi‘s All That Remains to Ilan Pappe‘s recent Ethnic-Cleansing in Palestine.950 Because of the destruction of the villages their lives before that destruction have been encased in a sepia coloured image that traps them in history so that they are un-changing. Were one to examine the history of settlement in Jordan such a cut-off would not take place because, for instance with the development of Amman, there is no political interest in keeping alive a vanished past. One can quite reasonably trace the development of Amman from an abandoned ruin to its present day form as a large city. There is nothing controversial or political in suggesting that Amman was founded in the late 19th century because there is wide-spread knowledge of this fact and this fact has no ramifications. These two related problems, of romanticism and politics, are responsible for trapping these villages in history. However the reason that the development of these villages has only rarely been touched on in the available scholarly work is due partly to the fact that settlement patterns in Palestine between 1871 and 1947 were dominated by the activities of Jews and Christians. Thus Jewish immigration and settlement overshadowed the creation of new Arab villages, especially because those villages tended to be small, poor and unstable. The Christian and foreign influences on the landscape, 950 Khalidi, All That Remains; Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic-Cleansing of Palestine, New York: One World, 2006. 379 such as the building of monasteries, the Templer colonies or the construction of police forts by the British also overshadowed the smaller Arab villages. With the destruction of many of these Arab villages in 1948 their short lifespan became a footnote to history. The study of Arab settlement processes has therefore focused on existing villages, whose history can more easily be constructed. Thus there are ample existing works on Arab settlement patterns in Israel and the West bank.951 A corollary to the reasons for the paucity of research into this phenomenon has been the feeling that to discuss this subject is tantamount to touching some sort of a ‗third rail‘ in regards to the history of Palestine in the Mandate period. This is because of the controversy that has surrounded the question of Arab immigration to Palestine during the period. This controversy is best illustrated by Joan Peters‘ From Time Immemorial.952 Those seeking to show that there was Arab immigration to Palestine are thus treading into choppy waters because of the political nature of the subject. There is an insinuation that if there was Arab migration to Palestine that therefore the ‗right‘ to the land in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict will somehow shift. This present research before you does not stand upon this ‗third rail‘ because it does not answer the question of Arab migration to Palestine during the Mandate and does not provide evidence for any such migration. There simply does not appear to be a great deal of evidence either way that the villages examined here were produced through a wave of Arab immigration during the Mandate. With the exception of some of the 951 See David Grossman, The Jewish and Arab settlements in the Tulkarm sub-district, Jerusalem: Jerusalem Post, 1986. Also Grossman, Rural Process-Pattern Relationships and David Grossman and Avinoam Meir, The Arab Settlement in Israel: Geographical Processes, Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan Univeristy, 1994. Also The Modernization of the Traditional Agricultural Village: Minority Villages in Israel, various authors, Settlement Study Centre, Rehovot, 1971. Also Moshe Brawer, ‗Transformation in Arab Rural Settlement in Palestine‘, in Ruth Kark (ed), The Land that Became Israel, Magnes Press: Jerusalem, 1989. 952 Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, JKAP publications, 2001. 380 villages in the Huleh valley there does not seem to be any evidence that the residents of the numerous villages that appeared in the Baysan or the Shephelah came from anywhere outside of Palestine, unless one considers some of the Bedouins of the Baysan area to have ‗migrated‘ to Palestine from the Transjordan, a migration that they no doubt undertook before and after the settling of the borders between Palestine and Transjordan in 1920 and they were thus unaware that they were migrating anywhere. In the Huleh the only reason to consider that some of the villages were populated by migrants is because some residents do not appear to have a clear origin. But this absence of evidence doesn‘t mean they were migrants, it means that more research is required. In 1945 there were 1,061,270 Muslims, 553,600 Jews, 135,550 Christians and 14,100 Druze in Palestine according to the Village Statistics published that year.953 According to the same estimate, using settlements identified by this research, there were 66,940 Muslim residents of villages that had been established between 1871 and 1945. This means that 6.5% of the Muslim population lived in these newly established villages. In 1931 the Muslim population had been 759,712 out of 1 million total and the population of new villages established by that date was 29,694 or 3.8% of the Muslim total. In general, if we accept the population estimates as being reasonably accurate, we find a trend that shows an increasing Muslim population residing in newly established villages. The new Arab settlements were twelve percent of the Jewish population in 1945 and 18 percent of the Jewish population in 1931. This phenomenon constituted an important part of the landscape of Mandatory and late Ottoman Palestine. The villages that were established were primarily established in areas where the settlement had been sparse or non-existent in the 19th century. In the 953 Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945. 381 beginning this settlement represented a re-establishment of settlement on the ruins of settlements that had existed in the 16th century and thus represented a tenuous attempt by the settlement population to reclaim areas that had been lost to nomads and the environment over the years. As the colonization of new areas increased the extent of Arab settlement grew beyond the areas that had existed in 1596, growing to include the entire country of Palestine, except for the Negev.954 This extension of the Arab and Muslim settlement of the country represented a unique stage in the country‘s history, the fullest extent that Arab settlement had reached since the 16th century and perhaps the greatest extent ever. This settlement was made possible through changes in the landscape by the settled population and also by the Bedouin population who were forced or chose to settle permanently on lands due to the prevailing systems established by the government and their anti-nomad policies. Increasing security provided in the late Ottoman and Mandatory periods by the increasing power of the central government led not only to the extension of settlement by fellahin but also by Bedouins. The extension of settlement did not happen in a vacuum. It occurred through government intervention, private investment on the part of the sultan and effendis, and the arrival of other settlers, primarily Jews. The creation of new Arab and Muslim settlements in Palestine between 1871 and 1948 represents a unique and important period in the history of settlement in the country. The numeric extent of the settlement, the geographic areas that were prone to new settlements, the factors that led to the settlement and the origins of the settlers were all examined in this study. Through locating these new settlements this study has shed light 954 Hüt and Abd, Historical-Geography, 51. 382 on a unique process and hopefully will lay the foundations for further case studies of these settlements. The landscape of Late Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine and the settlement pattern in those periods should be seen to have undergone a great change whose impact can be seen not only in the European and Jewish influence on the country but also through the Arab and Muslim foundation of new villages throughout Palestine. Postscript There is a ubiquitous romantic photograph of Palestine that evokes the imagery usually associated with the Late Ottoman period. This photograph shows a ―horseman grazing at the plain of Askar east of Nablus.‖ Askar itself was described by the PEF as ―a small hamlet of mud and stones on the slope of Ebal.‖955 (Figure 72) This picture appears in Walid Khalidi‘s Before their Diaspora and on the cover of Beshara Doumani‘s Rediscovering Palestine and is supposed to evoke an image of Palestinian life before the advent of modernity and the creation of Israel.956 Numerous works seeking to catalogue Palestinian life before 1948 exoticize life in the region in such a manner. The irony of this is that these works usually seek to emphasize the degree to which the Zionist phrase ‗a people without a land for a land without a people‘ is a false notion. However this photo of a lone horseman and a lone house in the background seems to evoke the same Orientalist imagery that the authors who use it seek to rebuke. The horseman is viewed 955 Survey of Western Palestine, Vol II. Sheet XI, p. 168. See ‗Horseman grazing at the plain of Askar east of Nablus.‘ From Walid Khalidi, Before their Diaspora: A Photographic history of the Palestinians 1876-1948. Washington, D.C, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1984. 956 383 as an unchanging piece of the landscape, what Mitri Raheb calls one of the ―living stones‖ of Palestine.957 What if the horseman was setting out to establish a new hamlet? What if his journey would end at a seasonal village where he would remain, for the first time, year round? This would change the image of this solitary figure. Rather than being a ‗living stone‘ testifying to the existence of Palestinians he would now be an actor in the landscape with agency to change that landscape and adopt it to his own uses. Now, rather than being part of the landscape, he would become a ‗pioneer‘. This is not an image or a term associated with Arabs in Palestine. Yet between 1870 and 1948 there was not a year that went by that Palestinian Arabs and other Muslims were not transforming the landscape of Palestine in a meaningful and momentous manner. This transformation was not only taking place in the local village setting, but in the regional setting with large movements of population across the country. 957 This term can be found in Mitri Rahab, I am a Palestinian Christian, Fortress Press: 1995, and is the title of a review of the book by Jeffrey Louden, ‗Living Stones of the Holy Land‘, Sojourners, July-August, 1996. http://sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj9607&article=960732e. It is also in Mitri Rahab, Bethlehem 2000, Palmyra Verlag, 1998. 384 Bibliography Archives Aerial Photograph archive, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Geography Department, Jerusalem. Aerial Photograph archive, Yad Yitzhak Ben Avi, Jerusalem. Australian War Memorial, Canberra. Central Zionist Archive, Jerusalem, Israel. CMS archive, Birmingham University, U.K. Haganah Archive, Tel Aviv, Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority: Rockefeller Museum archives, Jerusalem, Israel. Israel State Archives(ISA), Jerusalem, Israel. Jewish National and University Library, archive, Jerusalem, Israel. Palmach Archives. '' ‫פ‬ : '' ‫פ‬. http://www.palmach.org.il/. Photo Archive of the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem, Israel. Palestine Exploration Fund Archive, London, U.K. Public Record Office, London, U.K. Royal Geographical Society, London, U.K. Yad Tabenkin archive of the United Kibbutz Movement, Israel. Interviews Walid al Haj, descendant of residents of Farwana, interview by email July 12-17th, 2008. Yacoub Nasrallah, resident of Ein Rafa, interview by email December 10th, 2007. 385 Aerial Photographs 1917 photos taken during the First World war located at the Australian War Memorial, Canberra. 1918 Photos by the German Air Force located at Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi and also at Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Munich, Abt. IV: Kriegsarchiv. Also Fritz Groll‘s album deposited at the Jewish National and University Library (shelfmark:TMA 4390) 1917-1918 collections of aerial photos in the collection of Erich Steiner at the Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, aerial photograph archive located at Mt. Scopus, under the direction of Dr. Ram Almog and Dr. Dov Gavish. 1944-45 Palestine Survey by the Royal Air Force at the Department of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, for example; Khirbet Ism Allah PS 1 no. 5023 (7 December, 1944). 1948, Israeli Shai intelligence aerial photos at Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi, Jerusalem, Israel. Censuses and Village Statistics Census of Palestine, 1931. of Palestine, July, 1932. E. Mills, Superintendent of Census, Jerusalem, Government Palestine Report and General Abstracts of the Census of 1922, taken on the 23rd of October, 1922. Compiled by J.B Barron, printed in Jerusalem by the Greek-Convent Press, Government of Palestine. Village Statistics, 1938. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1938, Government of Palestine. Village Statistics, 1945. Palestine Department of Statistics. 1945, Government of Palestine. Maps Pierre Jacotin, Carte topographique de l'Egypte et de plusieurs parties des pays limitrophes , 1:1,000,000, Jacotin, P., Commission des sciences et arts d'Egypte; Panckoucke, C. L. F. France, 1826, http://www.davidrumsey.com. Charles William Meredith Van de Velde, Map of the Holy Land, Section 7, 1:315,000, Van de Velde, Justus Perthes, Gotha, 1858 (1851/2, 1841), Jewish National and University Library, Laor Map Collection: Pal 645-7. 386 Victor Guerin, Carte de la Palestine et de la Region Meridionale du Liban, 1:775,000, V. Guerin, MÉnÉtier, Paris, 1882, Jewish National and University Library, Laor Map Collection: Pal 1288 - Vol. 2, From: Guérin, Victor. La Terre Sainte, 1882, between, Vol. 2, between pp. 150-1. Palestine Exploration Fund, 1880 1:63,360, 1871-77 by Lieutenants Claude Conder and Horatio Kitchener Map of Western Palestine in 26 sheets(Sheet XVII) from surveys conducted for the committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund. London, 1883. Jewish and National University Library, Laor Map Collection. Gottlieb Schumacher, Sketch map of a part of Southern Palestine, 1:168,960, G. Schumacher, Palestine Exploration Fund, , 1886, PEF Quarterly Statement for 1886, folded map facing page 171. War office, Palestine, 1:168,960 series, Survey of Egypt, War Office (London), 1917, Central Zionist Archive, MM-4. Survey of Egypt, 7th Field Survey Coy, R.E.E.E.F, 1:40,000 series, June 3rd, 1918, Mt. Scopus map library. Survey of Egypt, 7th Field Survey Coy, R.E.E.E.F, 1:40,000, August 7th, 1918. B3. Mt. Scopus map library. Survey of Egypt, Geographical section, General staff, August 1917, Sheet XIII, 1:63,360. Laor Map Collection. Survey of Palestine, 1:20,000 series, corrected 1926, 1942, 1948, All Sheets. Jewish and National University Library. Laor Map Collection. Survey of Palestine. 1:20,000 series, corrected 1933, 1941, 1945, 1948, All Sheets, Mt. Scopus map library. Survey of Palestine. 1:20,000 series, 1929, all sheets, Mt. Scopus map library. Survey of Palestine. 1:50,000 series, 1935, all sheets, Mt. Scopus map library. Survey of Palestine. Palestine 1;150,000, Jaffa, 1936, 1938, Sheets 1-4. Mt. Scopus map library. Survey of Israel, 1:100,000 series, 1949, Jewish and National University Library, (reprint from Survey of Palestine). Laor Map Collection. Survey of Israel, 1:20,000 series, 1958, Jewish and National University Library. Laor Map Collection. 387 Survey of Israel, 1:50,000 series, 1965. Mt. Scopus map library. Moshav Even Sapir, 39 T.D. 35023, Jerusalem, 91350, July 12th, 1998. Authorized and Licensed Survey by Yosef Kraus, number 323. (Courtesy Eitanim Mental Health facility). Palmach Archives, Tel Aviv. Islin Haganah 1:5000, February, 1948. 8/village/ 13. Haganah Newspapers and Periodicals English The Palestine Post, 1932-1948. Published by Gerson Agron. Online at http://jic.tau.ac.il/Archive/skins/PalestineP/navigator.asp. Jewish Intelligence (1830-present) Hebrew Ha Magid (1856-1903) HaTzvi (1884-1915) Books and articles Public Record Office (PRO), London, Bedouin Control Ordinance, No. 18, 1942, signed by Harold Macmichael, High Commissioner, 4th, June, 1942. PRO, CO /765/10. UNRWA website. http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/westbank.html. Mustafa Abassi, ‗From Algeria to Palestine: The Algerian Community in the Galilee from the late Ottoman period until 1948.‘ The Maghred Review, vol. 28, 2003, pp. 40-49. Raouf Sa‘d Abujaber, Pioneers over Jordan: The Frontier of Settlement in Transjordan 1850-1914. I.B Tauris, 1989. Alex Adar, ‗Population Censuses in Jerusalem at the End of the Ottoman Era,‘ in Cathedra, Vi, 1978, pp. 95-107. (Hebrew). Iris Agmon,, 'The Beduin Tribes of the Hula and Baysan Valleys at the End of the Ottoman Rule according to Wilayat Bayrut', International Journal of Turkish Studies (1991) 5: 47-70. 388 David Amiran, ‗Jacotin's Map of Palestine, surveyed during Napoleon's campaign in 1799‘, PEQ 76 (1944), pp.157-163. - Palestine: Index Gazetteer, Survey Directorate, GHQ ME 1945, v+205 pp. [2nd edit., Survey of Palestine, 1948]. - David Kalner (later Amiran), ‗Dura – characteristics of the villages on the margins of the Bedouins‘, Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society XIV (1948-1949), pp. 30-37 (Hebrew). - Sites of Settlements in the Mountains of Lower Galilee, Israel Exploration Journal (IEJ) 6 (1956), pp. 69-77. - The Pattern of Settlement in Palestine, IEJ 3 (1953), pp. 65-78, 192-209, 250260. - Sites of Settlements in the Mountains of Lower Galilee, IEJ 6 (1956), pp. 6977. - Estimates of the Urban Population of Palestine in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century (withA. Shachar), IEJ 10 (1960), pp. 181-183. - Sedentarization of Beduin in Israel (with Y. Ben-Arieh), IEJ 13 (1963), pp. 161-181. - Changes in Rural Settlement Structure. in: W.P. Adams & F.M. Helleiner (eds.), International Geography, 1972, Univ. of Toronto Press, 1972, pp. 700702. - The Settlement Structure in Rural Areas: Implications of Functional Changes in Planning, Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 27 (1973), pp. 1-4. - ‗Topographic maps of Israel from the days of World War I‘, Eretz-Yisrael, 2, 1953, 33-40 (in Hebrew). -‗The rural settlement of the Sanjak of Gaza, including Jaffa and Ramla, in the 1872s‘ in Ran Aaronsohn and Hagit Lavsky (editors), A Land Reflected in its Past: Studies in Historical Geography of Israel, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2001, pp. 311-360, Originally published 1983 (Hebrew). -‗The population of the Sanjack of Akko in the 1872s, Shalem, vol. 4, 1983, pp. 328-309 (Hebrew). Aref, el Aref,(Arif, al Arif) ‗The Closing Phase of Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem‘ in Moshe Maoz, Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975, pp. 334-340. -History of Beersheba and Its Tribes (Toldot Beer-Sheva u-shevateha ; Shiv e haBeduim bi-me oz Beer-Sheva/), Yerushalayim : Ariel ; ibuts Lahav : Merkaz G‘o Alon, 2000 (first 1936). (Translated and published in Hebrew). -History of Gaza (Ta rikh Ghazzah), Bayt al-Maqdis : Ma ba at Dar al-Aytam alIslamiyah, 1943. (Arabic) -Al-Nakba wa al-Firdaous al-Mafqoud (Nakba and the Lost Paradise), ayda : alMaktabah al-Mi riyah lil- ibaah wa-al-Nashr, 1956-1962, 6 volumes. (Arabic) -History of Jerusalem (al Mufassal fi Tarikh al-Quds), Mi r : Dar al-Maarif, 1956, also published Jerusalem: Maktabat al-Andalus, 1986. (Arabic) 389 ‗Arraf, Shukri, Al Qariya al-‘arabiyya al-Falastiniyya: mabna wa-isti’malat al ard (The Palestinian Arab village, Building and Land use). Jerusalem: Jam‘iyyat al dirasat al‗arabiyya, 1985. (Arabic) Scott Atran, ‗The Surrogate Colonization of Palestine 1917-1939‘ in American Ethnologist, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Nov. 1989), pp. 719-744. Dorit Ayalon, ‗Deir Rafat,‘ unpublished paper, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2007. Karl Bädeker, Palästina und Syrien: Handbuch für Reisende (Leipzig: Karl Bädeker, 1904), p. 194 (in German). Dror Barak, Understanding the Riddle of the isolated village in the Jerusalem montains: Effendis, percentages. Unpublished research camp paper submitted to Ruth Kark, September 2007, (Hebrew). Dror Barak, and Ruth Kark, ―A Micro Study of an Arab Village in Palestine/Israel: The Case of Suba/Tzuba: New Methodologies and Sources‖, Eshel Y. (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies, Ariel College, Ariel 2004, 389-402 (Hebrew with English Abstract). Also in: Benjamin Saidel and Eveline van der Steen (eds.), Ottoman Aracheology in Israel, Palestine and/or Jordan, Albright institute in Jerusalem (in Press). E. Baumann, Yon Galilaischrift Meer "Kinauf Gem Jerusalem", Pal. 5, Jahrcrich, 1906, pp. 127-128, in: Aharon Yaffe, 'Lines to the Land Redemption of Baysan Valley Lands', Karka, 35, (1992), pp. 52-59. Bellarmino Begatti, Ancient Christian Villages of Judaea and Negev. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2002. Bellarmino Begatti, Ancient Christian Villages of Samaria. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 2002. Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, ‗Settlements and Population of the Sancak of Jerusalem in the 1872s‘ in A. Singer and A. Cohen (eds), Aspects of Ottoman History (Scripta Hierosolymitana, 35). Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1994, pp. 218-262. -‗The geographical exploration of the Holy Land‘, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 104, 1972, 81-92. - ‗The Sanjak of Jerusalem in the 1872s.‘ in Cathedra, 36. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi. 1985 (Hebrew). Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, and A. Golan. ‗The Sanjack of Shachem in the 19th century,‘ YudZayin, 1983, pp. 65-38(Hebrew). 390 Joseph Ben-David, ‗The processes of Spontaneous Settlement among the Negev Bedouins‘ in C: Bailey (ed), Notes on the Bedouin: A series in Memory of Yithaki Netzer, 7, Midreshet Sede Boker: Field Study Center, 1976, pp. 30-49 (Hebrew). -‗The Negev Bedouin: From Nomadism to Agriculture‘ in Ruth Kark, The Land that Became Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, New Haven: Yale University press, 1990, pp. 181-95. Gideon Biger, An Empire in the Holy Land, Historical Geography of the British Administration in Palesttine, 1917-1929. Gideon Biger, and Divid Grossman, ‗Population Density in the Traditional Village of Palestine,‘ in Cathedra 63 (1992), pp. 108-121 (Hebrew). Bitan, Arieh, Changing settlement in the Middle of the Eastern Galilee 1800-1978, Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi, 1969. (Hebrew). Moshe Brawer, ‗Transformation in Arab rural settlement in Palestine‘ in Ruth Kark, The Land that Became Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, New Haven: Yale Univeristy Press, 1990, pp. 167-80. -Geographic factors in the demarcation of the Israel-Egypt boundary. Researches in the Geography of the Eretz-Yisrael (Israel), 7, 1970, 125-137 (in Hebrew). -Village sprawl and village pattern in Judea and Samaria‘ in A. Shmueli, D. Grossman and R. Zeevi (eds), Judea and Samaria: Studies in Settlement Geography. Jerusalem: Canaan, 1977, pp. 45-51 (Hebrew). -Transformation in Patterns: Dispersion and Population density in Israel‘s Arab Villages,‘ Eretz Israel: Archeological Historical and Geographical Studies. A.J. Brawer Memorial Volume, 17. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1984, pp. 8-15 (Hebrew). Tawfik Canaan, Mohammedan Saints and Sanctuaries in Palestine. London: Luzac and Co. 1927. Tewfiq Canaan, 'The Sagr Bedouin of Besan', Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society, 16, (1936), pp. 21-32. Alex Carmel, The German Settlements in Palestine during the Late Ottoman Period, Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1973 (Hebrew, 2nd edition 1990, also in German 1973, 2nd edition 1997, 3rd edition 2000). Charles Clermont-Ganneau, Archeological Researches in Palestine: during the years 1873-1874. Vol. II. London: PEF, 1896. 391 Amnon Cohen, and Bernard Lewis. Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century. Princeton, 1978. Amnon Cohen, Economic Life in Ottoman Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. A scholarly analysis of the socio-economy of Jerusalem in the sixteenth century. ________. Palestine in the 18th Century: Patterns of Government and Administration. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973. Chief Secretary to Galilee District Commissioner, 21.9.1943, Y/58/42, RG2, in Israel State Archives (ISA). Claude R. Conder, and Horatio Kitchener. The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography and Archeology. Judaea. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1883. Republished Kedem, Jerusalem, 1970. Volumes 1-4. Ben Zion Dinur, Yehuda Slucki, Sha‘ul Avigur, Yitzhak Ben-Tzvi and Yisrael Galilee, Sefer Tolfot HaHaganah (History of the Haganah). Tel Aviv: Zionist Library, Volume 3, Part 2, 1972. (Hebrew) Beshara Doumani, ‘The Political Economy of Population Counts in Ottoman Palestine: Nablus, circa 1852‘ in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1994), pp. 1-17. Beshara Doumani, Rediscovering Palestine: Merchants and Peasants in Jabal Nablus, 1700-1900. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995. Roza I.M. El-Eini, Mandated Landscape: British imperial rule in Palestine, 1929-1948, Routledge, New York: 2006. Haggai Etkes, ‗Legalizing Extortion: Containing Armed Bedouin Tribes by State Regulated ―Protection Payments‖ and Military Forces in Ottoman Gaza (1519-1582),‘ 2007, (The Hebrew University, Unpublished Phd dissertation). (Hebrew) Ghazi Falah, The Role of the British Administration in the sedentarization of the Bedouin Tribes in Northern Palestine: 1918-1948. Occasional Papers no. 17. Durham: University of Durham, Centre for Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, 1983. Elizabeth Anne Finn, E‗The Fellahin of Palestine: notes on their clans, warfare, religion and laws.‘ PEFQSt. January, 1879. London: PEF, 1879. James Finn, Byeways in Palestine, London: James Nisbett, 1868. 392 Roy Fischel, ‗Sultan Abdülhamid II (1876-1909) and Palestine: Imperial Policy and Private Lands. Unpublished MA Thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel, 2006 (Hebrew). H. Fischer, Begleitworte zur karte des Syrisch-Agyptischen Grenzgebiets. ZDPV, (1910) 33, 188-221. Geremy Forman,'The Transformation of Eastern ‗Emeq Yizre‘el/Marj Ibn ‗Amer and ‗Emeq Beit Shean/Ghor Beisan Changes in Population, Settlement and Land Tenure due to the 1948 Palestine War and the Establishment of the State of Israel', Thesis submitted for M.A degree, Supervised by: Prof. Yossi Ben-Artzi, University of Haifa, Department of Land of Israel Studies, November 2000. Emir Galilee, ‗Nomadism, Land and settlement in the Jezreel Valley, 1858-1914,‘ submitted as an M.A Thesis, February 2007, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Dov Gavish, Land and Map: The Survey of Palestine, 1920-1948. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1991. - ‗Aerial Photographs by First World War Fliers in Palestine‘ in Cathedra, VII, 1978, pp. 119-150 (Hebrew). -The Survey and Mapping of Palestine under the British Mandate, 1920-1948, RoutledgeCurzon, London and New York, and Palestine Exploration Fund, London, 2005. -50 Years of Mapping Israel, 1948-1999, Survey of Israel, Tel-Aviv (H) (with Ron Adler), 1999. Gad G. Gilbar (ed), Ottoman Palestine 1800-1914:Studies in Economic and Social History, E.J. Brill, Leiden: 1990. Haim Gerber, Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem, 1890-1914, Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag. 1985. Gideon Golany, The Geography of Settlements of the Nahal Iron (Wadi Ara), Phd Dissertation, 1966. (3 vols.) Danny Goldman, ‗German Settlement in the Beit-Shean Valley between the World Wars,‘ Cathedra 129, Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, (2008) (Hebrew). Avraham Granott (Granovsky), The Land System in Palestine: History and Structure. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1952. David Grossman, Rural Process-Pattern Relationships: Nomadization, Sedenterization, and Settlement Fixation. New York: Praeger, 1992. 393 - Arab Demography and the Jewish Early Rural Settlement in Palestine, In Press. -The bunched settlement pattern: Western Samaria and the Hebron Mountains. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 1981, New Series, 6, 491-505. - ―Oscillations in the Rural Settlement of Samaria and Judaea in the Ottoman Period,‖ In: S. Dar and Z. Safra (eds.), Shomron Studies. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameihad, 1986, (Hebrew). - Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Eretz-Israel Palestine: Distribution and Population Density during the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Periods. Magnes Press, 2004, (Hebrew). In the process of being printed in English, 2007. -‗Arab Endogenic and Exogenic Settlement Processes in Eretz-Israel‘ EretzIsrael: Archeological, Historical and Geographical Studies, David Amiran, Volume 22. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1991, pp. 66-72 (Hebrew). -Expansion and Desertion: The Arab Village and its offshoots in Ottoman Palestine. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, 1994 (Hebrew). -‗The Rural settlement in the area of Gezer in the Ottoman and Mandate periods.‘ Unpublished paper. (Hebrew) Daivd Grossman, and Amiram Derman. ‗Marginality within Core: The Changing role of the Shefelah region in Israel‘ in Spatial Dynamics of Highland and High Latitude Environments, Volume 4, 1992, pp. 77-87. David Grossman and Zeev Safrai, ‗Satellite Settlements in Western Samaria‘, Geographical Review, vol. 70, No. 4 (Oct 1980), pp. 446-461. Victor Guerin, Descripton Geographique, Historique et Archeologique de la Palestine, Judee, 3 vols. Amsterdam: Oriental Press, 1869, 1874. -Description Geographique, Historique et Archeologique de la Palestine. Paris : 1869(‗Judee‘), 1874. Martin Hartmann, ‗Die Ortschaftenliste des Liwa Jerusalem in dem Turkischen Staatskalender dur Surien auf das Jahr 1288 der Flucht of 1871‘ ZDPV 4 (1883). Yaavoc Havakook, Live in Caves of Mount Hebron, Tel Aviv: Defense Ministry publications, 1985 (Hebrew). John Hope-Simpson, Report on Immigration, Land Settlement and Development. London: His Majesty's Stationary Office, October 1930, 81. 394 J.C. Hudson, J. C. ‗A location theory for rural settlement‘ in Annals of the Association of American Geographers‘ 59 (1969), 365-81. Wolf-Dieter Hütterothand Kamal Abdulfattah, Historical Geography of Palestine, Transjordan and Southern Syria. Erlanger: Palm and Enke, 1977. Thomas A. Indinopulos, Weathered by Miracles: A History of Palestine from Bonaparte and Muhammes Ali to Ben-Gurion and the Mufti. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1998. Institute for Palestine Studies. A Survey of Palestine. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1991. Reprint of the two volumes and supplement that the Palestine Mandate government prepared for international commissions in 1945-47. Charles Issawi, An Economic History of the Middle East and North Africa, 2006. -The Middle East Economy: Decline and Recovery: Selected Essays. Princeton Series on the Middle East, 1995. M. Jacotin, Memoire de la Construction de la Carte de l'Egypte, Description de l'Egypte XVII, Paris, 1824. Hasan Kayali, Arabs and Young Turks: Ottomanism, Arabism, and Islamism in the Ottoman Empire, 1908-1918. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997. Ruth Kark(ed). The Land that Became Israel. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989. -―Landownership and Spatial Change in Nineteenth Century Palestine: An Overview.‖ In Transition from Spontaneous to Regulated Spatial Organization. Ed. M. Roscizewsky. Warsaw 1984, 183-96. -Land purchase and mapping in a mid-nineteenth-century Palestinian village‘, Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 129, 1997, 150-161. -‗Mamluk and Ottoman cadastral surveys and early mapping of landed properties in Palestine‘, Agricultural History, 71 (1), 1997, 46-70. - The History of the Pioneer Jewish Settlement in the Negev until 1948. Ariel: Jerusalem, 2002. - ‗The introduction of modern technology into the Holy Land,‘ in Thomas Levy (ed), The Archeology of Society in the Holy Land, London: Liecester, 1998. -‗Agricultural Land in Palestine: Letters to Sir Moses Montefiore, 1839‘ inJewish Historical Studies, Vol. XXIX, 1988, pp. 208-230. -―Land Purchase in Emek Hefer prior to Jewish Settlement.‖ The Israel Geographic Society Annual Meeting, December 1978. -―The Introduction of Technological Innovations from the West into 19th Century Palestine.‖ Symposium on Historical Changes in Spatial Organisation and its Experience in the Mediterranean World, International Geographical Union Working Group, Rome, Italy, September 1982. 395 -―Land Ownership and Spatial Changes in Nineteenth Century Palestine.‖ Seminar on Historical Types of Spatial Organization—the Transition from Spontaneous to Regulated Spatial Organization', Warsaw, Poland, April 1983. -―Zionist Settlement Policy in the Negev Prior to the State of Israel.‖ In EretzIsrael. Eds. D. Amiran, M. Brawer, A. Negev, and Y. Karmon, vol. 17. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1984, 101–108 (in Hebrew with English Abstract). -―Changing Patterns of Land Ownership in Nineteenth Century Palestine: The European Influence.‖ Journal of Historical Geography 10 (1984): 357–84. - ―Zionist Settlement Policy in the Negev Prior to the State of Israel.‖ In EretzIsrael. Eds. D. Amiran, M. Brawer, A. Negev, and Y. Karmon, vol. 17. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1984, 101–108 (in Hebrew with English Abstract). - Ruth Kark, ‗The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,‘ Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, Institute for Neohellenic Research N.H.R.F. Tetradua Ergasias 25/26 (2004), p. 197-220. pp. 202-204. Also see Central Zionist Archive (CZA), Record Group J15M, File 38. Ruth Kark, and Emir Galili, ―Privatization of Land in Palestine during the end of the Ottoman, and the Mandate Periods: Land Ownership and Cultivation of Northern Samaria Landlords in the Valley of Yizrael‖, in: Eshel Y. (ed.), Judea and Samaria Research Studies, Ariel College, Ariel, 2006 (Hebrew). Ruth Kark, Ruth and T. Shiloni, ―The Bergheim family and the farm in Abu Shusha.‖ In The Fertile Crescent 1800–1914, A Documentary Economic History Ed. C. Issawi. New York and Oxford, 1988, 332–36. Ruth Kark, Ruth and Michal Oren-Nordheim, Jerusalem and its Environs. Jerusalem: Magnus, 2001. Ruth Kark and Seth J. Frantzman, ‗The Bedouin, Abdul Hamid, British Land Settlement and Zionism, The Baysan Sub-district, 1831-1948, Israel Studies (in press). Yehuda Karmon, ‗An Analysis of Jacotin's Map of Palestine‘, IEJ, 10 (1960).pp.155173,244-253 23. - Yehuda Karmon and Abshalom Shmueli, Hebron: Characteristics of a Mountain City, Tel Aviv: Goma, 1970, pp. 112-117. - Changes in the Urban Geography of Hebron During the Nineteenth Century, in: M. Maoz (ed,), 45 Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period, Jerusalem. 1975. pp. 70-86. - Yehuda Karmon, ‗The drainage of the Huleh Swamps,‘ American Geographical Society, 1960. - The Settlement of the Northern Huleh Valley since 1838, Israel Exploration Journal (IEJ). 3 .(1953). pp. 4-25. 396 Yossi Katz, ‗Tora VaAvoda BeVinyan HaAretz, Tora and Labor in the Building of Eretz Israel: The religious Kibbutz during the British Mandate‘, Research Institute for the History of the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael (Jewish National Fund) Land and Settlement: Symposium on the Occasion of the Publishing of Prof. Yossi Katz’s Book, September, Vol. 29, (1997). -Katz, Battle for the Land, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2005. -Katz, The Religious Kibbutz Movement in the Land of Israel, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1999. Kemal H. Karpat, ―Ottoman Immigration Policies and Settlement in Palestine‖, in: AbuLughut and Laban (eds.), Settlers Regimes in Africa and the Arab World, Wilmett, 1974. (21-28 ' ,7 , , ) -‗Ottoman Population Records and the Census of 1881/82-1893‘ in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Oct., 1978), pp. 237-274 Benjamin Zeev Kedar, , The Changing Land between the Jordan and the Sea: Aerial Photography from 1917 to the present. Jerusalem: Yad Yitzhak Ben Zvi, 1999. Walid Khalidi, (ed). All That Remains. Washington, Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992. Baruch Kimmerling, and Joel S. Migdal. The Palestinian People: A History. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2003. -Kimmerling, ‗Process of Formation of Palestinian Collective Identities: The Ottoman and Colonial Periods‘ Middle Eastern Studies, April 2000, 36, 2, pp. 48-81. F.A. Kline, ‗Life, Habits, and Customs of the Fellahin of Palestine.‘ PEFQSt. January, 1881. David Kushner, (ed), Palestine in the Late Ottoman period: Political, Social and Economic transformation. Jerusalem-Leiden, 1986. David Kushner, ―The Haifa-Damascus Railway: The British Phase (1890-1902),‖ Cathedra 55 (March 1990): 89-99 (in Hebrew). Noam Levin, Ruth Kark and Emir Galili, ‗Historical Maps and GIS: Mapping of Southern Palestine 1799-1948, Journal of Historical Geography, 129, Spring 2009, pp.121. - Levin N. (2006), "The Palestine Exploration Fund map (1871-1877) of the Holy Land as a tool for analyzing landscape changes: the coastal dunes of Israel as a case study", The Cartographic Journal, 43 (1), pp. 45-67 397 Norman Lewis, Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Pres, 1987. Avraham Moshe Luncz, Literarischer Palestina Almanach, 21 vols., 1896-1916 (Hebrew). Naji Makhul, Akka wa-quraha min aqdam al-azima (Acre and its villages since ancient times). Acre: Maktabat al Aswar. (Arabic) Moshe Maoz (ed), Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben Zvi, 1975. Emanuel Marx, and Avshalom Shmueli (editors), The Changing Bedouin, New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Pp.1-16, 1984. Emanuel Emanuel, Bedouin of the Negev. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967. Emanuel Marx, in Wolfgang Weissleder editor, The Nomadic Alternative: Modes and Models of Interaction in the African-Asian Deserts and Steppes. Paris: Mouton Publishers, 1978. Avinoamm Meir, Avinoam, As Nomadism Ends: The Israeli Bedouin of the Negev, Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1997). Justin McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. New York: Institute of Palestine Studies and Columbia University Press, 1990. Justin McCarthy, "The Population of Ottoman Syria and Iraq," Asian and African Studies 15 (1981). Ira Miller, Government and Society in Rural Palestine, 1920-1948. Austin: University of Texas, 1985. Jamal Elayyan Mohammed AliJamal Elayyan, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Bayt-Thul/Story854.html, accessed December 1, 2006. Posted by Jamal Elayyan Khaleel Mohammed Ali, July 11, 2002. Benny Morris, Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. S. Al-Mubayyidh, Ghazza was quraba (Gaza and its villages). Cairo: Al-Hay‘a al Misriyya al-‗amma li al-Kitab, 1987. (Arabic) 398 Nafez Nazzal, The Palestinian Exodus from the Galilee, 1948, Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1978. Dov Nir, The Geography of the Area of Beit Shean, 110-123, Jerusalem: Heser Mul, 1960, (Hebrew). Dov Nir, La Vallée de Beth-Chéane; : la mise en valeur d’une région à la lisière du désert,.Paris: A. Colin, 1968 (French). Laurence Oliphant, Haifa or Life in Modern Palestine. London, 1887. Roger Owen, State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East, 2004. -New Perspectives on Property and Land in the Middle East, Roger Owen (ed.), Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs, XXXIV, Cambridge: Center for Middle Eastern Studies of Harvard University, 2000. Roger Owen, and Sevket Pamuk. A History of the Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century, 1999. The Palestinian Encyclopedia, Damascus: The Palestinian Encyclopedia Foundation, 1984. Palestine, Survey Directorate. Palestine Index Gazetteer; Index to Place Names on the 1:100,000 Palestine Series Maps. Cairo: Palestine, Survey Directorate, General Headquarters, Middle East, MDR 599/12077. Reproduced by 17 Map Reproduction Section, Royal Engineers, January 1945. Jonathan Pagis, Ottoman Population Censuses 1875-1918, Jerusalem: Israel State Archive Press, 1997. Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine, JKAP publications, 2001. Walter Pinhas Pick, ―Meisner Pasha and the Construction of Railways in Palestine and Neighboring Countries,‖ in Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914: Studies in Economic and Social History, ed. G.G. Gilbar (Leiden: Brill, 1990), pp. 190-193. Yehoshua Porath, The Emergence of the Palestine-Arab National Movement 1918-1929. Frank Cass, New York. 1974. The Palestine Arab National Movement: From Riots to Rebellion 1929-1939. Frank Cass, London. 1977. Shimon Rafa‘eli, ‗Christian Activities for the Settlement of Palestine in the Past 250 years,‘ in Luncz, Almanach, 5672 (1911/2), pp. 75-86 (Hebrew). 399 ‗Abd al-Karim Rafiq, ‗Filastin fi ahd al-Uthmaniyyin (Palestine in the Ottoman Period)‘ in Al-Mawsu’a al-Filastiniyya, al-Qism al Thani (Encyclopedia Palestina, Second Edition), Vol. II, Beirut: Encyclopedia Palestina Corporation, 1989.(Arabic) Marus Reinkowski, ‗Late Ottoman rule over Palestine: its evaluation in Arab, Turkish and Israeli histories, 1970-92‘ in Middle East Studies 35 (1999), S. [66]-97, p. 81. Edward Robinson, and Eli Smith. Biblical Researches in Palestine: a journal of travels in the year 1838, 3 vols. London: John Murray, 1841. -Later Biblical Researches in Palestine: a journal of travels in the year 1852.. London: Murray, 1856. Eugene Rogan, ‗Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire: Transjordan, 18501921‘. Cambridge Middle East Studies Journal 12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Eugene Rogan, Tariq Tell. Village, Steppe and State: The Social Origins of Modern Jordan. Benjamin Saidel, ‗Ethnoarchaeological Investigations of Bedouin Settlements: The Hajar House Revisited‘, East Carolina University, Unpublished work in progress. Conrad Schick, ‗Zur Einwohnerzahl des Bezircks Jerusalem‘, ZDPV, XIX (1896). Conrad Schick, Conrad, 1822-1901, Weitere Umgebung von Jerusalem [cartographic material] : Auf Grundlage der Karte des Englischen Palestine Exploration Fund / Gezeichnet, ergänzt und berichtigt von Baurat Dr.C. Schick ; Redigiert von Lic. Dr. I. Benziger. Leipzig : Verlag des deutschen Vereins zu Erforschung Palaestinas, [1896]. Baedeker: Geogr. Anstalt von Wagner & Debes, Leipzig. "Verlag des deutschen Vereins zur Erforschung Palaestinas. In Commission bei K. Baedeker, Leipzig." Originally published in Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palaestina Vereins, Vol. 19(3), pp. 145-220, 1896. Schölch Alexander, ‗The Demographic Development of Palestine, 1852-1882,‘ International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Nov., 1985), pp. 485-505. Gottlieb Schumacher, Researches in Southern Palestine, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement for 1886, 171-197. - Gottlieb Schumacher, The Jaulan, London: Bentley, 1888; Conrad Schick, ‗Zur Einwohnerzahl des Bezirks Jerusalem,‘ ZDPV, 19, 1896. U. O. Schmelz, ‗Population characteristics of Jerusalem and Hebron regions according to Ottoman census of 1925‘ in Gad G. Gilbar (ed), Ottoman Palestine 1800-1914:Studies in Economic and Social History, E.J. Brill, Leiden: 1990. 400 Shimon Shamir, ‗Egyptian Rule (1832-1840) and the Beginning of the Modern History of Palestine,‘ in A. Cohen and G. Baer," eds. Egypt and Palestine: A Millennium of Association (868-1948) (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1984, 220-221. Moshe Sharon, ‗The Political Role of the Bedouins in Palestine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries‘ in Moshe Maoz Studies on Palestine During the Ottoman Period, Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1975. Stanford J. Shaw, ―The Ottoman Census System and Population, 1831-1914‖ in International Journal of Middle East Studies, IX (1978): 325-338. Avshalom Shmueli, and David Grossman, Rechavam Zeevi (editors), Judea and Samaria: Study in Settlement Geography, Jerusalem: Canaan, 1977 (Hebrew). Martin Sicker, Reshaping Palestine: From Muhammad Ali to the British Mandate, 18311922, Praeger, 1999. David J. Siddle, ‗Location theory and the subsistence economy: the spacing of rural settlements in Sierra Leone‘ in The Journal of Tropical Geography, (1970), 31: pp. 7990. Amy Singer, ‗The Countryside 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): 51-79. -Palestinian Peasants and Ottoman Officials: Rural Administration around Sixteenth-century Jerusalem. Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization. New York, Cambridge University Press, 1994. Salman Abu Sitta, Atlas of Palestine 1948, London: Palestine Land Society, 2005. Albert Socin, ‗Alphabetisches Verzeichniss von Ortschaften des Pashalik Jerusalem‘, ZDPV (Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palestina-Vereins), 2, 1879. George Adam Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, London: Fontana Library, 1966 (First published 1894). Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine. University of North Carolina Press, 1984. -‗Palestine‘s Rural Economy, 1917-1939‘ in Studies in Zionism, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1987, pp. 25-49. Eliahu Stern, Caravanseries: Roads and Inns in Israel, Beit El: Karta, 1997. Muhammad Rafiq Tamimi, and Muhammad Bahjat. Wilayat Bayrut. Beirut, 1916–1917. (also appears as Temimi, Mehmet and Bahjat, Wilayat janub Bayrut (The District of South Beirut). Beirut: Matba‘at al-iqbal, 1916.) (Arabic). 401 Warwick Tyler, 'The Beisan Lands Issue in Mandatory Palestine', Middle Eastern Studies 123, (1989). -State Lands and Rural Development in Mandatory Palestine, 1920-1948, Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2001. H.H. Thomas, Geographical reconnaissance by aeroplane photography, with special reference to the work done on the Palestine front. The Geographical Journal, 1920, 55 (5), 349-370. Ehud Toledano, ‗The Sanjaq of Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century-Patterns of Rural Settlement and Demographic Trends‘ in Amnon Cohen(Editor), Jerusalem in the Early Ottoman Period. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1979. (Hebrew). Mahmud Yazbak, Al Hijra al-arabiyya ila Hayfa fi saman al-intidab (Arab migration to Haifa during the Mandate), Nazareth: Maktabat al-qabas, 1987. (Arabic). Charles William Meredith Van de Velde, Memoir to accompany the Map of the Holy Land, Gotha, 1852. Charles William Meredith Van de Velde, Narrative of a Journey through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852, 1852, London, 2 vols. 402 Glossary 958 AliyahDunam Effendi- Feddan Fellah (Fellahin) Firman Hamula Jiftlik Kaimakam Kibbutz Khan Hat al Humayun Mafruz land Mahlul land Mewat land Miri land Moshav Mudir Mukhtar Mulk land Musha land Mutasarrif Mutasarriflik Raqaba Sanjak Sublime Porte Tapu Vergi Waqf Vilayet Yishuv 958 Waves of Jewish immigration beginning in the 1880s. Area unit of about ¼ Acre Master, Sir; one of a class of feudal landowners in easter Mediteranean countries, also an official or educated man of the upper classes. Unit of agricultural area of village land, usually between 80 and 160 metric dunams. Peasant/s Ottoman decree Extended family; clan Tract of land with farms cultivated and harvested annually, usually referring to lands owned by the sultan Governor of an Ottoman sub-district. Jewish communal agricultural settlement Caravanserai, or resting place for travelers in Muslim countries. Imperial law reforms issued by the Ottoman government in 1856. Parceled land, partition of Musha shares. Uncultivated miri land reverting to the state usually when it is left uncultivated or its owner dies. Unoccupied or ‗dead‘ lands not held in title deed. Land on which the state has ownership rights (raqaba) but which individuals may pass from one to another. Jewish smallholders agricultural settlement. Agent or director. Village headman. Real estate, freehold property, full ownership Form of communal land holding in Muslim countries by which a group of people-usually a village0hold shares or parcels which are periodically reallocated for cultivation. Andministrative authority of various Sanjaks in ottoman Empire Ottoman administrative district Ownership of land without usufruct A district or sub-district of a vilayet in the Ottoman empire Official title of the highest office of the Ottoman government i.e the government or state. Land registry office Building tax Inaliable property established as a religious endowment or for the benefit of the public or the donor‘s family in the Muslim world. A province of the Ottoman Empire Jewish settlement or community Relies primarily on glossary found in Kark, Jerusalem and Environs, and p.413. 403 Appendices Appendix 1 The Villages, hamlets and other sites identified and included in this research (By sub-district and then alphabetically) Beersheba sub-district Name: Beersheba Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Negev Jerusalem Mut. Mandatory location: Beersheba Sub. PEF: Khubret Bir Es Seba Khalidi: Founded: 1900 Population 1931, 1945: 2,959, 5,570 Dunams, 1945: 1,526 Houses, 1931: 545 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Planned Inhabited 1948?: Yes Post 1948: Jewish Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins and settlers 1596: Jewish settlement nearby: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Government planned town Name: Imara Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Negev Jerusalem Mut. Mandatory location: Beersheba Sub. 154348, 581184 PEF: Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 9,0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 2 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: No Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: No Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Mandatory police post Name: Jammama Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Negev Mandatory location: Beershab Sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 6, 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 1 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Ruhama 1911, 1944 Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kh. El Jebba Other names: Quz al Jabba/Jebba Other enumerations: Geographic location: Negev Mandatory location: Beersheba Sub. PEF: Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0, 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: nucleated Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Khalasa Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Negev Mandatory location: Beersheba Sub. PEF: Khalidi: Yes Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0, 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Probably not a settlement Name: Auja Other names: Auja al Hafir Other enumerations: Auja al Hafir Geographic location: Negev Mandatory location: Beersheba Sub. PEF: Khalidi: No Founded: Around 1900 Population 1931, 1945: 29, 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: 9 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Planned town Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: A failed planned settlement of Abdul Hamid II, it later became an Ottoman military base. It consisted of two settlements that were next to one another. Name: Kh. Es Sawarika Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Negev Mandatory location: Beersheba Sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0, 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 404 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Gaza sub-district Name: Jaladiya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Southern Shephelah Nahiya Gaza Mandatory location: Gaza Sub. PEF: Khurbet Jelediyeh ―this is the site of a former castle.‖ Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1890s Population 1931, 1945: 228, 360 Dunams, 1945: 4330 Houses, 1931: 50 Built-up area, 1945: 27 Physical layout: Planned village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II‘s settlers 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kaufakha Other names: Kawfakha, Kofkhah Other enumerations: Geographic location: Western Negev Mandatory location: Gaza Sub. PEF: Khurbet el Kofkhah ―large site. Rubble cisterns, a marble capital." Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1890s Population 1931, 1945: 317, 500 Dunams, 1945: 8559 Houses, 1931: 56 Built-up area, 1945: 31 Physical layout: Planned village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II‘s settlers, Gaza 1596: No Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Khisas Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Mandatory location: PEF: Khurbet el Khesas "a few heaps of stones with a well near." Vol. 2, p. 253. Khalidi: Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 133, 150 Dunams, 1945: 6354 Houses, 1931: 26 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Khan Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: local peasants 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: maybe Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Masmiya es Saghira Other names: Huraniya Other enumerations: Geographic location: Western Negev Mandatory location: Gaza Sub. PEF: Khalidi: Yes Founded: Population 1931, 1945:354, 530 Dunams, 1945: 6477 Houses, 1931: 73 Built-up area, 1945: 18 Physical layout: nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Masmiya es Kabira 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes of Masmiya es Kabira Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Muharraqa Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Western Negev Nahiya Gaza Mandatory location: Gaza Sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1890s Population 1931, 1945: 422, 580 Dunams, 1945: 4855 Houses, 1931: 86 Built-up area, 1945: 29 Physical layout: Planned village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II‘s settlers 1596: Yes Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Arab Sukrier Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Judean Plain Nahiya Gaza Mandatory location: Gaza Sub. PEF: Khurbet Sukereir "This ruin is that of a Khan‖, Judee, ii, p. 70 Khalidi: Yes Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 390 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 40,722 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Yes Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Neby Yunis Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kh. Ikhza Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Western Negev Nahiya Gaza Mandatory location: Gaza Sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 990 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 8179 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 8 Physical layout: dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins or daughter of Abasan el Kabir? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Abasan al Kabir? Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Perhaps Comments: Hebron sub-district 405 Name: Kh. Al Burj Other names: Burj el Beiyarah Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: Khurbet Burj el Beiyarah (El Burj) ―remains of a fort 200 feet side, with a fosse on the east and south, hewn in rock. Foundations only remain of small masonry, with the joints packed with smaller stones. Round it are caves in the rocks.‖ Sheet XX, p. 274. Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Dura Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Amiran‘s school list, 1944. Name: Kh. Ammuriya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron sub. PEF: Khurbet Ammurieh "A ruined village on high ground.‖, vol. 3, p. 422. Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 14602 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: None 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Sh. Abdallah Bedouin: Comments: Birriya, on 1945 estimate with no population. Name: Kh. Beit Awwa Other names: Kh. Beit ‗Awwa, Beit Auwa Other enumerations: Geographic location: South Hebron hills Mandatory location: PEF: Beit Auwa ―number of suins‖ Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Originof inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Dura Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Dawub Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Beit Mirsim Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: Kh. Beit Mirsim ―A large ruin, looks like a ruined fortress to protect the road. A small ruined chapel with columns exists to the north.‖ Sheet XX, p. 279. Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Dura Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Amiran‘s school list, 1944. Name: Kh. Deir al Asal Other names: Deir al Asl Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: Deir el Asl ―foundations and heaps of stones, caves, cisterns and a ruined chapel, apparently Byzantine.‖ Sheet XXI, p. 328. Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Dura Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Amiran‘s school list, 1944. Name: Kh. Deir Samit Other names: Kh. Deir Samat Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: Kh. Deir Samat ―Traces of ruins, caves and cisterns.‖ Sheet XXI, p. 353Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Dura Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Amiran‘s school list, 1944. Name: Kh. Jamjrura Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: Khurbet Jemrurah ―foundations, Caves, cisterns, and heaps of stones.‖ p. 354 of Judea. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 2 Dunams, 1945: 3727 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Probably not Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, seasonal Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Biyar Jamrura Name: Kh. al Majd Other names: El Mejed Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: El Mejed ―Caves, cisterns, and pillar shafts; a ruined chapel seems to have stood there.‖ Sheet XXI, p. 375. Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 406 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Dura Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Amiran‘s school list, 1944. Name: Ar Rahiya Other names: Other enumerations: Er Rahiya, Ar Rihiya Geographic location: South Hebron hills Mandatory location: PEF: Er Rahiyeh ―A lage ruin‖ Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 243, 330 Dunams, 1945: 2,659 Houses, 1931: 38 Built-up area, 1945: 26 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Dura or Yatta 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Dura or Yatta Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Sikka Other names: Sutjeh Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: Sutjeh (Kh. Sikka) ―Foundations, cisterns, and a well.‖ Sheet XXI, p. 379. Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Dura Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Umm ash Shaqaf Other names: Deir Muheisin Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: Sheet 20 Deir Muheisin (Kh. Umm ash Shaqaf) ― traces of a former village; a conspicuous white mound, with cisterns and caves; a large site, also known as Umm esh Shukf.‖ Sheet XX, p. 274. Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Dura Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Amiran‘s school list, 1944. Name: Kh. Umm Burj Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron sub. PEF: Umm Burj, ―A ruined village…tower‖, Judea, p. 382. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 140 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 13086 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: 15 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Daughter village of Surif or Deir Nakh-khas? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Probably Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Ar Rush al Fauqa Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Probably not Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Dura, seasonal Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Ar Rush al Tahta Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hebron hills Mandatory location: Hebron Sub. PEF: Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Probably not Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Dura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Dura, seasonal Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Ramla sub-district Name: Abu al Fadl Other names: Arab es Suteriyeh, Sautariya Other enumerations: Geographic location: Judean plain Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: Arab es Suteriyeh Khalidi: Yes Founded: First houses appear 1929 map Population 1931, 1945: 510 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 2870 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 42 Physical layout: loose cluster Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Sutariya tribe 1596: No Jewish settlement: Beer Yaacov 1907 southwest Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: No Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: 407 Name: Ajanjul Other names: Janjul, Kh. Junjul Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: "traces of ruins" Survey: Judae , p. 116. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1930 Population 1931, 1945: 19, 0 Dunams, 1945: 11,401 Houses, 1931: 5 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Beit Nuba 1596: Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: Yes of Beit Nuba Effendi: No Sheikh‘s tomb: Kh. Sh. Suleiman Bedouin: No Comments: Included in Beit Nuba in 1945. Very close to Kh. el Buweiriya Name: Beit Jiz Other names: Bayt Jiz Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: "traces of ruins" Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 371, 550 Dunams, 1945: 8452 Houses, 1931: 67 Built-up area, 1945: 29 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Unknown 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Apparently Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Sh. Zeid Bedouin: No Comments: Name: Beit Shanna Other names: Bayt Shanna, Beit Shenna Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: ―traces of ruins and squared stones.", Judea, p. 86 Khalidi: Yes Founded: Just before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 8 (1922), 210 Dunams, 1945: 3617 Houses, 1931: in Salbit Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Salbit/Al Qubab 1596: Yes Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Qubab Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Shenna Bedouin: No Comments: Very close to Salbit, both just east of Qubab. Name: Beit Susin Other names: Beit Susin Other enumerations: Bayarat el Efendi Geographic location: Shephelah Nahiya Ramla Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: ―traces of ruins and squared stones.", Judea, p. 86 Khalidi: ―foundations and ruined walls. A good perennial well called Bir el Haurah, on th south and springs in the valley." Judea, 86. Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 70, 210 Dunams, 1945:6467 Houses, 1931: 14 Built-up area, 1945: 8 Physical layout: Nucleated hamlet/village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Saris and Qubeiba 1596: Yes Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Saris and Qubeiba Effendi: perhaps Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh sh. Ubeid Bedouin: Comments: Near an effendi estate called ‗Bayarat el Efendi‘ Name: Bir Salim Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Judean plains Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: One house 1918 Population 1931, 1945: 0, 410 Dunams, 1945: 3409 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin, tenants of military base 1596: Jewish settlement: Beer Yacov, 1927 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: perhaps Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: perhaps Arab Abu Zeid Comments: Site of a British military base Name: Khirbat Buwayra Other names: Kh. el Buweiriya Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: On map Et Buweirah, not mentioned Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 101, 190 Dunams, 1945: 1150 Houses, 1931: 17 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: loose cluster, scattered houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Qatanna or Beit Nuba 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Qatanna or Beit Nuba Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Very close to Ajanjul Name: Deir Abu Salama Other names: Dayr Abu Salame Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla Sub. PEF: ―foundations, heaps of stones, and a few pillar shafts.‖ Samaria, p. 312. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 30 (1922), 60 Dunams, 1945: 1075 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: One large complex Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins or seasonal settlers from Jimzu or other nearby villages 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Perhaps Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Abu Salama Bedouin: Comments: Near Kh. Duhayriyya which was also a new settlement. 408 Name: Deir Muheisin Other names: Dayr Muhaysin, Deir Muheisin, Mukhayzin, Umm esh Shukf Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: ―traces of a former villages; also known as Umm esh Shukf" p. 274, Judea. Khalidi: Yes Founded: First houses 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 113, 460 Dunams, 1945: 9947 Houses, 1931: 28 Built-up area, 1945: 13 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Perhaps from Hulda 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: maybe from Hulda Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Experienced massive growth after 1932, becoming a strassendorf of three clustered bunches. Name: Kh. Edh Dhuheiriya Other names: Kh. Ed. Diheiriya, Kh. Ed Duhayriyya, Kh. Edh Dhaheriyeh, Khirbet al Duhariya Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: ―Foundations of buildings apparently modern, ruined kubbeh.", Conder and Kitchener, Survey: Samaria, p. 265. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1918-1930 Population 1931, 1945: 100 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 1341 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated house Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Daughter settlement but not clear from where 1596: Jewish settlement: Ben Shemen founded 1911 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: not clear from where Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Clermont-Ganneau visited the site in 1874 and mentioned ‗inhabitants.‘ Near Deir Abu Salame, also a new settlement. Name: Kharruba Other names: El Khurabeh Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: "traces of ruins" Judea, p. 104. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 119, 170 Dunams, 1945: 3374 Houses, 1931: 21 Built-up area, 1945: 3 Physical layout: nucleated settlement with loose cluster of houses expanding outwards Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Innaba 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: of Innaba Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: No Comments: Guerin, 1874, II, pg. 394. "hamlet". Name: Kh. Bayt Far Other names: Beit Far Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: On map, not in text Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 26, 300 Dunams, 1945: 5593 Houses, 1931: 11 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: A ruin Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: If it existed, yes Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: No Bedouin: Comments: Robinson 1841, III: pg 21, abandoned village Name: Kunayyisa Other names: El Keniseh, Kunissa, Kh. Kunaiyisa Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: "foundations and traces of ruins" Judea,p. 103 Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 40 Dunams, 1945: 3881 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Three isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Innaba and Qubab 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Innaba and Qubab Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Mukheizin Other names: Mukhaysin, El Mukheizin, Al Mukheizin, Khurbet el Mukheizin Other enumerations: Geographic location: Judean plain Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: ―a large well and birkeh of masonry. Several ruined cisterns and a few scattered stones." Conder and Kitchener, Survey: Samaria, p. 425. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 79, 200 Dunams, 1945: 12548 Houses, 1931: 19 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Loose cluster of houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: al-Wuhaydat Bedouin tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes, al-Wuhaydat Comments: In Arabia the name means ‗storehouse‘ Name: Al Nabi Rubin Other names: Neby Rubin, Nebi Rubin Other enumerations: Geographic location: Judean plain Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: ―a chapel in a courtyard full of very fine mulberry trees. It is mentioned in Mejr al Din in 1495 as a place of pilgrimage" Conder and Kitchener, Survey: Samaria, p. 269. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 1420 Dunams, 1945: 29975 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Shrine and dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abu Sawayrih tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul 409 Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Nebi Rubin Bedouin: Abu Sawayrih tribe Comments: Name: Sajad Other names: Khurbet es Sejed Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: On map not in text Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1890s Population 1931, 1945: 300, 370 Dunams, 1945: 2795 Houses, 1931: 66 Built-up area, 1945: 19 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II, train stop, Qazaze 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Qazaze perhaps? Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Train stop built in 1892, Mandatory authorities annexed lands, Haganah report: ―232 sheep, 15 cattle, 12 donkeys and 5 camels on the 7,222 dunams of village lands.‖ Name: Salbit Other names: Selbit Other enumerations: Beit Shanna (1931) and Nahla (1941) Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: ―foundations and caves. The ruins are extensive. A square building stands in the middle. There is a ruined reservoir lined with cement, the walls of rubble." Conder and Kitchener, Survey: Judae, p. 157. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1890-1922 Population 1931, 1945: 406, 510 Dunams, 1945: 6111 Houses, 1931: 71 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Nuba or Qubab 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Nuba or Qubab Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Umm Kalkha Other names: Am Kelkha, Umm Kalka, Khurbet Umm Kelkah Other enumerations: Geographic location: Judean plains Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: ―traces of an old town."Conder and Kitchener, Survey: Samaria, p. 426. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 24, 60 Dunams, 1945: 6989 Houses, 1931: 6 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: isolated dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: the railway? Bedouin? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Yes Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Perhaps Comments: Name: Wadi Hunein Other names: Wadi Hunayn, Nez Tziona, Nes Ziona Other enumerations: Nez Ziona Geographic location: Judean Plain Nahiya Ramla Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1883-1890s Population 1931, 1945: 280, 1620 Dunams, 1945: 5401 Houses, 1931: 55 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Dispersed estates and a loose cluster Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Taji family, tenants, Bedouins 1596: Jewish settlement: Nes Ziona 1883 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Yes, Taji family Sheikh‘s tomb: No Bedouin: Perhaps Comments: Name: Kh. Zakariyya Other names: Khurbet Zakariya, En Nabi Dhikrawi Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla sub. PEF: ―large site" p. 358 Samaria. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 69, 0 Dunams, 1945: 4538 Houses, 1931: 10 Builtup area, 1945: 2 Physical layout: Sheikh‘s tomb and single isolated house Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Jimzu or Midieh 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid lands: Daughter village: Apparently Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Yes, Nebi Zakariyeh Bedouin: Perhaps Comments: Not clear it was inhabited in 1945 Jerusalem and Jericho sub-district Name: Al Auja Other names: Wady and Ain el Aujah, Auja Fauqa and Tahta Other enumerations: Auja Fauqa and Tahta Geographic location: Jordan Central Rift Valley Mandatory location: Jericho/Jerusalem sub. PEF: The spring mentioned page 170 vol. 3, see sheet XV(vol. 2). Khalidi: No Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 253, 290 Dunams, 1945: 106,900 Houses, 1931: 100 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: dispersed houses, linear Bedouin settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Perhaps Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Sh. Ibrahim Bedouin: Yes Comments: 410 Name: Beit Thul Other names: Bayt Thul, Beit Tul Bayt Tun Other enumerations: Geographic location: Judean Hills Mandatory location: Jerusalem sub. PEF: ―Foundations and a Mukam‖ page 86 Vol. 3 Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1880s Population 1931, 1945: 182, 260 Dunams, 1945: 4626 Houses, 1931: 43 Built-up area, 1945: 15 Physical layout: nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Former residents 1596: Yes Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: makam Bedouin: Comments: Khalil Ali(el sheikh Mohammed Ali) and Alqam clans, Haganah report Name: Beit Um al Mais Other names: Beit Meis Other enumerations: Geographic location: Mandatory location: PEF: ―Ruined walls, no indication of date.‖ Page 85, vol. 3 Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1900-1905 Population 1931, 1945: 0, 70 Dunams, 1945: 1013 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 2 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: al Jura 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes of al Jura Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Occupied by the Hamdan hamula, Haganah report Name: Deir Amr Other names: Kh. Deir Amr, Dayr Amr Other enumerations: Geographic location: Judean hills Mandatory location: Jerusalem sub. PEF: ―ruined walls‖, page 111 vol. 3; Khalidi: Yes Founded: before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 5 (1922), 10 Dunams, 1945: 3072 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Single house Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Suba perhaps 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Suba perhaps Effendi: Husseini lands Sheikh‘s tomb: Sheikh Amr and later called el Sa‘I ‗the messenger‘ Bedouin: Comments: Boys agricultural school run by prominent Khalidi and Husseini families nearby. Name: Islin Other names: Aslin Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Jerusalem sub. PEF: "remains of a ruined village and a Mukam" page 83, vol. 3. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1880-1922 Population 1931, 1945: 186, 260 Dunams, 1945: 2159 Houses, 1931: 40 Built-up area, 1945: 20 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Eshua/Ishwa 1596: Yes Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: of Eshua Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Sheikh Gherib or Shi‘b esh Sheikh Gharib Bedouin: Comments: Haganah survey. Robinson, Gueran and Clermont-Ganneau mentioned it. Name: Kh. Ism Allah Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Shephelah Mandatory location: Ramla/Jerusalem sub. PEF: ―foundations‖, page 115, vol. 3. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 18, 20 Dunams, 1945: 568 Houses, 1931: 4 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: 4 isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Effendi? 1596: Jewish settlement: Kefar Uriah (Kfar Uriah) Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Kefar Uriah had an effendi estate Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: perhaps Comments: Name: Al Nabi Musa Other names: Nebi Musa, Neby Musa Other enumerations: Geographic location: Central Jordan Rift Valley/Judean Hills Mandatory location: Jericho/Jerusalem sub. PEF: Page 220, XVIII, vol. 3 Khalidi: No Founded: Shrine was pre 1880, pilgrimage site Population 1931, 1945: 3, 1380 Dunams, 1945: 83023 Houses, 1931: 1 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Shrine Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin pilgrims 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Nabi Musa Bedouin: Yes Comments: Maps do not show houses of the residents Name: Nataf Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Judean hills Mandatory location: Jerusalem sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1880s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 0 Dunams, 1945: 1491 Houses, 1931: 0 (with Qatanna) Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Effendi estate Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Effendi tenants, Qatanna 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Qatanna? Effendi: Yes Sheikh‘s tomb: Sh. Mas‘ud Bedouin: Comments: Name: Nueima Other names: Ain and Wady Nueihmeh Other enumerations: Geographic location: Central Rift valley Mandatory location: Jericho/Jerusalem sub. PEF: Nueima spring. Khalidi: No Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 179, 240 Dunams, 1945: 52594 Houses, 1931: 43 Built-up area, 411 1945: Physical layout: loose and dispersed clusters of houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Makam al Imam Ali Bedouin: Yes Comments: Conder mentioned the Maqam as well and its traditions in Tent Work in Palestine Name: Duyuk Other names: Ain ed Duk Other enumerations: Geographic location: Central Rift Valley Mandatory location: Jericho/Jerusalem sub. PEF: Ain ed Duk Khalidi: No Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 291, 730 Dunams, 1945: 21301 Houses, 1931: 66 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Dispersed Bedouin houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Local Bedouins attracted by the spring 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Monastery Deir Qaruntal Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Ein Rafa Other names: Ain Rafa Other enumerations: included in Suba Geographic location: Judean hills Mandatory location: Jerusalem sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: cluster of homes Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Suba 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: of Suba Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Barhoum family of the Nasrallah Clan of Suba founded it Jaffa sub-district Name: Sawalima, al Other names: Arab al Sawalima Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Jaffa sub. PEF: Khurbet es Sualimiyeh "traces of ruins." pg. 266, Map XIII, Samaria. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 400 Dunams, 1945: 5942 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: isolated/dispersed house Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Arab al-Sawalima Comments: Name: Muwaylih Other names: Arab al Malaha Bedouin Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Jaffa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 360 Dunams, 1945: 262 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Cluster of houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: local Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Arab al Malaha Comments: Name: al Jalil al Shamaliyya Other names: Islil al-Shamaliyya, Khurbet es Sualimiyeh Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Jaffa sub. PEF: "traces of ruins." pg. 266, Map XIII, Samaria. Khalidi: Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 190 Dunams, 1945: 2450 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 7 Physical layout: nucleated daughter village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Jelil el Qibliye 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, of Jelil el Qibliye Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh sh. Abd el Jelil Bedouin: Comments: Name: Abu Kishk Other names: Arab el Abu Kishk Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Jaffa sub. PEF: Bedouin tribe "Arab el Abu Kishk" Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 1900 Dunams, 1945: 19136 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: loose cluster of Bedouin houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab el Abu Kishk 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Sheikh Sa'd Bedouin: Arab el Abu Kishk Comments: Name: Jammasin al Gharbi Other names: Arab Jammasin Other enumerations: Jammasin al Shaqi Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Jaffa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 127, 1080 Dunams, 1945: 1365 Houses, 1931: 29 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Loose cluster of Bedouin houses with other dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Jammasin Arab tribe 1596: Yes, tribe Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Arab Jammasin Comments: 412 Name: Jammasin al Sharqi Other names: Arab Jammasin Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Jaffa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 780 Dunams, 1945: 359 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab Jammasin and Jammasin al Gharbi 1596: Jammasin, tribe Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Jammasin Comments: Tulkarm sub-district Name: Ghabat Abibisha Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Mughar al Ababsheh "a great number of rock cut tombs at this place" pg 142, Map X. Khalidi: No Founded: Never Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 4834 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: None Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Seasonal settlers from Abibisha 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Abibisha, but never permanent Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Birkat Ramadan Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Khalidi: No Founded: Never Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 4752 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Swampland Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Ghabat Jaiyus Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Khurbet el Jiyuseh "a few mud hovels occupied as an 'Azbeh, or summer residence for those in charge of the herds and flocks sent down to graze on the plain. It had a cistern to the north." pg 135, map X. Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 2436 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Single house Inhabited 1948? maybe Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Jaiyus 1596: Jewish settlement: Gan Shelomo Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Jaiyus Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Ghabat Miska Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Khalidi: No Founded: Never Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 5763 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: none Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Miska seasonal settlers 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: if it existed Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Ghabat et Taiyba Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: Never Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 500 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Single house, perhaps estate house Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Taibya 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Taiyba Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Ghabat Kafr Sur Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 740 Dunams, 1945: 20801 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Single estate Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Kafr Sur 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Kafr Sur Effendi: Bayyarat Hannun Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Arab al Qatatiwa Comments: 1931 it was included with Bayyarat Hannun and Arab al Balawina. 1945 population is an estimate. Name: Iktaba Other names: Other enumerations: included with Anabta Geographic location: Samaria hills Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: "A place to which a certan effendi of Nablus comes down in spring, a sort of 'Azbeh or spring grazing-place for horses, see Section C, pg. 220-223, of Samaria, sheet XI. Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1918 Population 1931, 1945: 121, 300 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 413 1931: With Anabta Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Anabta 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: From Anabta Effendi: Yes, see PEF Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kafr Bara Other names: Kafr Barah, Kefar Berah Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Kh. Kefar Barah Khalidi: No Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 150 Dunams, 1945:3959 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: 14 Physical layout: cluster of houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Sanniriya perhaps 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes Sanniriya perhaps Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Al Burj Other names: El Burj Other enumerations: Bir Burim Geographic location: Plain of Sharon Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: "Burin: traces of ruins on an artificial mound" pg. 178 map XI Samaria, Burj el Atot: "remains of a tower, apparently part of a Cursading Castle. Inhabited by a peasant family." visited may 1873. Khalidi: No Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Two nucleated hamlets Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear, Tulkarm 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Perhaps of Tulkarm Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Khureish Other names: Khreish, Kuraysh Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon Plain Mandatory location: Sharon plain PEF: "Khurbet Khoreish "a rock cut tank or birkeh exists here. A vault, apparently modern. Caves and cisterns." map XIV, Samaria, pg. 337. Khalidi: No Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: Dunams, 1945: 3655 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: 20 Physical layout: nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Kafr Thulth 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Kafr Thulth Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. al Majdal Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1880-1922 Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Single estate house Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Baka al Gharbiyeh perhaps Effendi 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Baka al Gharbiyeh perhaps Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Sheikh Abdullah Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Manshiya Other names: Al Manshiyya Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 94 (1922), 260 Dunams, 1945: 16770 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? Post 1948: Origin of inhabitants: Seasonal settlers from Attil and Zeita 1596: Jewish settlement: Hadera Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Attil and Zeita (Grossman) or from Abasan in Gaza (Khalidi) Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Near Hadera, Kefar Brandeis and Zalafa (Tulk), sited on the large Spring of Dahy Name: Raml Zeita Other names: Kh. Qazaza Other enumerations: Geographic location: Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: map VIII, pg. 61 "traces of ruins." Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945:140 Dunams, 1945: 14837 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Single house Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Zeita 1596: Jewish settlement: Hadera Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Zeita Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Near Zalafa and Masnhiya Name: Wadi Hawarith North Other names: Other enumerations: Wadi Hawarith south Geographic location: Plain of Sharon Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Arab el Hawarith Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 1112, 859 Dunams, 1945: 7106 Houses, 1931: 255 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Bedouin dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab tribe Hawarith 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Kh. esh sh. Muhamed Bedouin: Hawarith Comments: 414 Name: Wadi Hawarith South Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Plain of Sharon Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Arab el Hawarith Khalidi: Yes Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab Hawarith 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Arab Hawarith Comments: Name: Wadi Qabbani Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 320 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 9812 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Ruin and single house Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Lebanese effendi 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Lebanese family Sheikh‘s tomb: Kh. esh sh. Hsein (Hussein) Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Ras Atiya Other names: Other enumerations: Kh. Ras Et Tireh, Ras Tira Geographic location: Samaria hills Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: map XIV, pg. 354, Samaria "walls and cisterns." Khalidi: No Founded: 1940s or earlier Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Kafr Thulth 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Habla? Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Es Sheikh Meisar Other names: Sh. Meiser Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Sheikh Meisir, map VIII, Samaria, pg. 65 "foundations near a modern Mukam" Khalidi: Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Yes, Sh. Meiser Bedouin: Perhaps Comments: Name: Kh. es Zababida Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: map X, "a small modern ruined village" page 141. Khalidi: No Founded: not clear Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 11586 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Post 1948: Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Perhaps Comments: Name: Yamma Other names: Yemma Other enumerations: Kh. Bir es Sikka, Ras Abu Hassan, Kh. Ibthan Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Tulkarm sub. PEF: Khalidi: No Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 48 (1922) Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Strassendorf cluster of houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Deir al Ghusan 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Deir al Ghusan Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Ras Abu Hassan Bedouin: Comments: Nablus sub-district Name: Kh. Sir Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Western Samaria highlands Mandatory location: Nablus sub. PEF: 'Khurbet Sir', map XI, pg. 198, "two rock cut tombs, a large mound with terraces cut in the sides, a good well below; has every appearance of an ancient site." vol. 2. Khalidi: No Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 2242 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: 9 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Seasonal settlement of Qiryat Hajja 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, Qiryat Hajja Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: No Bedouin: No Comments: Name: Usarin Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Eastern Samarian highlands Mandatory location: Nablus sub. PEF: "Ausarin" on Map 15, not mentioned in the text. Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945:122, 200 Dunams, 1945: 2184 Houses, 1931: 34 Built-up 415 area, 1945: 11 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Off-shoot of Akrabah 1596: Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: of Akrabah Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kafr Atiya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Mandatory location: Nablus sub. PEF: 'Kefr 'Atya', "foundations and a sacred place", pg. 391, vol. 2, Map 15. Khalidi: No Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 3930 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Jurish 1596: Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: Seasonal settlement of Jurish Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: El Nabi dhu el Kifl Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Kashda Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Eastern Samarian highlands Mandatory location: Nablus sub. PEF: 'Traces of ruins' vol. 2 map 12, pg. 238. 