The establishment of Muslim Neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, Outside the Old
City, During the late Ottoman period
Ruth Kark and Shimon Landman
* The authors wish to thank Dr. Ishaq Husseini and Mr. Salah Jaralla for their help.
The plates for this article appear between pages 124 and 125
Published in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly 112 (1980): 113–35.
.
Introduction
The construction of Jewish neighbourhoods and Christian buildings outside the walls
of the Old City of Jerusalem is a well-documented process. However, little is known
about Muslim buildings outside the Old City and of the social processes connected
with this building activity. The sources used in reconstructing and studying this
process were maps of Jerusalem and its environs, drawn up during the nineteenth and
the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as aerial photographs taken during
World War I. From these, the Muslim structures which were built outside the city
walls in this period were identified by a process of elimination, leaving aside the
neighbourhoods and houses built by Jews and Christians and about which there is
more information. Oral testimony by members of the Muslim families, some of whom
still live in these same houses today, and writings of non-Muslims who had dealings
with them, provided additional information.
It is still possible to identify a large number of these buildings, to determine the date
of their construction, to define their building style, and even to draw conclusions
concerning the type of population which built and lived in them. Among Muslims,
the building of a house did not constitute merely a legal and technical act, but was one
of the three major festive family occasions in the life he Muslim-marriage, the birth of
sons, and the building of a house-and was bound up with a whole system of rules,
customs, and beliefs relating to the concept of 'the house', from the start of its
construction, until its occupation.1
A reconstruction of the process and the scope of the Muslim expansion beyond the
Old City is not only important in itself, but also as an indicator of the connexion
between cultural, religious , and economic norms and the kind of building and the
external forms of houses. Furthermore, it provides a previously ignored key to
understanding the economic and social status of a particular sector of the Muslim
population of Jerusalem during the Ottoman period, and to appraising the extent of its
conservatism, and of the role which emulation, or innovation, played in its character.
I. Muslim structures outside the Old City 1800-1870
The Jewish writer and chronicler A. M. Luncz, who first arrived in Jerusalem at the
end of the 1860s, relates in his memoirs that the city was 'strictly confined within her
high, dark wall, like a lizard in his skin, and a kind of perpetual mourning enveloped
the city-whose gates were closed each day at sunset-and her inhabitants'.2 Luncz's
descriptions is not entirely accurate, since even at the beginning of the nineteenth
century, buildings existed outside the Old City walls. Those attributed to the Muslims
included buildings serving religious and ritual functions, cemeteries and castle-like
manor houses or villas known as qusur.
1
T. Canaan, 'The Palestinian Arab House: its Architecture and Folklore', JPOS, 13 (1933), 57-58.
2
A.M Luncz, Luah eretz yisrael lishnat 5670, 15 (1909), 5 (Hebrew).
A Muslim religious and cultic buildings outside the Old City
A large proportion of the buildings devoted to religious and cultic purposes outside
the Jerusalem city walls date to the time of Salah ed-Din (Saladin), at the end of
twelfth century. These buildings erected both with the intention of giving an Islamic
character to the city as a reaction to the Crusades3 and also out of strategic
considerations, as is evident from their situation on major thoroughfares or on high
ground. During the Ayyubid period the areas outside the city walls were divided into
fiefs, some of which were assigned to officers in Salah ed-Din's army, like Abu Tor
and Esh Sheikh Jarrah. Later, the Ed-Dajani (Dawudi) family received the
custodianship of Mount Zion and King David's Tomb and the El-'Alami family that of
the summit of the Mount of Olives and the Church of the Ascension.
When dealing with religious edifices outside the wall, we must distinguish between
zawiyah (dervish monasteries), mosques, and tombs of prophets and saints, which
were built and sanctified on the strength of Muslim traditional alone, (such as Wali
Esh Sheikh Jarrah in which the El Jarrahiya zawiyah was erected in 1201 and to
which a mosque was added in around 1896, the S'ad wa Sa'id Mosque on the Nablus
Road, Al Qubbah al Karamiya Kabakiya in Mamilla, dating to 1289. others were held
sacred by members of other faiths as well and which fell to the Muslims at some stage
after their conquest of the country (e.g. Ez Zawiyah al-Adhamiya near Jeremiah's
Grotto, erected in 1361, the tomb of Sina Tabiah el-'Adawiya on the site of the tomb
of the Prophetess Hulda, and the mosques of Abu Tor, and on the site of the Church
of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives.)
Some of these religious edifices were not built for one purpose only, but combined a
whole range of facilities, often including a mosque, a pilgrim hospice, a dormitory for
dervishes or paupers, a school, and also the tomb of a saint which was a focus for
pilgrimages and religious ceremonies. Sometimes, subul (public drinking fountains)
or khans were added to such a complex of buildings, or were built separately nearby.4
By the mid fourteenth century, they had lost much of the prosperity they enjoyed
during the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods, and functioned only partially.
The Greek monk, Neophitos, describes a makhama (religious court), which was
situated outside the Old City walls and was therefore called 'barnani' (outside the
wall). This was a two story building with a domed roof, situated near the Jaffa Road,
to the north of the City at a quarter of an hour's walking distance from it, which
served the fellaheen (peasants). In 1835, Neophitos noted that the building had been
neglected many years and was finally demolished by Ibrahim Pasha.5
B Muslim cemeteries outside the Old City
As in many middle Eastern cities, all the cemeteries in Jerusalem were located outside
the walls. In the nineteenth century, there were four cemeteries in Jerusalem, some of
which contained graves dating to a much earlier period, but which continued in use
3
L.A. Mayer, J. Pinkerfield and J.W. Hirschberg, Some Principal Muslim Religious Buildings in Israel
(Jerusalem, 1950), 6 (Hebrew) .
4
For example, in Nebi Dawud on Mount Zion a khan was built during Muhammed Ali's rule (18311840) See S. N. Spyridon (ed.) , 'Annals of Palestine 1821- 1841', JPOS 18 (1938) , 85- 86 .
5
Ibid, 125-126.
throughout the century. The largest of these was the Mamilla Cemetery, which
extended some distance west of the Jaffa Gate and contained the Zawiyat Al
Kubakiya and the Tomb of 'Ala ed-Din, the son of Abdallah Al Kubakiyya, who died
in 1289. The Ez-Zahiriya Cemetery lay outside the eastern wall of the city with its
focal point apparently in the area of the Gate of Mercy, (The 'Golden Gate'), whence it
spread northward, opposite the wall. The Es-Sahira Cemetery lay on a hill above EzZawiyah al Adhamiya, north-west of the Damascus Gate. In the past, it was known as
the 'The Cemetery of the Fighters of the Holy War', and was one of the sites dating to
the time of Salah ed-Din.6 It seems that a little way beyond it, was an additional
cemetery, north-west of Karm esh-Sheikh. This appears on Pierotti's map, of 18637,
and was indicated as an ancient Muslim cemetery in Warren and Conder's Survey of
Jerusalem.8
There were also a number of solitary Muslim tombs, apart from those mentioned
above, in Esh-Sheikh Jarrah, Nabi Dawud, the tomb of Hulda, and En-Nabi Ukkasha.
Among these are the tomb of Esh-Sheikh Almanasi in the Armenian cemetery on
Mount Zion, the tomb of Salman El-Farisi in the Et-Tur mosque and the tomb of
Mujir ed-Din, in the Qidron Valley.
C Muslim qusur outside the Old City
During the previous centuries, there were outside the city walls not only Muslim
religious buildings but also seasonal residences. These were described already at the
end of the fifteenth century, by Mujir ed-Din el-Hanbali
"And outside Jerusalem, on all sides, there are vineyards and fruit orchards, bearing
grapes and dates and apples, and the loveliest spot is south-west Jerusalem and is
called El-Baq'a. This place, King Salah ed-Din bestowed on the hermits in the
Khanqah, and in it are beautiful and splendid buildings, whose owners dwell in them
for a few months during the summer.9
In the course of time, summer residence such as these were built by 'Ulama (religious
authorities), the ruling class, and especially the multazimun (tax lessees), whose
power derived from their religious offices and landed property. These people, who
had permanent homes close by within the old City, were wont to gain control of land
and property belonging to the religious trusts (Awaqf), usually proportionate to the
size of their salaries, and to bequeath such religious trust property to their sons, who
came to regard it as their own.10 The abuse of waqf funds for building purposes is
attested to by the well-known Palestinian proverb of those days: 'Mal el-waqf biyhid
es saqf' (waqf funds will make the roof collapse), implying (with some relish) that a
house built with money illegally taken from the waqf will not prosper.11
6
A. el-Aref, El mufassal fi Tarikh el quds (Jerusalem, 1961) 180 (Arabic).
E. Pierotti, Jerusalem Explored (Cambridge, 1863), Plate II-Plan of Modern Jerusalem.
8
C. Warren, and C.R. Conder, The Survey of Western Palestine (London, 1884); Jerusalem (London,
1884), 501.
9
Mujir ad-Din, in D. Yellin Mi-dan ve'ad Be'er-Sheva (From Dan to Be'er Sheba), (Jerusalem, 1973),
209. In the Hebrew version by Yellin of 1898 he writes: 'Nothing now remains of thee buildings, and in
our day the German Colony and the railway station occupy the site.'
10
A. En-Nim'r, Tarikh Jabal Nablus we-al-Balqa (The History of the Nablus Mountain and the ElBalqa District) (Nablus, 1961), Vol. II., 228 (Arabic).
11
Canaan, op. cit., 67.
7
Generally, the qusur were built within walking distance of the Old City12 in locations
combining an attractive view with access to cultivated agricultural land, vineyards,
olive groves, and fruit orchards. For this reason, these buildings often incorporated an
agricultural industrial plant, such as an oil or wine press, or a flour mill. In the
nineteenth century, the qusur were mainly to be found outside the north-east corner of
the city, and on the slopes of mount Scopus and Wadi el-Joz.
(Map I Qusur And Muslim Religious Buildings outside the walls of Jerusalem during
the 19th Century) Sources; Pierotti, 1893, Schick, 1894-95; Vincent, 1912. )
In earlier times they had been concentrated in Baq'a, south of the city. Because of the
risk of attack by thieves and robbers-or Bedouin-the buildings were surrounded by
high walls and protected by private guards, recruited among the landowners' tenants.
Some of these fortified 'manor houses' or villas are in use as permanent residences to
this day (e.g. Qasr esh-Sheikh and Qasr el-Kheir); others have been identified among
he ruins on Mount Scopus. They were built of partially-dressed local stone and were,
for the most part, one or two story buildings, with the mill or press on the ground
floor or in the basement. The thick walls and ceilings were vaulted and the roofs were
flat, or partially flat. The buildings were reinforced by external buttresses in the
corners and by engaged piers. The decorated windows were built in pairs. Over each
pair, for additional strength, an arch was built into the wall, with a small aperture or
narrow window for ventilation within it. The windows were located high above the
ground. The walls, up to one-and-a-half metres thick, consisted of two parallel
courses of stone between which was a filling of earth, plaster, and rubble of broken
pieces of undressed stone, known as dabsh. Seen from a distance, these qusur looked
like small fortresses.
Each Qasr had its own independent water supply system, which usually included a
cistern near the building, connected to its own water collecting system, and sometimes
an additional cistern for the irrigation of the surrounding agricultural land.13
The exact locations of some of these qusur as marked on maps dating from the end of
the Ottoman period, are indicated in Map I.14 Among the buildings which have been
preserved to this day, as Qasr esh-Sheikh, situated outside the north-east corner of the
city wall. The building in 1711 (1123 A.H.),15 by the Shafi'i Mufti of Jerusalem,
Sheikh Muhammed el Khalili (of Hebron), in a large agricultural plot known as Karm
esh-Sheikh.16 The plot was later granted him as hikr17 of the waqf18. The two-storey
qasr was built of stone and included an oil press installation (Pl. VIIIb).
12
Some of the leading families used to spend the summers in their rural properties; e.g. the Huseinis in
Battir, the Jarallahs in Ramallah, the Nashishibis in Yalu.
13
The remains of the water collecting system are still visible near some of them.
14
C. Schick, 'Nahere Umbebung von Jerusalem', ZDPV (1895), PL. iv; Pierotti, op. cit.;P.H.Vincent,
'Jerusalem, Croquis topographique', in Jerusalem recherches (Paris, 1912).
15
According to an inscription on the building it was renovated in 1943 (1362 A.H.).
16
Today this area comprises the land on which the Rockefeller Museum is built, and the public and
private parks around it.
17
According to which the land, orchards, and other real estate become the lessee's property.
18
Waqfiya of I of Sha'aban 1138 A.H., El Khalidi library no. 4928. See also Rockefeller Museum
archives file no. 18/203 ATQ, 1 May 1942.
Yet another one of these ancient buildings is Qasr en-Nazer, in Wadi el-Joz, which
appears in some of the maps infer the name Qasr el-Khatib. It was apparently built
by the Wali (governor) Sultan en-Nazer, in the seventeenth century and later handed
over to the Wakf. About a century ago, the Waqk leased it to the El-Hidmi family.19
In that part of the building which has been preserved can be seen the remains of an oil
press and water cistern.
Not far from Qasr esh-Sheikh is the relatively small Wasr abu el-Khair. According to
(uncorroborated) evidence of the people living there, it was built by Abu el-Khair
about 250 years ago.20 The house and the large cultivated plot around it (Karm Abu
el-Khair), which is planted with olive trees and contains two water cisterns, was later
purchased by the Greek-Orthodox Church, and only in 1929 was it bought by the
'Abdu family, which still lives there.
One of the older qasur, which stood in its entire, original form until 1948, was the
Wasr el-Amawi, situated opposite the Esh-Sheikh Jarrah mosque and built, apparently,
in the seventeenth century.21 Like the Qasr esh-Sheikh, it was a two-storey, stone
building with external buttresses and a flat roof. It also contained a flour mill.
Around it was a large plot of land planted with olive trees, vine, etc. The qasr later
passed to the ownership of the Nuseiba family, which took up permanent residence
there.
To the north-east, on the slope of Mount Scopus stood Qasr el-Mufti,22 which already
featured in maps from the middle of the last century. Until the end of the Ottoman
period the building stood out among the houses in the northern suburbs of Jerusalem.
23
Situated in Karm el-Mufti, on the lower slopes, it served as the summer residence of
the Husseini family. At first small and unassuming, in about 1890-95, Sheikh Taher
el-Husseini , the Hanafi Mufti of Jerusalem, built a magnificent villa there.24
Other qasur appearing in some of the maps of the previous century are: Qasr el-Qutub
and Qasr esh-Shihabi, on the slopes of Mount Scopus, Qasr el-Karm, not far from
Esh-Sheikh Bader, and Qasr el-Usfur (the Castle of the Bird, near the Khan and the
Jerusalem railway station). There is also a building known as 'the Tower of Arabia'
(pl. VIIIa), near Gethsemane (which can, in all probability, be identified with the
house of Abu Nasib, which Bertha Spafford-Vester describes in her memoirs as being
like a tower),25 and Qasr esh-Sheikh el-Hariri, in the area of the Sainte Claire
19
According to Jalal Kamel el-Hidmi in an interview with the authors on 1 September 1977. The exact
year has not been established.
20
The house stands to this day and is inhabited by the 'Abdu family. The head of the family provided
this information on 14 August 1978. The date of construction, like that of some of the other qusur, is
difficult to ascertain. But according to nineteenth-century maps it is clear that they existed already in
the middle of the last century, before new construction outside the Old City began.
21
Najiba el Khalidi-Nusseiba, whose wedding took place in the building in 1948, believes it to have
been built 300-400 years ago (Interview on 20 August 1978).
22
The house may still be seen south of the road leading from Esh-Sheikh Jarrah to Mount Scopus.
23
B.H. Vester-Spafford, Our Jerusalem: An American Family in the Holy City, 1881-1949 (London
1950) 246-7; J. Press, Palastina and Sudsyrien Reisehandbuch (Wien, 1921),175.
24
According to Ibrhaim Bek el-Huseini (the son of Ismail Bek, infra) the contractor and one of the
family elders (Interview of 10 December 1976).
25
Vester-Spafford, op. cit, 108-13 writes that '…He was carried to his tower like house near
Gethsemane…'
Convent. Likewise, there is oral testimony about two qasur in Baq'a, Qasr Aref Faron
and Qasr Ashur el-Wari.
Until the early 1870s therefore, there were in the Muslim sector of Jerusalem outside
the Old City, historic religious buildings most of which were built before the
nineteenth century; cemeteries, some of them ancient and some still in use; and
buildings serving only as private, seasonal dwellings. These were situated at random
within agricultural plots, and were built in the traditional local style. Although they
served the religious officials and upper-class property-owners, they were modest
rather than ostentatious, due to their owners' reluctance to draw attention to their
wealth.26
Map 2 Development of the Muslim built-up area north of the old city of Jerusalem
A The beginnings of the First new neighborhoods
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, from the early 1870s, the prevailing
Muslim attitude to building outside the Old City began to change. Development sin
the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere, as well as improved security of life and property,
created an atmosphere in Jerusalem favorable to settlement outside the city walls.27
Already in 1870, the Hebrew newspaper 'Halevanon' reported that
For some years now, a spirit of freedom has prevailed among the inhabitants
of the city, and many have begun to purchase fields outside the city and to
plant vineyards and build houses. Many of our brethren also, who have
waxed prosperous, have bought land and built houses for themselves, seeing
that those who dwell outside, fear no ill and enjoy tranquility. For the eyes of
the authorities are everywhere, even there.28
It appears that, compared to the Jews and Christians, who started to build dwellings
and institutional buildings already in the mid-1850s, the Muslims built and moved to
permanent dwellings outside the Old City at a relatively late stage. This delay can
perhaps be explained by the fact that they already owned houses within the Old City
and had no need for new buildings or perhaps by the fact that they lived in houses
owned by the waqf and paid, if at all, only nominal rents. And, on the other hand, in
order to invest money in the building, of a house, a large sum of ready cash, or easy
credit terms, were required and unlike the Jews and Christians, the Muslims had no
external financial resources. Thus, a situation was created in which only members of
the richest families could afford to build homes for themselves outside the city wall.
The poor, and those in the middle-income bracket, do not move out of the Old City
for they have not the means to build houses for themselves outside, as the rich and the
26
A. M. Kurd-Ali, Khitat esh-Sham. ('The Provinces of Syria'), Vol. v (Demascus, 1915), 306 (Arabic).
For additional details see R. Kark, Hitpathut he-'arim Yerushalim ve-Yafo ba-Shanim 1840 ve-'ad
milhemet ha-'olam ha-richona (The development of the cities of Jerusalem and Jaffa in the years 1840
to world War I) (Hebrew). Research in historical geography for Ph.D. degree, The Hebrew University
of Jerusalem, 1976, 10-40.
28
Ha-havatzelet I, no. 1, 20 Elul 5630 (1870), 6.
27
'efendis' have done. They even lack the public spirit to form building societies, in the
manner of our own brethren in Jerusalem.29
The first nuclei of permanent Muslim dwellings, differing in character from the
traditional qusur, appeared from the beginning of the 1870s, in five areas, all of them
north of the city with convenient access to the Muslim Quarter and the Haram eshSharif. They did not spring up in the vicinity of the qusur, but in the proximity of the
S'ad wa Sa'id, Esh Sheikh Jarrah, and Zawiyat el-Adhamiya religious buildings.
Smaller Muslim concentrations developed close to the Jaffa Gate, in Baq'a, Musrara,
the Ethiopia street neighborhood, and elsewhere.
A study of the map charting the development of the Muslim built-up areas (Map 2), in
the years 1865-1918, and a field survey carried out in these five focal points, suggest
the following picture.
Mas'udiya (north of Damascus Gate, Map 3). The Ottoman
.1
administrative unit called Mas'udiya, for the purpose of censustaking,30 later included the neighborhood named S'ad wa Sa'id, after
the nearby mosque. From the early 1870s to the mid 1890s, the few
houses that were built here were concentrated in a number of
locations along the Street of the Prophets and Nablus Road. During
the second stage, between 1894 and 1918, the area between the S'ad
wa Sa'id Mosque and the homes of the Duzdar and Nuseiba
families on the street of the Prophets was built up (see map of
Mas'udiya), and settled by the Sharaf, Duri, Hijazi, and Hala
families. The ottoman census of 1905 numbered 119 families with
Ottoman nationality in this quarter, but only 59 of these families
were Muslim. According to the survey, there were in 1918 55
houses inhabited by Muslims in the quarter-a number which
corresponds with the results of the census taken over a decade
earlier. Probably, the rest of the inhabitants of the Mas'udiya lived
in the various Christian institutions (the Ecole Biblique, etc.-43
families) and in the Jewish neighbourhoods near the Damascus
Gate and on the Nablus Road.
Map 3. Families with more than one house in the northern neighbourhoods-shown on
maps 3-7
2. Babe s-Sahira (North of Herod's Gate, Map 4). The babe s-Sahira
neighborhood was included in the Esh-Sheikh Jarrah administrative unit. By
the mid 1890s, only four houses had been built in this area, by the Ansari,
Shihabi and Huseini families. These houses were not built adjacent to the city
wall, but several hundred meters distant from it. Additional dwellings were
built, until the outbreak of the First World War. During this second stage,
three focal points began to crystallize. One was along Salah ed-Din street (El29
D. Yellin, Yerushaliym ha-'attiqa (Ancient Jerusalem), Jerusalem no. 1, published by Hovevei
Yerushalayim (Jaffa 1913), 70.
30
Here and below, for references to these censuses, see A. Arnon, 'Mifqadei ha-Ochlussiya biyrushalayim be-sof ha-tkufa ha-ottomanit' (Population censuses in Jerusalem in the later Ottoman
period), Cathedra, no. 6 (1978) 107-95 (Hebrew).
Imam Yunes Husseini, Nuseiba, Hala, and Shtaiyeh families settled here). The
second was north of Herod's Gate. Here, the El-Alami family occupied a
group of houses on the eastern side, while to the west, the Huseinis settled.
Between them, were to be found members of the Nashashibi, Abu-Su'ud, El'Afifi, Budeiri, Da'ah, Kamal, Bamiya, Zabatiya, Sidi, Bazbaza, and Sanduqa
families. In the northern part of the neighbourhood, there was a group of
houses possibly built by members of a lower social class, as attested by the
smaller size of the buildings, their flat roofs, and other indicators.
The 1905 census did not treat this as a separate neighbourhood, but groups it together
with Was el-Joz, the Huseini Quarter, and Esh-Sheikh Jarrah, which will be discussed
below. On the other hand, in the Jerusalem municipality's register of building permits
issued for the years 1902-4, Babe s-Sahira is defined as a separate neighbourhood
'outside the Gate of the Flowers' (Herod's Gate).31 In the aerial photographs of 1918,
about fifty buildings can be counted.32
Wadi el-Joz (North of the northeast corner of the city wall, adjacent to the old Jericho
road and on the road to Anata. Map 5). Here, in the mid 1890s, there were only two
buildings, close to the road, belonging to the Badriya and Shahwan families. By the
outbreak of the First World War, a number of additional houses had been built by the
El-Hidmi family, on the slopes of Wadi el-Joz after which the neighbourhood is
named. The A-Duweik, Akramawi, Abu-Ghazaleh, Sharafeh, Hamdun, Dajani,
Kamal, and Qutteineh families each built individual houses there also.
The houses in this neighbourhood are less ornate and not as elaborate as those in some
of the other quarters, and bear some resemblance to the houses built in the northern
part of the Babe s Sahira neighbourhood. Compared to others the neighborhood itself
was small and, according to the aerial photographs, the number of houses there, in
1918, was only sixteen.
The Huseini Quarter (East of Salah ed-Din Street and the Nablus
Road, and south of the Sheikh Jarrah complex. Map 6). In this
neighborhood, developed one of the larger of the early Muslim
nuclei. In the mid 1890s, there were six dwellings there: those of
Yunas el-Huseini, Rabah Efendi el Huseini, Salim Bey el-Huseini,
two belonging to the Nuseiba family and one belonging to the 'Afifi
family. In the curse of time, this concentration of the Huseini clan
attracted many other members of the family, and eventually became
known as the 'Huseini Quarter', under which name it appears in the
municipal register of building permits. On the fringes of the
quarter, in two clusters, one on the western side of the Nablus Road
and one at the southern end , the Nuseiba family built a number of
houses, and were also joined there by members of the 'Afifi, Saba'a,
and Budeiri families. According to the aerial photographs in 1918,
there were about thirty buildings in the neighbourhood.
31
.2
These ledgers are kept today in the Historical Archives of the Jeruslaem Municipality.
(Verzeichnis der )Palastina=Flieger=Aufnahmen (des Bayerischen Kriegsarchives). Jerusalem, no
781, 789, 796, 801, 826, 829, 830, 833, 1917-1918. Henceforth these will be referred to as 'German air
photos-1918'.
32
Esh-Sheikh Jarrah 9The Northernmost neighborhood, at the
.3
junction of Nablus Road and the road leading to Mount Scopus.
Map 7). Between the 1870s and the 1890s, an additional Muslim
nucleus sprang up here. It included two houses belonging to the
Jarallah family, the home o Rashid en-Nashashibi, the home of
Ribhi Murad, and two other houses further to the west. This
nucleus later grew into the Sheikh Jarrah Quarter. Bu 1918, the
area immediately adjacent to the two roads was built on by the
Dajani, Hindiyeh, Esh-Sheikh, Shosheh, and El-Jabsheh families. A
distinction can be made, between the eastern and the northern parts
of the neighbourhood which constituted a more prestigious area,
and the western part where the houses were smaller and were partly
built on scattered plots of land (e.g. the homes of the Es-Salahi, ElQadami, and other families). The aerial photos of 1918 show about
thirty houses in this neighbourhood.
Two Muslim areas not yet dealt with, because they were not included in the field
survey, are Baq'a (at this time, a mixed Muslim-Christian neighbourhood), and he
area adjacent to the Jaffa Gate (Bab-el-Khalil), towards Jorat el-'Anab. The
development in Baq'a no doubt resembled that described above, whereas Jorat el'Anab
was exceptional in that it was a mixed slum neighbourhood. There were also
individual Muslim families who built houses, sometimes in clusters, in Christian
neighborhoods, such as Musrara and the Ethiopia street neighbourhood (Nashashibis),
Mamilla and Manghiya, in Jewish neighbourhoods, such as Y'aqubiya, or even in
mixed Jewish-Christian neighbourhoods, such as Sarafiya.
The growth of the first Muslim residential nuclei outside the walls, therefore, reflects
a certain affinity, though not an absolute one, with the location of the Muslim Quarter
and the Haram Esh-Sharif, with the main thoroughfares and with previously-existing
religious buildings. On the other hand, there was no such relationship to the sites of
the earlier qusur. Perhaps convenient access to land owned by the families which
built outside the walls was also a factor determining the location of new Muslim
neighbourhoods, but very little is known about this.
The development of the areas outside the city wall was not continuous or consistent in
the five new neighborhood nuclei surveyed, which were otherwise isolated from one
another. That is to say, a number of houses, belonging to one, tow or three clans,
were built in each area, and later, other members of the same clans clustered around
them, when they too decided to leave the Old City and build outside the walls. For
this reason, these areas cannot really be considered 'neighbourhoods' in the accepted
sense of the word, because the groupings were, first and foremost, on a family basis,
with no sense of identification with the 'neighbourhood'. Likewise, no communal,
neighborhood facilities were provided. This is particularly true of the Huseini
Quarter. Sometimes certain families built in several different places (such as the
Huseinis in babe s-Shaira and in the Huseini Quarter, the Nashashibis in Sheikh Jarrah
and the Ethiopia street neighborhood, and others).
The families who built several houses rather than just one, in the neigbourhoods
surveyed, included (apart from the Huseinis), the following families: Nashashibi, El'Alami, El-Hidmi, Nuseiba, Jarallah, Dajani, Khalidi, Duzdar, Sharaf and others.
Most of these families belonged to the local elite, were very wealthy, and held
positions of political or religious influence.33 From this, it is clear that those who
settled outside the Old City in the period under discussion were members of the
highest socio-economic class among the Muslims of Jerusalem.
B The character of the new buildings
1. Planning and design of the houses The permanent dwellins of the Muslims
outside the wall, were usually located in large plots of several dunams, mostly
cultivated. The plots were surrounded by two-metre-high walls, with a guarded
entrance gate. Sometimes, there plots were divided up when additional houses
were built for other members of the family.
One of the most important considerations in the planning of a house was the water
supply, which was dealt with even before building commenced. The accepted
practice was to dig the cistern close to one of the projected walls of the building
instead so in the courtyard as in the Old City. This can be seen clearly in Maps 3-7.
The cistern was excavated about a year before work commenced on the building of
the house, so that the water which accumulated there could be used for building
purposes.34
From a survey of the actual buildings of the Ottoman era, a variety of styles can be
pinpointed, stemming on the one hand from the social and economic status of the
owner, and one the other, from the innovations, building technology and materials
which were used in that period. At the same time, a large number of houses have
several typical structural elements and internal designs features in common. Although
Tewfiq Canaan complains about the lack of preliminary drafting of the floor plans of
simple houses, and even of more complicated urban dwellings,35 until the 1930s it
seems that most of the houses which were examined in he five neigbourhoods
mentioned above were built according to plans drafted in advance, or at any rate, were
planned in a more or less detailed fashion (some of them, possible, by European
architects). Attention was paid to the smallest details, both internal and external, but
only for individual houses. There was no planning on a larger scale, such as of an
entire neighborhood, and this is particularly obvious in the lack of an ordered system
of roads, in the way the houses all face in different directions, and so on.
Some of the buildings, even those built after the 1890s, continued to be built along
traditional designs and by long-established methods of construction, paving, and
plastering.36 For example, flat or domed roofs are found in some of the newer houses
when tiled gable roofs had already become fairly standard (See Maps 3-7). In other
houses, Western influences can be detected which led to the fusion of modern and
33
J. El-Hakim, Suriya Wa'al-'ahd al-'uthmani (Syria in the Ottoman period) (Beirut, 1966), 190-92
(Arabic),lists the following aristocratic families: Al-Huseini, Al-Khalidi, Jarallah and Nuseiba; Ali Aga
El-Duzdar was a high official in the Ottoman government. His sons Haj Khadr and Haj Yusuf are the
ones who built five houses outside the Old City, according to the oral testimony (on 26 December
1976) of Ahmed Muhammad Khadr El-Duzdar.
34
Canaan, op. cit., 12 (1932), 244.
35
Canaan, op. cit., 13 (1933), 52-53.
36
According to Canaan, ibid, these building methods were called 'Arabiya' (Arab) as opposed to
'modern' ones.
traditional local styles. This is the case with some of the houses built from the start of
the 1890s onwards. As late as 1935, Canaan wrote that
This natural aptitude, however, never greatly developed and no progress was
apparent in Palestine until about forty years ago. Thus the houses in Palestine
today are much the same a those of ancient times…37
Most of the houses were built of dressed, well cut stone. The type of stone-nari, mizzi
yahudi, malaki, kakuleh, missi hilu, etc.-was chosen in advance by the householder.38
The stones which were used for door and window frames were more finely dressed
than the others. The houses were one to two stories in height, with an outside
stairway. Sometimes the house was built in several stages. At first, one story was
completed, and then, several years later, a second story would be added. It is likely
that most of the flat-roofed houses were originally one-story buildings, and that the
changes in building technology made the addition of one or two stories easier.39
In the traditional buildings, the walls were usually thick (80-120 centimeters) because
they had to support the dome and the roof. As noted, they were built of two parallel
courses of stone, with a filling of dabsh between them. Because the walls were so
thick, the houses remained cool in summer and warm in winter. The houses which
were built in the old pattern had vaulted ceilings. This was usually a stone vault
formed by two arches crossing at right angles, supported by the walls and by massive
supporting piers (rukab), which stood out at the corners of the room and even, where
necessary, in the middle of the wall. The vault terminated in a dome, or else was
more or less leveled with a domed elevation in the centre. In the homes of the urban
upper class, (the home of Rabah Efendi el-Huseini for example), the dome was built
of fired clay popes, which were light and provided effective insulation. The outside of
the rood was paved with flat nari stones, pointed with cement or plastered. The
relatively flat roof was useful as look-out over the open countryside round about, for
collecting and channeling rainwater into the cistern, and as a place of prayer or other
activities.40 Sometimes members of the upper class built a small room on the roof,
known as beit seifi (summer house) that was used for recreation and for taking the air.
The main entrance of the house was usually in the centre of the wall facing the road.
Sometimes it was slightly recessed, with stone benches on either side. Great
importance appears to have been attached to this doorway, for much thought and
money was invested in its form. Apart from the particularly fine dressing of the
stones framing the door, decorative elements were added above the lintel and
sometimes there was an inscription or date over the entrance.41 The door itself was
made of heavy wooden panels, and fitted with an iron door-knocker.
37
Ibid., p. 51.
Ibid., (1932), 241; (1933), 38.
39
D. Yellin, Mi-dan ve-'ad Be'er Sheva, 76.
Referring to the house of Rabah Efendi, Anna Spafford wrote in the late 1890s that the young people 40
of the American Colony planned a party on the roof of the house. See Spafford-Vester, op. cit.,179.
41
For example, on the Nashashibi house (today 12, Bnai Brith Street) the date 1306 (A.H.) (1890)
appears, as well as the inscription, 'We-ma el tawafiq illa b'illah' (Success depends on Allah alone).
38
The arched windows were usually paired, with a projecting frame or with stones
dressed differently from those in the walls. Between the two adjacent windows was a
stone supporting column, dressed on three sides. Hen the windows were built in the
old local style, each window was arched and over each pair of windows a larger arch
was built into the wall; a round hole was usually provided above the central column
below the larger arch, apparently for ventilation. The windows almost always had iron
frilles and wooden shutters (Pl. IXa, b; Xb).
Since the houses were not crowded together as in the Old City, the customary inner
courtyard was lacking. Instead, the courtyard was located in a hidden corner of the
building, or at the rear (see Maps 3-7). Sometimes a fountain was constructed in the
courtyard.
In some of the larger houses, the living space covered as much as several hundred
square metres. No doubt the size of the house reflected the status and means of its
owner. In the more traditional houses, the interior was paved with large stone slabs.
The internal design of an apartment built in the old style, included a vestibule (liwan)
which also served as a fining-room (diwan). It had windows on either side of the door
and in the wall opposite. Doors led off from the liwan to the various rooms of the
house. Amongst these rooms were also allocated to the householder's wife or wives;
in the larger houses, a whole wing was allocated to each wife. In addition, there were
bedrooms and guest rooms, partially decorated with ceramic plates embedded in the
ceiling. In each room, there was an iron peg with a ring, from which to hang a lamp.
When the house was built, arched niches, both large and small, were left in the inner
walls. These served as cupboards. Wooden shelves, and sometimes doors, were
fitted to the smaller niches, while the larger ones had no inner divisions or doors, and
were used for storing bedding. The inner window-ledge, which was very wide, also
served as a place to sit. Traditional furnishing included carpets and mats, mattresses,
and cushions.
Beneath the building was a windowless cellar, which was used to store commodities
required all the year round, such as firewood. Sometimes it also served as a stable.
There is no information as to the location of the sanitary facilities in the old houses,
but there were probably latrines in the courtyard, as was customary in those days.
2 Modernization in building. Some of the Muslims who built houses outside the city
wall were influenced by the changes of style and building technology brought in by
the Jews and Christians. At the beginning of 1883, the American Colony's Aunt
Maggie' described the new system which had reached Jerusalem
The new method is to use iron girders to support the ceiling. This is then
covered with French tiles instead of the older and more picturesque dome
roof…42
She adds that, in her opinion, the widespread use of the tiled roofs was due to their
greater surface area for the collection of rainwater.
42
See letter by Aunt Maggie of 17 January 1883 in Spafford-Vester, op. cit., 77.
The Jewish community leader, David Yellin, reports and in fact criticizes, the stageby-stage transition, towards the end of the nineteenth century, from the traditional
style of building, with its thick stone walls and roofs, to the use of steel girders and
tiled roofs, and even wood. At the same time, he concedes that the changes do have
their advantages, especially on rainy days, and that they save well space.43
The 'new method' was also adopted by some of the Muslim notables who built outside
the old City. This is most noticeable in the form of arches, doorways, and windows
which were now made less high, and were glazed with clear or coloured glass.
Sometimes, a large veranda was added to the new house, surrounding all or part of the
building above the ground floor. 'Modern' hand pumps were fitted to the water
cisterns, by means of which, water could be raised to a tank on the upper storey and
thence distributed throughout the entire house. The sanitary facilities were also
greatly improved.44
Turkish and European influences made themselves felt in the internal design and
choice of furnishings. The ceilings of the rooms were now covered with decorative
painted wood panels and the floor was paved with marble, or with colored tiles
forming a pattern suited to the shape pf the room. The homes of the well-to-do were
usually furnished in European taste,45 with heavy, rather crude armchairs, sofas, and
beds. Amongst the most sumptuous buildings were the villas of Rabah Efendi elHuseini (Pl. Xa) (Which was later rented out and eventually passed to the ownership
of the American Colony in Jerusalem), of Haj Rashid el-Nashashibi and of Isma'il elHuseini (Pl. XI), the director of the Education Council'.
3. The timing and scope of Muslim building activity outside the Old City. As has been
seen above, compared with the Jews and Christians, the Muslims were relative
latecomers in building outside the Old City. When they did begin building outside the
walls, it was mostly to construct private dwellings. Hardly any public construction
took place.
Public buildings are to be found only among the Christians and Jews, whereas,
with out Muslim citizens, there are no new public buildings, apart from the
many religious trust buildings which already existed in the city from earlier
times. The only exceptions are the schools erected by the educational council
during the last decade.46
By 1883, 'Aunt Maggie' already noted Muslim participation in the building activity
which was taking place in Jerusalem.
The activity of rebuilding is by no means confined to the Jews. Catholics,
Greeks, Mohammedans, and protestants are all taking part in it…47
On the other hand, that same year the Ottoman census numbered only 41 Muslim
families of the Ed-Dawudi (Dajani) clan, which held the custodianship rights over
43
D. Yellin, Yerushalyem Shel Etmol (Jerusalem of Yesterday) (Jerusalem, 1972), 74 (Hebrew).
Canaan, op. cit. (1933), 44-45; A. Ruppin, Syria: an Economic Survey (New York, 1918), 82.
45
Press, op. cit.,51.
46
Yellin, op. cit. (1972), 388-89.
47
Spafford-Vester, op. cit., 77.
44
David's Tomb, living outside the wall, all of them in Nebi Dawud.48 Wilson's map of
1876, indicates that a number of houses had already been built by Muslims north of
the wall, but apparently their owners also retained their old houses within the walled
city, and in the census were included among the inhabitants of the Old City-or else the
census was incomplete and not up-to-date.
In Conrad Schick's map of 1894-95, there appear about 347 private Dwellings in the
Muslim area, about half of them in the Mas'udiya quarter, adjacent to the Damascus
Gate and other built-up areas outside the wall.
During this period, a number of changes took place in the are north of the wall, which
almost certainly had their influence on, and were influenced by the development of
the new Muslim neighborhoods. Among these changes were the opening, in he mid
1870s, of the long-blocked Herod's Gate, the inauguration some time later of the
Rushdiya High School nearby,49 the decision to leave all the city gates open
throughout the hours of darkness instead of closing them at sunset as was the case till
the end of the 1890s, and the development of the new fruit and vegetable materials
became available and these, in addition to pharmaceuticals and other goods wee sold
in new shops built outside the Damascus Gate.50 Obviously too, the paving of the
Nablus Road by the Government at the end of the nineteenth century facilitated access
to the houses outside the Old City.
At the end of the 1890s the rate of building greatly accelerated. According to data
adduced by Yellin in 1900 on the number of houses built in one year, from March
1899 to March 1900, out of 21 houses, 27 were built by Muslims, 27 by Christians,
and 65 by Jews. The remaining two were built by the Municipality. The Muslims
and the Christians, for the most part, put up new buildings, whereas the Jews added
toe existing buildings.51
According to the Ottoman census of 1905, the main concentration of Muslims outside
the wall was in the Sheikh Jarrah Quarter (including Babe s-Sahira, Wadi el-Joz, and
the Huseini Quarter, as well as in Sheikh Jarrah itself), where 167 Muslim families
lived. Next in order of size, came Mas'udiya, with 59 Muslim families, Baq'a, with 32
Muslim families, Bab el-Khalil, with 26, and the Ethiopia Street neighbourhood, with
14. There were also individual Muslim families in Musrara, Y'aqubiya, Manshiya,
Mamillah and Sarafiya. The Muslims constituted an absolute majority only in Sheikh
Jarrah and Mas'udiya, and in about half of Baq'a.52
The data of the 1905 census are very revealing when comparing the population
figures of the Old and New cities, by percentage. In 1883, only 2.9% of the Muslim
population lived outside the Old City, all of them in Nebi Dawud. As late as 1905,
15.5% of the Muslims (1,937 families), were still living within the walls, whole only
48
Arnon, op. cit., 77.
A.M. Luncz, Netivot tziyon vi-yerushalayim 9The ways of Zion and Jerusalem), part 1, 1876, 6. See
also Yellin, op. cit., 204 (Hebrew).
50
El Aref, op. cit., 469.
51
Yellin, op. cit., 386-88.
52
Arnon, op. cit. (note 30), 204, It is interesting to note that in 1918 there were only about 126 Muslim
houses in this neighbourhood, of which a few were also rented to non-Muslims. Perhaps then several
families lived in one house.
49
14.5% (329) families, were living in the New City. In 1905, the Muslims constituted
10.2% of the ottoman population of the New City, the Christians 15.1% and the Jews
74.7%. it is likely that the proportion of Muslims was even smaller if the fact is taken
into account that Jews who did not have Ottoman nationality were not included in the
census.53 Thus the Muslim exodus from the walled city was less extensive than that
of the Christians and ,in particular, of the Jews. On the other hand the results of the
census are rather problematical-or else the rate of building greatly increased in the
years been the Ottoman census of 1905 and the British census of 1922. According to
the latter, 30.2% of the Muslims lived outside the wall as opposed to 69.7% who
continued to live in the Old City.54 From a survey of the Muslim houses appearing in
the British maps of the early 1920s, it seems that the number of Muslims living
outside the wall, according to the 1922 census, was exaggerated. Or perhaps, a
number of families lived in each house, or the size of the average family was about
ten people. This involved about 4,000 people.
There are little additional data on building between 1910 and 1913. From what
evidence exists, it is known that in 1910, 34 houses were built by Muslims, 110 by
Jews, and 12 by Christians, and in 1913, 5 houses were built by Muslims, 59 by Jews,
and 5 by Christians,55 indicating at least an intensification of building in relation to
1910.
Muslim construction north of the Old City began to make a visible mark on the eve of
the First World War:
During the last twenty years, the Muslims have built for themselves a new
township outside the Damascus Gate, on the northern side of Jerusalem, and the
Christians too have built, as it were, a complete town on the southern side of
Jerusalem, near the railway station.56
A count of the Muslim houses in the New City in the German aerial photos of 1918
shows 180 in all. These houses constituted the nuclei for five new neighborhoods.
Building costs among the Muslims. Average building costs of the
Muslim houses in Jerusalem, examined in this study do not include
land prices, a subject which cannot be discussed here. The earliest
data available so far relating to the price of building outside the Old
City are those adduced by Yellin for the year March 1899 to March
1900. Accordingly, the 27 private dwellings built by Muslims in
the New City cost altogether 242,000 grush. This works out at an
average of 8,963 grush per house (as compared with 12,700 grush
for the average Christian dwelling, and 6,300 grush for the average
Jewish house).
53
.4
Inside the Old City the Ottoman subjects comprised: Muslims 44.6%, Christians 25.4%, and Jews
30%.
54
J.B. Barron, Palestine, Report and General Abstract of the Census of 1922 (Jerusalem, 1923), 14.
The figures cited in the census raise a question as to the great discrepancy between the number of men
(2,645) living outside the Old City and that of women (1,423).
55
Memorandum of the employment office of the Kupa Tha-Po-alim ha-Eretz Yisraelit (Palestine
Workers Fund) 1 Av 5674 (1914), Central Zionist Archives, file A112/4.
56
Yellin, op. cit. (1913) (see note 29), 66.
Yellin adds in important piece of information, concerning the division into grades of
the houses built in that year by members of the different communities. The grades
range from humble to sumptuous. The division shows, that the Muslims built 7 very
humble dwellings (valued at less than 1,500 grush), 7 slightly less modest ones
(1,500-5,000 grush), 4 houses of medium quality (5,000-10,000 grush) and 9
sumptuous dwellings, valued at between 10,000 and 40,000 grush. Similar data on
the Jews and Christians, show that well-to-do Muslims invested more money in their
homes than wealthy Christians, and far more than Jews of similar substance.57
In 1910, 478,000 grush were invested in the building of 34 Muslim houses
constructed in that year- i.e. an average of 14,059 grush per house, as compared with
11,664 grush for a Jewish house, and 21,000 for a Christian house. Thus, after a
decade, the average price of a Muslim house remained somewhere between that of a
Christian and that of a Jewish one.58
From the same source it appears that the five Muslim houses which were built in 1912
cost altogether 72,000 grush-that is to say, an average of 14,400 grush per house,
which is close to the average 14,059 grush in 1910. In comparison, the average
Christian house was 15,444 grush, that of a Sephardi Jew 13,239 and that of a
Bukharin Jew was as much as 17,250, whereas the average cost of the homes of
Ashkenazi Jews was only 6,680 grush. However, the use of average figures is
somewhat misleading. It is unfortunate that there is no breakdown by grade, such as
that of Yellin, for the year 1899-1900.
Apparently the data provided for the period 1915-16 by the Zionist economist Arthur
Ruppin, in which he gives the average cost of a one-storey stone house with four large
and three small rooms as 20,000 francs are erroneous. At a rate of 4.4 grush to the
franc, this works out at 88,000 grush! Probably, he meant 20,000 grush, a sum much
more in keeping with the prices previously mentioned. Regrettably, Ruppin does not
specify the sums invested in building by the various communities in Jerusalem.59
Summary and Conclusions
A reconstruction of the modern exodus from the Old walled City by Muslims, during
the Ottoman period, enables us to complete the general picture of Jerusalem's urban
development at the time. We have already seen that, until the mid-nineteenth century,
the Muslims had religious buildings, cemeteries, and qusur for seasonal residence,
outside the walls; that, from the 1860s onwards, they began to build permanent
dwellings at random, in a number of concentrations; and that the scope of this
building continued to increase until the outbreak of the First World War. (it might
prove worthwhile to devote further research to the question of whether this process
continued during the period of the British Mandate). The Muslims, then, participated,
albeit on a relatively limited scale in the process of building outside the Old City
which had begun a little while earlier, and which included private dwellings built by
the Jews inhabitants, and the public institutions erected by the various local and
foreign Christian organizations.
57
Yellin, op. cit. (1972) (see note 46), pp. 386-90.
Memorandum (note 55). The exchange rate of the French franc was 4.4 grush to the franc.
59
Ruppin, op. cit.
58
The first concentrations of permanent Muslim dwellings beyond the Old City walls
showed a connection with the Muslim Quarter and the Hara mesh-Sharif, to Muslim
religious buildings already existing outside, and to the improved conditions of the
main thoroughfares, especially Nablus Road. Later, Muslim residential nuclei began
to develop south of the Old City as well but these were not dealt with in the
framework of this survey.
Muslim building activity was carried out on a basis of 'clan individualism', which was
manifested in the form of 'family territorialism', in contrast to the territorialization on
the basis of country or city of origin which was prominent among the Jews. Apart
from the element of family kinship, social factors also determined the development of
these early neighborhood nuclei. Sometimes, families connected by social ties or ties
of marriage built their houses close together while hostility between certain families
led to their physical separation in deferent areas outside the wall. Thus, we can see
that here, as in the Old City, there was a rigid territorialism, not only on a religious
communal, and ethnic basis, with most of the Muslims concentrated to the north of
the wall, separated from the Jews and Christians; but even on a clan basis, with each
family preferring to live in its own clearly-defined territory (and even to be buried in
its own burial plot, as we can see in Muslim cemeteries). Even after the exodus from
the Old City, each family preserved its original 'base' there, and continued to be
administered and to receive religious and commercial services from within the walls
except for secondary education and medical services, which existed, in part, in the
New City.
A detailed examination of the names of Muslims who built outside the wall proves
that such building was a matter of status. Although the dimensions and extent of the
exodus were limited in comparison to the Jews and Christians, the families which
moved to the new neighbourhoods were members of the highest Muslim circles
(A'ayan). Amongst them were the Huseini, Nashashibi, Khalidi, 'Alami, Hidmi,
Nuseiba, Jarallah, and Dajani Dawudi) families and others some of whom were of
distinguished, ancient lineage. The members of these families held positions in the
religious establishment, including he directorship of religious trusts which gave them
great power and include. They also held office in the local administration. The
members of the Jerusalem Cit council were elected from these families, and the
Huseinis, Khalidis, Nashashibis, 'Alamis, and Dajanis took it in turn to serve as mayor
during the term of office of each council. They also served as member of the District
administrative Council. Before the First World War, when elections to the Ottoman
parliament were held, once again, it was members of the Huseini, Nashashibi,
Khalidi, and 'Alami families who were elected as representatives.60
From the nineteenth century the traditional Muslim elite in Jerusalem had begun to
turn to various economic and administrative activities. They controlled vast areas of
land, which provided them with revenue. They also contracted for, and carried out,
tenders which were offered by the administration, and leased the right to collect taxes,
El-Hakim, op. cit.; El-'Aref, op. cit., 216-18; H. Gerber, 'Ha-minhal ha-ottomani shel sanjak 60
yerushalayim, 1890-1908' (Ottoman administration of the Jerusalem Sanjack, 1890-1908), Ha-Mizrah
He-Hadash, 24 91974), 1-33; Y. Porath, The Emergence of the Palestinian-Arab National Movement,
1918-1929 (London 1974), 4-16. A. M. Goodrich-Freer, Inner Jerusalem (London, 1904), 239; Great
Britain, Military Handbook on Palestine (Cairo, 1917), 16-17.
taking advantage of the status and influence of those member of these families who
served on the various administrative bodies, both civil and religious, and of their
knowledge of the local population and conditions.61 Y. Shirion, a well-to-do
Jerusalem merchant, wrote in his memoirs on life in Jerusalem that
The Muslim Arabs in Jerusalem fell into two categories-the effendis and the
common people. The effendis were those whose income was derived
principally from the revenues of their estates. Many of them owned fields and
vineyards, and some distinguished families owned whole villages…Another
important source of revenue of many of the great effendis was the tax
concession, which they would lease from the Turkish Government…This was,
in principle, a tax of one tenth of the net value of the grain and fruit crops, but to
this were added an education tax, a road tax, and so on, until the sum collected
sometimes came as much as 50% of the value of the produce.62
So much wealth and property was thus amassed, that a large proportion of the income
of the upper classes could be, and was, devoted to building large and sumptuous
mansions in the New City, and to improving the living conditions of their owners.
That part of the population which built outside the wall also constituted the best
educated element of Muslim society, 'a learned and progressive stratum'.63 Its
members were he first of the city's Muslims to receive a more modern education, both
in the New Ottoman government schools (the Rushdiya Ottoman Secondary School
was opened in Jerusalem in 1891 and its location, close to the new Muslim
neighbourhoods, was almost certainly not coincidental),64 and in the foreign schools.
Amongst the latter, the American Colony School, under the direction of the Spafford
families and the members of the Colony.65 Many Muslims studied at the Anglican
Boys' School in the St. George complex, close to the new neighbourhoods.66 Smaller
numbers studied at the schools run by other missions, and even at the secular Jewish
schools and he secular school run by the German Templar sect.67 A few, later went
on to receive a higher education in law, science, Turkish, and European languages, in
Istanbul or Cairo, or in Western universities in Beirut and Europe.68
If we consider the timing and character and the initiators of the Muslim building
activity outside the Old City, as was proposed at the outset of this study, we have an
indicator of the social and economic status, and the degree of conservativism, of
emulation, or innovation, of the population sector which built the houses under
discussion.
61
See Gerber, op. cit. and Porath, op. cit.
Y. Y. Shirion, Zikhronot (Memories) (Jerusalem, 1943), 142-44 (Hebrew).
63
El-Hakim, op. cit.,190,Also P.G. Baldensperger, 'The Immovable East', PEFQS (1903), 68.
64
A. M. Luncz, Yerushalayim (Jerusalem) 4, (1892), 222. In luncz's words: ' In the year 1891, the
Government opened a general school (Rushdiya) in our city, where all the children of the city,
regardless of their religion, could attend classes in Arabic, Turkish, French, and the basic sciences'.
(Hebrew).
65
El-Hakim, op. cit., 194-95; Yellin, op. cit. (note 46), 34.
66
Great Britain, op. cit.
67
J. M. Landau, 'The Educational Impact of Western Culture on Traditional Society in Nineteenth
68
Shirion, op. cit.,Landau, op. cit., S Shamir, 'The Impact of Western Ideas on Traditional Society in
Ottoman Palestine', in Maoz, op. cit., 511.
62
The exodus of this group from the confines of the Old City to permanent dwellings
outside, already from the 1870s, reflects a change in their outlook, even if this did not
necessarily spring from within and may have been due to the influence of, or the
desire to emulate, other sectors of the Jerusalem population who had already moved to
new homes in the New City.
There is not doubt that the houses built in the neighborhoods we have described,
represented not only a desire to improve living conditions, but also the urge to show
off the importance, power, and material wealth acquired by their owners. They
display a certain element of ostentation, in contrast of the customary
unpretentiousness of the Muslim house.
In comparison to the living conditions prevailing in the Muslim Quarter of the Old
City, the new houses reflected a considerable rise in the standard of living and it
seems that rthe Jerusalem Muslim elite proves an exception to the assumption that in
nineteenth century Palestine, the economic changes were small and had no social
significance.69 The style of building of some of the houses under discussion is very
different from the accepted traditional style, both in the use of new technologies and
new building materials, mostly imported from Europe, and in the internal design and
furnishings. This may no doubt be traced to the education received by the Muslim
elite in foreign schools in Palestine and abroad, knowledge of foreign languages and
ties with non-Muslims in Jerusalem and elsewhere, as well as to the scope of the new,
modern construction by non-Muslims. It also brought about a change in the lifestyle
of the Muslim elite. However, as Schick wrote in 1880, these changes did not mark
any weakening of religious sentiment among the Muslims.70
On the other hand, the building process also reflected conservatism in the preservation
of the existing social fabric. The family framework was jealously guarded and
sometimes carried to extremes, with the continuation of the patriarchichal system and
the segregation of women. This conservatism was also reflected in the fact that
building was financed by the family concerned, rather than by public building
societies, as was customary among the Jews, or by bank credits. Likewise, there was
no attempt at planning on a neighbourhood or regional level, and unlike the Jewish
neighborhoods, the Muslim quarters had no public institutions.
In conclusion, it appears that the Muslim exodus from the Old City, during the
Ottoman period, was a manifestation of the high social and economic standing of its
initiators. It reflected innovation and emulation, both in the very fact of the exodus,
and in the standard of living, style of building, and lifestyle, together with the reforms
and advances in education in Palestine,71 and implies that their influence was felt in
the areas mentioned above. At the same time, it is difficult to determine to what
extent the change was merely external 9house, dress, etc.),or whether it also
influenced the basic outlook of the Muslim elite,72 although it is unlikely that there
was a complete dichotomy between the two.
69
A. Ruppin, Syrian als Wirtschaftgebiet (Kolonial-wirtschaftliches Komitee, E.S. Mittler, Berlin,
1916).
70
C. Schick, 'Progress in Palestine', PEFQS, (1880), 187-88.
71
Landau, op. cit., 499.
72
Shamir, op. cit., 507, 517.
Note: An expanded version of the present article is to appear in E. Sheltiel, Y. BenArieh and M. Maoz (eds.), Jerusalem in Modern Times. A volume dedicated to the
memory of Jacob Herzog (Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi, Jerusalem). (In press).