The Traditional Middle Eastern City The Cases of Jerusalem and Jaffa During the Nineteenth Century.* In Sonderdruck aus Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins Bd. 97 (1981). Vom Verfasser uberreicht: Durch den Buchhandel nicht zu beziehen, pp. 93-108. By Ruth Kark During the first part of the 19th century, Jerusalem and Jaffa were traditional cities, small in size and population.1 During the period from the second half of the 19th century to the end of Ottoman rule in Palestine their qualities changed. The aim of this paper is to describe the major characteristics of Jerusalem and Jaffa during their traditional period, and to compare them with patterns of other cities of the Islamic Middle East. 1. Generalizations and typologies of Moslem cities in the Middle East Since the 1920s various attempts have been made to present generalizations and typologies of the Islamic city and the traditional Middle Eastern city. These generalizations were based on research dealing with cities in general as well as the study of individual cities in the Middle East, in North Africa, and throughout the Islamic World. Research on Islamic cities has covered various time spans, including the brief periods of the founding of Islam, the Middle Ages2, the period of Ottoman rule3, and modern times.4 Some scholars have made rather broad generalizations about the entire "preindustrial" or "industrial" periods for all cities throughout the entire world by emphasizing their similarities.5 A common feature in all of these approaches is the emphases on the kind of relationships found in an Islamic city between social structures, religious significance and geographical form, and the recognition of the important role played by cultural values in determining the social and spatial organization.6 *I am indebted to Dr. Roy H. Merrens of York University, Canada, for his critical reviewing of this paper. 1 Seetzen (fn. 20), refers in 1806 to a population of approximately 3000 in Jaffa and approximately 9000 in Jerusalem. The built-up area was 108 dunams in Jaffa (Skyring map 1842) and 699 in Jerusalem (Aldrich-Symonds map 1841) (as measured by planimeter from these maps) by the author. 2 X. de Planhol, the World of Islam (Ithaca 1959), 1-28; I. M Lapidus, Muslim Cities in the Late Middle Ages (Cambridge, MA, 167) 3 E. Wirth, Die Soziale Stellung und Gliederung der Stadt im Osmanischen Reich des 19. Jahrhunderts, in : Untersuchungen zur gesellschhaftlichen Struktur der mittelalterlichen Stadte in Europa: Reichenauvortrage 1963-1964 (Konstanz-Stuttgart 1966), 403-427. 4 L.C.Brown(ed.),From Madina to Metropolis(Princeton 973) 5 G. Sjoberg, the Preindustrial City (New York 1960); L. Mumford, the City in History (London 1961); A. Toynbee, Cities on the Move (London 1970). An opponent to this approach was P. Wheatley, 'What Greatness of a City is Said to Be': Reflections on Sjoberg's Preindustrial City, pacific Viewpoint 4 (1963), 163-188. 6 I.M. Lapidus (ed.) Middle Eastern Cities (Berkeley 1969), 73-74; S. Landy, the Ecology of Islamic Cities, Economic Geography 47 (1971), 303-313. Many investigators believe that a large proportion of the distribution of activities in a Moslem city (including trade and economic activities) is dictated by religion and influenced by religious-ideological elements. To realize its religious and social ideas, Islam needed the city. It demanded an urban background as the optimal base for religious activities, such as communal prayer, fasting, middle-class, the separation of women , and observing the privacy of family and kinship groups.7 Two facets of Moslem cities that have been studied extensively are: a. Local organization, and b. Spatial Organization. a. Local organization It is interesting that despite Islamic ideology favouring the establishment of cities, most traditional Moslem cities lacked both a sense of unity and corporate and municipal institutions. An explanation offered for this absence is the decline of these municipal institutions prior to the Moslem period.8 The city as an expression of Moslem civilization did not lead to autonomous organization of its citizenry or to autocephaly9 The western linguistic connection between civilization-city-citizen was lacking in the Arabic language, and the notion of citizenship only developed at a much later date.10 From this we can gather that the unity of the Moslem city was more functional than civic. This greatly influenced the form and composition of the city. Religious hegemony over Islamic social organization resulted in the total lack of any political interest in the community itself. The king enjoyed total absolutism and his authority was considered to be divine (as amir al-mu'minin-Commander of the Faithful). The concept of 'nation' in Islam created a universal framework which encompassed all believers and left no room for an urban corporation.11 The sultan imposed the city administration. He appointed all high officials as well as the muhtesib (the municipal official in charge of the police and markets). Hourani, Lapidus and Stern12 believe that although the cities had the de facto possibility of political autonomy this was not realized, mainly because the leadership of the city was in religious hands (the 'ulema). Fig. 1 Schematic plan of the traditional Middle Eastern City. Under the aegis of the state, neighborhood and guild organizations, as opposed to municipal organizations, continued to exist. Every quarter of the city was governed 7 G.E. von Grunebaum, the structure of the Muslim Town, American Anthropological Association 57 (1955), [141-158] 142-143, X de Planhol, the Geographical Setting, in: P.M. Holt-Ann K.S. LambtonB. Lewis (eds.), the Cambridge History of Islam, II (Cambridge 1970), 453-459; I.M. Lapidus, Traditional Muslim Cities: Structure and Change, in: L.C. Brown (ed.),From Madina to metropolis (fn. 4), [51-69] 59. 63;; W Marcais, L'islamisme et la vie braine, CRI 1928, 86-100; R. Busch-Zanter, Zur Kenntnis der osmanischen Stadt Geographische Zeitschrift 38 (1932), 1-13. 8 S.M Stern, the Constitution of the Islamic City, in: A.H. Hourani-S.M. Stern (ed.), the Islamic City: A Colloquium (Oxford 1970), 25-50. 9 Using the concept which Max Weber related to the Medieval Western city; M. Weber, The City (New York 1966), 106-107. 10 E.M. Saari, Non-economic Factors and Systems of Cities (Ph.D. thesis, Minnesota University, 1971). 11 A.H. Hourani, The Islamic City in Light of Recent Research, in: A.H. Hourani-S.M. Stern (eds.), The Islamic City (fn. 8), 14-16. 12 See fn. 2, 6, 7, and 8, and A.H. Hourani, ibid.,9-24. by the local she and was generally populated by families that had a common origin, religious belief, or profession. Trade organizations were set up in a similar manner. 13 The first local city council was established in Istanbul in the 1850s and similar bodies were set up in the provinces more than ten years later.14 b. Spatial organization the intra-urban spatial organization of the Middle Eastern city was greatly influenced by Moslem religion, culture and society. This influence is evident even in cities established in the pre-Islamic era.15 Some outstanding features of the spatial organization of the traditional Middle Eastern and Moslem city that have been described are: Concentric arrangement and the hierarchical distribution of he various quarters. Because of the central role of religion in the Moslem city, the main mosque (Friday Mosque) was located in the city's centre. The bazaar, the khans, the hammams (public baths) were also close to the centre. The seat of the government (near to which the Jewish quarter was sometimes located for security reasons) was usually close to the periphery of the city. The residential quarters were located adjacent to the public areas and were often surrounded by walls and gates. The semi-rural areas and the cemeteries were found beyond the city walls (fig. 1). Ranking of functional areas. This hierarchy was manifested in the concentration of the more highly valued crafts and trades near the central mosque which has the most prestigious location. The less valued a trade or craft the further away it was situated from the centre. Identical trades and crafts tended to be grouped together (e.g., an alley of shoemakers). Roadside services and those services connected with the periphery were found near the gates of the city (fig. 2). Ethnic and religious segregation in the Residential Quarters. The city was divided into ethnic and or religious quarters where the emphasis was on the privacy and security of each quarter. These residential quarters (the harat) were closed-off entities within walls and gates, and were characterized by a disorderly arrangement of poorly ventilated and inaccessible blocks of buildings, narrow side streets and a web of alleyways leading from the side streets which could also be closed off when necessary (fig. 2). There were practically no open spaces or squares within these residential quarters. Each quarter was partially autonomous, sometimes having its own services. Lack of a regular layout. Most streets were windings and narrow, allowing for the passage of pack animals only. Main streets alone led to the gates of the city, and there was no way to leave the city from the side streets. Some of the alleyways were culs- 13 H.A.R. Gibb-H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West, I 1 (London 1950-57). B. Lewis, Baladiyya (Municipality), the Encyclopedia of Islam, new edition, I (Leyden 1960), 972976; S.T. Rosenthal, Municipal Reform in Istanbul 1850-1870 (Ph.D. thesis, Yale University, 1975) ; R. Kark, Activities of the Jerusalem Municipality in the Ottoman Period, Cathedra 6 (1977), 85-93 (Hebrew). 15 J. Sauvaget, Alep (Paris 1941); J.H. G. Lebon, The Islamic City in the Near East, Ekistics 31: 182 (1971), 64-80. 14 de-sac which were only used by the local residents. Part of the streets and alleyways had arched roofs. The private home. The traditional house tended to reflect social norms of modesty both in its dimension and in the use of relatively weak and fragile building materials (as opposed to stone). The houses were located at a certain distance from the street and lacked a direct entrance. Most doors and windows faced and inner courtyard, thus assuring the maximum amount of privacy. Evan the roof parapet and the latticework were designed to ensure separation of the women in the home from strangers. Public institutions. These typically included mosques, madaras, courts, jails, schools, guest houses, the market or bazaar, khans, hammams, sebils (drinking fountains), the citadel, and governmental institutions. 2. Jerusalem and Jaffa s Traditional Middle Eastern Cities When examining whether 19th century Jerusalem and Jaffa can be regarded as typical traditional Middle Eastern cities16, the differences between the two cities must also be considered. The most outstanding difference is the religious factor. Jerusalem is a world renowned spiritual and religious centre: one of the three Holy Cities of Islam17, the holy centre of Judaism and one of the four Jewish Holy Cities in Israel, and one of the foremost centres of Christian tradition. This is expressed in many ways, including spatial organizations, the social and economic monopoly held by religious leaders through religious institutions and organizations, and the religious ambience. Jaffa, on the other hand, is a port city where economic initiative and worldly matters were more important.18 a. Local Organizations During the first part of the 19th century there was apparently no sense of identification of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Jaffa with their cities. Therefore, concepts of urban identifications and urban consciousness, or the presence of autonomous urban organizations were lacking. One can barely find evidence of organized communal attempts to improve the cities. The Ottoman Sultan, the Egyptian government (1831-40) or the local governor ("Pasha", who was almost entirely independent of his superiors), imposed the administrative structure. 16 In a similar attempt by Paul English to examine the applicability of Von Grunebaum's and Sjoberg's 'models' to the city of Heart in Afghanistan, several obvious exceptions from the rule have been found; P. English, The Traditional City of Heart, in: L.C. Brown (ed.), From Madina to metropolis (fn. 4), 7390. 17 I.M. Lapidus, Traditional Muslim Cities (fn. 7), 59, points out the Islamic quality of Jerusalem as one of the three Holy Cities of the Moslem world. M. Maoz, Jerusalem in the Last Hundred Years of Turkish-Ottoman Rule, in : Y. Ben-Porath-B. Yehushua (eds.), Chapters in the History of the Jewish Community in Jerusalem (Jerusalem 1973), [260-272] 260 (Hebrew), refers to Jerusalem and the beginning of the 19th century as a "fanatic Moslem provincial town." 18 R. Kark, The Development of the Cities Jerusalem and Jaffa-1840 up to the First World War (Ph.D. thesis, the Hebrew university, Jerusalem 1976) 354-264. The administrative bodies, although located in Jerusalem and Jaffa, were responsible for the surrounding regions19 and now solely for the cities. There were "mutesellims" (civil governors) in Jaffa at the beginning of the century.20 The activities of Muhammad Aga (Abu Nabbut), the governor of Jaffa who was appointed by Jazzar Pasha, are particularly well known.21 Jerusalem also had its mutesellim, military leadership and a qadi who were appointed from above.22 With the use of maps and various other sources,23 I was able to pinpoint the exact location of the seraya (government complex) and the governor's home. Although the appointment of governors was imposed by the central government, the cities as well as the entire administrative regions were subject to the arbitrary will and despotism of their governors.24 The governors either destroyed, neglected or rebuilt various sections of the city at will. Abu Nabbut, for example, was quite active in rebuilding Jaffa, after the Napoleonic Wars; he renovated its walls and moats and built a new mosque, markets, public parks and water fountains. The citizenry's participation in these projects was limited to forced labour.25 The governor of Jerusalem ,on the other hand, caused much destruction when he bombarded the city from the Mount of Olives during the 1826 revolt.26 In 1808, 1826 and 1834, there was organized political activity in Jerusalem against the local government. This activity included only the Moslem inhabitants of the city and of neighboring villages. It represented an example of local political organization and identification.27 I have found no mentions of the muhtesib, or of the existence of corporate organizations inn Jerusalem or Jaffa, in the first half of the 19th century. Modern municipalities were established in Jerusalem and Jaffa only during the second half of the 19th century even though there were district councils after the Egyptian conquest (1832). These councils consisted of local dignitaries (a'yan), the leaders of the larger families, and representatives of the Moslem religious leadership, the 'ulema.28 The council served in an advisory capacity only, and was apparently ineffective because the Pasha, instead of consulting the council, could control it by bribing or intimidating its members.29 19 J.C Hurewitz, Eretz-Israel, from the beginning of the New Jewish Settlement, Encyclopedia Hebraica, VI (Jerusalem 1970), 498-504 (Hebrew). 20 U.J. Seetzen, Reisen durch Syrien, palastina, Phoenicien, die Transjordanlander, Arabia Petrea und Unteraegypten, II (Berling 1854-59), 69; H.Z Hirschberg, The Beginnings of the Renewed Jewish Settlements in Jaffa in: M.D. Cassuto-J. Klausner-Y. Gutman (ed.), Sefer 'Asaf (Jerusalem 1953), 223229 9hebrew). 21 S. Tolkowsky, The Gateway of Palestine: A History of Jaffa (London 1924), 154-155. 22 A.M. Luncz, History of the Jews in Jerusalem in the Last Hundred Years, Jerusalem 13 (1919),  210-213. 23 Aldrich-Symonds map 1841; Alderson-Skyring map 1841; M. Maoz, Jerusalem (fn. 17), 261-264. 24 Maoz, ibid. 25 S. Tolkowsky, The Gateway (fn. 21), 154-155. 26 S.N. Spyridon, Annals of Palestine 1821-1841, JPOS 18 (1938), [63-132] 74-83. 27 I. Ben-Zvi, Eretz-Israel under Ottoman Rule (Jerusalem 1968), 352-353 (Hebrew). 28 U. Heyd, Eretz-Israel during the Ottoman Rule (Jerusalem 1962), 53-54 (Hebrew). 29 F.A. Strauss, Sinai und Golgotha: Reise in das Morgenland (Berlin 1847) 278-280. The heterogeneity of the population, the religious and ethnic differences, and the millet system30 resulted in the creation of religious and ethnic quarters in the two cities. Each had a separate administrative framework. This structure is similar to that described by Von Grunebaum and Gibb and Bowen.31 The ethnic and religious heterogeneity was greater in Jerusalem than in Jaffa. In addition to the three major religious groups, Moslems, Jews and Christians, there were additional sub-groups and communities. Some of these were represented in the government, but had no sense of civic identification or solidarity.32 In the middle of the 19th century the population of Jaffa was primarily divided between Moslems and Christians and their various subdivisions.33 In that period a Jewish nucleus begins to develop in Jaffa.34 In Jaffa as in Jerusalem, identification was based on religious or ethnic allegiances rather than on a municipal or urban basis. The Imposition of administrative appointments on the one hand, and the absence of urban identification on the other, led to a lack of urban planning in both Jerusalem and Jaffa, a lack of municipal supervision and regulation, and the resulting gradual decline of existing facilities. Public buildings and installations, such as the public fountains and aqueducts of Jerusalem, were neglected and subsequently deteriorated.35 b. Spatial organization The spatial organization of Jerusalem and Jaffa was primarily influenced by religion, culture and society like most other Moslem cities in the Middle East. The religious influence was especially prominent in Jerusalem, where much space was devoted to religious functions and institutions. An analysis of maps of Jerusalem and Jaffa in the first half of the 19 century36 shows that Jaffa conformed to the pattern where the market area bordered on the religious centre (the Mahmudiye Mosque) while the seraya is close by. This is not the case in Jerusalem, where the market place was separated form the religious and administrative centres which were close together (the mosques on the Temple Mount and the madares both inside and outside the Temple Mount, and the seraya and the governor's home nearby). This may be partially explained by the fact that the remnants of earlier periods influenced spatial organization in Jerusalem. Even during the period under discussion, Jerusalem was a 'body' composed of Islamic 'flesh' whose 'skin' and 'sinews' were formed on the 'skeleton' of previous generations.37 Jaffa, on 30 By the Millet system the Ottoman authorities granted autonomy to some of the non-Moslem communities. 31 See fn. 7 and 13. 32 W. Turner, Journal of a Tour in the Levant, II (London 1820), 292; S. N. Spyridon, Annals of Palestine (fn. 26), 63-132; E. Robinson-E. Smith, Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai & Arabia Petrea (London 1841), I, 327-329. 385. 388; II, 85-88; U.J. Seetzen, Reisen, II (fn. 20), 17-23. 69-72. 33 U.J. Seetzen, ibid. ; E. Robinson-E. Smith, op. cit., III, 31; R.C. Alderson, Notes on Acre and Some of the Coast Defenses of Syria (London 1843), 8-9. 34 H.Z. Hirschberg, see fn. 20. 35 W. Wittman, Travels in Turkey, Asia Minor, Suria and across the Desert into Egypt during the Years 1799, 1800 and 1801 (London 1803), 118, 127-130; W. Turner, Journal, II (fn. 32), 266; T. Tobler, Denkblatter aus Jerusalem (St. Gallen 1853), 35. 36 See List of Maps. 37 D.H. K. Amiran-M. Avi-Yonah, Jerusalem: The Saga of the Holy City (Jerusalem 1954), 31-41. the other hand was almost entirely rebuilt after the Napoleonic conquest in the form of a traditional Moslem city. Both cities were surrounded by walls. A comparison of their internal spatial organization in relation to the generalizations previously described follows. Concentric arrangement and the hierarchical distribution of the various quarters. There is a partial concentric organization in Jaffa where the major mosque is located in the flat area of the city surrounded by the bazaars, all of which are situated close to the main gate of the city. The fact that the first 'Jewish courtyard' is found in buildings that were maintained by the government in an are near the government complex, also conforms to the traditional pattern. Beyond these there are other residential areas which appear on the 1842 map as built-up area without further detail. It does not appear that internal walls were used to demarcate major internal divisions. The entire built-up area is surrounded by a wall with a fausse bray and ditch. There was one central gate at the eastern end of the city, and a few smaller, narrower gates near the harbour. The famous Jaffa gardens (to which the big quarantine building was added in the thirties) on the south side of the city, and the cemeteries, were outside the city walls (fig. 3-4). The layout of Jerusalem is non-concentric, but there is a hierarchical ranking within the various quarters. Each quarter ahs its dominant religious structures: the el-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in the Moslem quarter, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre I the Christian Quarter, St. James Church in the Armenian quarter, and the central Ashkenazi and Sephardie synagogues in the Jewish quarter. Other facilities providing religious and education services were located nearby. These included hostels for pilgrims, soup kitchens, and residential units-under the aegis of Christian, Moslem and Jewish authorities. The central marketplace was located between the quarters, extended towards the Jaffa and Damascus gates, and was removed from the major religious centres. Residential areas were concentrated around ach of the religious centres. The entire city was surrounded by a wall with several gates. There were cemeteries, isolated religious buildings, and the semi-rural areas outside of the walls. (figs. 5 and 6). Fig. 4. Jaffa in the middle of the 19th century: a functional map. Map key: 1 Wall2functionaing gates-3 roads-4 built-up area; I Christian neihborhoods-5 Religious institutions; I Christian, II Moslem-6 Government (including consulates)-7 Market and trade-8 Sebil (public fountain)-9 agriculture-10 cemetery; I Moslem-11 Jetty. Fig. 6. Jerusalem in the middle of the 19th century. Ranking 0f functional areas. A semi-concentric pattern is evident in Jaffa, with a central mosque in the public section of town. It is not possible to determine if there was a hierarchical location of the economic functions. The various functions may have been mixed together simply because of the small area of the Jaffa market. Travelers who had visited Jaffa describe a concentration of roadside services and a temporary market outside the main city gate on the eastern side, as well as coffeehouses, two bathhouses, several soup factories, a ship and boat repair shop, and a workshop, which produced pipe heads (their location is not known). During Montefiore's census of 1839 there were Jewish shoemakers, tailors, tinsmiths and glaziers in Jaffa.38 There were no hotels in Jaffa during the first half of the century, but the monasteries and convents had hostels which served pilgrims and travelers. Jerusalem did not exhibit a full concentric patter (fig. 2), but it did have a certain hierarchy and a concentration of functions accompanied by territorial distribution. Secondary specialized markets such as the cotton market (the qaysariya which had a prestigious location near the major mosques), the perfume markets, the gold and silversmith's market, and the butcher's markets, were all located on three parallel streets in the central bazaar. The central khan (Han es-Sultan) was close by. The wheat market was located not far from the Citadel (near Jaffa Gate). A centre for selling devotional wares and souvenirs was found near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Some of these markets were locate din permanent arched structures and were equipped with gates which enabled them to be closed at night on specific occasions. Besides the concentration and ranking of the functions found in these marketplaces, minor religious and ethnic centers were also found there.39 During the first half of the 19th century, there were also centres for small industries and crafts in Jerusalem in addition to the commercial and trade centres already discussed. Seetzen, who visited Jerusalem in the beginning of the century, described soap and oil factories, a cloth dye house, a tannery (a nuisance in the centre of town), an industry producing souvenirs from the Holy Land, candle manufacturing, as well as 20 or 30 metal smiths, blacksmiths, carpentry shops and services such as bakeries and coffeehouses.40 The exact location of these places can only be partially reconstructed with the help of maps and recorded descriptions. Some of the soap factories appear to have been located on the way from the central bazaar to the Damascus Gate, an oil press and a flour mill were not too far from the Citadel, and near Zion's Gate, on the outskirts of the built-up area, was a pottery workshop and a windmill, next to the isolated houses of the lepers. Ethnic and religious segregation in the residential quarters. Religious and ethnic segregation within the residential quarters existed in both cities. The population of Jaffa up until the middle of the 19th century was mostly Moslem, consisting for the most part of local Arabs, with a Turkish and Egyptian minority. The rest of the populace consisted of Christians-Greek Orthodox, Catholics, Armenians, Maronites, and a small Jewish minority. Turner estimated that of the 1200 houses that were in Jaffa in 1815, 1000 belonged to Turks (he was most probably referring to the Moslems in general), 170 to the Geeks and 30 to Roman Catholics.41 The only indication of the separation of the various religious communities or ethnic groups comes from Skyring's 1842 map, where the Christian Quarter (Haret en-Nasara) appears in the southern section of the city to the east of the area where the churches, convents and monasteries were found. In addition Skinner pointed out that the 38 I. Ben-Zvi, Eretz-Israel (fn. 27), 380. E.A. Finn, Home in the Holy Land: A Tale (London 1866), 279; Alderson-Skyring and AldrichSymonds maps (1841). 40 U.J. Seetzen, see fn. 32. 41 W. Turner, Journal, II (fn. 32), 292. 39 Moslem section of the city was in a very dilapidated condition42, and Tobler noted that the Christian lived in the lower part of the city near the Harbour.43 The Jews were isolated from the general population and lived in an area near the harbour called "Dar el-Yehud", which was the center of the small Jewish community of Jaffa.44 Egyptians who lived in the Jaffa area in the first half of the century isolated themselves from the rest of the population and lived in sakinat outside the walled city. The Egyptian colony found to the north of the wall consisted of Copts. One may assume that the local Arabs lived in the rest of the city with the wall, while the Turks most of whome were government or military officials, lived either in the government buildings or in their vicinity (fig. 3-4). By the beginning of the 19th century, the more heterogeneous population of Jerusalem already includes Moslems(Arabs and Turks), Christians (Greek Orthodox, Catholics, Copts, Abyssinians, and Syrians), and Jews. At this time, these diverse populations each lived in their own separate quarter or neighborhood, or around a block of courtyards (hos) or an individual courtyard.45 According to Luncz, around 1800 the various religious and ethnic communities were segregated into five quarters: the Christian quarter (which was further subdivided into Latin and Orthodox, and also included concentrations of Maronites, Copts and others), the Moslem Quarter, the Moghrebine Quarter (North Africa Moslems), the Armenian Quarter, and the Jewish Quarter. In a map prepared by Sieber in 1818, a quarter labeled as the Judenstadt appeared in the southeaster part of the city. In the Catherwood map of 1835, the Jewish Quarter also appears in the centre of the southern part of the city within the walls. In the Admiralty map of March 184146, the city was divided into six harat (or quarters): Haret al Narasa (Christina), Haret al Muslimin (Moslem), Haret bab e Hitta (Moslem), Haret el Mugaribe (North African Moslem) ,Haret el-Yehud(Jewish), Haret el-Arman (Armenian), based partially on religious and partially on ethnic divisions. Within the general framework of the quarters was a further sub-division based on religious, ethnic, communal, or familial criteria.47 The residential segregation was no absolute.48 The various groups intermingled and met in the economic spheres of life. Lack of a regular street layout. This is quite apparent from the first glance at maps of Jerusalem and Jaffa. Most of the streets appear in the maps lack a well-ordered layout and very often are dead end streets. According to written sources from that time49, the 42 T. Skinner, Adventures during a Journey Overland to India by Way of Egypt, Syria and the Holy Land, I (London 1836), 183. 43 T. Stobler, Lustreise ins Morgenland (Zurich 1839), 123. 44 H.Z Hirschberg, see fn. 20. 45 A.M. Luncz, History of the Jews in Jerusalem (fn. 22), 209-214. 46 Aldrich-Symonds map 1841. 47 In the Christian Quarter there were concentrations of Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics and Copts. In the Armenian Quarter there was a concentration of Syrians (Syrian Orthodox [Jacobite] Church), and in the Jewish Quarter there were concentrations of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews and Karaites. The Moslem Quarters were divided probably on ethnic and familial lines (A.M. Luncz, History of the Jews in Jerusalem [fn. 22], 211. 238; Y.Ben-Arieh, The Growth of Jerusalem in the Nineteenth Century, Annals of the Association of American Geographers 65 , 252-269; I, W.J. Hopkins, The Four Quarters of Jerusalem, PEQ 103 , 68-85). 48 A.M. Luncz, loc. cit. 49 W. Turner, Journal, II (fn. 32), 285; W. Wittman, Travels (fn. 35), 118, 127-130. streets of Jaffa were narrow, winding, unpaved, dirty, without proper drainage, and wretched in appearance. They were described as deserving the name of alleyways as opposed to streets. Some of the streets were terraced because of the irregular topography of the city. The only street which had an exit-way at the eastern gate of the city was that which reached the gate from the harbour. Even though the layout of the main streets of Jerusalem was obviously dictated by the city plan designed by the Romans, both the various maps and the descriptions of the city clearly indicate that most of the streets were narrow, crooked, and uneven. The main streets were slightly wider, partially paved, had sidewalks, and led to the city gates, while the side of the streets were narrow, unpaved, and sometimes dead-ended. 50 The Private home. The houses of Jaffa were made of stone (mostly limestone or sandstone), sometimes covered with white plaster. The limestone was brought in for secondary use from the ancient sites of Caesarea, Atlit, and Ashkelon. Houses were either domed or had flat roofs. Wood was only used for doors and for certain items within the house. The houses have been described as being low and crowded.51 The quality of housing differed among the various sections of the city. The best houses being found near the harbour.52 The houses of Jerusalem have been described as being of inferior quality and neglected appearance despite the fact that they were made of stone. The few wellbuilt houses were used by the Turks. As in Jaffa, there was secondary use of ancient stones taken both from inside and outside the city wall. The houses had domed roofs and the majority had enclosed courtyards and one indirect entrance. Many visitors mentioned the existence of parapets on the roofs to ensure privacy.53 Public institutions. Due to the heterogeneity of the populations of Jerusalem and Jaffa during the period under discussion, non-Moslem public institutions were also found. In the first half of the 19th century the only public buildings in Jaffa were: three mosques, three churches, three monasteries and convents, a few European consulates, a citadel, the seraya and the Governor's Home, a military hospital (in the Quarantine), markets, public fountains, bathhouses, coffeehouses, and the cemeteries outside the walls.54 The public buildings which appeared in the maps and descriptions of Jerusalem during the same period were mostly of a religious nature: mosques, churches, monasteries and convents, synagogues, and guest hostels for pilgrims. The government buildings included the seraya, the Citadel, the Governor's Home, and the consulates. In addition the markets, the khans, the bathhouses, the public fountains, the coffeehouses, and the cemeteries outside of the walls should be mentioned.55 50 W. Turner, op cit., 266. W. Wittman, loc. cit. (fn. 49). 52 U.J. Seetzen, see fn. 32. 53 E.R. Robinson-E. Smith, Biblical Researches (fn. 32), III, 327-329, 386-388. 54 U.J. Seetzen, see fn. 32; W. Turner, Journal II (fn. 32), 285. 292; Skyring map 1842. 55 A.M. Luncz, History of the Jews in Jerusalem 9fn. 22), 209-243; U.J. Seetzen, see fn. 32; E. Robinson-E. Smith, loc cit. (fn. 53); T. Tobler, Denkblatter (fn. 35), 121-126; S.N. Spryidon, Annals of Palestine (fn. 26), 63-132. 51 3. Summary and conclusions The "uniqueness Thesis" enjoys much support among historians and some geographers. If we take this point of view, we may find that Jerusalem and Jaffa, as well as every other city or form of settlement, possess a uniqueness which results from the local geographical setting, particular location, situation and site characteristics (topography, climate, water supply, etc.), history and its remains, components and size of population, specific economy, and other variables. However, generalizations at the level of a cultural region, geographical area, and a particular time period are likely to assist us in clarifying and illuminating specific themes of interest with which we are dealing in order o better understand them. On this level, many generalizations have been made by researchers concerning the Moslem city and the traditional Middle Eastern City which have for the most part been based on inductive and empirical research. This article has identified a number of characteristics and patterns attributed to the Moslem city, and has examined the extent to which Jerusalem and Jaffa at the close of their pre-modern period accord with the general model. The validity of the generalizations presented concerning the local and spatial organization of the Moslem city is extensively verified here. Despite the fact that both of these cities were established before the Islamic Period and differed in their geographic conditions, and although Jerusalem commanded a special religious and spiritual important (which Jaffa also enjoyed by serving as the gateway to the Holy City), they fit the general model of the traditional Middle Eastern City. Although the generalizations were based on research on cities larger in size and population than Jerusalem and Jaffa, they suit there smaller cities as well. Jerusalem and Jaffa were similar to other Moslem, Middle Eastern cities in that they lacked a local urban organization. They possessed a concentric type of arrangement, a ranked functional hierarchy, residential ethnic and religious segregation, streets lacking a fixed plan, and houses built in a certain style, and had the public institutions typical of a Middle Eastern city. Traditional Jerusalem and Jaffa exhibited the interrelation between social structures, religious significance, and geographical forms. Social values played an important role in determining the spatial organization (this was most evident in Jerusalem). This organization wasn't determined only by economic competition or considerations of accessibility, but was influenced also by motivations of prestige, proximity to holy places and earlier patterns. The strong influence of Moslem religions and culture, combined with the fact that these cities were under the same rule, was responsible both for their similar lack of local organizations and their uniformity of spatial urban organization. To a great extent it was these religious and cultural influence that determined the geographic qualities and character of pre-modern Jerusalem and Jaffa. List of map sources. R.C. Aldeerson-C.F. Skyring, Plan of the Town and Environs of Jerusalem, 10th June, 1841, in: Great Britain, Public Record Office, F.O. 78/455 Aldrich-Symonds, Plan of the Town and Environs of Jerusalem (London 1841) F. Catherwood, Plan of Jerusalem (London 1835) M. Jacotin, Jaffa section, in: M. JAcotin, Carte topographique de l'Egypte (Paris 1810 [for 1799]) G. Pink, Plan of Encampment of His Highness The Grand Vizier at Jaffa, in Syria, 1800, in: W. Wittman, Travels in Turkey, Asia Minor, Syria and across the Desert into Egypt during the Years 1799, 1800 and 1801 (London 1803) E. Robinson-E. Smith, plan of Jerusalem, in: id., Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai and Arabia Petraea (London 1854), suppl. (see fig. 5) Th. Sandel, Yafa, 1:20,000, in: K Baedeker (ed.), Palestine and Syria: handbook for Travelers (Leipzig 1876), 129. Th. Sandel, plan von Jaffa, 1:9100, 1878-1879, in: G. Schwarz, ZDPV 2 (1880), opposite p. 44 F.W. Sieber, Karte von Jerusalem (Prag 1818) C.F. Skyring, Plan of Jaffa, June, 1841, in: Great Britain, Public Record Office, F.O. 78/455 S.F. Skyring, Jaffa & Vicinity, 1842, in: R.C. Alderson, Notes on Acre and Some of the Coast Defenses of Syria (London 1843), pl. 7 (see fig. 3).