'Khurbet Kashdeh'. Khalidi: No Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945:6187 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Khan Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Tubas 1596: Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: Yes, Of Tubas Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: No Bedouin: No Comments: Name: Ghor al Faria Other names: Other enumerations: Qawara el Fawqa/Tahta, Umm Herreira, Akrabaniye, Akrabaneh, El-Furoush farm, Mazra‘at el Hamra Geographic location: Jordan valley Mandatory location: Nablus sub. PEF: Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 313, 1670 Dunams, 1945: 80475 Houses, 1931: 174 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: dispersed Bedouin settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins 1596: Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: No Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: No Bedouin: Yes Comments: Ghor-Mudawara agreement, 1921. Haifa sub-district Name: Arab al Fuqara Other names: Arab al Shaykh Muhammad al-Hilu Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes, ―The inhabitants of 'Arab al-Fuqara were descendants of a section of the al-Balawina Bedouin tribe, whose primary territory was Beersheba.‖ Founded: 1942s Population 1931, 1945: 312 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 2711 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed Bedouin settlement Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Hadera, founded 1892 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Selim Khuri owned tribe‘s lands Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes, Fuqara Comments: 113 members in 1922 Name: Arab Zahrat al Dumayri Other names: Ed Dumeira Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: Not clear Population 1931, 1945: 620 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 1387 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: None Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Arab Nufayt Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon Plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: ―Nefeiat or club-bearing Arabs who roam in the marshes and oak woods." p. 145, Sheet X, section C. Khalidi: Yes, ―houses were built of mud and stone‖ Founded: 1942s Population 1931, 1945: 820 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 8892 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Not clear, dispersed Inhabited 1948? Probably Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Split off from Hawarith Bedouins in 1890 1596: Jewish settlement: Mikhmoret was established in 1945 south of the site. Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Selim Khuri owned tribe‘s land Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Included in El Khudeira in 1931, in 1938 138 dunams were Jewish owned. Name: Abu Zureik Other names: Abu Zurayq, Arab Zureiq Other enumerations: Geographic location: Jezreel valley Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: "Ain Abu Zereik" Khalidi: Yes, ―Abu Zurayq Bedouin‖ Founded: late 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 550 Dunams, 1945: 6014 Houses, 1931: 416 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: dispersed Bedouin homesteads Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin tribe of Abu Zureiq 1596: Jewish settlement: Abu Shusha, Ha-Zore'a was built in 1936 was to the north of the site. Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Abu Zureiq Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Barrat Qisarya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: Never Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: None Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: None 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Caesarea Other names: Qisarya Other enumerations: Barrat Qisarya Geographic location: Sharon Plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: Yes, visited 1873 Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1878 Population 1931, 1945: 706, 1120 Dunams, 1945: 31,809 Houses, 1931: 143 Built-up area, 1945: 147 Physical layout: Large semi-planned Bosnian village built on the ruins of ancient Caesarea Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bosnians 1596: Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Ottoman elementary school founded 1884. Name: Kh. Al Butaymat Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Eastern Samarian hills Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: PEF map VIII, pg 71, Umm el Buteimat "traces of ruins". Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 112, 110 Dunams, 1945: 8357 Houses, 1931: 29 Built-up area, 1945: 5 Physical layout: nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Post 1948: Origin of inhabitants: Umm al Fahm? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Perhaps of Umm al Fahm or other Wadi Ara villages Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Ein al Hindi and Ein Bustan Name: Kh. al Burj Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: Map VIII, pg. 53 El Bureij, "Walls and foundations without any indication of date." Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 5291 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Khan Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: 1596: Jewish settlement: Binyamina, founded 1922 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Perhaps Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Damun and Kh. Shallala Other names: Damun farm, Shallala farm, Duweimun, Al Damun Other enumerations: Geographic location: Carmel Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: ‗Duweimin‘ "foundations' map V, page 323. Kh. Shallala "A ruined village in a very good position on a promontory…visited march 11th, 1873" pg 321. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 19 (1922), 340 Dunams, 1945: 2960 Houses, 1931: With Isfiya Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Homestead Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Isfiya? 1596: Jewish settlement: Ya'arot HaCarmel established on Shallala and was evecuated in 1938 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Perhaps Effendi: Perhaps Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Shallala had 15 Muslims and 4 Christians in 1922. Name: Ghub al Fawqa Other names: al-Ghubayyat (the 'little forests'), al-Ghubayya al-Fawqa Other enumerations: Ghaba el Tahta in 1931, The population for 1945 includes Naghnaghiya and al Tahta. Geographic location: Jezreel valley Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1880s Population 1931, 1945: 200, 1130 Dunams, 1945: 3788 Houses, 1931: 38 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Isolated farmsteads Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Tenant farmers of effendis? 1596: al-Ghubayya was a village in the nahiya of Shafa (liwa of Lajjun) with a population of 215 Jewish settlement: Mishmar Ha-Emeq established in 1926 nearby Abdul Hamid lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Probably Sheikh‘s tomb: Al-Shaykh Ahmad Bedouin: Comments: Ottoman school founded in 188 Name: Ghub al Tahta Other names: -Ghubayyat (the 'little forests') Other enumerations: Geographic location: Jezreel valley Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1880s 417 Population 1931, 1945: 41 (1922), included in Ghub al Fawqa Dunams, 1945: 7859 Houses, 1931: Ghub al Fawqa Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Khan or farm Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Tenant farmers? 1596: Yes Jewish settlement: Mishmar Ha-Emeq established in 1926 just a few hundred meters nearby Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: AlShaykh Ahmad Bedouin: Comments: Ein al Gaba Name: Kh. Hawsa Other names: Hawsha, Hosha, Hawsheh, Husheh, Hoshe Other enumerations: Khirbat al-Kasayir Geographic location: Zebulon plain/Galilee foothills Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: Khurbet Husheh map V pg. 311 "heaps of stones, a small mukam (Neby Hushan" on the southwest) Khalidi: Yes, ―a shrine for Nabu Husan‖ Founded: 1922-1920s Population 1931, 1945: 202, 400 Dunams, 1945: 901 Houses, 1931: 53 Built-up area, 1945: 50 Physical layout: nucleated Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Algeria 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Shafa‘amr? Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Kayasir and it were the same village, two bunches just a few hundred meters apart. Name: El Kureiba Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Carmel Mandatory location: Haifa sub PEF: map V, pg. 322, Samaria, "Khureibeh, "ruins of a village, destroyed by Ibrahim Pasha." Khalidi: Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 7096 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Ruin Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Jisr es Zarqa Other names: Zor al-Zarqa, Arab al Ghawarina, Arab al-Ghawarneh, Kh. Shomariyya Other enumerations: Arab al Ghawarina, Kh. Shomariyya, Kh. esh Shaumariya Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: map VII, pg 29 "traces of ruins exist here: a cave, and a tomb…near this ruin the wall or dam, built to prevent the spreading nothwards of the marsh sourounding the Zarka, will be found on the Sheet, ending in a knoll to the east." The PEF described the Arab el Ghawarni as "there are small encampments of Arabs who live permanently in the marshes of the river Zerka . They are so strongly posted (the intricate way through the marshes being only known to themselves) that they are amost free from contributions to Government." pg 34 sheet VII, Section C. Khalidi: No Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 620 Dunams, 1945: 724 Houses, 1931: 0 Builtup area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed Strassendorf Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Arab Ghawarina, Kabara 1596: Jewish settlement: Ma‘agan Meital Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Part of Kabara in 1931, ‗Arab al Ghawarina‘ in 1945 Name: Kabara Other names: Arab Kabbara, Kabbara Other enumerations: Jisr al Zarqa Geographic location: Sharon Plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: PEF map VII, pg 29 "the wall or dam, built to prevent the spreading nothwards of the marsh sourounding the Zarka, will be found on the Sheet, ending in a knoll to the east." Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 572, 120 Dunams, 1945: 10,415 Houses, 1931: 117 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Not clear Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab Ghawarina 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: This is a separate enumeration from Jisr al Zarqa according to the census although maps do not indicate it, its decline in population most likely is due to its seperation on the census from Arab Ghawarina (Jisr al Zarqa). The famous Kabara swamp. Name: Qira Other names: Kira, Qira wa Qamun Other enumerations: Geographic location: Carmel Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: map VIII, pg 60 "Khurbet Kireh "evidently an ancient site. There are plenty of ruins…caves, quarries, water channel…a small mill…a tribe of Turcomans live in the caves; they pronounce the name Jireh." visited december 1872. Khalidi: Yes, ―Bedouin pitched their tents in Qira during the sedentary months of their migratory cycle…tenant farmers.‖ Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 86, 410 Dunams, 1945: 17804 Houses, 1931: 21 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Khan, nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Turcomen 1596: Jewish settlement: Kibbutz HaZorah Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: 418 Name: Kh. Kayasir Other names: Kasair Other enumerations: Hoshe Geographic location: Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: Khalidi: ―Muslim residents traced their origins to North Africa‖ Founded: 1930s? Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Algerians 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Shafa‘amr Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Perhaps an Algerian settlement, was in the midst of an area of villages that were deserted after 1880 including el Mejdel, Kefr Atta and el Harbaj. Name: Kh. Lid Other names: Lid al-'Awadin, Khirbat Lydd, Lidd Other enumerations: Geographic location: Jezreel valley Mandatory location: PEF: map VIII, pg. 66, "Ludd", "traces of ruins, with a pillar-shaft near a spring." Khalidi: Yes Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 451 (Khalidi), 640 Dunams, 1945: 5369 Houses, 1931: 87 (Khalidi) Built-up area, 1945: 53 Physical layout: loosely nucleated Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear, El Awadim might have been a Bedouin tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Muhammed Husmasa nearby Bedouin: El Awadim? Comments: Marsh of al-Nuwaytir was situated on the eastern part of its land Name: Kh. El Manara Other names: ‗lighthouse‘ Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: Not clear Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Small nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Ein Ghazal or Ijzim 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Ein Ghazal or Ijzim Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: In 1945 included with Ijzim, Kh. Qumbaza, Al-Mazar and Shaykh al-Burayk and alWashahiyya Name: Kh. Sharkas Other names: Kh. Sarkas, al Ghaba Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: 1880s Population 1931, 1945: 383, 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 80 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Nucleated settlement Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Circassians and then Arabs 1596: Jewish settlement: Pardes Hanna and Gan Shmuel Abdul Hamid II lands: Perhaps Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Mansi Other names: Arab al Mansi, Arab Baniha Other enumerations: Geographic location: Jezreel valley Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: map VIII, pg. 67, Samaria "el Mensi a small ruined village, with springs." Khalidi: Yes Founded: "22 were Christians…had a boys' elementary school…a mosque and a mill" Population 1931, 1945: 467, 1222 Dunams, 1945: 12272 Houses, 1931: 98 Built-up area, 1945: 17 Physical layout:Dispersed houses, strassendorf Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab Baniha 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sursuq lands perhaps Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kh. Mansura Other names: Al Mansura Other enumerations: Geographic location: Carmel Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: "Jelamet el Mansura" appears on map V Khalidi: Yes, ―Druze‖ Founded: Not clear, 1940s Population 1931, 1945: included in Daliat al Carmel Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Perhaps Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Druze from Daliyat al Carmel 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Daliyat al Carmel Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments:The ruins of Mansura are southwest of the actual hamlet. Nearby is Deir Mihirqa, a Carmelite monastery. Down the road from Daliyat al Carmel. Name: El Mazar Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 134 (1922) Dunams, 1945: 5207 Houses, 1931: In Ijzim Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: loose nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Ijzim? 1596: Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Ijzim? Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Bir al Mazar 419 Name: Naghnaghiya Other names: al-Ghubayyat Other enumerations: Geographic location: Jezreel Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi:Yes Founded: Not clear, perhaps as early as 1880s Population 1931, 1945: 416, in Ghub al Fawqa Dunams, 1945: 3333 Houses, 1931: 78 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed homesteads Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Naghnaghiya Bedouin tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kh. Ras Ali Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Zebulon Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: 1942s? Population 1931, 1945: 2, 82 Shafa‘amr suburbs Dunams, 1945: 2 Houses, 1931: 2, Shafa‘amr suburbs Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: scattered houses Inhabited 1948? Post 1948: Origin of inhabitants: Ras Ali Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Shafa‘amr? Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Rihaniyya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Samarian hills/Sharon plain Mandatory location: PEF: Khurbet er Rihaneh PEF map VIII, pg. 62, "a ruined modern village, and watch-towers in ruins, with two springs." Khalidi: "Had a mosque and a boys' elementary school, established around 1887 during Ottoman rule" Founded: 1887 Population 1931, 1945: 293, 240 Dunams, 1945: 7454 Houses, 1931: 55 Built-up area, 1945: 10 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear, Daliyat et Ruha? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Rihan Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Sasa Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Zebulon Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: map V, pg. 318 "caves and foundations." Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1930/40s Population 1931, 1945: 2, 132 Shafa‘amr suburbs Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Shafa‘amr suburbs Builtup area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: scattered houses and nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Shafa‘amr 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Shafa‘amr Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Warrat Sarris Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Zebulon Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: Never Population 1931, 1945: 0, 190 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: None Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Seasonal grazing area of Shafa‘amr 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Shafa‘amr suburbs Name: Umm al Alaq Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: Umm el Alak, map VIII, pg. 71, "Ruined walls." Khalidi: No Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0 (Hadawi) Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Tel Tsur and Zichron Yaacov and Binyamina Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Ein um el Alaq, near Tel Tsur, the Jewish kibbutz. It was included in Zikhron Ya'aqov in 1931 and because Zichron had 114 Muslims in 1931 one could assume that was the population of Umm el Alaq and Esh Shauna(also in Zichron) put together. Name: Umm al Katouf Other names: Umm el Qutuf Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sharon plain Mandatory location: Haifa sub. PEF: Kh. Umm el Kutuf "ruined walls", pg 65, map 8 Khalidi: Founded: Population 1931, 1945: Part of Qaffin Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Part of Qaffin Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: scattered houses in a loose nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Zibda or Yabad 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Zibda or Yabad Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Near to another small hamlet named Kh. el Tawila and near Kh. Meiser and Barta Jenin sub-district 420 Name: Arabbuna Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Samaria highlands Mandatory location: Jenin sub. PEF: map 9, Vol. 2, pg 102, Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 138, 210 Dunams, 1945: 6772 Houses, 1931: 24 Built-up area, 1945: 22 Physical layout: Loose nucleated settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Unstable village? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Guerin thought it was a village Name: Barta'a Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Samarian hills Mandatory location: Jenin sub. PEF: map 8 'Bertah' pg. 51, "a ruined Arabic village on a high hill with a spring in the valley to the north 400 feet below." map 8. vol. 2. Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 692, 1,000 Dunams, 1945: 20499 Houses, 1931: 94 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Loose settlement of houses along a ridge Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Seasonal settlement of Yabad 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Yabad Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh sh. Barta Bedouin: Comments: Name: Ein al Mansi Other names: Arab Baniha Other enumerations: Geographic location: Jezreel valley Mandatory location: Jenin sub. PEF: 'El Mensi', " a small ruined village with springs." pg. 67, vol. 2 map 8. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 73, 90 Dunams, 1945: 1278 Houses, 1931: 15 Built-up area, 1945: 2 Physical layout: dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kufeirat Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Samarian hills Mandatory location: Jenin sub. PEF: 'El Kufeir' PEF vol. 2 pg. 243, Map 12, "He [Guerin] says it is an abandoned village." Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 154, 240 Dunams, 1945: 1647 Houses, 1931: 28 Built-up area, 1945: 6 Physical layout: Nucleated Hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Zababdeh 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: of Zababdeh Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Lajjun Other names: Other enumerations: Included in Umm al Fahm Geographic location: Jezreel valley Mandatory location: Jenin Sub. PEF: Ruin Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1910 Population 1931: 857 1945: in Umm al Fahm, Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 162 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Seasonal settlers from Umm al Fahm 1596: Yes Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: Yes of Umm al Fahm (Khalidi) Effendi: Abdul Hadi Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Ruined Khan and mills mentiond by PEF. Name: Tilfit Other names: Kh. Telfit Other enumerations: Geographic location: Samarian hills Mandatory location: Jenin sub. PEF: 'Khurbet Telfit' PEF pg. 240, vol. 2 "modern masonry", map 12. Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945:120, 170 Dunams, 1945: 22529 Houses, 1931: 26 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Small nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Post 1948: Origin of inhabitants: Zababdeh 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Zababdeh Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: El Atif Bedouin: Comments: Name: Zalafa Other names: Zalafa Gharbiya, Zalafa Sharqiya Other enumerations: Geographic location: Jezreel Valley Mandatory location: Jenin sub. PEF: 'Zelefeh' pg. 72, Vol. 2, map 8, "a small ruined village with a well." Khalidi: No Founded:1920s Population 1931, 1945: 198, 340 Dunams, 1945: 3789 Houses, 1931: 43 Built-up area, 1945: 8 Physical layout: Two clusters of houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Daughter village/seasonal settlement of Zubaiba or Umm al Fahm 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Yes, of Zubaiba? Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: 30 Christians in 1945 Name: Zibda Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Mandatory location: Jenin sub. PEF: 'Zebdah' pg. 72, "a ruined village with a well", vol. 2, map 8. Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 132, 190 Dunams, 1945: 11924 Houses, 1931: 22 Built-up area, 1945: 421 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet with dispersed houses and homesteads Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Yabad 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Yabad Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Mustafa Bedouin: Comments: Robinson included it as a village Name: Mu'awiya Other names: Muawiya Kh. El Mawiyeh Other enumerations: Geographic location: Samaria hills Mandatory location: Jenin sub. PEF: Kh. El Mawiyeh p. 61 "a small ruined khan, of no great antiquity, on the road, near a spring." map 8. Khalidi: No Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 141, in Umm al Fahm Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 30 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Khan, shrine and nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Umm al Fahm 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Umm al Fahm Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Mu‘awiya Bedouin: Comments: Nazareth sub-district Name: Shibli and Umm al Ghanem Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Nazareth sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: dispersed Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: At the base of Mount Tabor Baysan sub-district Name: Arida Other names: Arab Arida Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 182, 150 Dunams, 1945: 2281 Houses, 1931: 38 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed Bedouin houses and tents Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins 1596: Jewish settlement: Sede Eliyahu Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Ashrafiya Other names: Ashrafiyat El Hadi, Ashrafiyat Haddad, Ashrafiyat Kazma, Ashrafiyat Zamriq Other enumerations: Ashrafiyat El Hadi, Ashrafiyat Haddad, Ashrafiyat Kazma, Ashrafiyat Zamriq Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 219, 230 Dunams, 1945: 6711 Houses, 1931: 94 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Farms Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Effendis and tenants 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Yes, Abdul Hadi Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Bawati el Other names: Arab al Bawati, Khirbat al Hakamiyya, Umm al-Sharashih, Mazraa de Hakmie Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Khurbet el Hakeimiyeh "ruined walls and a few modern deserted houses-a small deserted village." pg 122, Samaria. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 461, 520 Dunams, 1945: 10641 Houses, 1931: 86 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Strassendorf and dispersed Bedouin homes Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Chamadya founded to the west in 1942 Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Arab Bawati were members of the Ghazzawiyya Bedouin tribe Name: Bira Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: El Bireh "Ruins of an ordinary village." pg. 114, Samaria. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 220, 260 Dunams, 1945: 6866 Houses, 1931: 53 Built-up area, 1945: 54 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II‘s settlers 1596: al-Bira "in 1596 al Bira was a village in the nahiya of Shafa (liwa of Lajjun) with a population of 297 Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: 422 Name: Bashatiwa Other names: "Arab el Beshutwy" Other enumerations: Hawafzeh, Shehaimat Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: "Arab el Beshutwy" Khalidi: No Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 1560 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 20574 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Kh. El Mazar and other isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Farwana Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Tell ul Farwanah "small mounds, apparently artificial." pg 128, Samaria. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 286, 330 Dunams, 1945: 4996 Houses, 1931: 72 Built-up area, 1945: 11 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II‘s tenants 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Fatur Other names: Fatoor Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Khalidi: Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 66, 110 Dunams, 1945: 789 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II‘s settlers 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: shaykh al-Fatur and Shaykh Radgha Bedouin: Comments: Name: Ghazawiya Other names: Arab Ghazzawiyya Other enumerations: Sheikh Husein, Abu Hushiyeh, Abo Hashieh, Manshieh Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Ghazzaqiyya tribe Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 156, 1020 Dunams, 1945: 5323 Houses, 1931: 28 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Post 1948: Origin of inhabitants: 1596: Jewish settlement: Haiyim Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Hamidiya Al Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1890s, before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 157, 220 Dunams, 1945: 10302 Houses, 1931: 42 Built-up area, 1945: 10 Physical layout: nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II‘s settlers 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Maqam Khalid Bedouin: Comments: Name: Hamra Other names: Arab al Hamra Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: PEF: Wady el Hamra Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1940s? Population 1931, 1945: 550 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 11311 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Jisr el Majami Other names: Gesher Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Khalidi: No Founded: before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 3, 0 Dunams, 1945: 548 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: nucleated settlement Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: 1596: Jewish settlement: Gesher Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Gesher founded and villagers left Name: Kafra Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Kefrah "is a ruined village with traces of antiquity. Dr. Tristram mentions it as inhabited in 1866, and containing drafted masonry, but the ruins do not appear important (see Kefrah, section A)" Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 298, 430 Dunams, 1945: 9172 Houses, 1931: 81 Built-up area, 1945: 18 Physical layout: Nucleated settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: 423 Name: Khuneizir Other names: Ikhneizir Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Tell el Khanezir Khalidi: Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 200, 260 Dunams, 1945: 3107 Houses, 1931: 47 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Not clear Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II? 1596: Jewish settlement: Tirat Tzvi, 1937 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Masil el Jizl Other names: Arab al Zinati, Masil al Jizl Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945:197, 100 Dunams, 1945: 3878 Houses, 1931: 47 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Massad, Kefar Ruppin Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Safa Other names: Arab al Safa, Es Safa, Arab Sakr Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 540, 650 Dunams, 1945: 12518 Houses, 1931: 108 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab al Safa Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Tirat Tzvi founded in 1937, Sde Eliyyahu founded in 1939 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Kh. Sursuq Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh. Sh. Mohammed Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Samiriya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Khurbet es Samriyeh "Ruined walls and traces of ruins alone remain. The place has, however, the appearance of an ancient site, and is well supplied with water." pg. 123, Samaria. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 181, 240 Dunams, 1945: 3878 Houses, 1931: 41 Built-up area, 1945: 21 Physical layout: Nucleated settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II‘s settlers 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Sakhina Other names: Arab Sakhina, Arab SakrOther enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: "Ain es Sakhneh" Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 374, 530 Dunams, 1945: 6401 Houses, 1931: 78 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Not clear, dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Nir David established in 1936, called or near Tel Amal. Abdul Hamid lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Tell esh Shauk Other names: Tall al-Shawk, Tell esh Shok Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan Valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Tell esh Shok northern and southern "(southern) an artificial earthen mound with water on either side, (northern) an artificial earthen mound near Jordan; a spring also exists about 1 mile to the west." pg. 128. Samaria. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 41, 120 Dunams, 1945: 3685 Houses, 1931: 11 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Estate houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid and tenants 1596: Jewish settlement: Near Nir David in the late 1940s Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Perhaps Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Umm Ajra Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 242, 260 Dunams, 1945: 6443 Houses, 1931: 48 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Not clear Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II? 1596: Jewish settlement: Avuqa founded in 1941 to the north, Kibbutz En ha-Natziv founded in 1946 to the west, Kibbutz Kefar Ruppin founded in 1938 to the east.Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Kh. Hajj Makke Name: Wadi al Bira Other names: Et Taqa, Bakkar, Thaliba Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan valley PEF: Wady el Bireh Khalidi: No Founded: 424 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 112, 70 Dunams, 1945: 5195 Houses, 1931: 31 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Yubla Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan vallley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Khurbet Yebla "Heaps of stones. No indications of date." pg. 125, Samaria. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 88, 210 Dunams, 1945: 5165 Houses, 1931: 23 Built-up area, 1945: 13 Physical layout: Nucleated settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Benei Brit founded in 1937 two km to the northwest. Name changed to Molodet in 1952. Abdul Hamid II lands: No Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Zaba Other names: Zab‘a, Mazraa de Zia Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Zeba "Heaps of stones." pg. 130, Samaria. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 147, 170 Dunams, 1945: 898 Houses, 1931: 37 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Yes, Jabbul Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Zara Other names: Zarra, Ez Zarra‘a Arab ez Zara Other enumerations: Geographic location: Baysan valley Mandatory location: Baysan sub. PEF: Khalidi: Founded: Not clear Population 1931, 1945: 73, 0 Dunams, 1945: 898 Houses, 1931: 37 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: none houses Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Abdul Hamid II, Sakr Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Tirat Tzvi Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Sakr tribe Comments: Became a Jewish settlement Tiberias sub-district Name: Dalhamiya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sea of Galilee/Baysan valley Mandatory location: Tiberias sub. PEF: East bank of Jordan, not mapped Khalidi: Yes Founded: Not clear, pre 1880 and unstable Population 1931, 1945: 240, 410 Dunams, 1945: 9876 Houses, 1931: 50 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Not clear Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Former village by same name 1596: Jewish settlement: Ashdot Ya'aqov founded in 1933 and Ashdot Ya'aqov Me'uchad dounded in 1933 and Menachemya founded in 1902. Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Robinson travels in 1838 published 1841, III, pg 264. Train stop. Name: Hamma Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sea of Galilee Mandatory location: Tiberias sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi:Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 172, 290 Dunams, 1945: 1626 Houses, 1931: 46 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: train station and planned village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab immigrants from nearby 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Yes Daughter village: Effendi: A Lebanese entreprenseur, Sulayman Nasif, was given a concession in in 1936 to exploit the springs Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Train station. Site of springs. Name: Kh. al Wa'ra es Sauda Other names: Other enumerations: El Mawasi, el Wuheib, Hamam Geographic location: Galilee hills Mandatory location: Tiberias sub. PEF: 'Kh. El Wereidat' "Heaps of Stones of small size", pg. 409, vol.1. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 1060, 1870 Dunams, 1945: 3377 Houses, 1931: 190 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed Bedouin villages Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: Partly, Hamam Origin of inhabitants: Arab Mawasi and Arab Wuheib 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: 425 Name: el Manara Other names: Arab al Manara Other enumerations: Nasr ed Din Geographic location: Galilee hills Mandatory location: Tiberias sub. PEF: 'El Menarah', "ruined Arab Houses, all basalt; no cisterns", pg. 413, Vol. 1. Khalidi: Yes ―twin village of Nasr al Din‖ Founded: 1922s Population 1931, 1945: 214, 490 Dunams, 1945: 6797 Houses, 1931: 33 Built-up area, 1945: 13 Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab al Manara 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Arab al Manara Comments: Name: Nasr Ed Din Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sea of Galilee Mandatory location: Tiberias sub. PEF: Nasr Ed Din Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 179, 90 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 35 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet and shrine Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear, ‗sister village of Manara‘? 1596: Jewish settlement: Tiberias Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Manara? Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Nasr ed Din Bedouin: Comments: Name: Nuqeib Other names: Arab al NuqaybOther enumerations: Geographic location: Sea of Galilee Mandatory location: Tiberias sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 287, 310 Dunams, 1945: 13220 Houses, 1931: 60 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: shoreline settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Bahai owned the land Name: Es Samikiya Other names: Arab al-Samakiyya, Talhum Other enumerations: Geographic location: Sea of Galilee Mandatory location: Tiberias Sub. PEF: Arab tribe, Capernaum Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 290, 280 Dunams, 1945: 10526 Houses, 1931: 60 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: dispersed Bedouin houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins and site of Capernaum 1596: Jewish settlement: No Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Christian site of Capernaum Name: Es Samra Other names: Other enumerations: Kafr Harib lands Geographic location: Sea of Galilee Mandatory location: Tiberias sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi: Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 237, 290 Dunams, 1945: 7879 Houses, 1931: 50 Built-up area, 1945: 9 Physical layout: Shoreline settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Swiss traveler Burckhart noted its ancient buildings and mentioned that it was the only inhabited village on the east side of Lake Tiberias [Burckhart 1822, pp. 278-79], the American biblical scholar Edward Robinson was told that al-Samra lay on the eastern shore of Lake Tiberias. Name: Tabgha (At Tabigha) Other names: Et Tabigha Other enumerations: Tell el Hunud, Khan el Minya Geographic location: Sea of Galilee Mandatory location: Tiberias Sub. PEF: Kh. Minia pg. 403, Vol. 1, and Tell Hum, pg. 414, both on map VI. Et. Tabigha doesn't appear to be mentioned but it is on the map. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1880s Population 1931, 1945:245, 330 Dunams, 1945: 3772 Houses, 1931: 53 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Christian European site, dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins and others 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Christian site Acre sub-district Name: Kammana Other names: Arab Suweid Other enumerations: Jalasa, Arab Suweid, Salame Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Acre sub. PEF: "Jebel Kummaneh" Khalidi: No Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed Bedouin houses Inhabited 1948? Probably Post 1948: Yes Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: 426 Name: Kh. Mansura Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Acre sub. PEF: "Scattered stones, Birkeh near" Vol. 1 map Iv, page 242. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: Part of Fassuta Dunams, 1945: Part of Fassuta Houses, 1931: Part of Fassuta Built-up area, 1945: Part of Fassuta Physical layout: Nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Christians from Fassuta 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Fassuta Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Part of Lebanon until 1923 Name: Masub Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Acre sub. PEF: 'Kh. Masub' map 3, Vol. 1, pg. 174, "scattered stones and several lintels, roughly dressed, twelve olive-presses. It is reported that a church once stood here." Khalidi: In Bassa Founded: Never Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Seasonal hamlet of Bassa Inhabited 1948? Probably not Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bassa 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Bassa Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Kh. Iribbin Other names: Arab Qulaytat, Arab al Aramisha Other enumerations: Arab Qulaytat, Arab al Aramisha, Jurdayh and Khirbet Idmith Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Acre sub. PEF: Kh. Idmith:"Three or four modern houses built out of ancient materials, several cisterns cut in the rock, two good springs with a few traces of ruins" map 3, pg 176. Kh. 'Arubbin "foundations of walls and modern walls, remains of a small chapel, with two columns." pg 171, map. Khalidi: 'Irribin, Khirbat (Khirbat I'ribbin, 'Arab al-Qulaytat) "inhabited by the Arab al-Qulaytat Bedouin" pg 17. Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 360 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 11463 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Ruins and Bedouin houses Inhabited 1948? Probably Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins Qulaytat (census and Khalidi) and Aramisha (1945 census) 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kh. Jiddin Other names: Kulat Jiddin Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Acre sub. PEF: Kulat Jiddin "A Sacacenic castle built by Dhaher el'Amr during his rebellion against Turkish power. Some parts of the castle are still in a fair state of repair, thought it is entirely deserted and is rapidly falling to pieces…a photograph in the PEF new series shows the general characteristics of the buildings." pg 185, map 3 Khalidi: Arab al-Suwaytat Bedouin lived in the ruined fortess Founded: Not clear Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Fortress Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kh. Suwwana Other names: Arab al-Samniya and Arab Tauqiya Other enumerations: Arab alSamniya and Arab Tauqiya Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Acre sub. PEF: Kh. Suwaneh "heaps of stones and cisterns" pg. 181 map 3. Khalidi: Arab al-Samniyya (Khirbat slSuwwana) "also known as Khirbat al-Suwwana" pg 5. Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 40, 200 Dunams, 1945: 1872 Houses, 1931: 13 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: isolated ruins Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Safed sub-district Name: Ammuqa Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: "this place was celebrated among the Jews of the Middle Ages as containing the tomb of Jonathan, son of Uzziel the Targumist (see Carmoly 'Itineraires,' p. 132)" pg. 220, Galilee. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 114, 140 Dunams, 1945: 2574 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: 32 Physical layout: Loose nucleated settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Algeria 1596: Ammuqa was a village in the nahiya of Jira (liwa of Safad) with a population of 391 Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Al Mughar? Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Ain al Balatin 427 Name: Arab Esh Shamalina Other names: Arab Abu Zeina Other enumerations: Arab Abu Zeina Geographic location: Sea of Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Kh. Abu Zeineh or Shunet Esh Shemalneh "modern Arab graneries and slight traces of modern ruined houses." pg 396, map VI. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 250 (1941) Dunams, 1945: 14810 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Linear Bedouin settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Sh. Ibrahim nearby Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Beisamun Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh valley Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 50, 20 Dunams, 1945: 2076 Houses, 1931: 11 Built-up area, 1945: 2 Physical layout: Scattered houses on the swamp‘s shore Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Beisamun Bedouin tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes, Arab Zubeid Comments: Name: Buweiziya and El Meis Other names: al-Buwayziyya, Buaizia Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Valley Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 318, 510 Dunams, 1945: 15081 Houses, 1931: 75 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Strassendorf Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin tribe 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Darbashiya, ed Other names: al-Dirbashiyya Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 310 (1945) Dunams, 1945: 2852 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Scattered houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Al Samadi Bedouin: Comments: Name: Dawwara Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 552, 700 Dunams, 1945: 5569 Houses, 1931: 106 Built-up area, 1945: 52 Physical layout: Large complex on a road Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Ghabbatiya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: PEF: Kh. Ghabbati "foundations of walls and one olive press." pg. 237 Galilee. Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 9 (1922), 60 Dunams, 1945: 2938 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Sasa? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Sasa Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Gharuba Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 124, 220 Dunams, 1945: 3459 Houses, 1931: 27 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Not clear Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Sh. Mahmud Bedouin: Comments: Name: Harrawi Other names: Arab al-Hamdun Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Vol. 1, pg. 248, might be 'El Khureibeh': "an extensive ruin on a high hill-top and extending on to the plain below. There are cisterns, olive-presses, and a large sarcophagus. Modern ruins mixed with more ancient materials are found on top, rock-cut tombs in side of hill to the south." Khalidi: Yes Founded: Not clear Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 3726 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: 2 Physical layout: None Inhabited 1948? No Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab al-Hamdun 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Arab al-Hamdun Comments: 428 Name: Kh. El Hiqab Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: 'Kh. El Hekab', vol. 1, pg. 239, "small heaps of roughly cut stones." Khalidi: No Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 16 (1922), 0 Dunams, 1945: 3280 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: isolated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Akbara 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Of Akbara Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Jahula Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Ain Jahulah Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 357, 420 Dunams, 1945: 2738 Houses, 1931: 90 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Strassendorf Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jahula was a village in the nahiya of Jira (liwa of Safed) with a population of twenty-eight Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Hamra Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi:Yes Founded: 1940s? Population 1931, 1945: Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Single house Inhabited 1948? Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments:Part of Muftahira Name: Huseiniya Other names: Husseiniya, Husseniyya Other enumerations: al-Zubaydat Bedouin Geographic location: Huleh valley Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Vol. 1 og. 239, map 4, 'Kh. El Hasaniyeh', "a few ruined cattle sheds." Khalidi: al-Zubaydat Bedouin Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 274, In Tuleil Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 64 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Algerian Bedouin and perhaps Algerians 1596: Jewish settlement: Ayyelet ha-Shahar founded in 1918 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Es Hasanawi Bedouin: Yes Comments: Part of Tuleil in 1945 Name: Kh. Jeisi Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: Population 1931, 1945: Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931:0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: scattered houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear, Bedouins perhaps Zanghariyeh 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Zanghariya or Suiyad? Comments: Part of Zangariya Name: Jubb Yusef Other names: Khan Jubb Yusef Arab Es Suyyad Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: 'Kh. Jubb Yusef' pg. 240, vol. 1, "Foundations of walls and heaps of stones one rock-cut cistern; ruined khan near" next to 'Khan Jubb Yusef' Khalidi: the springs attracted the Bedouin of the Arab al-Suyyad tribe Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 170 Dunams, 1945: 11325 Houses, 1931: 0Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jubb Yusuf was a village in the nahiya of Jura (liwa of Safad) with a population of 72 Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: The swiss traveller Burckhart noted in 1822 that the khan was falling into ruin [Burckhart 1822, pg 318] Name: Khayim al Walid Other names: ‗Tents‘ of Walid Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 181, 280 Dunams, 1945: 4518 Houses, 1931: 42 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Isolated house and tomb Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear, Bedouin? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: al-Shaykh ibn al-Walid Bedouin: Comments: A number of springs Name: Khisas Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 386, 530 Dunams, 1945: 5696 Houses, 1931: 73 Built-up area, 1945: 13 Physical layout: Large dispersed settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes 429 Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin? 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Zuq al Tahta Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Maps indicate growth over the years 1930-1942 Name: Kh. Khati Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Probably the place called on the PEF map "Ain el Kady" which is not mentioned in text but was near Kh. Ghuzaleh "Foundations of walls and basaltic stones." Khalidi: No Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Nucleated hamlet and dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab Zanghariyah 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Sh. Nasir Bedouin: of the Zanghariya perhaps Comments: Part of Zangariya Name: Kirad el Baqqara Other names: Arab Baqqara, ‗Cow‘ Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: In the area of what the PEF called "Kh. Jeftelek-ruined hovels and cattle-sheds." Khalidi: Bedouin Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 245, 360 Dunams, 1945: 2262 Houses, 1931: 54 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Ayyelet ha-Shahar founded in 1918 and Mishmar ha-Yarden Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kirad al Ghannama Other names: Arab Ghannama ‗Sheep‘ Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: In the area of what the PEF called "Kh. Jeftelekruined hovels and cattle-sheds." Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 265, 350 Dunams, 1945: 3808 Houses, 1931: 54 Built-up area, 1945: 64 Physical layout: Dispersed Bedouin village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin and Jewish influence 1596: Jewish settlement: Ayyelet ha-Shahar founded in 1918 Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Mallaha Other names: Arab Zubeid Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Spring Khalidi: Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 654, 890 Dunams, 1945: 2168 Houses, 1931: 161 Built-up area, 1945: 20 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Arab Zubeid 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Arab Zubeid Comments: Very close to Beisamun Name: Mansurat el Kheit Other names: Kerad al Kheit, Mansura al Hula Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Mansura after a Shaykh Mansur who according to tradition had been buried there Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 200 Dunams, 1945: 6735 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: 17 Physical layout: Isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin, Kerad al Kheit 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Kerad al Kheit, Perhaps Comments: Near Tuba, Arab el Heib Name: Marus Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Vol. 1 pg. 242, Kh. Marus, 'Kh. Marus': "Modern and ancient ruins; a spring in a rockcut cave, anvient foundations of good-sized stones, the foundations of a small rectangular building to the west of the eastern portion of the ruin. Some rock-cut tombs and many caves in hills around." Khalidi: Yes Founded: Population 1931, 1945: 59, 80 Dunams, 1945: 3183 Houses, 1931: 12 Built-up area, 1945: 8 Physical layout: Nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Marus was a village in the Nahiya of Jura (liwa of Safad) with a population of 176 Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Perhaps of Delata Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Mazari ed Daraja Other names: Other enumerations: Urifa, Dureijat, Ein Tina, Jalabina, Weiziya (Alamin) Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi:No Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 100 Dunams, 1945: 5328 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Not clear Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin Almin? 1596: 430 Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Muftakhira Other names: Other enumerations: Barjifyat, Hamra Geographic location: Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 231, 350 Dunams, 1945: 8829 Houses, 1931: 51 Built-up area, 1945: 19 Physical layout: Dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Nabi Yusha Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 52, 70 Dunams, 1945: 3617 Houses, 1931:12 Built-up area, 1945: 24 Physical layout: Nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Nabi Yusha Bedouin: Comments: Pilgrimage festival, first constructed in the 18th century, police post. Name: Qudeiriya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 72, 390 Dunams, 1945: 12487 Houses, 1931: 14 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Shrine and nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: al Shaykh al Rumi Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Rihaniya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: ponds Khalidi: No Founded: 1880s Population 1931, 1945: 222, 290 Dunams, 1945: 6137 Houses, 1931: 53 Built-up area, 1945: 89 Physical layout: Nucleated village Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Circassians 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Perhaps Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Sinbariya Other names: Sanbariya, Es Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Khurbet es Sanbariyeh "A few ruined Arab houses." pg. 121, Galilee. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 83, 130 Dunams, 1945: 2512 Houses, 1931: 20 Built-up area, 1945: 24 Physical layout: Dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Shauqa et Tahta Other names: Other enumerations: Mughr esh Shab'an Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 0, 200 Dunams, 1945: 1529 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Shuna Other names: Other enumerations: Kh. Sirin Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: 'Kulat esh Shuneh', pg. 412, vol. 1, "A modern Arab building of basaltic stone, used probably as a barn, as the name implies." Khalidi: "The Bedouin tribe of the Arab al-Sayyad and alQudayrat tribes pitched their tents near the eastern edge of the village." Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 337, 170 Dunams, 1945: 2155 Houses, 1931: 65 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: One large house Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouins 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kh. Sirin Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Kh. Sirin, "Heaps of cut stones." pg. 405, Galilee. Khalidi: No Founded: Not clear Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Single house Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Part of Esh Shuna 431 Name: Kh. Es Summan Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Not mapped Khalidi:Not Founded: Not clear Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 4006 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: 0Physical layout: Four isolated houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Perhaps Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Tuba Other names: Arab el Heib, Kh. Muntar Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: No Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 370, 590 Dunams, 1945: 9619 Houses, 1931: 76 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: Dispersed houses Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Tuleil Other names: Other enumerations: Huseiniya Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Et Teleil "Modern cattle-sheds and traces of ruins of basaltic stone." pg. 257, Galilee Khalidi: Yes Founded: Before 1922 Population 1931, 1945: 196 (1922), 340 Dunams, 1945: 5324 Houses, 1931: Huseiniya Built-up area, 1945: 48 Physical layout: Nucleated village on the Huleh Inhabited 1948? Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Algerians 1596: Tulayl was a village in the nahiya of Jira (liwa of Safad) with a population of 215 Jewish settlement: Yesud Ha Maala founded in 1883 evidently attracted it. Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Urifa Other names: Other enumerations: Mazari el Daraja Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1940s Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Cluster of houses Inhabited 1948? Probably Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: In Mazari el Daraja. Name: Ulmaniya, el Other names: Arab al-Zubayd Other enumerations: Geographic location: Hueh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Vol. 1, Pg. 235, map 4, 'Kh. Almaniyeh', "A few cattle-cheds and traces of ruins." Khalidi: No Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 432, 260 Dunams, 1945: 1169 Houses, 1931: 100 Built-up area, 1945: 0 Physical layout: nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Muhammed el Almani Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Kh. Uqeima Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Mandatory location: Galilee Safed sub. PEF: 'Kh. Ukmeih', pg. 248, Vol. 1, map 4, "Foundations of walls of well dressed stones, medium sized heaps of stones, some larger than ordinary, several lintels and door posts, three sarcophoga, and cisterns." Khalidi: No Founded: Not clear Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: 0 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Khan Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Name: Weiziya Other names: Wazia Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: Not clear Population 1931, 1945: 0 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Nucleated hamlet Inhabited 1948? Not clear Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin tribe Wazia 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Shaykh al-Wayzi Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Yarda Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 13, 0 Dunams, 1945: 1368 Houses, 1931: 3 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Effendi estate Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: effendi‘s settlers 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Yes Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Mushareifawi Bedouin: Comments: Name: Zanghariyeh Other names: Zuhluq Other enumerations: Kh. Jeisi, Khirbat Karraza, Kh. Khati Geographic location: Galilee Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1920s 432 Population 1931, 1945: 526, 840 Dunams, 1945: Houses, 1931: 97 Built-up area, 1945: 27918 Physical layout: Dispersed Bedouin settlements Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Bedouin 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Esh Sh. Hamdan Bedouin: Yes Comments: Name: Zawiya Other names: Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: No Khalidi:Yes Founded: 1920s Population 1931, 1945: 590, 760 Dunams, 1945: 3935 Houses, 1931: 141 Built-up area, 1945: 208 Physical layout: Large loose nucleated settlement Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear, perhaps Ghawarina Arabs 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Perhaps swamp dwellings Arabs Comments: Name: Zuq al Fawqani Other names: Zuq al-Hajj Other enumerations: Geographic location: Huleh Mandatory location: Safed sub. PEF: Kh. Zuk el Haj "Foundations of walls buit with basaltic masonry." Map II, pg 123. Khalidi: Yes Founded: 1930s Population 1931, 1945: 160 Dunams, 1945: 1832 Houses, 1931: 0 Built-up area, 1945: Physical layout: Inhabited 1948? Yes Post 1948: No Origin of inhabitants: Not clear 1596: Jewish settlement: Abdul Hamid II lands: Daughter village: Effendi: Sheikh‘s tomb: Bedouin: Comments: Appendix II: Aerial Photos of Selected Rural Arab Settlements Mentioned in this Study, 1944 433 Beersheba sub-district Khalasa, Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS36_6167, 26 April, 1945. Jammama: Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive,PS 15 6027, 10 January, 1945. Hebron sub-district Kh. Beit Awwa Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive,PS 15 6010, 10 January, 1945. Jerusalem sub-district Ein Rafa Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive,PS 1 5012, 10 December, 1944. Jaffa sub-district Abu Kishk Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS3 6160, 10 December, 1944. Muwaliyeh Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS3 5143, 10 December, 1944. Tulkarm sub-district Kafr Bara and Kh. Khureish Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS 3 6166, 10 December, 1944. Sheikh Meisar Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS 4 5014, 10 December 1944. Yemma Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS18, 5038, December 1944. Haifa sub-district Jisr al Zarqa Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS4 6097, 10 December, 1944. Kh. Kasair and Hoshe Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS11 5109, 10 December 1944. El Mazar Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS6 6167, 10 December 1944. Ras Ali Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS11 5096, 4 January 1945. 434 Kh. Sarkas Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS4 5008, 10 December 1944. Umm al Alaq Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS18, 4 January, 1945. Nazareth sub-district Shibli and Umm al Ghannem source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS8 5024, 2 January 1945. Tiberias sub-district Nuqeib Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS1 5012, December 1944. Safed sub-district Abu Zeina Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS 10 5039, January 1945. Dawwara Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS26 5028, January 1945. Rihaniya Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS14M 6053, January 1945. Tuba Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS11M 6109, January 1945. Zawiya Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS3 5108, 10 December, 1944. Zuq al Fauqani (Fawqani) Source: Mount Scopus Aerial Photo Archive, PS23 6008, January 1945. 23 44 435 63 19- :1 :2 86 1871-1922 :3 1922 177 1931 :4 1931-1948 245 286 1922-1948 :5 : 300 -6 :7 341 354 363 382 436 ‫הישובים הערביים בשלהי השלטון העות'מאני ובתקופת פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬‬ ‫ישראל המנדטורית‪:‬‬ ‫היווסדותם של ישובים חדשים בין השנים ‪8491 - 1871‬‬ ‫פ‬ ‫פ‬ ‫מאת‪ :‬סת' ג'‪ .‬פרנזמן‬ ‫הוגש לסנט האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים‬ ‫יוני\‪ 2212‬תמוז\תש''ע‬ ‫‪437‬‬ ‫עבודה זו נעשתה בהדרכתה של פרופ' רות קרק‬ ‫‪438‬‬ ‫מחקר זה מתמקד בישובים החדשים שהוקמו בסביבה הכפרית בארץ‪-‬ישראל בין השנים‬ ‫‪ .1948-1871‬המחקר הינו חלק מהדיסציפלינה הגיאוגרפית ‪ -‬היסטורית וכמו כן נכלל בתחום לימודי‬ ‫מחקר אזוריים של המזרח התיכון וארץ ישראל‪ .‬במהלך המחקר נדונו התהליכים שסללו את הדרך‬ ‫להקמת כפרים אלו‪ ,‬תוך בחינת היבטים גיאוגרפיים‪ ,‬היסטוריים ודמוגרפיים‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬המחקר מציג‬ ‫תמונה כוללת של הכפרים החדשים תוך שימת דגש על מספר הכפרים‪ ,‬הקמתם‪ ,‬התפתחותם ואופיים‪.‬‬ ‫מאחר וכפרים רבים מקבוצה זו לא התקיימו לאחר מלחמת ‪ 1948‬ואף לא נכללו במחקרים קודמים‬ ‫על ההתיישבות בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל בסוף המאה ה‪ 19-‬ותחילת המאה ה‪ ,20 -‬מחקר זה הוא בראש‬ ‫ובראשונה עדות נדירה לקיומם‪ .‬מטרה נוספת של המחקר היא לספק שיטה חדשה לזיהוי ולניתוח של‬ ‫התיישבות כפרית טיפוסית בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ ,‬במזרח התיכון ובחלקים אחרים של העולם‪.‬‬ ‫הדיון בתפרושת הישובים הכפריים בוצע בהקשר גיאוגרפי‪-‬היסטורי תוך שימוש במקורות‬ ‫ראשוניים בני התקופה כגון‪ :‬מפות‪ ,‬נתוני אוכלוסייה‪ ,‬תצלומי אוויר מהתקופה המנדטורית‪ ,‬מקורות‬ ‫ארכיוניים‪ ,‬פרסומים בעיתונות‪ ,‬וכן בספרות הסטורית ומחקרי שדה‪ .‬בין היתר‪ ,‬נעשתה בחינה‬ ‫מעמיקה של מקורות כגון מסמכי "חוקת הכפרים"(‪ ,(Constitution of Villages‬בהם תיעדו קציני‬ ‫המחוז הבריטיים את הישובים המוכרים והלא מוכרים בארץ ואת גודל האוכלוסייה שהתגוררה בהם‪.‬‬ ‫המחקר מהווה דוקומנט מקיף‪ ,‬בשל מספרם הרב של הישובים החדשים הכלולים בו‪ .‬בחינת‬ ‫הישובים נעשתה לפי קריטריונים שונים ביניהם קביעות מול ארעיות היישובים‪ ,‬סוג האוכלוסייה‬ ‫ועוד‪ .‬מסגרת הזמן בה מתמקד המחקר נעה בין תקופת השלמת סקר ארץ ישראל המערבית ‪,(Survey‬‬ ‫)‪ of Western Palestine‬שערכה הקרן הבריטית לחקר ארץ ישראל ( ‪the Palestine Exploration‬‬ ‫‪)PEF-Fund‬בשנים ‪ ,1877 – 1872‬לבין פרוץ מלחמת ‪ .1948‬תאריכים אלה‪ ,‬כוללים הן את העשורים‬ ‫האחרונים לשליטתה של האימפריה העות'מאנית והן את השנים בהן שלט המנדט הבריטי באזור‪.‬‬ ‫השאלות העומדות במוקד המחקר‪:‬‬ ‫‪ .1‬כמה ישובים ערבים ומוסלמים נוסדו בין השנים ‪?1948- 1871‬‬ ‫‪439‬‬ ‫‪ .2‬מה היה הגורם העיקרי לבחירת מיקומם של הישובים? האם הוא היה חיצוני או פנימי? האם‬ ‫לשלטונות או לגורמים חוץ פלסטינים היה חלק ביוזמה להקמת הישובים החדשים? מי היו התושבים‬ ‫שהתגוררו בישובים אלה? האם היו בדווים‪ ,‬פלחים או אפנדים? האם הם הגיעו מחוץ או מתוך‬ ‫פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל? האם הישובים היו עונתיים או בסגנון כפרי‪-‬בת?‬ ‫‪ .3‬מה היו המאפיינים הגיאוגרפיים של הישובים החדשים? איזה סוג ישובים הם היו? האם נוסדו על‬ ‫הריסות של ישובים עתיקים או על אדמה נטושה? האם נבנו על או ליד קברי שיח'ים וח'אנים? מאילו‬ ‫חומרים נבנו הבתים בישובים חדשים אלה? האם התושבים עסקו בחקלאות‪ ,‬במידה וכן מאיזה סוג?‬ ‫מה היה אופן פיזור הישובים ביחס לאזור בו הוקמו? האם הוקמו יותר ישובים באזור השפלה מאשר‬ ‫באזור הגליל או שפרישת הישובים הייתה שווה בכל הארץ? האם הישובים הוקמו לצד כבישים‬ ‫מרכזיים ובקירוב למרכזי ערים או שמא היו מרוחקים ומבודדים? מה היה גודלם (בדונמים) של‬ ‫הישובים החדשים ומה הייתה כמות האוכלוסייה שהתגוררה בהם?‬ ‫מצב המחקר‬ ‫קיימת ספרות מחקרית ענפה בנושא ההתיישבות בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל בסוף המאה ה‪19-‬‬ ‫ותחילת המאה ה‪ .20 -‬מחקרים אלה התמקדו בעיקר ביישובי נוצרים זרים‪ ,‬דפוסי ההתיישבות של‬ ‫התנועה הציונית‪ ,‬ובכפרים הערביים והבדווים בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ .‬אומנם‪ ,‬נערכו גם מחקרים‬ ‫שונים שהתמקדו בשכונות ערביות חדשות וכפרים ערביים בודדים‪ ,‬אך עד כה לא התקבלה תמונה‬ ‫שלמה של הישובים הכפריים החדשים שהוקמו בתקופה זו‪.‬‬ ‫לפני כתיבת מחקר זה‪ ,‬לא קיבל נושא הישובים הערביים החדשים בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‬ ‫התייחסות מחקרית מיוחדת ממספר סיבות‪ .‬ראשית‪ ,‬בשל הקושי להפריך את ההשקפה הרומנטית על‬ ‫חיי הערבים בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל מהמציאות ההיסטורית‪ .‬ההשקפה הרומנטית באה לידי ביטוי‬ ‫באופן בולט בכתיבתם של המטיילים באיזור במאה ה‪ 19-‬והיא בולטת גם כיום‪ .‬במהדורת ‪The‬‬ ‫‪ Economist‬מתאריך ‪ 12.6.08‬פורסמה ביקורת לספרו של ראג'ה שאחאדה‬ ‫‪Palestinian Walks:‬‬ ‫‪ .Forays into a Vanishing Landscape‬בביקורת נכתב‪" :‬ארץ עם יופי עוצר נשימה‪ ,‬ששרדה ללא‬ ‫שינוי מהתקופה התנ"כית‪ ,‬משתנה על ידי אנשים שמבססים את שייכותם לארץ בטיעונים‬ ‫היסטוריים‪ ,‬כפרים ערביים שבעבר השתלבו במרחב הגיאוגרפי באופן אורגני הינם גטאות‬ ‫‪440‬‬ ‫מכותרים"‪.‬‬ ‫‪959‬‬ ‫האנשים שמשנים את הארץ‪ ,‬לפי מבקר הספר‪ ,‬הינם היהודים‪ .‬הרעיון של כפרים‬ ‫ערביים אורגניים הינו עוצמתי במידה רבה‪ .‬הצגת עובדות המוכיחות כי תוויי הארץ השתנו באופן‬ ‫דרמטי עקב הקמת הישובים הערביים החדשים ותושביהם הערבים שעיבדו וחקרו את הארץ‪ ,‬עלולה‬ ‫לצייר תמונה שונה מאוד מהתפיסה המקובלת‪.‬‬ ‫בעיה זו משולבת בבעיה נוספת‪ ,‬הבעיה הפוליטית‪ .‬מאז הריסתם של מאות כפרים ערבים‬ ‫פלסטינים במלחמת ‪ ,1948‬נכתבה ספרות מחקרית ענפה המתארת כפרים אלו כגון ספרו של ווליד‬ ‫ח'אלידי ‪ ,All That Remains‬וכן ספרו של אילן פפה ‪ .Ethnic-Cleansing in Palestine‬ספרות זו‬ ‫מתמקדת בעצם הריסתם של הכפרים ולא משאירה מקום לדיון בעיתוי ייסודם ובמציאות חייהם‬ ‫לפני החורבן‪.‬‬ ‫נראה כי סיבה נוספת להתעלמות המחקרית מכפרים אלו נובעת מן העובדה שדפוסי‬ ‫ההתיישבות בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ .‬בין השנים ‪ 1947 - 1871‬הושפעו יותר מפעילות של יהודים‬ ‫ונוצרים‪ .‬ההגירה וההתיישבות היהודית האפילו על הקמת הכפרים הערביים החדשים‪ ,‬בייחוד לאור‬ ‫העובדה שכפרים אלו נטו להיות קטנים‪ ,‬עניים ולא יציבים‪ .‬ההשפעה הנוצרית הבולטת על הנוף‪,‬‬ ‫הבאה לידי ביטוי בבנייני המנזרים‪ ,‬מושבות הטמפלרים ובניית מבצרי הטיגארט ליחידות המשטרה‬ ‫הבריטיות‪ ,‬תרמה גם כן לדחיקת חשיבות הכפרים הערביים החדשים ממרכז המחקר הגיאוגרפי‪-‬‬ ‫היסטורי של ארץ ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫תוחלת החיים הקצרה של הכפרים הערביים שנבעה מהריסת רבים מהם בשנת ‪ 1948‬מצוינת‬ ‫בדפי ההיסטוריה‪ .‬המחקר על תהליכי ההתיישבות הערבית התמקד בכפרים אלו שההיסטוריה שלהם‬ ‫פשוטה יותר להרכבה‪ .‬לכן ישנו מאגר שופע של עבודות על דפוסי התיישבות בישראל ובגדה המערבית‪.‬‬ ‫ייחודו של המחקר אל מול מחקרים קודמים בנושא‪ ,‬הינו המיקוד בתמונה הכוללת של‬ ‫הישובים הערביים החדשים בתוך הארץ ולא רק בישובים ערביים שהושפעו ממלחמת ‪ ,1948‬אלא גם‬ ‫של הישובים במה שהוגדר מאוחר יותר כ "גדה המערבית ו"רצועת עזה"‪.‬‬ ‫בשל אופייה השיטתי‪ ,‬עבודת מחקר זו תוכל לספק בסיס להבנה של "תופעת הכפרים‬ ‫הערביים החדשים"‪ ,‬להיקף תפרושתה ולנסיבות שהביאו להתפתחותה‪ .‬במסגרת זו‪ ,‬המחקר מדגיש‬ ‫‪‗Walking in Palestine: Lost Land‘, June 12th, 2008 issue of The Economist a book 959‬‬ ‫‪review of Raja Shehadeh‘s Palestinian Walks: Forays into a Vanishing Landscape, books‬‬ ‫‪and Arts section.‬‬ ‫‪441‬‬ ‫את התפקיד ששיחקו הקהילה הערבית המקומית והמהגרים המוסלמים‪ ,‬בעיצוב הסביבה‪ .‬בין היתר‪,‬‬ ‫המחקר שואף לשפוך אור על השאלה החשובה והשנויה במחלוקת‪ ,‬בדבר גלי ההגירה הפנימיים של‬ ‫ערבים מוסלמים ונוצרים בתוך פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל ואליה וכן ההגירה החיצונית של ערבים‬ ‫ממדינות כגון מצרים סוריה‪ ,‬לבנון וקווקז‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬העבודה שופכת אור על היבטים שונים של‬ ‫הקהילה הבדווית שטרם נבחנו עד כה‪ :‬מדוע אוכלוסיה זו 'נדחקה' לאזורי הספר של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬‬ ‫ישראל? מה הניע את ההתיישבות הבדווית "החדשה"? ומה היו המאפיינים הייחודיים של הישובים‬ ‫הבדווים החדשים בהשוואה לישובים אחרים?‬ ‫קריטריונים‬ ‫הכפרים שנכללו במאגר הנתונים שהוכן לצורך כתיבת המחקר‪ ,‬הינם כפרים אשר לפי סקר‬ ‫הקרן הבריטית לחקר ארץ ישראל )‪ (PEF‬לא היו מאוכלסים בשנת ‪ 1880‬וכן כפרים שאוכלסו בתקופת‬ ‫המנדט הבריטי‪ .‬לצורך מיפוי הישובים שאוכלסו בתקופת המנדט הבריטי‪ ,‬נעשה שימוש במקורות‬ ‫בריטיים שונים שהוזכרו לעיל‪ ,‬בדגש על הספר "הסטטיסטיקה הכפרית" )‪ (Village Statistics‬משנת‬ ‫‪.1945‬‬ ‫תקצירי הפרקים‬ ‫הפרק הראשון בוחן את הגיאוגרפיה של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל ודפוסי ההתיישבות ששלטו‬ ‫באיזור לפני שנת ‪ .1871‬חלק זה מספק תובנות על חשיבות חוקי הקרקעות שהנחיל השלטון‬ ‫העותמאני החל משנת ‪ ,1858‬ההגירה המוסלמית לפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ ,‬שיעור ההתיישבות הכפרית‬ ‫וחיי הבדווים בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬הפרק בוחן את "סקר 'ארץ ישראל המערבית' ( ‪Survey‬‬ ‫‪ )of Western Palestine‬שנערך על ידי הקרן הבריטית לחקר ארץ ישראל (‪ )PEF‬ומציג את מידת דיוקו‬ ‫ומהימנותו‪.‬‬ ‫הפרק השני בוחן את שישים ותשעה הישובים הערביים והמוסלמיים החדשים שהוקמו בין‬ ‫השנים ‪ . 1922 – 1871‬חלק זה חושף את תפקידו המשמעותי של הסולטאן עבדול חמיד השני ביישובם‬ ‫של פליטים מוסלמים בוסנים וצ'רקסים וכן את פיתוח שוק הנדל"ן הפרטי בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫הישובים שנוסדו בתקופה זו מדגימים את מגמת התרחבות ההתיישבות לאזורים שאינם בהכרח‬ ‫‪442‬‬ ‫אזורי ליבה‪ .‬מספר רב ישובים מתוכם הוקם על אדמותיו של עבדול חמיד השני‪ ,‬לדוגמא באזור עמק‬ ‫בית שאן ובדרום פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ .‬רבים מהם‪ ,‬שהיו ממוקמים באתרים עתיקים‪ ,‬ננטשו‬ ‫בתקופת השלטון העות'מאני ויושבו מחדש במהלך שנים אלה‪ .‬כפרים ערביים רבים הוקמו גם‬ ‫באזורים בהם האדמות נרכשו על ידי יהודים‪.‬‬ ‫הפרק השלישי בעבודה זו עוסק בכפרים החדשים שהוקמו בין מפקדי האוכלוסין שנערכו‬ ‫בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל בשנים ‪ .1931 - 1922‬בתקופה המדוברת הוקמו חמישים ושניים ישובים‬ ‫חדשים הכוללים גם כפרים קטנים‪ .‬רבים מהם הוקמו בעמק הירדן‪.‬‬ ‫הפרק הרביעי עוסק בישובים החדשים שהוקמו בין השנים ‪ .1948 - 1931‬ישובים אלה נכללו‬ ‫באומדני אוכלוסיית הכפרים שנערכו בשנים ‪ 1938‬ו‪ 1945 -‬על ידי השלטונות הבריטיים‪ .‬מבחינה‬ ‫ביקורתית של אומדנים אלה עולה נראה כי קיימות בעיות מסויימות משום שהאומדנים‪ ,‬בניגוד‬ ‫למיפקדים שקדמו להם‪ ,‬נערכו לפי נוסחה מתמטית שנועדה לבחון את התרחבות ההתיישבות‪ ,‬תוך‬ ‫התעלמות מהנעשה במציאות ומהמגוון הקיים בשטח‪ .‬אף על פי כן‪ ,‬קיימים ממצאים רבים כגון מפות‬ ‫ותצלומי אויר מתקופה זו‪ ,‬אשר מוכיחים כי הוקמו כארבעים ישובים חדשים בסוף תקופת המנדט‬ ‫הבריטי‪.‬‬ ‫מקרה החקר הינו אזור בית שאן על מורכבותו‪ ,‬ייחודו והתהליכים אשר השפיעו עליו‪ .‬עמק בית שאן‬ ‫היה מאוכלס על ידי שבטים בדווים אשר התיישבו באדמותיו של הסולטאן עבדול חמיד השני‪ .‬לאחר‬ ‫מכן‪ ,‬למרות שבמהלך שנות העשרים הייתה יוזמה של נציגי מנדט רשמיים לחלק את האדמות בין בני‬ ‫השבטים הבדווים המקומיים‪ ,‬האדמות באזור זה נמכרו לקרן הקיימת לישראל‪ ,‬והיוו בסיס להקמת‬ ‫יישובים יהודיים‪.‬‬ ‫מסקנות‬ ‫מספר הישובים‪ ,‬אכלוסם ואחיזתם בקרקע‬ ‫מניתוח הנתונים והשוואתם למצב היישובי כפי שהוא מופיע ב"סקר הכפרים" משנת ‪,1945‬‬ ‫עולה כי בין השנים ‪ ,1948 - 1871‬הוקמו ‪ 146‬ישובים ערביים ומוסלמיים חדשים בארץ ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫למספר זה‪ ,‬יש להוסיף עשרים ושישה ישובים שהיו קיימים בשנת ‪ 1948‬אך לא נכללו במפקדי‬ ‫האוכלוסין (כפי שנדון בפרק ‪ .)4‬יש להדגיש כי מספר זה אינו כולל ישובים לא יציבים שהיו‬ ‫מאוכלסים באופן זמני כגון ההתיישבות החקלאית שהקימה משפחת סורסוק (‪ ,)Sursuq‬וכפרים‬ ‫‪443‬‬ ‫שהתבססו ולאחר מכן ננטשו כמו חירבת סרקס (‪)kh. Sarkas‬וג'סר אל מג'מי (‪ . Jisr al Majami‬ניתן‬ ‫לומר‪ ,‬אם כך‪ ,‬כי בתקופה המצוינת לעיל הוקמו ‪ 195-170‬ישובים חדשים מסוגים שונים‪ .‬בנוסף לכך‪,‬‬ ‫זוהו כ‪" 17-‬כפרים" שנכללו במפקד האוכלוסין משנת ‪ 1945‬ומתוארים ככפרים בספרו של ווליד‬ ‫ח'אלדי ‪ ,All That Remains‬וזאת למרות שבבירור לא היו מיושבים‪ .‬בין השנים ‪ 1948 - 1871‬הוקמו‬ ‫בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל ‪ 195-170‬כפרים ערביים מוסלמיים חדשים מסך כולל של ‪ 900‬כפרים ערביים‬ ‫שהוכרו על ידי שלטונות המנדט הבריטי בשנת ‪ 146 .1945‬ישובים ערביים חדשים הוכרו ככפרים‬ ‫קטנים על ידי שלטונות המנדט הבריטי בשנת ‪ .1945‬ההפרש במספר הישובים שהוקמו לבין הישובים‬ ‫שקיבלו הכרה על ידי המנדט הבריטי מצביע כי ‪ 26‬ישובים‪ ,‬לערך‪ ,‬לא היו מוכרים ועוד ‪ 10‬ישובים לא‬ ‫היו מוכרים ולא היו מאוכלסים‪.‬‬ ‫ווליד ח'אלידי‪ 960‬הגדיר ‪ 418‬כפרים ערביים ככפרים "כבושים שבהם התקיים איכלוס מחדש על ידי‬ ‫מדינת ישראל"‪ .‬מהמחקר עולה כי ‪ 144‬מישובים אלו ‪ ,‬היו ישובים חדשים והוקמו באופן יחסי‪ ,‬זמן‬ ‫קצר לפני המלחמה‪ .‬זאת עקב העובדה כי מדינת ישראל כללה בתוכה בעיקר את אזורי הרמות‬ ‫הנמוכות של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ ,‬לאורך מישור החוף‪ ,‬הגליל ועמק הירדן‪ ,‬אזורים בהם הוקמו‬ ‫מרבית הישובים החדשים‪.‬‬ ‫האוכלוסייה בכפרים החדשים גדלה מ‪ 11,7000-‬תושבים בשנת ‪ ,1922‬ל ‪ 66,940‬תושבים בשנת‬ ‫‪ .1945‬באופן כללי‪ ,‬עולה כי הגידול הניכר ביותר התרחש בשנותיו האחרונות של המנדט הבריטי‪ ,‬עם‬ ‫צמיחה של ‪ 108%‬בין השנים ‪ 1938‬לשנת ‪ .1945‬העלייה במספר התושבים מוסברת באופן חלקי על ידי‬ ‫כך שבשנת ‪ 1945‬תועדו יותר יישובים וכן מעצם העובדה שגידול האוכלוסייה לפי הערכות הללו אינו‬ ‫מדויק‪ .‬לפי המיפקד בשנת ‪ ,1931‬הכילו הישובים החדשים הללו ‪ 6,118‬בתים‪ .‬שטחיהם נאמדים ב‪-‬‬ ‫‪ 831,486‬דונמים‪ ,‬שהיוו כ‪ 3% -‬משטחה של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל (‪ 26,000‬קמ"ר או ‪26,256,600‬‬ ‫דונמים) באותה תקופה‪ ,‬כאשר ‪ 1,243‬דונמים צויינו כמיועדים לבנייה‪ .‬אדמות אלה לא היו בבעלותם‬ ‫של תושבי הכפר אלא היו שייכות לשלטונות המנדט הבריטי‪ ,‬לאפנדים או ליהודים‪.‬‬ ‫התפרושת הגיאוגרפית המרחבית של היישובים החדשים‪8491 ,‬‬ ‫‪Walid Khalidi, All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by‬‬ ‫‪Israel in 1948, Washington: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992, pp. 1-3. 960‬‬ ‫‪444‬‬ ‫מהשוואה בין תוכנית החלוקה של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל שפורסמה על ידי האו"ם בתאריך ה‪-‬‬ ‫‪ 29‬לנובמבר ‪ 1947‬לבין מפת הכפרים הערביים והמוסלמיים בין השנים ‪ ,1948 – 1871‬עולה רמה‬ ‫גבוהה של התאמה‪ .‬כמעט כל הישובים הערביים החדשים נוסדו באזורים שיועדו להיות חלק‬ ‫מהמדינה היהודית או באזורים שלימים הפכו לחלק ממדינת ישראל‪ .‬המפות שהוכנו במיוחד לצורך‬ ‫עבודה זו מדגימות את התפרושת המרחבית שלהם‪ ,‬בתת תקופות שונות‪ .‬נתון זה אינו צירוף מקרים‪.‬‬ ‫הישובים הערביים החדשים הוקמו באזורים שמתיישבים ציוניים גילו בהם עניין‪ .‬במקרים רבים‬ ‫ישובים ערביים הוקמו באותה התקופה בה הוקמו יישובים יהודיים‪ .‬עם זאת‪ ,‬אזור בית שאן יושב‬ ‫לראשונה על ידי ערבים‪ ,‬שהתיישבו באופן זמני על אדמותיו הפרטיות של הסולטאן העות'מאני עבדול‬ ‫חמיד השני‪ ,‬ורק לאחר מכן משך את תשומת ליבם של היהודים‪ .‬יש לציין כי בתחילה‪ ,‬איזור השרון‬ ‫היה זה שמשך את המתיישבים היהודים‪.‬‬ ‫‪ 108‬מהכפרים‪ ,‬המהווים סך כולל של ‪ 58%‬מהישובים החדשים‪ ,‬הוקמו במישורים ובעמקים‬ ‫של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ 23 ,‬מהכפרים‪ ,‬המהווים ‪ 12%‬מתוכם הוקמו באזור השפלה‪ 30% ,‬הוקמו‬ ‫באזורי ההר ושני אחוזים הוקמו בנגב‪ .‬ההסבר לכך שרב הישובים החדשים הוקמו באזורי העמקים‬ ‫והמישורים של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל הוא שהתושבים הערבים היגרו לאזורים אלו על מנת לשפר את‬ ‫תנאי החיים ורמת הבטחון‪ .‬כמו כן יישובים חדשים רבים הוקמו באזורים ההרריים‪ 23 :‬בהרי יהודה‬ ‫‪/‬חברון‪/‬שומרון ו‪ 27 -‬בגליל‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬עולה כי בשני המקרים‪ ,‬כמעט כל הכפרים החדשים הוקמו‬ ‫בפרברים או למרגלותיהם של ההרים‪ .‬בבקעת עמק הירדן‪ ,‬בולטים במיוחד שני מוקדי התיישבות‪:‬‬ ‫איזור בית שאן והאיזור שמצפון לכינרת הכולל את עמק החולה‪ .‬באזורים אלה הוקמו ‪ 25‬ישובים ו‪-‬‬ ‫‪ 21‬ישובים בהתאמה‪ .‬מבחינת ההתיישבות במישור החוף עולה כי בשרון הוקמו ‪ 28‬ישובים חדשים‬ ‫בעוד שבאזור שמדרום ליפו הוקמו עשרה ישובים‪ .‬בנוסף‪ ,‬בעמק זבולון הוקמו שמונה ישובים חדשים‬ ‫ובנגב הוקמו ארבעה‪.‬‬ ‫כמו כן‪ ,‬ניתן לראות כי הפרישה הגיאוגרפית של היישובים החדשים השתנתה לאורך‬ ‫התקופה‪ .‬בתקופה העות'מאנית הוקמו יותר ישובים באזורים ההרריים של הארץ‪ ,‬מערב הנגב‪ ,‬בית‬ ‫שאן והשפלה ואילו בתקופה שבין השנים ‪ 1931 -1922‬הוקמו יותר ישובים חדשים באזור החולה‪ ,‬בית‬ ‫שאן ובשפלה‪.‬‬ ‫נתונים מעניינים עלו גם מבחינת הפרישה בתת‪-‬המחוזות המנדטוריים‪ .‬בהשוואת המספר‬ ‫הכולל של הישובים החדשים בכל איזור גיאוגרפי לסך כל הישובים באותו אזור נמצא כי ישנם‬ ‫‪445‬‬ ‫מקומות‪ ,‬כגון השרון‪ ,‬חופי הכינרת‪ ,‬עמק יזרעאל ועמק בית שאן‪ ,‬שבהם כמעט כל הישובים היו‬ ‫חדשים‪ 68% .‬מהישובים במחוז בית שאן היו חדשים ומוערך כי ‪ 73%‬מהאוכלוסיה הכפרית באזור‪,‬‬ ‫השתקעה בישובים החדשים‪.‬‬ ‫בעמק בית שאן הישוב היחיד שה‪ PEF -‬איתר בשנות השבעים של המאה הי'ט‪ ,‬היה העיר בית‬ ‫שאן‪ ,‬שבאותם הימים‪ ,‬בהסתמך על קונדר‪ ,‬הייתה "כפר קטן ואומלל של צריפים מבוץ בתוך הריסות‬ ‫העיר העתיקה"‪ .961‬על חופיה של הכינרת ה‪ PEF-‬מצאו הסוקרים רק את טבריה‪ ,‬חירבת אבו שושה‪,‬‬ ‫מג'דל וסמך‪ .‬בבקעת העמק‪ ,‬צפונית לכינרת‪ ,‬סקר ה‪ PEF-‬מיקם את לאזאזה‪ ,‬זוק אל תחתני‪ ,‬חליסה‪,‬‬ ‫נעימה‪ ,‬עבסייה וקייטיה ואילו איזור שמהחולה והירדן ועד לכינרת היה נטוש‪ .‬יוצא דופן היה תת‪-‬‬ ‫מחוז חברון‪ ,‬שבמרכז הארץ‪ ,‬אשר כלל רק ‪ 5%‬מהישובים החדשים‪ .‬מנתונים אלה ניתן להסיק בברור‬ ‫כי במספר איזורים‪ ,‬בייחוד בנמוכים מביניהם‪ ,‬כמעט כל הישובים והכפרים הקטנים שהיו קיימים‬ ‫בשנת ‪ 1948‬נוסדו לאחר ‪.1871‬‬ ‫נראה כי בזמן שמספר הישובים החדשים מהווה אחוז גבוה מבין סך כל הישובים (קצת מעל ‪50%‬‬ ‫בשלושה תתי‪-‬מחוזות) האכלוס בפועל של הישובים הללו‪ ,‬להוציא את בית שאן‪ ,‬מוערך ב –‪30%‬‬ ‫ומטה‪ .‬זאת הודות לעובדה כי למרות מספרם הרב של הישובים החדשים‪ ,‬באזורים מסוימים יישובים‬ ‫אלו לא איכלסו מספר רב של תושבים‪.‬‬ ‫אופי היישובים‬ ‫כאמור הישובים החדשים היו מרוכזים באזורים מסוימים‪ ,‬לרוב בשפלה‪ ,‬בעמק בית שאן‬ ‫ובבקעת העמק מצפון לכינרת‪ .‬אך לצורך אפיון הישובים החדשים נבחנו קריטריונים נוספים פרט‬ ‫למיקומם‪ .‬קטגוריה מרכזית ראשונה לאפיון הכפרים החדשים הינה מקורם של התושבים‪ ,‬שהשפיע‬ ‫במידה ניכרת על אופי הישוב‪ 47 .‬מכלל הישובים החדשים הוקמו על ידי שבטים בדווים‪ .‬מצב זה היה‬ ‫נפוץ במיוחד במחוזות יפו‪ ,‬באר שבע ובית שאן‪ ,‬אך היה ניתן לראותו בכל המחוזות‪ .‬תופעה דומה‬ ‫הייתה גם בישובים החדשים שהוקמו סביב העיר יריחו‪ .‬לעומת זאת‪ ,‬במחוזות ג'נין ושכם הוקם רק‬ ‫ישוב חדש אחד על ידי תושבים בדווים‪ .‬ממצא זה תואם לדפוסי הנדידה של הבדווים שנטו להימצא‬ ‫באזורי ספר של הארץ‪ ,‬שם היו כוח דומיננטי במאה ה‪ 19 -‬ובמאות שקדמו לה‪ .‬במפקד האוכלוסין‬ ‫‪Claude Reigneir Conder, Tent Work in Palestine, vol. 2, London: Richard Bentley and‬‬ ‫‪Son, 1878, p. 69. 961‬‬ ‫‪446‬‬ ‫שהתקיים בשנת ‪' 1931‬במחוז הדרומי'‪ ,‬הכולל את עזה‪ ,‬באר שבע‪ ,‬יפו ורמלה‪ ,‬תועדה אוכלוסיית‬ ‫נוודים בסך של ‪ 57,265‬איש‪ .‬במחוז ירושלים‪ ,‬הכולל את חברון‪ ,‬בית לחם‪ ,‬ירושלים‪ ,‬יריחו ורמאללה‪,‬‬ ‫אוכלוסיית הנוודים נאמדה בסך של ‪ 9,072‬איש בלבד‪ .‬במחוז הצפוני תועדו רק ‪ 216‬נוודים בדואים‪.‬‬ ‫העובדה כי במחוז הצפוני נרשמה אוכלוסייה דלילה כל כך של בדווים הייתה משום שמפקד‬ ‫האוכלוסין שהתקיים בשנת ‪ 1931‬מנה חלק מהבדווים כיושבי קבע או כלל חלק מהיישובים הבדווים‬ ‫ביישובים כפריים גדולים יותר‪.‬‬ ‫קטגוריה מרכזית נוספת לאפיון הכפרים החדשים הייתה מאפיינים פיסיים שונים‪ .‬כ ‪35-35‬‬ ‫מהישובים החדשים היו כפרי בת ‪ -‬כפרים חדשים שהוקמו לצד כפרים "ותיקים" שהיו קיימים לפני‬ ‫שנת ‪ .1781‬תופעה זו בלטה בתת מחוז רמלה‪ ,‬שכם‪ ,‬טול כרם‪ ,‬ג'נין וחיפה‪ .‬ההבדל בין דפוס‬ ‫ההתיישבות של ישובים בדווים וכפרי הבת היה ניכר בהחלט‪ .‬בין שתי הקבוצות הייתה איבה‬ ‫היסטורית אופיינית‪ ,‬כמו בכל מקום בו התחרו על מקורות מחייה קבוצות העוסקות במרעה וצאן מול‬ ‫קבוצות העוסקות בחקלאות ‪ .‬קונדר‪ ,‬שהבליט קונפליקט זה‪ ,‬כתב על איזור הגליל התחתון‬ ‫ש"במציאות הארץ שייכת לפלחים ואני מדמיין כי אין לערבים [בדואים] את הזכות לשבת שם"‪.962‬‬ ‫זאת לא הפעם הראשונה בה קונדר מזכיר את המאבק בין הבדואים למתיישבים הערבים‪ .‬כפרי בת‬ ‫הוקמו בדרך כלל במקומות בהם שרר ביטחון לכל אורך השנה ולתושבים התאפשר לעסוק בחקלאות‪.‬‬ ‫בדרך כלל‪ ,‬במקומות אלה היו חורבות ברובן עתיקות‪ ,‬מקורות מים שופעים וגישה לאזורי חקלאות‪.‬‬ ‫כמו כן‪ ,‬לרוב הוקמו כפרים אלה למרגלות ישוב‪-‬האם ורק במקרים חריגים מוקמו באזורים‬ ‫מישוריים‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬במקרים רבים כפרי הבת הוקמו למרגלות ההרים‪.‬‬ ‫מאפיין פיסי נוסף היה הימצאותם של חורבות כפרים‪ ,‬קברי שיח'ים וח'אנים בסמוך לכפרים‪ .‬ככלל‪,‬‬ ‫נמצא כי ‪ 115‬מהישובים החדשים שנוסדו הוקמו על יסוד חורבות‪ ,‬רובן עתיקות ומיעוטן מתקופה‬ ‫מודרנית יותר בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ .‬נתון זה תואם למידע המופיע במפה של ה‪ PEF-‬לפיה‬ ‫פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל בתקופה זו הייתה מלאה באלפי חורבות לכל אורכה פרט לאזורים המאופיינים‬ ‫בביצות ובדיונות של חול‪.‬‬ ‫מרבית החורבות היו מאות שנים קודם לכן‪ ,‬כפרים שלמים שהתקיימו בראשית התקופה‬ ‫‪Conder, Tent Life, vol. 2, p. 51,p. 73.962‬‬ ‫‪447‬‬ ‫העות'מאנית באזור וננטשו על ידי תושביהם (כמו לדוגמא הכפר בית ת'ול הנמצא באזור ירושלים)‬ ‫וחלקן היו לא יותר מערמות אבנים‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬רוב החורבות נבנו כמבצרים‪ ,‬בקרבתן נמצאו חומות‪,‬‬ ‫וחלקן מוקמו לצד מעיינות ‪ 24 .‬מהאתרים בהם הוקמו הכפרים החדשים היו ממוקמים ליד קברי‬ ‫שיח'ים ומוערך כי שישה מהאתרים הינם חורבות ח'אנים‪ .‬לתושבי הכפרים שהוקמו בקרבת חורבות‬ ‫או עליהן‪ ,‬הייתה נגישות לאדמות אותן היה ניתן היה להסב לשימוש חקלאי‪ .‬הנגישות הגבוהה‬ ‫למקורות מים‪ ,‬קברי שיח' ים ופוריות הקרקע הפכו את האתרים הללו כיעדים אידיאליים להקמת‬ ‫ישובים‪.‬‬ ‫מספר מועט של כפרים חדשים הוקמו על קרקע בתולית‪ .‬חלקם היו ישובים מתוכננים‬ ‫שהוקמו על ידי עבדול חמיד השני‪ ,‬וחלקם נבנו על קרקע בתולית בשל ייבוש ביצות‪ ,‬כגון ביצת החולה‪.‬‬ ‫בדווים בחרו במקרים מסוימים בחורבות כמקום להקמת כפר‪ ,‬אך במקרים אחרים התיישבו‬ ‫להתמקם באזורים בהם לא היו כלל חורבות‪ .‬דפוס ההתיישבות הטיפוסי של הבדווים שמאופיין‬ ‫בבניית בתים באופן מפוזר‪ ,‬לא התאים לבניית בתים באתרי חורבות שהתאפיינה בדפוס בנייה ריכוזי‬ ‫יותר‪ .‬זאת ניתן לראות בערב זנגרייה )‪ ,(Arab Zanghariya‬ערב ה'ייב (‪ ,)Arab Heib‬נוקייב )‪,(Nuqeib‬‬ ‫סמאקייה )‪ (Samakiyya‬כולם בבקעת עמק הירדן‪ .‬אך אין משתמע מכך כי חורבות לא היו בקרבת‬ ‫מקום‪.‬‬ ‫מאפיינים נוספים‪ :‬המתיישבים עסקו בחקלאות שהייתה טיפוסית לאותה התקופה בארץ ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫הישובים החדשים היו כפרים קטנים שבתיהם היו עשויים מבוץ וגגותיהם מכוסים קש או בתי וילה‬ ‫גדולים‪ .‬באופן כללי ניתן לומר כי חומרי הבניין היו אבנים ומחומרים מקומיים בלבד‪ ,‬פועל יוצא של‬ ‫היכולת הכלכלית המוגבלת של התושבים‪.‬‬ ‫השפעות חיצוניות על הישובים החדשים‪ :‬עבדול חמיד השני‪ ,‬יהודים ואפנדים‬ ‫עשרים וחמישה מהישובים החדשים נוסדו על אדמות שנרכשו באופן פרטי על‪-‬ידי הסולטאן‬ ‫עבדול חמיד השני‪ .‬ניתן לומר כי דפוס ניהול קרקעותיו של עבדול חמיד השני היווה בסיס להקמתם‬ ‫של הישובים החדשים‪ .‬חלק מהישובים הוקמו במהלך חייו של הסולטאן‪ ,‬ביוזמתו‪ ,‬וחלקם לאחר‬ ‫העברת אדמותיו הפרטיות לידי השלטונות העות'מאנים בשנת ‪( 1909‬לאחר הפיכת התורכים הצעירים‬ ‫ביולי ‪ .)1908‬במקרים מסויימים‪ ,‬הוא בעצמו נטל חלק בכך כאשר הקים כפרים חדשים בגבולות הנגב‬ ‫ויישב פליטים מוסלמים צ'רקסים ובוסניים במקומות אחרים‪ .‬לעיתים אף ניתן לראות את השפעתו‬ ‫‪448‬‬ ‫בשמותיהם של הכפרים‪ ,‬כגון הכפר חמידיה‪ ,‬בעמק בית‪-‬שאן‪ ,‬שנקרא על שמו‪ .‬במספר ישובים היוזמה‬ ‫ליישב ערבים מקומיים הייתה באופן ברור של הסולטן‪ ,‬כמו קאופחה בצפון מערב הנגב ופארוואנה‬ ‫בעמק בית שאן‪ .‬במקרים אלה עודד עבדול חמיד השני את ההתיישבות על אדמותיו כאשר חימש את‬ ‫התושבים למען שיפור הבטחון האישי וכן הסכים לשכנם על אדמותיו בתמורה לשירות צבאי‪.‬‬ ‫במקרים אחרים‪ ,‬כמו ישובי הבדווים בעמק בית שאן‪ ,‬נראה כי הנוודים השתמשו באדמותיו של‬ ‫הסולטאן למרעה ורק לאחר מכן התיישבו שם‪.‬‬ ‫חמישים ושניים מהיישובים החד שים הוקמו ליד ישובים יהודים שנוסדו גם הם באותה‬ ‫התקופה‪ .‬במקרים רבים הישובים היהודים נבנו לאחר הקמתם של הישובים הערבים‪ ,‬כמו באזור‬ ‫בית שאן או בנוקייב‪ .‬אך במקרים אחרים‪ ,‬כמו במושבה יסוד המעלה שנוסדה בשנת ‪ ,1883‬הישוב‬ ‫היהודי הקדים את הישוב הערבי שהתפתח סביבו‪.‬‬ ‫נראה כי ‪ 14‬מהישובים החדשים הוקמו על קרקעותיהם הפרטיות של אפנדים או שהיו‬ ‫קשורים לאפנדים בדרך כל שהיא‪ .‬הבולטים שביניהם הם הישובים נטף‪ ,‬חירבת ירדה‪ ,‬ואדי חונין‬ ‫ואשרפיה‪ .‬בשני הישובים האחרונים התיישבו המשפחות הערביות הבולטות בשומרון‪ ,‬משפחת טאג'י‬ ‫ומשפחת עבדול האדי בהתאמה‪.‬‬ ‫הגורמים לגידול המשמעותי במספר הישובים הכפריים הערביים‬ ‫בשלהי השלטון העותומאני והמנדט הבריטי בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל חל גידול משמעותי‬ ‫במספר הישובים הכפריים הערביים‪ .‬מהמחקר עולה כי גידול זה נבע מהגירה משמעותית של‬ ‫אוכלוסיה‪ ,‬שתרמה להתפתחות אזורי מגורים בחלקיה המרוחקים של הארץ‪ .‬המתיישבים הערבים‬ ‫שהקימו כפרים חדשים לכל אורך פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ ,‬הרחיבו את מפת הישובים באופן משמעותי‬ ‫ובולט‪ .‬ישובים אלו ציינו את קו פרשת המים אחרי רצף של מאות שנות שלטון עות'מאני‪ ,‬במהלכו‬ ‫הקמת ישובים ערביים הייתה מוגבלת לאזורים מסויימים בלבד‪ .‬המפה החדשה של הישובים‬ ‫הערביים העולה מתוך המחקר‪ ,‬תורמת להבנתנו את הגיאוגרפיה וההיסטוריה של ארץ ישראל באותה‬ ‫התקופה ומספקת לנו עדשה ייחודית לחקר התקופה‪.‬‬ ‫לפי דוח "סקר הכפרים" ‪ Village Statistics‬שפורסם בשנת ‪ ,1945‬בארץ ישראל היו‬ ‫‪ 1,061,270‬מוסלמים‪ 553,600 ,‬יהודים‪ 135,500 ,‬נוצרים ו‪ 14,100-‬דרוזים‪ .‬לפי אומדן זה‪ ,‬ובהתבסס‬ ‫על הישובים המזוהים עם המחקר‪ ,‬בכפרים שנוסדו בין השנים ‪ 1871‬ועד ‪ 1945‬נמנו ‪ 66,940‬תושבים‬ ‫‪449‬‬ ‫מוסלמיים‪ .‬משמעות נתון זה היא כי ‪ 6.5%‬מהאוכלוסייה המוסלמית התגוררה בישובים החדשים‬ ‫שנוסדו‪ .‬בשנת ‪ 1931‬האוכלוסייה המוסלמית בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל מנתה ‪ 759,712‬איש מתוך סך‬ ‫כולל של מליון איש‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬האוכלוסייה בכפרים החדשים שנוסדו עד אותה שנה מנתה ‪ 29,694‬איש‬ ‫או ‪ 3.8%‬מהסך הכללי של המוסלמים בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ .‬במידה ונקבל את אומדן אוכלוסייה זה‪,‬‬ ‫נמצא כי אוכלוסיית התושבים המוסלמיים בישובים החדשים שנוסדו הייתה במגמת עלייה‪.‬‬ ‫על אף ניסיונות המחקר הנוכחי להתחקות אחר השפעת ההגירה החיצונית מארצות ערב‬ ‫לתוך פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ ,‬לא נמצאו עדויות שעשויות להוכיח כי הכפרים החדשים הושפעו מגלי‬ ‫הגירה ערביים לארץ במהלך תקופת המנדט הבריטי‪.‬‬ ‫ככול שגדלה הקולוניזציה האנושית של האזורים החדשים‪ ,‬התרחבה ההתיישבות הערבית‬ ‫מעבר לתחומה בשנת ‪ ,1596‬וכללה גם את חלקיה הפנימיים של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל (מלבד אזור‬ ‫הנגב)‪ .‬התרחבות זו של הישובים הערביים והמוסלמיים בארץ מייצגת שלב ייחודי בהיסטוריה של‬ ‫הארץ ואת ההתפשטות המשמעותית ביותר של ההתיישבות הערבית מאז המאה ה ‪.16-‬‬ ‫התיישבות זו נגרמו כתוצאה משינויים במרחב הגיאוגרפי שהשפיעו על האוכלוסייה‬ ‫הערבית והבדווית המקומית‪ .‬האוכלוסייה הבדווית‪ ,‬אם מתוך כפייה או בחירה‪ ,‬התיישבה בכפרים‬ ‫אלו עקב מדיניותו האנטי‪-‬נוודית של הממשל באותה תקופה‪ ,‬ושאיפתו לריסון הבדווים ויישובם‪.‬‬ ‫ההתיישבות הפלאחית הושפעה יותר מיכולתו של השלטון המרכזי לספק ביטחון החל מסוף תקופת‬ ‫השלטון העות'מאני ולאורך תקופת המנדט הבריטי‪ .‬שתי המגמות לא החלו יש מאין‪ ,‬אלא התרחשו‬ ‫הודות להתערבות השלטונות‪ ,‬השקעה פרטית מצידו של הסולטן עבדול חמיד השני ואפנדים שונים‪,‬‬ ‫ואף בהשפעת הופעתם של מתיישבים אחרים‪ ,‬בעיקר היהודים‪.‬‬ ‫תרומת המחקר‬ ‫ישנו תצלום רומנטי נפוץ של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל ‪ ,‬מעורר את הדימוי המתקשר לרוב לסוף‬ ‫התקופה העות'מאנית‪ .‬תצלום זה מראה "רוכב על סוס בערבות אסכר מזרחית לשכם"‪ .‬מספר רב של‬ ‫עבודות המעוניינות לתאר את החיים בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל לפני ‪ 1948‬עושות זאת באמצעות‬ ‫רומנטיזציה‪ .‬הרוכב נצפה כחלק שאינו ניתן לשינוי בנוף‪ ,‬כפי שמכנה אותו מיטרי ראהב אחד‬ ‫‪450‬‬ ‫מ"המצבות החיות" של פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪.‬‬ ‫‪963‬‬ ‫מה היה עשוי לקרות אילו הרוכב על הסוס היה יוצא לבנות כפר קטן? יותר מאשר היותו‬ ‫"מצבה חיה" המעידה על קיומם של הפלסטינים הוא היה יכול להיות עכשיו שחקן בנוף המרחבי‪ ,‬הוא‬ ‫היה יכול להיות 'חלוץ'‪.‬‬ ‫זהו לא דימוי או ביטוי אשר אפיין את הערבים בפלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל‪ .‬למרות זאת‪ ,‬בין השנים ‪- 1870‬‬ ‫‪ 1948‬לא עברה שנה אחת בה פלסטינים ערביים ומוסלמים אחרים לא שינו את מתווה הנוף של‬ ‫פלסטיין‪/‬ארץ‪-‬ישראל באופן חשוב ומשמעותי‪ .‬מהפך זה בא לידי ביטוי לא רק בכפרים המקומיים‪,‬‬ ‫אלא גם באזורים עם תנועות אוכלוסייה גדולות לאורך הארץ‪.‬‬ ‫תרומתו של מחקר זה היא במתן בסיס לחוקרים אחרים המעוניינים בחקר התפתחויות‬ ‫גיאוגרפיות‪-‬היסטוריות בארץ ישראל‪ .‬ראשית‪ ,‬באמצעות הוספת נדבך ידע חשוב המבוסס על נתונים‬ ‫אמפיריים‪ ,‬שיוכל לסייע בפיתוחם של מחקרים חדשים בנושא‪ .‬כמו כן‪ ,‬הניתוח הביקורתי והמדוקדק‬ ‫של המקורות‪ ,‬שיוכל לסייע בידי חוקרים אלו בחשיפת הניואנסים ורמת הדיוק במסמכים חשובים‬ ‫כגון אומדני האוכלוסייה הבריטיים (‪ )the British population estimates‬בשנים ‪ 1938‬ו‪ 1945-‬ומגוון‬ ‫של מקורות אחרים‪.‬‬ ‫כמו כן המחקר מראה כי ניתן לחקור ישובים כפריים בתקופות מעבר באמצעות מפות‬ ‫ודוחות מפקדי אוכלוסין‪ ,‬גם במקרים בהם מקורות כתובים אינם בנמצא‪ .‬הדבר הכרחי בעיקר בשל‬ ‫העובדה כי תושבי הכפרים היו אנאלפביתיים ולשלטונות היה חוסר מוחלט של מידע לגביהם‪ ,‬מצב‬ ‫שנגרם כתוצאה ממלחמות ותנועות המוניות של אוכלוסיה‪ .‬שיטה זו פותחת גישה להיסטוריה של‬ ‫ישובים אלה וכן נ יתן ליישמה במחקרים עתידיים כדוגמת דפוסי ההתיישבות היוונית בטורקיה לפני‬ ‫שנת ‪ ,1922‬ישובים ארמניים בתורכיה לפני שנת ‪ 1915‬וישובים הינדיים או סיקיים בפקיסטן לפני שנת‬ ‫‪.1948‬‬ ‫לבסוף‪ ,‬תרומתו המרכזית של המחקר טמונה בתוצאותיו המהפכניות‪ ,‬לפיהן מספר לא מבוטל‬ ‫של תושבים ערבים‪ ,‬שחלקם התגוררו באזורים שהפכו לשטחיה של מדינת ישראל לאחר מלחמת ‪1948‬‬ ‫וחלקם בשטחים שהוחזקו עד ‪ 1967‬על ידי מצרים וירדן‪ ,‬התגוררו בישובים חדשים‪ .‬כמו התושבים‬ ‫היהודים‪ ,‬שהקימו מוקדי התיישבות בקו החוף ובעמקים של ארץ ישראל‪ ,‬התושבים הערבים הרחיבו‬ ‫את שטחי ההתיישבות שלהם וזאת הודות לשינויי חקיקה שהוחלו בתקופת המנדט והקלו על הקמת‬ ‫‪Mitri Rahab, I am a Palestinian Christian, Fortress Press: Philidelphia, 1995, p.2. 963‬‬ ‫‪451‬‬ ‫ישובים אלו‪ .‬מבחינה מעמיקה של הניואנסים באירועים שהתרחשו בין השנים ‪ ,1948 – 1871‬לא נמצא‬ ‫בהכרח כי התושבים הערבים מתגוננים מפני המהגרים היהודים המעוניינים לנשל אותם‬ ‫מאדמותיהם‪ ,‬אלא כי בדומה לשכניהם היהודים‪ ,‬גם התושבים הערבים והבדווים פעלו להתפשטות‬ ‫על אדמות והקמתם של ישובים חדשים‪.‬‬ ‫‪452‬‬

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

The Arab Settlement of Late Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine: New Village Formation and Settlement Fixation, 1871-1948

The Arab Settlement of Late Ottoman and Mandatory Palestine: New Village Formation and Settlement Fixation, 1871-1948

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS