129
Roy S. Fischel
Ruth Kark
Abstract
This paper surveys the private lands owned by of Sultan Abdülhamid II in
Palestine and analyzes their spatial distribution and impact, in the context of
regional imperial policy. In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the
Ottoman Empire faced serious external and internal problems. Sultan
Abdülhamid II (r. 1876-1909) used various traditional and modern
methods in order to increase the internal cohesion of the empire and
strengthen it vis-à-vis external threats.
One unique measure taken by the sultan was the purchase of large tracts
of land. He became one of the largest landowners in the empire. In Palestine
alone, the sultan purchased around 3% of the total area and initiated
measures to increase these lands’ productivity for his Privy Purse. In
addition to gaining economic profit, Abdülhamid II employed his private
lands to solve problems which challenged the sovereignty of the empire.
These included attempts to settle the Bedouins, the establishment of new
towns in order to subjugate nomads in regions where they threatened rural
settlements, settling Muslim refugees from the Caucasus and the Balkans,
and protecting strategically sensitive lands located on the frontiers, by
purchasing them and thus keeping them out of the hands of others.
When it is remembered, further, that such harbour structures as exist in
Syria, and the equipment of principal cities like Aleppo, Damascus,
Beirut and Jerusalem with broad ways, modern buildings, electric
Roy S. Fischel, Department of South Asian Languages and Civilizations, The University of Chicago,
Chicago, fischel@uchicago.edu.
Ruth Kark, Department of Geography, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, mskark@mscc.huji.ac.il.
Authors’ note: This study was supported by the “Herzl Colleagues” foundation of the Cherrick Center for
the History of Zionism, Jewish Settlement and the State of Israel, with the participation of the Israel
National Fund and the World Zionist Organization. The authors also wish to thank Dr. Eyal Ginio of
the Hebrew University of Jerusalem for his most useful comments and help.
New Perspectives on Turkey, no. 39 (2008): 129-166.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
Sultan Abdülhamid II and
Palestine: Private lands and
imperial policy
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
130
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
lighting, tramways, and other convenient apparatus, are also of Abdul
Hamid’s time, one is bound to admit that a good deal of beneficent
construction – almost all that make Syria as a whole the most civilized
province of Turkey at this day – stands to the credit of a Sultan whose
energies are popularly supposed to have been uniformly destructive and
sinister.1
Great Britain, 1920
Introduction
In the last quarter of the nineteenth century the Ottoman Empire reached a
critical point. The growing influence of European powers and their advance
into Ottoman territories, combined with their involvement in the empire’s
internal affairs as well as the rise of national movements within the empire
were a severe menace to the survival of the dynasty and challenged the
sovereignty of the empire and its ability to assert control over the
remaining territories. In Palestine, western involvement was more
substantial than in other parts of the empire. Due to the religious
importance of the land for both Christians and Jews, it became one of the
focal points of confrontation between the Ottomans and the West as well
as of local national movements. Most European powers aspired to promote
their interests in Palestine, especially in Jerusalem; at the same time, the
rise of the Zionist movement in the last decades of the century introduced
an acute threat to the Ottomans in this corner of the empire and
necessitated the attention of the government to the unique problems of the
region.
Abdülhamid II (r. 1876-1909), the last potent sultan of the Ottoman
Empire, was well aware of those threats. He took various measures aimed
at dealing with the problems. Simultaneously, he tried to strengthen his
own position within the empire vis-à-vis internal opposition, mostly on
behalf of the western-educated bureaucracy. Employing both traditional
and modern methods, Abdülhamid II aspired to modernize and centralize
the state. At the same time, he attempted to increase its internal cohesion
and to secure his own position by reintroducing Islam as the ideological
basis of the state.
In this paper, we trace the private land purchases of Sultan Abdülhamid
II in Palestine and analyze their spatial distribution and the impact of this
phenomenon within the context of a short discussion on the importance of
land as an imperial political and economic instrument, and on the
privatization of land in the Ottoman Empire as a parameter for agrarian and
1
Great Britain, Admiralty Geographical Section of the Naval Intelligence Division 10, no. 58 (1920), 41.
131
Review of literature, sources and methods
The first section of this paper presents a systematic list of the private lands
of Abdülhamid II in Palestine. The second section discusses the broader
context of the private lands as part of the imperial policy of Abdülhamid II
vis-à-vis external and internal threats. Locating the tracts introduces some
serious problems. First and foremost, up to now, no systematic list of the
lands of the sultan has been located. Therefore, we had to reconstruct the
list from numerous sources, none of which reveals the complete picture.
The second problem concerns finding the exact location of the tracts
mentioned. Not all places have retained their names since the reign of
Abdülhamid II. Other places and settlements no longer exist following the
1948 war. In addition, in some plots more than one record was traced; not
in all cases were the sources in harmony with each other.
Keeping these issues and problems in mind, this paper is based on the
following categories of sources: (1) Judicial and diplomatic records and
correspondence in the Israel State Archive in Jerusalem were the main
sources for the reproduction of the complete list of the lands. During the
1920s, the heirs of Abdülhamid II applied to land courts all over the former
Ottoman Empire, claiming that they were the legal heirs of the late sultan.
Since the lands were still registered under his name in the land registration
offices (tapu), they claimed their legal rights over these tracts. In none of the
cases did the mandatory authorities in Palestine claim that the lands had
not been in the possession of the late sultan; therefore, it is possible to
reconstruct the full list of lands under discussion.
(2) Ottoman documents in Turkish and Arabic, including land
registration and administrative documents dealing with the lands of the
sultan, constituted the second category. Some documents were translated
into Hebrew and published by David Kushner, others were translated by
Daniel Halutzi as part of the long-term study on “Changes in
Landownership in Palestine and their Impact” conducted by Ruth Kark. In
some cases, the translated documents were compared to the Ottoman
originals. Some relevant documents might be traced in Abdülhamid II’s
Y›ld›z Collections in ‹stanbul; this, however, awaits further research.
(3) We also used maps in the map library of the Department of
Geography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and in the private
archive of Ruth Kark in Jerusalem. Abdülhamid II’s cadastral survey maps
enabled us to locate some of the tracts, and other maps, drawn by the
Mandate land surveys, assisted us to in determining the location of others.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
settlement processes as well as an expression of modernization and
technological change.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
132
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
(4) Palestinian literature on the history of the country, especially official
Mandatory Gazetteers and post-nakba literature, was helpful when trying
to locate some of the lands. Following the 1948 war, several localities were
abandoned and their names changed; this literature is sometimes the only
way to identify exact localities. In addition, some compilations contain the
memories of the inhabitants of villages from the Ottoman period, thus
revealing some aspects of the actual working of Abdülhamid II’s endeavors.
(5) Hebrew newspapers from the relevant period shed light on certain
aspects of Ottoman rule in Palestine. Palestinian newspapers in Arabic
were published only after 1906; therefore, only Hebrew newspapers reveal
those aspects from the local perspective. We were unable to use several
issues of the Official Gazette of the Ottoman District of Jerusalem Kuds-i
fierif / Al-Quds al-Shar›f, published in Turkish and Arabic between 1904/9
and 1913/15, recently discovered by Kushner, as they are not available as
of yet.2
(6) Published relevant research literature assisted us in contextualizing
the affair of the private lands within the broader scope of land issues and
internal and external concerns of the later Ottoman Empire. The history of
Palestine under Abdülhamid II has been the focus of much research. The
scholarly work of Jacob Landau, Haim Gerber, Engin Akarl›, David
Kushner, Iris Agmon, Mahmoud Yazbak and others have enlightened many
aspects of the political, administrative, economic and social life in
Palestine. On the imperial level, the private property of the Ottoman
sultans in the nineteenth century and in particular the Privy Purse of
Abdülhamid II have been discussed in studies by Vasfi fiensözen and Arzu
Terzi, published in Turkish. Aspects of historical geography, mostly in
regard to land regime and policy, have been discussed by geographers such
as Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, Ruth Kark and David Grossman. In this paper, we
try to combine the two disciplines, since none of the methodologies alone
can explain the various aspects of the land purchase by Abdülhamid II.
The private lands of the Sultan
Geographical characteristics
The private lands of Abdülhamid II in Palestine were comprised of 115
tracts covering 832,222 metric dunam (from the Turkish dönüm), or
roughly 900,000 Ottoman dunam (one metric dunam equals 1,000m2;
one Ottoman dunam equals 919.3m2), thus covering 3.1% of the total land
2
David Kushner, “Kuds-i fierif / Al-Kuds al-Sharif – The Official Gazette of the District of Jerusalem at
the End of the Ottoman Period.” Also see, Ruth Kark, “Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law:
Agrarian and Privatization Processes in Palestine, 1858-1918,” in The Application of the Tanzimat
Reforms in Various Regions of the Ottoman Empire, ed. David Kushner (forthcoming).
133
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
Figure 1: Map of the private lands of Abdülhamid II in Palestine
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
134
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
area of Mandatory Palestine. The full list of the lands, their location,
administrative unit and the date of registration (where available) can be
found in the appendix and in Figure 1. The lands were not evenly
distributed in all parts of Palestine: a majority of them were concentrated in
the southernmost autonomous district (mutasarr›fl›k) of Jerusalem, as
opposed to the central and northern districts (the sancaks of Nablus and
Acre, respectively). Within each district, the tracts were more often found
in specific geographical regions rather than in others. Around a quarter of
the landholdings were located along the coastal plain, another tenth in the
hilly regions and the Negev, and the remaining landholdings (around twothirds) were located along the Jordan Valley. This was the case in all three
administrative units of Palestine, as presented in table 1.
Table 1: The distribution of the lands according to geographical region
Region
Coastal Plain
Northern Coastal Plain
Central Coastal Plain and Mt. Carmel
Southern Coastal Plain
Hills and Negev
Northern Hills (Galilee)
Northern Plains
Central Hills
Negev Desert
Jordan Valley
Hullah Valley
Sea of Galilee and Northern Jordan Valley
Middle and Southern Jordan Valley
Dead Sea
Unidentified tracts
Total
Area (metric dunam)
189,651
6,972
48,263
155,977
86,459
5,204
6,426
34,089
40,742
530,281
62,781
217,960
159,841
89,699
4,268
832,222
% of total
25.3
0.8
5.8
18.7
10.4
0.6
0.8
4.1
4.9
63.7
7.5
26.2
19.2
10.8
0.5
Source: Fischel and Kark.
Most tracts were located around specific localities, creating large blocks of
land owned by the sultan. We have located nine such blocks, covering
about 85% of the total of Abdülhamid II’s lands. This might indicate that
there was a deliberate attempt to create regions of consecutive tracts in the
sole ownership of the sultan, as will be discussed below. Six of those
blocks-the Hullah Valley, the Sea of Galilee, Baysan, Ghawr al-Far›‘a,
Jericho-Northern Dead Sea, and Sodom-are in the Rift Valley, KabaraCaesarea and Rafah are located in the coastal plain, and Till ‘Arad in the
Negev. The large tracts were acquired either in one transaction (Till ‘Arad),
135
Table 2: The private lands of Abdülhamid II according to economic value
Land type
Unsettled regions
Dunes
Marshland
Urban settlements
Fertile agricultural land in settled regions
Unidentified tracts
Total
Area (metric dunam)
715,540
27,600
14,123
98
70,593
4,268
832,222
% of total
86
3.3
1.7
<0.1
8.5
0.5
100
Source: Fischel and Kark.
The process of purchase
The acquisition of such vast tracts by Abdülhamid II required an
appropriate legal basis. During our research, we found no claims of
3
4
Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, “The Population of the Large Towns in Palestine during the First Eighty Years
of the Nineteenth Century, according to Western Sources,” in Studies on Palestine on the Ottoman
Period, ed. M. Ma’oz (Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1975), 68.
Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, “The Population of the Sandjak Acre in the 1870s,” Shalem, no. 4 (1984): 31621 and map in page 26, Yehoshua Ben Arieh and Arnon Golan, “Sub-Districts and Settlements of the
Sanjaq of Nablus in the Nineteenth Century,” Eretz Israel, no. 17 (1965): 62, Yehoshua Ben-Arieh,
“The Sanjaq Jerusalem in the 1870s,” Cathedra, no. 36 (June 1985): 80-82, 108, 13, Dan Gazit,
“Sedentary Processes in the Besor Region in the Age of Sultan Abdelhamid II,” in Jerusalem and Eretz
Israel, ed. J. Schwartz (Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum, 2000), 183.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
or gradually-the Baysan lands, comprised of 163,876 dunam, were
purchased between 1883 and1902.
That being the case, it is apparent that most of the lands under
discussion were located outside the main settled regions of Palestine at that
time. In the early years of the reign of Abdülhamid II, most urban
settlements in Palestine were either along the coastline (Acre, Haifa, Jaffa,
Gaza) or in the hilly regions (Safed, Nazareth, Nablus, Jerusalem, Hebron).
Smaller towns (Ramla, Bethlehem, Al-B›ra) followed the same pattern.
Tiberias was the only exception.3 Rural settlements were also located
mostly in the hilly regions and to some extent in the coastal plain. Along
the Jordan Valley, on the other hand, only small villages existed, with the
exception of Tiberias. In the Negev, no settlements were found south of the
Gaza-Southern Judea line.4 Of the private lands of the sultan, 86% were
located in regions where almost no settlements existed in that period. An
additional 5% were comprised of dunes or marshland. By contrast, only 98
dunam were located in urban settlements, all in Jaffa. In other words, about
91% of the tracts were of little economic value. The classification of the
lands according to their economic value is presented in Table 2.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
136
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
unlawful appropriation raised against the sultan. The private lands of
Abdülhamid II fell into the category of çiftlik-i hümayun, or imperial çiftlik.
The Ottoman land code of 1858 restated the two basic definitions of çiftlik,
the first being a measure for land, usually between 60 and 150 Ottoman
dunam, and the other a large tract with a single owner, which cannot be
divided.5 In the Palestinian context, since no other çiftliks existed, the term
(or its Arabic version, jiftlik) was used solely for the private lands of the
sultan. In this paper, therefore, we will use the term çiftlik in its second
meaning, particularly as çiftlik-i hümayun.
Çiftlik estates were created in three ways. First, with the abolishment of
the timar system, some estates became large çiftliks. Second, the
unification of several units created large çiftliks. Third, they could emerge
as a result of taking over mevat-that is, uncultivated “dead” state lands to
which no one could claim legal rights. In exchange, the state ensured the
“revival” (ihya) of the land as an agricultural tract.6 The sultan, therefore,
could use one of several ways to acquire lands and add them to his çiftliks:
voluntary transfer by the owner, sale by the owner, or taking over mahlul
lands, which seems to have been the most common practice.
Land surveys and the tapu law enacted January of 1859 were the main
instrument used by the sultan and his representatives to find out which
lands were available for purchase. In 1871, a land survey, conducted
throughout the empire, defined deserted or sparsely inhabited villages
whose lands were called flemsiye. The inhabitants of the villages had
priority in registering the lands on their names in exchange for a payment
of the evaluated fair price of the land (bedel-i misil); otherwise, the lands
were to be sold at auction,7 and practically became mahlul. Clause no. 18 of
the tapu law set the rules for the transactions of mahlul lands, stating that
land of this kind would be sold at auction.8 An addition to the law, issued in
1871, set new rules for the auction of land, probably in order to encourage
economic activity in the empire. The regulations determined that the
auction–of up to 300 dunam in the sub-district (kaza), between 300 and
500 dunam in the district (sancak), more than 500 dunam in the province
5
6
7
8
Halil ‹nalc›k, “Çiftlik,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, “The Ottoman Land Code of 7 Ramazan 1274 (21
April 1858),” in The Ottoman Land Code, trans. F. Ongley (London: William Clowers and Sons, 1892),
articles 99, 130-31, and 51, 68-69.
Gilles Veinstein, “On the Çiftlik Debate,” in Landholding and Commercial Agriculture in the Middle
East, ed. Ça¤lar Keyder and Faruk Tabak (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 35-39.
Arie L. Avneri, The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948 (Tel Aviv:
Efal, 1982), 62-64, Yitzhak Schechter, “Land Registration in Eretz-Israel in the Second Half of the
Nineteenth Century,” Cathedra, no. 45 (1985): 147-48.
“The Tapu Law of 8 Cumadelâhire 1275 (13 January 1859),” in The Ottoman Land Code, article no.
18, pages 78-79.
137
9
“Regulations for the Arrangement of Clause no. 18 of the Tapu Law, Racab 1288
(September/October 1871),” in Ibid., 212-15.
10 Moses J. Doukhan, “Land Tenure,” in Economic Organization of Palestine, ed. Sa’id B. Himadeh
(Beirut: American Press, 1938), 84.
11 H. Halperin, The Agricultural Legislation in Eretz Israel (Tel Aviv: Hasade Library, 1944), 68.
12 “Appendix II: Bashatweh”, a mandatory report of an unknown source in regard to the lands of
Bash_twa, found at the rear of the file in Israel State Archive, Jerusalem (ISA), probably from 1922,
see: ISA, RG 22, Box 3599, File 7.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
(vilayet) – would be handled by the provincial administration, but the
auction of tracts of the latter case had to be reported to ‹stanbul, so that
potential buyers from other parts of the empire would have equal
opportunity to purchase them.9 The land surveys and the new regulations
provided ‹stanbul with the tools to assert its control over the real estate
market in the provinces and enabled Abdülhamid II to be aware of large
tracts available in Palestine and elsewhere.
Doukhan has claimed that many çiftlik lands were created voluntarily
by peasants who suffered Bedouin raids and asked to transfer their lands to
the sultan in exchange for usufruct rights and payment of the tithe (öflür),
assuming that the Bedouins would not attack the property of the sultan.10
Halperin has suggested a similar mechanism, but said that it is possible that
because peasants had left the land first because of Bedouin raiding, the
lands became mahlul and only then were purchased by the sultan.11 It is
possible that voluntary transfer did occur, but we do not have any evidence
to support this assumption. The second explanation of Halperin seems to
be more reasonable.
The following two cases seem to be representative of most instances of
land purchase transactions conducted by Abdülhamid II. The first is that of
the lands of Bashatwa in the Jordan Valley, north of Baysan, according to a
report from 1922. In 1881, 8,728 metric dunam were registered on the name
of thirty individuals. In 1898, 21 of them sold 7,021 dunam of those lands to
the sultan. In parallel, another 7,720 dunam were registered on the name of
another 16 owners in 1881. The following year, they sold 12/24 of their
rights over these tracts to a certain Salim Efendi Mulki, and the lands came
under shared ownership; they were sold to the sultan in 1890. An additional
six landowners sold fifteen tracts comprised of 3,304 dunam to the sultan in
1898. In regard to this last transaction, the title deed of 1900 states that the
sale was of half the rights over the land (that is, 12/24 shares), and it is
apparent that this is the other half of the rights to the land sold by Salim
Efendi Mulki in 1882. The size of the tracts mentioned here is not clear.
According to the details, the sultan should have possessed around 15,000
dunam, but according to the registration of lands transferred to the state after
his dethronement, he held merely 7,283 dunam.12 We are not able to explain
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
138
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
this gap; nevertheless, this case indicates that the sultan worked
systematically and for a long time to create a large çiftlik in his sole possession.
The second case is the lands of Tell ‘Arad in the Negev. In June of 1907,
the deputy kaymakam of Hebron reported that for eighteen years the
villagers of Yata and the Bedouins of the tribe of _ulam had been fighting for
control over the lands of Till ‘Arad. By 1907, the situation had deteriorated
to the verge of war. The lands were regarded as mahlul – that is, neither of
the parties possessed any legal rights there. The deputy kaymakam
suggested that a police station should be established and the land leased to
a third party for agriculture.13 Following another incident in July of the
same year, a police force was sent there and notified the parties that the land
was mahlul and, therefore, had been annexed to the property of the
sultan.14 In August, the First Secretary of the Sultan approved the
annexation of the lands to the estates; he decided to establish an
administration house for the military forces and to spend between 45,000
and 50,000 kurufl (£330-367) from the treasury of Jerusalem (i.e. the
administration of the sultan’s treasury in the district of Jerusalem) for
compensation.15 In reply, it was claimed that the situation was unclear as to
who should be compensated; therefore, an authorization was requested to
spend between 15,000 and 20,000 kurufl (£110-147) for a public
circumcision ceremony (sünnet) of the children of the leaders of Till ‘Arad
and for drawing a map of the tract.16
Local officials had to report calls for the sale of large mahlul tracts to
‹stanbul, so that potential buyers from other regions of the empire would
have the chance to but them. On the other hand, the case of Bashatwa
demonstrates that not all the lands purchased by Abdülhamid II were
mahlul, whereas other tracts were too small to be reported to the capital. It
is clear, therefore, that the process could not have happened without the
presence of the sultan’s local representatives in Palestine; the best known
among these representatives was Ali Ekram Bey, the governor (mutasarr›f)
of Jerusalem between 1906 and 1908. According to Kushner, Ekram Bey’s
monthly salary was 10,000 kurufl (£89), but he claimed that this amount
was not sufficient and asked to be given the administration of the estates of
the sultan as well, as had been the case under his predecessor. Eventually,
13 Very urgent telegram from Hebron to the mutasarr›f of Jaffa, 5 June 323 (18 June 1907), ISA, RG 83,
no. 225.
14 Telegram from the Secretariat of Jerusalem to the Chief Secretariat of the Imperial Household [Y›ld›z
Palace, ‹stanbul], 25 July 323 (6 August 1907), ISA, RG 83, no. 63.
15 Telegram from the First Secretary of the Sultan in Y›ld›z Palace [‹stanbul] to the mutasarr›f of
Jerusalem [Ekram Bey], 12 August 323 (25 August 1907), ISA, RG 83, no. 50.
16 Cipher telegram from the Jerusalem Secretariat to the Chief Secretariat [Y›ld›z Palace, ‹stanbul], n.d.,
in reply to the telegram from 12 August 323 [25 August 1907], ISA, RG 83, no. 41.
139
The land market of Palestine
Considering the land codes, and given that the sultan apparently did not
employ illegal tactics to purchase his tracts, one can assume that the main
determinant of the geographical location of his private lands was the local
market. The last century of Ottoman rule over Palestine can be divided into
three major sub-periods regarding settlement patterns. The first period
(1800-1840) was characterized by rural settlements on the hillside, whereas
the lowlands were controlled by Bedouins. During the middle period (18401880), rural settlements appeared in new regions. Foreign settlers and
entrepreneurs became active in thinly populated regions, and the Bedouins
were forced to withdraw from several regions. In the late period (18801917), coinciding with the rule of Abdülhamid II, the settled area expanded
even more. Urban entrepreneurs (efendis) from Palestine and neighboring
countries began to purchase large tracts.18 The hatt-› hümayun of 1856, the
land code of 1858, a law from 1867, and the protocols signed with certain
Western countries thereafter enabled foreigners to purchase lands all over
the empire, with the exception of the Hejaz. As a result, foreigners and
investors became increasingly involved in the local market. Churches and
missionary organizations tended to purchase lands on the hillside, especially
around Jerusalem, and around coastal towns. The German Templars settled
in Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa and the Lower Galilee. Entrepreneurs recognized
the economic potential of the plains, purchased lands in the northern coastal
plain and began to penetrate into the Jordan Valley.19
17 David Kushner, A Governor in Jerusalem: The City and Province in the Eyes of Ali Ekram Bey, 1906-1908
(Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1995), 17-18.
18 Ruth Kark, “Landownership and Spatial Change in Nineteenth Century Palestine: An Overview,” in
Seminar on Historical Types of Spatial Organizations: The Transition from Spontaneous to Regulated
Spatial Organisation (Warsaw, 1983), 1-7.
19 Ruth Kark, “Changing Patterns of Landownership in Nineteenth Century Palestine: The European
Influence,” Journal of Historical Geography 10 (1984).
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
his salary was augmented to 12,000 kurufl (£107), in addition to the 2,000
kurufl (£18) re received as the chairman of the sultan’s lands committee.17
This arrangement served the sultan well; first, since every land transaction
had to be approved by the district administration, the governor was the
best source for information regarding lands being introduced to the market.
Second, once the local administrator shared common interests with the
sultan, he was more likely to remain loyal. There was also a conflict of
interest whereby a public official was co-opted to become the agent of a
private person, conflating the individual interests of the sultan with the
interests of the empire in general.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
140
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
When Abdülhamid II began the process of land acquisition, he had to
confront the existing pattern of landownership in Palestine. The hillside was
densely populated, and along the coastal plain north of Jaffa vacant lands
became scarce. Subsequently, the liquid inventory of lands in Palestine was
located mostly in marginal regions. Most lands were located in the plains, the
valleys and the Negev; some of them had great economic potential but had
deteriorated over time due to negligence–marshes and malaria were
common.20 The map of the liquid inventory matches the location and
characteristics of the majority of the private lands of the sultan, and his activity
in those regions was probably determined by the availability of lands there.
Economic aspects
We will now examine the goals which the sultan sought to achieve by
purchasing the lands. Most relevant lands in Palestine were of little
economic value; however, they still had potential. A strong correlation
between the activity of the sultan in that field and his own economic
interests can be traced, mostly in regard to land utilization and the process
of turning low-value lands into profitable tracts yielding agricultural
products to be sold on world markets.
Mapping
One of the endeavors conducted on the private lands of Abdülhamid II was
mapping the lands, albeit not systematically. This presents the beginning of
such activities in the region. Cadastral mapping developed in Europe
during the first half of the nineteenth century as an instrument employed
by governments to assert their control over lands, manifest their
sovereignty, estimate the resources of the state, and develop the lands.21
The first attempts of cadastral mapping in the Ottoman Empire followed
the land code of 1858 and were usually carried out by engineers working
for the Ottoman administration. We could not find any large-scale
endeavor on behalf of the government to conduct a systemized land survey
and mapping. However, tracts of great importance to the Ottoman
government and the sultan were mapped.22
Maps of çiftlik lands, large tracts of mahlul lands and regions where large
projects were planned can be found in several archives in Israel. Apparently,
20 Ruth Kark, “Land Acquisition and New Agricultural Settlement in Palestine during the Tyomkin
Period, 1890-1892,” Zionism 9 (1984): 186-90.
21 D. Gavish and Ruth Kark, “The Cadastral Mapping of Palestine, 1858-1928,” The Geographic Journal,
no. 159 (1993).
22 Ruth Kark and Haim Gerber, “Land Registry Maps in Palestine during the Ottoman Period,”
Cathedra, no. 22 (January 1992): 113-14.
141
Transportation
A preliminary condition for the success of commercial agriculture is an
adequate transportation system within the estate and from the estate to the
markets. As with mapping, we were able to identify some indications for
the beginning of endeavors in that field, but none of them systematic.
Moreover, in some cases, only circumstantial evidence suggests that the
construction of roads was connected to the private lands of the sultan. For
instance, in 1892, the Jerusalem-Jericho road was constructed, and by
1900 it reached the Jordan River. These roads had been planned as early as
1889, and their main purpose probably was the improvement of state
control over Jericho and its environs.25 However, all this coincided with
massive land purchases by the sultan in that region, and it is therefore
possible that the çiftliks were a factor in the project. Other evidence
suggests that roads were constructed within the çiftliks themselves–for
instance, a bridge in Baysan, which still exists. Nevertheless, a report from
1919 indicates that transportation in the region, especially between the
banks of the Jordan River, was still difficult.26
An interesting piece of evidence related to transportation, possibly
affected by the presence of lands in the possession of the sultan, is the route
23 Ruth Kark, “The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine,” in
Eastern Mediterranean Cartographies, ed. G. Tolias and D. Loupis (Athens: Institute for Neohellenic
Research, 2004), 197-202, 16-18.
24 Telegram from the First Secretary of the Sultan, Y›ld›z Palace [‹stanbul], to the mutasarr›f of Jerusalem
[Ekram Bey], 12 August 323 [23 August 1907], ISA, RG 83, no. 50.
25 Ruth Kark, “Transportation in Nineteenth-Century Palestine: Reintroduction of the Wheel,” in The
Land that Became Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, ed. Ruth Kark (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989), 60.
26 “The Beit-Shean Jiftlik”, a report of 20 Shevat 5679 [21 January 1919], no author (possibly Jacob
Etinger), Kressel Collection, Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies (in Hebrew).
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
the Ottomans tried to systematically map the çiftlik lands, although we were
not able to locate the maps of all the relevant tracts. In addition, in 1906 some
of the maps were transferred to a certain Dr. Krüger in Damascus, for the
purpose of agricultural planning. It seems, therefore, that drawing the maps
was part of the effort to improve the infrastructure and, henc, the
productivity of the lands.23 An interesting piece of evidence for the
importance that the staff of the Y›ld›z Palace attributed to mapping is the
above-mentioned case of Till ‘Arad. One of the first orders sent by the
personal Secretary of the Sultan upon the acquisition of the lands in 1907 was
to prepare a map of the land.24 We could not locate the map of that tract, and
it is possible that the map was never drawn, but this case implies that mapping
was considered to be a major instrument for controlling and managing lands.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
142
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
of the Haifa branch of the Hejaz railroad. The history of this line suggests
that the private lands of the sultan were a factor in its construction. The first
concession of the Haifa branch was given in 1882 to a British company,
which failed to construct it, and by 1903 the Ottoman Empire had taken
over the project. The line possessed economic importance, and its
construction was motivated by the Ottoman desire to become independent
of the French-controlled Beirut-Damascus line.27 However, the private
lands of the sultan and his wish to develop commercial agriculture in the
Jordan Valley seems to play a role in this project.28 This correlation suggests
itself when comparing the route recommended by the British in 1890 and
the route constructed by the Ottomans between 1904 and 1905. The first
route crossed the Yarmuk River at Al-_amma and continued towards the
Southwest, crossing the Jordan River in Jisr al-Majami‘.29 In contrast, the
new route continued from al-_amma to Samakh, thence south to Zab‘a and
southwest to Khan al-A_mar, where the Baysan station was located.30 The
sultan possessed lands in the following locations along the new route: Al_amma, Samakh, Dalhamiyya, Bashatwa, Khan al-A_mar and Baysan. The
terrain of both routes is relatively flat, and no topographical reason can
explain the change. Therefore, the reason for this shift apparently was
Abdülhamid II’s desire to connect as much of his land as possible to the
railroad.31
Agriculture and land betterment
Mapping the lands and the improvement of the transportation system
were only preliminary steps employed in order to increase agricultural
production and transform commercial agriculture. The success of
commercial agriculture was also dependent on the proper management of
the lands as well as the availability of money to buy seeds and
equipment.32 In the period of Abdülhamid II, the production and export
27 Kark, “Transportation in Nineteenth-Century Palestine: Reintroduction of the Wheel,” 59-66, David
Kushner, “The Haifa-Damascus Railway: The British Phase (1890-1902),” Cathedra, no. 55 (1990):
89-99, Walter Pinhas Pick, “Meisner Pasha and the Construction of Railways in Palestine and
Neighboring Countries,” in Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914: Studies in Economic and Social History, ed.
G. G. Gilbar (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 190-93.
28 Kark, “The Lands of the Sultan,” 201, Kushner, “The Haifa-Damascus Railway,” 89.
29 See map in Kushner, “The Haifa-Damascus Railway,” 92.
30 Beisan, 4, 1:100,000, F. J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, 1937, Mt. Scopus map library BB 900 C – [1]
1937/1.
31 Similar motives dealing with the coming of the railroad, land investment, development and land
grants were a common feature in the American West during the second half of the nineteenth
century. See, John F. Stover, American Railroads (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).
32 Linda Schilcher, “The Grain Economy of Late Ottoman Syria and the Issue of Large-Scale
Commercialization,” in Landholding and Commercial Agriculture in the Middle East, ed. Ça¤lar Keyder
and Faruk Tabak (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991), 185-95.
143
33 Iris Agmon, “The Development of Palestine’s Foreign Trade, 1879-1914: Economic and Social
Aspects” (M. A. Thesis, University of Haifa, 1984), 49-63.
34 “The Beit-Shean Jiftlik”.
35 Sharif Kana‘ana and Rashad al-Madani, The Destroyed Palestinian Villages, 8: Al-Kawfakha (Bir Zayt:
Bir-Zayt University), 6-7.
36 Iris Agmon, “The Bedouin Tribes of the Hula and Baysan Valleys at the End of Ottoman Rule,”
Cathedra, no. 45 (September 1987): 91-97, Izhak Zitrin, History of the Hullah Concession (Ramat Gan:
No publisher, 1987), 32-40.
37 Letter from Mr. Hoenhek, JCA office, Haifa, to Dr. Arthur Ruppin, 27 August 1913, Central Zionist
Archive, Jerusalem, RG L18, Box 125, File 31 (in Hebrew).
38 Kark, “The Lands of the Sultan,” 217.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
of agricultural products from Palestine increased, along with the growing
involvement of the local market in the global economic system.33 The
sultan sought to take part in the commercial agricultural system in order
to increase his profits. The basic conditions for this kind of agriculture
existed in his private domains: large tracts under unified management.
The sultan provided the peasants who settled on his lands with seeds. It
was reported that he encouraged peasants from northern Samaria to settle
on his lands north of Baysan and that he provided each of them with 100
to 150 dunam of land as well as with wheat and sorghum seeds. However,
the peasants did not have adequate agricultural machinery. In addition,
starting from the second year, heavy taxes were levied upon them.34 It
seems that there was an attempt to plan agricultural activity, albeit
unsuccessfully. A similar attempt to settle peasants on the private lands of
the sultan occurred in the northern Negev. For instance, several families
from Gaza were allowed to settle in the village of Kawfakha in exchange
for military service.35
Some of the lands were not appropriate for massive settlement without
intensive improvement. For instance, in the Hullah Valley, the lands
around Baysan and the northern Sharon plain were marshlands unsuitable
for agriculture. Beginning in 1877, the government tried to improve those
lands. In the Hullah Valley, engineers tried to examine the reasons for the
creation of the marsh and employed traditional methods in an attempt to
drain it. The endeavor was only partially successful, and by 1901 a new
concession for the drainage of the marsh had been given to the Jewish
colony of Yisud Ha-Ma‘alah, without much success.36 Neither were
drainage projects around Baysan successful. In 1913, only a third of the
çiftlik lands in that region were suitable for agriculture without further
betterment.37 Similarly, there is only slight evidence for investment in
irrigation systems–for instance, the aqueduct constructed north of
Jericho–to provide the lands of the sultan with water for irrigation.38 In
other places no irrigation systems are evident. For example, the cadastral
maps of the villages around Gaza show that only water holes (su kap›s›)
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
144
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
existed.39 Nevertheless, grain agriculture in that period usually relied on
rain only,40 so that possible no irrigation systems were required.
Minerals
Palestine is not blessed with many minerals, with the exception of the Dead
Sea. The value of the lake and its minerals has been known since antiquity.
Modern interest in the treasures of the lake rose during the nineteenth
century, especially among European and Zionist organizations. In 1894, it
was reported that ships were sailing on the Dead Sea in order to collect the
natural asphalt from the lake and to export it to Europe.41 Six years later, a
committee was founded in Vienna to discuss ways of using the resources of
the lake.42 In 1904, the World Zionist Organization sent a delegation to
conduct a geological survey in the region.43
Those endeavors encouraged Abdülhamid II to intervene. From 1888
on, large tracts along the northern and southern shores of the Dead Sea
were registered in his name. Considering the arid nature of the region, it
seems that the main reason for the acquisition of lands there was related to
the economic value of the lake itself. This assumption is supported by some
documents expressing the Ottoman interest in the economic value of the
region. A report sent from Jerusalem to the Second Secretary of the Sultan
discusses several ideas in that regard. The administration of the çiftlik in the
district established a committee to examine the region, and there was an
attempt to get a hold of previous surveys done by Dominican monks and
the local Jewish agronomist Aharon Ahronson. The documents reveal that
the goal here was to find ways to use the treasures of the Dead Sea without
issuing any concession or spending money from the Imperial Treasury.44
Abdülhamid II was dethroned shortly thereafter, so it is difficult to
determine the potential results of this effort.
Private lands and the Privy Purse
The activities conducted on the private lands of Abdülhamid II suggest that
economic profit was an important consideration in purchasing them.
39 Maps of Lands Arrangement of the çiftliks of Mu_arraqa, Kawfakha and Jaladiyya, which are attached
to Kaza Gaza, Sancak of Jerusalem, 1:5,000, 1309 [1893], Kark Map Collection, Jerusalem (in
Turkish).
40 Schilcher, “The Grain Economy of Late Ottoman Syria,” 179.
41 Ha-Megid, 20 September 1894 (in Hebrew).
42 Ha-Megid, 22 November 1900 (in Hebrew).
43 Michael Aran, “Potash Concession in the Dead Sea,” in The Dead Sea and Judean Desert, ed. M. Naor
(Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1990), 76.
44 Report [n.a.] to His Majesty the Second Secretary [of the Sultan] Izat Pafla [Y›ld›z Palace, ‹stanbul],
14 November 1323 [27 November 1907], ISA, RG 83 [no number], also in Kushner, A Governor in
Jerusalem, 127-29.
145
45 Stanford J. Shaw, The Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2 vols., vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1976), 23-119.
46 Nadir Özbek, “Imperial Gifts and Sultanic Legitimation during the Late Ottoman Empire, 18761909,” in Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts, ed. Michael Bonner, Mine Ener, and Amy
Singer (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003), 209, Leslie P. Peirce, The Imperial Harem:
Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 118-22.
47 C. Orhonlu, “Khaz_ne,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, 1185.
48 Özbek, “Imperial Gifts and Sultanic Legitimation,” 209-10, Stanford J. Shaw and Ezel Kural Shaw,
The Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 2 vols., vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1977), 82-83.
49 Vasfi fiensözen, Osmano¤ullar›’n›n Varl›klar› ve II. Abdülhamid’in Emlak› (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Bas›mevi, 1982), 31-35.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
Mapping the lands, employing engineers, the construction of roads and
railroads as well as conducting surveys imply that attempts to increase
profit were made on behalf of the sultan. It is not clear, however, who
enjoyed the profit of those private lands. Bearing in mind that the lands
were not a state domain, but private lands registered on the name of the
sultan in the tapu, it is reasonable to assume that the sultan himself was the
main beneficiary. It is important, therefore, to clarify certain points
regarding the finance system of the palace.
The finances of the sultan (the Privy Purse or hazine-i hassa) as an
institution separate from the state treasury can be traced back to the very
first decades of the Ottoman Empire.45 In the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, the state treasury was responsible for the royal income and
expenses, including the royal family, the harem and the staff of the palace.
At the same time, the distinction between the state treasury and the finance
system of the palace gradually increased.46 The increasing number of
palaces and staff resulted in confusion in regard to their finances. Mahmud
II (r. 1808-1839) tried to establish a new royal treasury, which became a
ministry in 1839,47 but the old Privy Purse, located in the Topkap› Palace,
was not abolished. In 1850, it was reorganized yet again as a ministry
responsible for the expenditure of the palace. Abdülaziz (r. 1861-1876)
unified the different palace treasuries, but the Privy Purse and the state
treasury continued to be located in different places.48 In that period, a large
array of possessions was transferred from the palace to the state treasury.
This process, however, caused an increasing crisis in the palaces finances,
driving Abdülaziz to seek new ways, some of which were quite dubious, to
increase the revenues of the palace.49
Under Abdülhamid II, a major change in the position of the Privy Purse
occurred. The sultan’s endeavor to strengthen the palace (and his own
position) vis-à-vis the state bureaucracy relied on this institution.
Therefore, the palace regained power by acquiring properties, as mentioned
before, and by returning substantial parts of the properties which had been
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
146
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
transferred from the Privy Purse to the hands of the bureaucracy under the
rule of Abdülmecit (r. 1839-1861) and Abdülaziz. Moreover, the
institution, having regained its practical independence, was modernized
and thus reintroduced as a major instrument serving the sultan.50
Nevertheless, the Privy Purse remained legally part of the bureaucracy, and
it is possible that there was a struggle between the palace and the
bureaucracy for the management of the Privy Purse, especially under the
vizier Midhat Pafla.51 The extent of the private possessions of Abdülhamid
II was impressive; Terzi has shown that the properties consisted of more
than 56 million dunam in the Arab provinces of the empire, including
211,261 dunam in the District of Jerusalem.52 However, according to our
findings, the sultan possessed 393,330 dunam in this district; therefore, it
is possible that the total possessions of Abdülhamid II all over the Ottoman
Empire were even larger.
The Privy Purse was not limited to the maintenance of the palace, but
also constituted a source for imperial activity. An example for that can be
found in the charitable activities of the sultan: for instance, in the
distribution of alms and the establishment of the darül’aceze in 1896 in
order to take care of the homeless in ‹stanbul,53 or the above-mentioned
public circumcision ceremony planned after the acquisition of lands in Till
‘Arad. The charity system required substantial amounts of money, which
arrived from both the Privy Purse and the Ministry of the Estates of the
Sultan (emlak-i seniye idaresi). According to Özbek, the basis for the charity
system was Abdülhamid II’s land possessions. Located in the Y›ld›z Palace,
the financial institutions of the palace significantly expanded during that
period under the personal supervision of the sultan. The income of the
private property in 1908 was at least O£1,500,000 (around £1,340,000),
equivalent to 6-7% of the expenditure of the Ottoman budget.54 The
importance of the Privy Purse can be attested by its quick liquidation and
unification with the state treasury soon after the Young Turk Revolution in
1908.55 The private lands became state domain thereafter, as they were
transferred to the administration along with the rest of the Privy Purse. It is
50 Christopher Clay, Gold for the Sultan: Western Bankers and Ottoman Finance, 1856-1881 (London: I.
B. Tauris, 2000), 282, fiensözen, Osmano¤ullar›’n›n Varl›klar›, 37-41, Shaw and Shaw, The Ottoman
Empire and Modern Turkey, 225.
51 Harold Temperley, “British Policy towards Parliamentary Rule and Constitution in Turkey (18301914),” Cambridge Historical Journal 4, no. 2 (1933): 174.
52 Arzu T. Terzi, Hazine-i Hassa Nezareti (Ankara: Tarih Kurumu Bas›mevi, 2000), 95-96.
53 Mine Ener, “Religious Prerogatives and Policing the Poor in Two Ottoman Contexts,” Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 35 (2005): 506-11.
54 Özbek, “Imperial Gifts and Sultanic Legitimation,” 210.
55 Orhonlu, “Khaz_ne,” 1185.
147
Law, order and control
Important as they may be, the economic goals of Abdülhamid II alone
cannot explain his motives for purchasing land. Desert and dune lands,
which could not yield any significant profits without substantial
investment, are not attractive from any economic perspective. Moreover,
no evidence suggests that any tract purchased by the sultan was sold during
his reign. This might imply that holding land was sometimes more
important than its economic value. Therefore, it is clear that,
notwithstanding the maintenance of the Privy Purse, other motives
contributed to the interest of the sultan in these lands: issues of law, order
and better control over certain parts of Palestine also were of some
significance.
Bedouins
Several nomadic groups such as Kurds and Bedouins challenged Ottoman
control over the provinces; restraining those groups was crucial for the
government. The problematic relations between Bedouins and the settled
population were a permanent factor in Palestine. According to Gerber,
since the sixteenth century the balance of power between ‹stanbul and the
Bedouins began to shift in favor of the latter. The regions where the
Bedouins dwelt lay in proximity to settled lands; therefore, a weakening
central authority resulted in nomad raids in the settled regions.56
Abdülhamid II aspired to strengthen the Ottoman authority in the
provinces and, thus, had to take action in order to restrain the Bedouins.
On the eve of Abdülhamid II’s reign, only a small military force was
stationed in Palestine. In wartime, only redif units (reserve units which had
been recruited among the local population, had had short training, and
were stationed in the towns to keep law and order) were present in
Palestine.57 The Bedouins were aware of this fact and conducted raids deep
into the settled land.58 The Ottoman solution was to send a military force,
when available, to fight the Bedouins. However, this solution was only
56 Haim Gerber, The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East (London: Mansell, 1987), 59-61.
57 Erik Jan Zürcher, “The Ottoman Conscription System, 1844-1914,” International Review of Social
History 43 (1998): 438-41.
58 Clinton Bailey, “The Ottomans and the Bedouin Tribes of the Negev,” in Ottoman Palestine, 18001914: Studies in Economic and Social History, ed. G. Gilbar (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 322-25.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
clear, therefore, that the private lands of the sultan were part of the assets
belonging to the Privy Purse and, hence, played a role in the overall
imperial policy of Abdülhamid II, especially in regard to his private
activities meant to strengthen his own position in the empire.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
148
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
partial, as attested by the repeated excursions of the governor of Jerusalem,
Rauf Pafla, against the Bedouins in the vicinity of Gaza. Four expeditions of
that kind took place between May of 1876 and November of 1878, and
each of them was reported as successful.59 However, the need to repeat the
campaign at least once a year does not support any claims to success.
The solution presented by Abdülhamid II contained several
components. The first was the improvement of the transportation system
for quick military response to any internal or external threat. As part of
this, the Hejaz railroad and the roads to Jericho and the Jordan River were
constructed, while plans were also made for the construction of a road from
Jerusalem to Hebron and thence to Gaza.60 Another step was the
establishment of new administrative centers on the fringes of the settled
land. In 1899, Beersheba was established in order to enforce Ottoman
control over the Bedouins in the Negev.61 Gerber has claimed that the
purpose of the establishment of the town was to strengthen the border
shared with British-controlled Egypt, to fill the political vacuum created in
the region after the elimination of the Bedouins, and to integrate the
Bedouins into the Ottoman system. These goals were achieved.62
The Ottoman government tried to build another town in the Negev,
named ‘Awja al-_af›r, and to establish a new sub-district.63 According to
‘Arif al-‘Arif, Ekram Bey arrived in the region in order to examine the site
for the new city in al-_af›r, and not in ‘Awja which is located ten kilometers
to the east. Finally, a sub-district was established in ‘Awja, with the
combined name of ‘Awja al-_af›r, where barracks, an inn and a government
office were constructed. However, the city did not develop until World
War I, when it became an outpost on the Egyptian front.64 There are two
possible reasons for the transfer of the city to the new location, the first
being the conclusion of the Egypt-Palestine border in that region in 1906
after a long struggle between Britain and the Ottoman Empire.65 The
59 Letter from the mutasarr›f of Jerusalem [Rauf Pafla] to the Consul of the German government in
Jerusalem, 10 May [12]92 (23 May 1876), ISA, RG 83, [no number]; Letter from the mutasarr›f of
Jerusalem [Rauf Pafla] to the Consul of the German government in Jerusalem, 10 May [12]92 (23 May
1876), ISA, RG 83 [no number]; Letter from the mutasarr›f of Jerusalem [Rauf Pafla] to the Consul of
the German government in Jerusalem, 31 May [12]93 (12 June 1877), ISA, RG 67 [no number];
Havazeleth, 31 May and 7 November 1878 (in Hebrew).
60 Kark, “Transportation in Nineteenth-Century Palestine: Reintroduction of the Wheel,” 58-61, Jacob
M. Landau, The Hejaz Railway and the Muslim Pilgrimage: A Case of Ottoman Political Propaganda
(Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1971), 13-14.
61 See, Ha-Megid, 21 August 1900 (in Hebrew).
62 Haim Gerber, Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem, 1890-1914 (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1985), 237-39.
63 Ibid., 93.
64 ‘_rif al-‘_rif History of Beersheba and Her Tribes (Madb_li Press, 1999), 61-65.
65 Gabriel R. Warburg, “The Sinai Peninsula Borders, 1906-1947,” Journal of Contemporary History 14,
no. 4 (1979): 677-78.
149
66 Letter from the First Secretary of the Sultan, Y›ld›z Palace [‹stanbul], to the mutasarr›f of Jerusalem
[Ekram Bey], 12 August [1]323 (25 August 1907), ISA, RG 83, no. 50.
67 A. M. Lunz, Guide Book More Derech (Jerusalem: Ariel, 1979), 219.
68 Karl Bädeker, Palästina und Syrien: Handbuch für Reisende (Leipzig: Karl Bädeker, 1904), 194.
69 Agmon, “The Bedouin Tribes “: 94-101, Gerber, Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem, 23.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
second reason concerns landownership. Whereas Beersheba was
established on state lands, ‘Awja al-_af›r was built on a tract of 604 dunam
owned by Abdülhamid II. The date of acquisition is unknown, but it is
likely that the sultan wished to establish the new town on his private lands.
Similar use of the private lands of the sultan can be found in Till ‘Arad,
where the First Secretary of the Sultan ordered the construction of the
administrative and police center on the private lands.66
The town of Baysan was probably constructed on the private lands of
Abdülhamid II. According to the land registration, the sultan possessed
7,817 dunam in Baysan itself, registered between 1883 and 1902, as well
as 6,987 dunam in the neighboring Khan al-A_mar. It is not clear when the
town was established and became the administrative center of the region,
but in 1891 Lunz reported that 500 inhabitants as well as a müdür resided
in the town.67 Bädeker reported in 1904 that the population had risen to
2,500 inhabitants, and that the town was located in the middle of a çiftlik.68
Apparently, the establishment of the müdürlük, which was also derived
from the large çiftliks in the region, facilitated the enforcement of law and
order over the Bedouins, as we will demonstrate below.
At the same time, the central government aimed at changing the
Bedouin way of life. Two parallel tendencies are evident: the first concerns
internal changes among the Bedouin communities, and the second is the
government’s endeavor to turn the Bedouins into sedentary and tax-paying
subjects. The success was not equal in all parts of Palestine, as can be
demonstrated by comparing Baysan and the Negev. In the 1900s, the
Bedouins around Baysan usually resided in one place and were involved in
agriculture. They were supervised by the local administrative system, and
most paid the taxes on their crops probably produced for local
consumption, although some were sold in the towns of northern Palestine.
The Bedouin villages had a muhtar responsible for tax administration and
connections with government representatives, but the tribal hierarchy
persisted.69
Some evidence suggests that around Baysan Bedouins were settled on
the private lands of Abdülhamid II. The Ghawr Mudawwara agreement,
signed on 19 November 1921 between the Mandatory Government of
Palestine and the tenants of the former çiftlik estates, regulated the
landownership of agricultural land and pasture rights. It states that in 1908
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
150
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
the Ottoman government confiscated the private lands of the sultan and
leased them to the tenants who had already resided there, some of them
Bedouins.70 This indicates that Bedouins were settled on parts of the lands
before the establishment of the constitutional government. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that those Bedouins had settled on the lands as
tenants during the reign of Abdülhamid II. One should bear in mind,
however, that some of the çiftliks were actually the lands of Bedouins
tribes, for instance al-Ghazawiyya and Bashatwa.
In the Negev, on the other hand, the settlement of the Bedouins was not
as advanced as in Baysan. Except for lands in the very northern part of the
Negev and the town of ‘Awja al-_af›r, the sultan did not possess tracts in
that region. The lands of Beersheba were purchased by the Ottoman
government from the sheik of the ‘Azazma tribe and were not attached to
the estates of the sultan.71 The government, however, did try to encourage
Bedouins to settle in Beersheba, and several sheikhs built their houses in
the town, along with city dwellers from Hebron and Gaza.72 Similar
attempts were made around ‘Awja al-_af›r,73 but, as mentioned above, the
town did not develop. The failure to settle Bedouins in the Negev is clear
from the statistical data of 1931, when only 3,101 of the around 50,000
inhabitants of the district were settled, mostly in Beersheba itself.74 Some
aspects of Bedouin life in the Negev did, nevertheless, change: the
Bedouins became increasingly engaged in agriculture, a process intensified
by the foundation of the town of Beersheba as a market for agricultural
products. Urban entrepreneurs entered the market as suppliers of
agricultural machinery and buyers of surplus as well as moneylenders in
years of drought.75 From the administrative perspective, the integration of
the Bedouins into the Ottoman system was successful. Representatives of
the main tribes of the Negev were included in the town council (meclis) of
Beersheba, and the revenues of the region were increasing following the
70 For an announcement including the accurate version of the Ghawr land contract signed on 19
November 1921, see The Palestine Gazette, 14 September 1933, Kark Archive, Jerusalem (in Hebrew).
71 Yasemin Avc›, “The Application of the Tanzimat in the Desert: Ottoman Central Government and the
Bedouins in Southern Palestine” (paper presented at the International Conference on the
Application of the Tanzimat Reforms in Various Regions of the Ottoman Empire, Haifa, Israel, June
2007).
72 Mildred Berman, “The Evolution of Beersheba as an Urban Center,” Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 55 (1965): 315-17.
73 Kushner, A Governor in Jerusalem, 241.
74 Yoseph Braslavsky, Did You Know the Country?, vol. 2 (Tel Aviv: HaKibutz HaMeuchad, 1956), 246,
Ruth Kark, Pioneering Jewish Settlement in the Negev, 1880-1948 (Jerusalem: Ariel, 2002), 55.
75 Joseph Ben-David, “The Negev Bedouins: From Nomadism to Agriculture,” in The Land that Became
Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, ed. Ruth Kark (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 18791.
151
Refugees
The Bedouins were not the only group with which the Ottomans had to
deal. Prior to the rise of Abdülhamid II, the Ottoman Empire lost territories
to Russia, territories where a substantial Muslim population resided,
especially the Circassians and Chechens in the Caucasus. Due to religious
and political oppression and fear of the Christian government, Muslim
refugees migrated to Ottoman territories. During the 1860s, some of them
settled in northern Syria, and in the following decade in southern Syria as
well.77 Other refugees from the Caucasus were settled in the Balkans, but
following the war of 1877-78 and the transfer of territories from the
Ottomans to Russia and Austria-Hungary, millions of ex-Caucasus
refugees as well as Bosnian and Bulgarian Muslims immigrated into the
remaining Ottoman territories.78 Abdülhamid II, claiming to be the caliph
of all Muslims,79 was obliged to admit the Muslim refugees into the
empire,80 and to become personally involved in their settlement. In 187778, he funded shelters for some 200,000 refugees in ‹stanbul, but
following an attempted rebellion supported by some refugees, he tried to
look for solutions away from the capital.81 In March of 1878, the sultan
summoned a committee concerning the issue in the Y›ld›z Palace. This ad
hoc committee consisted of ten members and aspired to draw an imperial
policy for the solution of the refugee problem. The chief administrator of
the committee, Sait Pafla, was the director of the Privy Purse. In 1879, a
new committee replaced the former.82
The Ottoman government tried to combine the solution of the refugee
problem with the question of control over the periphery and sought to use
them to increase the productivity of thinly populated regions (for
76 Avc›, “The Application of the Tanzimat”.
77 Norman Lewis, Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan, 1800-1980 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1987), 96-98.
78 Kemal H. Karpat, “Ottoman Immigration Policies and Settlement in Palestine,” in Settlers’ Regimes
in Africa and the Arab World, ed. I. Abu-Lughod and B. Abu-Laban (Wilmette: Medina University
Press, 1974), 64-65, Kemal H. Karpat, The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith,
and Community in the Late Ottoman State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 184-85, Justin
McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 (Princeton: Darwin
Press, 1995), 77.
79 Karpat, The Politicization of Islam, 15-19.
80 Mehmet Y›lmaz, “Policy of Immigrant Settlement of the Ottoman State in the 19th Century,” in The
Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, ed. K. Çiçek (Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, 2000), 594.
81 Karpat, Politicization of Islam, p. 184.
82 Y›lmaz, “Policy of Immigrant Settlement,” 598-99.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
establishment of the town.76 Nevertheless, in the process of the settlement
of the Bedouins, only marginal success was recorded.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
152
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
instance, Anatolia) with great success.83 The refugees were settled either
in existing villages, with the assistance of the local population, or in new
settlements in several provinces.84 Let us briefly look at the case of Balqa’
in central Transjordan, where Circassians and Chechens were settled.
Between 1878 and 1884, ‘Amman, Wadi S›r and Jarash were established
and refugees settled there, and between 1901 and 1906 five more villages
were established. By the first years of the twentieth century, several
thousand Circassians resided in Balqa’ and Jarash, with ‘Amman as the
main settlement.85 Prior to the arrival of the refugees, settlements were
rather scarce in Balqa’,86 and the population was mostly comprised of
Bedouins. The Ottoman government tried to kill two birds with one
stone: first, they wished to settle the refugees, and second, they tried to
establish their sovereignty over Transjordan, where the Circassians were
used as governmental agents.87 The two goals were achieved, and several
cases indicate that the Circassians were able to restrain the Bedouins and
enforce Ottoman regulation in regard to land registration and tax
collection.88
In comparison to Transjordan, Palestine was densely populated and in
the midst of a process of expansion of permanently settled regions.89
Nevertheless, in some regions–such as the Negev, parts of the coastal plain,
and the Jordan Valley–conditions similar to those in Transjordan existed.
The Ottoman government tried to combine the solution to the refugee
problem with the question of control over the Bedouins, albeit to a lesser
extent.
Five settlements for the refugees were identified in Palestine: two in
Galilee, two in the Sharon plain, and one in the southern plains. The
Circassian village of Ray_aniyya in the Eastern Upper Galilee was
established sometime between 1876 and 1881,90 possibly because of its
proximity to the Hullah Valley with its large Bedouin population. The
ownership of Ray_aniyya lands is unclear, but it is known that the sultan
83 Karpat, The Politicization of Islam, 185, Malcolm E. Yapp, The Making of the Modern Near East, 17921923 (London: Longman, 1991), 122, 95.
84 Y›lmaz, “Policy of Immigrant Settlement,” 602.
85 Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, 97-98, 107-09, Eugene L. Rogan, Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman
Empire: Transjordan, 1850-1921 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 73-76.
86 Gerber, The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East, 99, Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, 21-23.
87 Zvi Ilan, Attempts at Jewish Settlement in Trans-Jordan, 1871-1947 (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi,
1984), 11-12, 36.
88 Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, 107-09, Rogan, Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire, 73-76,
94.
89 Kark, “Landownership and Spatial Change,” 4-5.
90 Zah_r Ghan_’m and ‘Abd al-Lat_f Ghan_’m, The District of Acre in the Time of Ottoman Reforms
(Beirut: Mu‘asasat al-Dir_s_t al-Filastiniyya, 1999), 174-75, Lewis, Nomads and Settlers.
153
91
92
93
94
95
Palestine Exploration Fund Archive Website, London.
Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, 117.
Havazeleth, 16 January 1887 (in Hebrew).
Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, 117.
Zvi Ilan, “Turkmen, Circassians and Bosnians in the Northern Sharon,” in HaSharon between Yarkon
and Karmel, ed. D. Grossman (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University and Ministry of Defence Publishing
House, 1990), 280-83.
96 Ghan_’m and Ghan_’m, The District of Acre in the Time of Ottoman Reforms, 174-75, Lewis, Nomads and
Settlers, 117.Ghan_’m and Ghan_’m, District of Acre, pp. 174-175; Lewis, Nomads and Settlers, p. 117.
97 Ilan, “Turkmen, Circassians and Bosnians,” 280-83.
98 Ibid., 280.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
had four tracts comprised of 283 dunam in nearby ‘Alma. In the PEF map of
1880, the site of Ray_aniyya is called Burak ‘Alma;91 thus, it is likely that
the village was built on the ‘Alma lands of the sultan. The Circassian village
of Kafr Kama in the Lower Galilee was probably established around the
same time,92 but unlike for Ray_aniyya, we found no connection to the
lands of the sultan. Kafr Kama was located in the vicinity of two other
regions where Bedouins were active, in the northern Jordan Valley and the
Jezreel Valley, and it is possible that its location was determined
accordingly. The Circassians were employed, inter alia, in the government
service and in road construction around Tiberias.93
In the early 1880s, a group of Bosnian refugees settled in two locations
in the northern Sharon. Exhausted by fever, the refugees deserted those
two spots, and some settled in the village of Yamün in Samaria, while
others were settled in 1884 in the ruins of Roman Caesarea,94 where
Abdülhamid II had purchased 23,704 dunam at an unknown date. Further
plans to settle more refugees in Caesarea did not materialize.95 Not far from
Caesarea, another village was established, known as Khirbat al-Sarkas (lit.
“Ruins of the Circassians”), or al-Ghaba. The date of establishment is
unknown, but it was prior to 1894,96 probably on a çiftlik of 605 dunam,
whose date of purchase is also unknown. The village was deserted before
the 1930s, when it was resettled by Palestinian peasants. Two of the
refugees from that region were appointed müdürs of Caesarea,97 in
accordance with the pattern common in Transjordan.
The story of the fifth village, Zayta, is still unclear. According to Ilan, in
1908/9 a group of Circassian families left the Caucasus. On their way, they
bullied the Jewish colony of Qastina (Be’er Tuvia), extorting money.
Finally, they settled in Zayta, between Hebron and Gaza, but deserted it
after a year or two because they fell ill with fever.98 Grossman, on the other
hand, found no other evidence for the Circassian settlement in this place.
He claims that no cases of fever are known in this part of the country, and it
is more likely that the Circassians tried to settle in another place bearing the
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
154
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
same name in the Sharon plain.99 However, assuming that the Circassians
did try to settle in the southern Zayta, this matches the pattern seen in
other refugee settlements: the sultan possessed 14,122 dunam purchased
in 1888 and 1908 in that location. Bedouins roamed this region and in
cases of drought, as in 1909/10, raided the fields of Qastina.100 Therefore,
it is reasonable to assume that this group of Circassians left the Caucasus
prior to the dethronement of Abdülhamid II and tried to settle on this land.
as part of the sultan’s policy to settle loyal Muslim elements in order to
restrain Bedouin activity.
Attempts to settle refugees in Palestine were limited and mostly
unsuccessful. The few attempts which were made are similar to the
patterns found in Transjordan: all settlements were established in internal
frontier zones–that is, in proximity to areas where Bedouins were
active–and some cases indicate that the Ottomans tried to recruit the
refugees to their service. Three of the settlements–Caesarea, Khirbat alSarkas and Zayta–were established on the private lands of Abdülhamid II,
and it is likely that Ray_aniyya was connected to the lands of the sultan too.
We were not able to find out whether the settlements in Transjordan were
established on the private lands of Abdülhamid II, but in the Palestinian
context it is clear that the sultan used his personal assets as an instrument
to solve the refugees problem in the empire.
Control over the lands
Yet another use of the private lands of Abdülhamid II was intended to
strengthen Ottoman control over the lands vis-à-vis foreigners whose
involvement in the empire gradually increased. In the 1850s, the
Ottomans began to encourage foreign immigration in order to increase
agricultural productivity. The above-mentioned land laws and regulations
enabled foreign subjects to immigrate into the empire. In Palestine, fifty
western agricultural settlements and a hundred urban neighborhoods had
been established by 1914.101 Afraid of the increasing influence of
foreigners within the empire and the weakening control over the provinces,
the Ottoman government tried to limit immigration. The laws and political
pressure prevented any vigorous action by the Ottomans; therefore, they
tried indirect solutions. First, Muslims were settled on free lands, so that
99 David Grossman, Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine: Distribution and
Population Density during the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Period (Jerusalem: Magnes Press,
2004), 70-71.
100 Braslavsky, Did You Know the Country? , 108, 250.
101 Karpat, “Ottoman Immigration Policies and Settlement in Palestine,” 58-64, Kark, “Changing
Patterns of Landownership in Nineteenth Century Palestine,” 359.
155
102 Karpat, The Politicization of Islam, 95.
103 Kark, “Land Acquisition and New Agricultural Settlement,” 184-92, Karpat, “Ottoman Immigration
Policies and Settlement in Palestine,” 71-72, Avner Levy, “Jewish Immigration into Eretz-Israel
according to the Documents of ‘Ali Akram, Mutasarrif of Jerusalem.,” Cathedra, no. 12 (1979): 16774, Gerber, Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem, 12.
104 Cipher telegram from the secretariat of the mutasarr›fl›k of Jerusalem, to the Ministry of Interior,
‹stanbul [n.d.], ISA, RG 83, no. 11.
105 Kushner, A Governor in Jerusalem, 136, and especially n. 14.
106 Ruth Kark, “Acquisition of Land in Emeq Hefer, 1800-1930,” in Zev Vilnay’s Jubilee Volume, ed. E.
Shiller (Jerusalem: Ariel, 1984). Secret telegram from the secretariat of the mutasarr›fl›k of Jerusalem
to the First Secretary of the Sultan, ‹stanbul, 3 June 1323 [16 June 1907], ISA, RG 83, no. 20, in
Kushner, A Governor in Jerusalem, 84-86.
107 Telegram from the deputy mutasarr›f of Jerusalem to the mutasarr›f [Ekram Bey], 20 June 1323 [3 July
1907], ISA, RG 83, no. 64.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
the acquisition of these lands by Europeans was prevented.102 Second, the
government tried to limit immigration, especially that of Jews, in order to
prevent the creation of a new national-territorial problem. However,
corruption, inefficiency and the assistance of European councils limited the
success of the Ottoman endeavor.103
The Ottomans were well aware of their inability to employ
administrative and judicial procedures to protect their interests and thus
tried another strategy: the withdrawal of strategically important tracts
from the market by adding them to the private estates of the sultan. An
example for that can be found in the lands of Rafah. This location was
sensitive due to its proximity to the Egyptian border as well as its location
on the coastline, which was considered by the Ottomans as crucial for their
control over Palestine.104 Although several decrees were issued in order to
prevent the sale of those lands, foreign involvement in the region
increased.105 Therefore, beginning in 1904, the sultan purchased five tracts
of 104,651 metric dunam around Rafah. The land mainly consisted of
dunes; therefore, agricultural development does not seem to be the reason
behind the purchase. A more likely reason is the strategic value of the lands
and the interest of foreigners in the region.
A similar policy can be found around Wad› al-_awarith in the central
Sharon plain. The government prevented two Zionist organizations which
tried to purchase the lands of Wad› al-_awarith in 1890 and 1904 from
doing so. In June of 1907, Ekram Bey expressed his fear of a British-Zionist
conspiracy intending to purchase the land and turn it into a military harbor
between Egypt and Cyprus,106 both under British control at that time. In
July of the same year, his deputy described the region and its environs and
mentioned the archaeological sites in Sebastia, Qalansawa, Qaqün and
Umm Khalid.107 It is not clear why those specific points were mentioned,
but it is possible that following the German attempt to settle in Caesarea
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
156
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
under the disguise of an archaeological survey,108 the Ottomans were afraid
of a similar endeavor around Wad› al-_awarith. In any case, some locations
mentioned in the deputy’s telegram were purchased by the sultan: 972
dunam in Wad› al-_awarith itself, 105 dunam to its south in modern-day
Netanya, 859 dunam in Qaqün, and 312 in Qalansawa. However, since we
do not know the date of the purchase of those tracts, we cannot determine
whether it was related to the alleged conspiracy.
This attempt is also reflected in other places along the coastline. In
Palestine, there are only a handful of natural harbors, three of which were
in the cities of Acre, Haifa and Jaffa, and hence not likely to be taken over by
foreigners. The sultan purchased the other three harbors: 2,941 metric
dunam were registered in ‘Atl›t, 845 in Tantüra, and 23,704 in Ceasarea.
Similarly to what happened in Wad› al-_awarith and Rafah, in Caesarea the
Ottomans prevented attempts to purchase the land, in this case by
Germans and Jews.109 The circumstantial evidence suggests that the
location of the private lands of Abdülhamid II along the Mediterranean
coast and the strategic interests of the Ottoman Empires were intertwined.
The Ottomans were afraid of foreign control over the coastline, especially
around natural harbors, and tried to prevent it. It is worth mentioning that
the sultan did not purchase any other tracts on the coastline itself, except
for the above-mentioned. Other tracts along the coastal plain such as
Kabara are located some distance from the seashore. Therefore, it seems
that the private lands of the sultan were part of his efforts to strengthen
Ottoman control over Palestine and to prevent potential intervention, or
invasion, by foreigners.
Conclusion
During the reign of Abdülhamid II, the Ottoman Empire had to face
growing threats to its existence from both internal and external factors. The
empire employed a large variety of measures in order to secure its control
over the state as a whole and over Palestine in particular. Reforms in the
military and the administration, a new ideology, the expansion of the
education system, and the modernization of the state were all aimed at the
survival of the empire.
Abdülhamid II continued with these endeavors, but did not confine
himself to the measures and methods set by his predecessors. A major
innovation presented by the sultan was his purchase of private lands and
108 Ever HaDani (Aharon Feldman) Hadera, 1891-1951, Sixty Years of History (Tel Aviv: Massada, 1951),
60.
109 Havazeleth, 12 July 1878 (in Hebrew). Also see, Ilan, “Turkmen, Circassians and Bosnians,” 282.
157
Aftermath
From the establishment of the Turkish Republic to the 1950s, the question
of the lands of the late sultan emerged in several regions of the former
Ottoman Empire, especially in Turkey, when his legal heirs tried once more
to reassert their rights over the inheritance.110 In Israel, the Attorney
General believed that no place for foreign economic interests should be
allowed in the newly established state and in 1950 decided that
negotiations with the heirs would not be conducted.111 The long-running
110 See, Cemil Koçak, II. Abdülhamid’in Miras› (‹stanbul: ARBA, 1990).
111 The discussion concerning the attitude of the State of Israel can be found in ISA, RG43, box 5439,
file 310.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
their utilization for his personal purposes. The lands were registered in his
name and administered by the Ministry of the Estates of the Sultan.
Employing the provincial administration, the sultan was able to purchase
large tracts and to use them to serve his imperial as well as personal interests.
The lands were administered with the help of modern measures–such as
mapping, agricultural planning, and engineering–and the fortune created by
these estates was used to strengthen his position in opposition to the
bureaucracy and to improve his image among the subjects.
Simultaneously, the sultan used the lands for various imperial
purposes. We have discussed three problems challenging Ottoman rule
over Palestine: the lawlessness of the Bedouins, the settlement of Muslim
refugees, and the control over lands in which foreigners were interested.
The government tried to find holistic solutions and sometimes tried to
solve more that one problem at the same time. The private lands of the
sultan were employed as a powerful instrument to that end. Lands which
unwanted persons tried to purchase were added to the estates of the sultan
and, thus, withdrawn from the market. Refugees and Bedouins were
settled on the same lands, so that ‹stanbul’s control over these regions was
reasserted. Admittedly, the private lands were not the only instrument
employed by the Ottomans to solve the above-mentioned problems. Not
all refugees were settled on imperial çiftlik lands; Bedouins were settled on
those lands around Baysan, but hardly in the Negev; and the bureaucracy
tried to prevent foreigners from purchasing land with the help of decrees,
as evident from the Ottoman attempt to limit Zionist activity. However, in
this paper we have demonstrated that the private lands were integrated into
the general attempt of the government and the sultan to solve the problems
of control in Palestine; land purchases and ownership constituted one of
the strategies that enabled the rulers to stabilize their control over the
country at a time of growing threats.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
158
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
judicial case concerning the ownership over the lands under Israeli rule was
completed with this decision. Nevertheless, the effects of the affair on the
history of Palestine after Abdülhamid II were of much importance.
Following the dethronement of Abdülhamid II, the Young Turks
confiscated his private lands and attached them to the state domain. After
the British occupation of Palestine in 1918, the government conducted a
systematic survey and registration of the lands. Çiftlik lands were registered
as state domain.112 Such vast tracts without legal proprietors attracted the
attention of Zionist organizations who tried to purchase the lands and
establish new settlements beginning in the period of the Young Turks and
during the British Mandate. During those decades, Zionist organizations
were able to purchase a significant share of the former çiftlik lands,
especially in the Hullah Valley, around Baysan and in the Sharon plain.113
Apparently, one of the goals which led Abdülhamid II to purchase lands
in Palestine was to prevent foreign appropriation, by withdrawing available
lands from the market. Ironically, after the dethronement of the sultan, the
creation of the vast çiftlik lands resulted in the transfer of those lands back
onto the market and determined the liquid inventory of lands in the
country. Taking advantage of those lands, Zionist organizations were able
to establish a permanent Jewish presence in several border regions and thus
had a significant role in determining the borders of the Jewish state in the
United Nations’ resolution of 29 November 1947 on the partition of
Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish state.
Bibliography
‘_rif al-‘_rif History of Beersheba and Her Tribes: Madb_li Press, 1999.
Agmon, Iris. “The Bedouin Tribes of the Hula and Baysan Valleys at the End of Ottoman Rule.” Cathedra,
no. 45 (September 1987): 87-102.
——. “The Development of Palestine’s Foreign Trade, 1879-1914: Economic and Social Aspects.” M. A.
Thesis, University of Haifa, 1984.
Aran, Michael. “Potash Concession in the Dead Sea.” In The Dead Sea and Judean Desert, edited by M.
Naor, 76-87. Jerusalem: Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1990.
Avc›, Yasemin. “The Application of the Tanzimat in the Desert: Ottoman Central Government and the
Bedouins in Southern Palestine.” Paper presented at the International Conference on the Application
of the Tanzimat Reforms in Various Regions of the Ottoman Empire, Haifa, Israel, June 2007.
112 The similarity between the map of the private lands of Abdülhamid II and the state domain in 1936
is striking; a large portion of the lands marked as state domain are former çiftliks. See:
Administration map (State domain and forest reserves), 1:250,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1936,
Mt. Scopus map library 900 B(Adm) – 61.
113 Palestine, Land in Jewish Possession (as of 30.6.1947), 1:250,000, J. Weitz and Z. Liphshitz on behalf
of the Jewish Agency, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1947, Mt. Scopus map library, KB 900B (ADM) 34.
159
Bädeker, Karl. Palästina und Syrien: Handbuch für Reisende. Leipzig: Karl Bädeker, 1904.
Bailey, Clinton. “The Ottomans and the Bedouin Tribes of the Negev.” In Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914:
Studies in Economic and Social History, edited by G. Gilbar, 321-32. Leiden: Brill, 1990.
Ben-Arieh, Yehoshua. “The Population of the Large Towns in Palestine during the First Eighty Years of
the Nineteenth Century, according to Western Sources.” In Studies on Palestine on the Ottoman
Period, edited by M. Ma’oz, 49-69. Jerusalem: Magnes Press and Yad Yizhak Ben-Zvi, 1975.
——. “The Population of the Sandjak Acre in the 1870s.” Shalem, no. 4 (1984): 306-28.
——. “The Sanjaq Jerusalem in the 1870s.” Cathedra, no. 36 (June 1985): 73-122.
Ben-David, Joseph. “The Negev Bedouins: From Nomadism to Agriculture.” In The Land that Became
Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, edited by Ruth Kark, 181-95. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989.
Ben Arieh, Yehoshua, and Arnon Golan. “Sub-Districts and Settlements of the Sanjaq of Nablus in the
Nineteenth Century.” Eretz Israel, no. 17 (1965): 38-65.
Berman, Mildred. “The Evolution of Beersheba as an Urban Center.” Annals of the Association of American
Geographers 55 (1965): 315-17.
Braslavsky, Yoseph. Did You Know the Country? Vol. 2. Tel Aviv: HaKibutz HaMeuchad, 1956.
Clay, Christopher. Gold for the Sultan: Western Bankers and Ottoman Finance, 1856-1881. London: I. B.
Tauris, 2000.
Doukhan, Moses J. “Land Tenure.” In Economic Organization of Palestine, edited by Sa’id B. Himadeh, 73107. Beirut: American Press, 1938.
Ener, Mine. “Religious Prerogatives and Policing the Poor in Two Ottoman Contexts.” Journal of
Interdisciplinary History 35 (2005): 501-11.
Ever HaDani (Aharon Feldman) Hadera, 1891-1951, Sixty Years of History. Tel Aviv: Massada, 1951.
Gavish, D., and Ruth Kark. “The Cadastral Mapping of Palestine, 1858-1928.” The Geographic Journal, no.
159 (1993): 70-80.
Gazit, Dan. “Sedentary Processes in the Besor Region in the Age of Sultan Abdelhamid II.” In Jerusalem
and Eretz Israel, edited by J. Schwartz, 183-86. Tel Aviv: Eretz Israel Museum, 2000.
Gerber, Haim. Ottoman Rule in Jerusalem, 1890-1914. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz, 1985.
——. The Social Origins of the Modern Middle East. London: Mansell, 1987.
Ghan_’m, Zah_r, and ‘Abd al-Lat_f Ghan_’m. The District of Acre in the Time of Ottoman Reforms. Beirut:
Mu‘asasat al-Dir_s_t al-Filastiniyya, 1999.
Grossman, David. Arab Demography and Early Jewish Settlement in Palestine: Distribution and Population
Density during the Late Ottoman and Early Mandate Period. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 2004.
Halperin, H. The Agricultural Legislation in Eretz Israel. Tel Aviv: Hasade Library, 1944.
Ilan, Zvi. Attempts at Jewish Settlement in Trans-Jordan, 1871-1947. Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1984.
——. “Turkmen, Circassians and Bosnians in the Northern Sharon.” In HaSharon between Yarkon and
Karmel, edited by D. Grossman, 279-87. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University and Ministry of Defence
Publishing House, 1990.
‹nalc›k, Halil. “Çiftlik.” In Encyclopedia of Islam, 32-33.
Kana‘ana, Sharif, and Rashad al-Madani. The Destroyed Palestinian Villages, 8: Al-Kawfakha. Bir Zayt: BirZayt University.
Kark, Ruth. “Acquisition of Land in Emeq Hefer, 1800-1930.” In Zev Vilnay’s Jubilee Volume, edited by E.
Shiller, 331-42. Jerusalem: Ariel, 1984.
——. “Changing Patterns of Landownership in Nineteenth Century Palestine: The European Influence.”
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
Avneri, Arie L. The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948. Tel Aviv: Efal,
1982.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
160
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
Journal of Historical Geography 10 (1984): 357-68.
——. “Consequences of the Ottoman Land Law: Agrarian and Privatization Processes in Palestine, 18581918.” In The Application of the Tanzimat Reforms in Various Regions of the Ottoman Empire, edited by
David Kushner, forthcoming.
——. “Land Acquisition and New Agricultural Settlement in Palestine during the Tyomkin Period, 18901892.” Zionism 9 (1984): 179-93.
——. “Landownership and Spatial Change in Nineteenth Century Palestine: An Overview.” In Seminar on
Historical Types of Spatial Organizations: The Transition from Spontaneous to Regulated Spatial
Organisation: Warsaw, 1983.
——. “The Lands of the Sultan: Newly Discovered Ottoman Cadastral Maps in Palestine.” In Eastern
Mediterranean Cartographies, edited by G. Tolias and D. Loupis. Athens: Institute for Neohellenic
Research, 2004.
——. Pioneering Jewish Settlement in the Negev, 1880-1948. Jerusalem: Ariel, 2002.
——. “Transportation in Nineteenth-Century Palestine: Reintroduction of the Wheel.” In The Land that
Became Israel: Studies in Historical Geography, edited by Ruth Kark, 57-76. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1989.
Kark, Ruth, and Haim Gerber. “Land Registry Maps in Palestine during the Ottoman Period.” Cathedra,
no. 22 (January 1992): 113-18.
Karpat, Kemal H. “Ottoman Immigration Policies and Settlement in Palestine.” In Settlers’ Regimes in
Africa and the Arab World, edited by I. Abu-Lughod and B. Abu-Laban, 57-72. Wilmette: Medina
University Press, 1974.
——. The Politicization of Islam: Reconstructing Identity, State, Faith, and Community in the Late Ottoman
State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Koçak, Cemil. II. Abdülhamid’in Miras›. ‹stanbul: ARBA, 1990.
Kushner, David. A Governor in Jerusalem: The City and Province in the Eyes of Ali Ekram Bey, 1906-1908.
Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1995.
——. “The Haifa-Damascus Railway: The British Phase (1890-1902).” Cathedra, no. 55 (1990): 89-109.
Landau, Jacob M. The Hejaz Railway and the Muslim Pilgrimage: A Case of Ottoman Political Propaganda.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1971.
Levy, Avner. “Jewish Immigration into Eretz-Israel according to the Documents of ‘Ali Akram, Mutasarrif
of Jerusalem.” Cathedra, no. 12 (1979).
Lewis, Norman. Nomads and Settlers in Syria and Jordan, 1800-1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1987.
Lunz, A. M. Guide Book More Derech. Jerusalem: Ariel, 1979.
McCarthy, Justin. Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922. Princeton:
Darwin Press, 1995.
Orhonlu, C. “Khaz_ne.” In Encyclopedia of Islam, 1183-86.
The Ottoman Land Code. Translated by F. Ongley. London: William Clowers and Sons, 1892.
Özbek, Nadir. “Imperial Gifts and Sultanic Legitimation during the Late Ottoman Empire, 1876-1909.” In
Poverty and Charity in Middle Eastern Contexts, edited by Michael Bonner, Mine Ener and Amy Singer,
203-20. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2003.
Peirce, Leslie P. The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Pick, Walter Pinhas. “Meisner Pasha and the Construction of Railways in Palestine and Neighboring
Countries.” In Ottoman Palestine, 1800-1914: Studies in Economic and Social History, edited by G. G.
Gilbar, 179-218. Leiden: Brill, 1990.
Rogan, Eugene L. Frontiers of the State in the Late Ottoman Empire: Transjordan, 1850-1921. Cambridge:
161
Schechter, Yitzhak. “Land Registration in Eretz-Israel in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century.”
Cathedra, no. 45 (1985): 147-59.
Schilcher, Linda. “The Grain Economy of Late Ottoman Syria and the Issue of Large-Scale
Commercialization.” In Landholding and Commercial Agriculture in the Middle East, edited by Ça¤lar
Keyder and Faruk Tabak, 173-95. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.
Shaw, Stanford J. The Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. 2 vols. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1976.
Shaw, Stanford J., and Ezel Kural Shaw. The Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. 2 vols. Vol. 2.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Stover, John F. American Railroads. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997.
fiensözen, Vasfi. Osmano¤ullar›’n›n Varl›klar› ve II. Abdülhamid’in Emlaki. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu
Bas›mevi, 1982.
Temperley, Harold. “British Policy towards Parliamentary Rule and Constitution in Turkey (1830-1914).”
Cambridge Historical Journal 4, no. 2 (1933): 156-91.
Terzi, Arzu T. Hazine-i Hassa Nezareti. Ankara: Tarih Kurumu Bas›mevi, 2000.
Veinstein, Gilles. “On the Çiftlik Debate.” In Landholding and Commercial Agriculture in the Middle East,
edited by Ça¤lar Keyder and Faruk Tabak, 35-53. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.
Warburg, Gabriel R. “The Sinai Peninsula Borders, 1906-1947.” Journal of Contemporary History 14, no. 4
(1979): 677-92.
Yapp, Malcolm E. The Making of the Modern Near East, 1792-1923. London: Longman, 1991.
Y›lmaz, Mehmet. “Policy of Immigrant Settlement of the Ottoman State in the 19th Century.” In The
Great Ottoman-Turkish Civilisation, edited by K. Çiçek, 594-608. Ankara: Yeni Türkiye, 2000.
Zitrin, Izhak. History of the Hullah Concession. Ramat Gan: No publisher, 1987.
Zürcher, Erik Jan. “The Ottoman Conscription System, 1844-1914.” International Review of Social History
43 (1998): 437-49.
Appendix: List of the private lands of Abdülhamid II in Palestine
Location
Area
Year
Comments
(metric
dunam)
Sancak Acre
Kaza Safed
1
‘Alma-Jaza’ir
283
2
Dahnüniyya
619
3
Hullah Valley
52,328
4
Al-_usayniyya
7,536
5
Al-J›sh
219
6
Manflüra
2,298
7
Mays al-Jabal
80
8
Al-Shüna
191
Total
63,554
1896-1899 Sum of four tracts
1883
1881
Village in Lebanon, lands in Palestine
1888
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
Cambridge University Press, 1999.
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
162
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
Location
Area
Year
Comments
(metric
dunam)
Kaza Tiberias
9
Al-Dalhamiyya
316
10
_adtha
23
12
Al-_amma
187
13
_att›n
333
13
Kafr Sabt
2,534
14
Samakh
50,512
appears in the records as Dalharnieh
1881-1897 Sum of two tracts; possibly parts of the tracts
are located in Transjordan
15
Tiberias
Total
3,074
56,979
Kaza Acre
16
Na‘m›n
17
Shafa-‘Amar
Total
6,972
1,541
8,513
Kaza Haifa
18
Abü Zurayk
664
19
‘Atl›t
2,941
20
Caesarea
23,704
21
Farsh Iskandar
683
22
Kabara
4,084
23
Khirbat al-Sarkas
605
24
Al-Khurayba
3,738
25
Rushmiyya
1,917
26
Al-Sa‘da
152
27
Tantüra
845
Unidentified
1,072
Total
28
39,333
Sancak Acre - Total
169,451
Sancak Nablus
Nahiye al-Sha‘rawiyya al-Gharbiyya
29
Qaqün
859
30
Wad› al-_awarith
972
31
Zayta
Total
1,994
Kaza Ban› fia‘b
32
Dayr al-Ghaflün
357
33
Kafr fiür
6,064
1884-1892 Sum of six tracts
163
Area
Year
Comments
(metric
dunam)
34
Netanya
105
Identified under that name during the
Mandate Period
35
Qalansawa
Total
312
6,838
Kaza al-_aritha al-Shamaliyya
36
Al-Ashrafiyya
14,704
37
Bashatwa
7,283
1892-1901 Fifteen tracts
1883
38
Baysan
7,817
1883-1902 Four tracts
39
Bayt Qad
1,916
40
Al-B›ra
3,870
41
Danna
8,200
42
Dayr Ghazala
8,661
43
Al-Ghazawiyya
23,894
1883
44
Al-_amra’
10,960
1887
45
Jabbül
4,999
1883
46
Kafr Miflr
6,536
1883
47
Kafra
5,585
1883
48
Kawkab al-Hawa’
4,230
1883
6,987
1883
1883
49
Khan al-A_mar
50
Al-Mafraq
414
51
Muqaybila
3,945
52
Al-Muraflflafl
12,878
53
Al-fiafa
483
54
Al-Sakhina
13,785
55
Al-Samiriyya
577
56
S›r›n
11,669
57
Till al-Shawk
3,676
1883
58
Al-T›ra
4,230
1883
59
Umm ‘Ajra
949
60
Al-Zab‘a
10,145
1883
61
Zalafa
2,481
1883
Total
Two tracts
1883-1884 Three tracts
1883
1883
1883
Two tracts; location uncertain
180,874
Nahiye al-_aritha
62
‘Akrabaniyya
63
Furüsh Bayt Dajan 1,522
529
64
Ghawr al-Far›‘a
68,925
65
Tara
5,563
Total
76,539
Location uncertain
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
Location
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
164
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
Location
Area
Year
Comments
1888
Two tracts
(metric
dunam)
66-68 Unidentified
3,196
Sancak Nablus – total
269,441
Mutasarr›fl›k Jerusalem
Kaza Jaffa
69
Jaffa
98
70
Jar›sha
430
71
Malabis
1,490
72
Al-Mughar
833
73
Qazaza
542
74
Qazaza & Sajad
6,042
1888
Probably part of Qazaza
75
Sajad
6,893
1885
Two tracts
76
Yazür
2,285
Total
1888
1890
1882-1886 Three tracts
18,613
Kaza Gaza & Beersheba
77
‘Awja al-_af›r
604
78
Bayt Jubr›n
191
79
Al-Ghaba
22,975
1904
Location uncertain
80
Al-Jaladiyya
5,795
1887
Tract size according to the 1893 map
81
Kawfakha
8,100
1887
Tract size according to the 1893 map
82
Khan al-Khiflafl
5
83
Makhbar al-Baghl
1,208
84
Al-Mu_arraqa
4,506
1887
Tract size according to the 1893 map
85
Rafa_
44,916
1904
Two tracts
86
Rasm al-Mu_arraqa 92
87
Sodom
58,999
88
Till ‘Arad
38,930
Location unidentified; in the vicinity of
Beersheba
·
89
Till Musiba
9,190
90
Zayta
14,122
91
Unidentified
27,570
Total
1892
1908
1904
Location uncertain
1888-1908 Two tracts
1904
In the vicinity of Rafa_
237,203
Kaza Hebron
92
Bayt Ümar
Total
273
273
Nahiye al-B›ra, Ban› Zayd, Ban› _asan Ban› Malik, Ban› ‘Arqüb
93
‘Alar
246
94
‘Anata
18,483
165
Area
Year
Comments
(metric
dunam)
95
Bayt Ishwa‘
169
96
Bayt Itab
4,000
97
Bayt fiafafa
3
98
Al-Khadr
127
99
Qaryat al-‘Inab
211
Total
23,239
Nahiye al-Wadiyya, Ban› S›lim
100
Abü Khurs
947
101
Fashkha
1,195
102
_ajla
30,327
1888-1904 Three tracts, combined with ‘Ain _ajla
103
Jericho
8,505
1888-1904 Forty-four unidentified tracts around Jericho
104
Jericho çiftlik
38,362
105
Al-Juhayr
1,838
106
Al-Katar
3,051
107
Al-Maydan
159
108
Potash Concession 9,905
1890-1893 Five tracts
1900
1900
1890-1902 Four tracts
1893
Location uncertain
Identified in the Mandate period with the
landtrasferred to the Potash Company at the
Dead Sea
109
Qalya
110
Qa_r al-Nimr
65
1890
111
Al-Samta
1,617
1888
112
Al-Shiqaq
174
1893
113
Al-Suwayd
15,623
1900
114
Umm al-Tawab›n
95
1893
115
Al-Was›l
1,251
Total
888
Two tracts
1888-1890 Three tracts
114,002
Jerusalem – Total
393,330
Palestine – Total
832,222
The table was prepared by Fischel and Kark
Sources: Copies of Registers from the tapu, ISA, RG 22, file 3335, box 11; Statement Prepared with
References to List of Lands Alleged to be Claimed by Heirs of Sultan Abdul Hamid Accompanied by
Chief Secretary’s Letter (letter missing), 20 June 1936, ISA, RG 22, file 3335 box 11; A letter from the
Turkish Embassy in London, 27 April 1936, Hebrew translation, no original, ISA, RG 2, file L/109/36;
Schedule of the Sultan Lands in the Jerusalem District, Ottoman Turkish transliterated into Latin
script, Central Zionist Archive (CZA), RG A202, file 143; Schedule of Lands and Properties of Sultan
Abdul Hamid within the Jurisdiction of the Land Court of Haifa, ISA, RG 3, file 12/27, box 707;
Telegram from the Commissioner for Lands and Surveys, Jerusalem, to the Chief Secretary
(Government of Palestine?), Jerusalem, 9 December 1936, ISA, RG 2, file L/109/36; Letters to the
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
Location
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON TURKEY
166
Roy S. Fischel and Ruth Kark
High Commissioner for Palestine, Jerusalem, 29 July 1943, to which attached statements of the heirs
as submitted to the land courts of Nablus, Jaffa and Haifa on 20 July 1943, ISA, RG 2, file L/218/33;
a letter from the Turkish embassador in London to the minister of foreign affairs, London, 26
February 1936, to which attached a list of the assets of Abdülhamid II, ISA, RG 2, files L/218/33,
L/109/36, French original and Hebrew translation; Copy of the tapu registration of Hajla, Jericho,
Fashkha and ‘Alma, Kark Archive; Copy of the tapu registration of ‘Alma, Husayniyya, Mansura,
Jaladiyya, Kawfakha, Muharraqa and Rasm-Muharraqa, ISA, RG 22, file 3335, box 11; Register of
Immovable Property Transferred from the Private Sultanic Wakfs, English translation of a missing
Turkish original, CZA, file 525/7433; Secret and Urgent Telegram to the Director of Land Registration
of Palestine, Jerusalem, 12 April 1946, including an appendix with a list of the claimed lands in the
vicinity of Jerusalem, ISA, RG 3, file 12/27, box 707; Confidential Telegram from J. Hathorn Hall,
Officer administering the Government of Palestine, Jerusalem, to the Attorney General and the
Commissioner for Lands and Surveys, Jerusalem, 16 February 1937, includes the list of lands claimed
by the heirs of Abdülhamid II still citizens of Turkey, ISA, RG 3, file 12/29, box 707; Ben-Arieh and
Golan, “Sandjak Nablus”; Ben-Arieh, “Sanjak Acre”; Ben-Arieh, “Sanjak Jerusalem”; Palestine, Index
to Villages & Settlements, State Domain, 1:250,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 197, Mt. Scopus map
Library, KB 900 B (ADM)-46 [1947(1)]; Palestine, Administration Map (State domain and forest
reserves), 1:250,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1936, Mt. Scopus map library 900 B(ADM)-61; Maps
of Lands Arrangement of the çiftliks of Muharraqa, Kawfakha and Jaladiyya; Bethlehem, 11,
1:100,000, F. J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1939, Mt. Scopus map library, BB 900C [1a]
1939/1; Gaza, 9, 1:100,000, F. J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1936, Mt. Scopus map library, BB
900C [1a] 1936/1; Hebron, 10, 1:100,000, F. J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1939, Mt. Scopus
map library, BB 900C [1a] 1939/5; Beersheba, 11 new, 1:100,000, F.J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine,
Jaffa, 1939, Mt. Scopus map library, BB 900C [1a] 1939/4; Rafah, 10 new, 1:100,000, F. J. Salmon,
Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1938, Mt. Scopus map library, BB 900C [1a] 1938/2; Haifa, 1, 1:100,000, F.
J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1941, Mt. Scopus map library, BB 900C [1a] 1941/1; Safad, 2,
1:100,000, F. J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1935, Mt. Scopus map library, BB 900C [1] 1935/1;
Zikhron Ya’akov, 3, 1:100,000, F. J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1938, Mt. Scopus map library,
BB 900C [1] 1938/3; Beisan, 4, 1:100,000, F. J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1937, Mt. Scopus
map library, BB 900C [1] 1937/1; Nablus, 6, 1:100,000, F. J. Salmon, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1936,
Mt. Scopus map library, BB 900C [1] 1937/1; Jerusalem, 8, 1:100,000, F. J. Salmon, Survey of
Palestine, Jaffa, 1939, Mt. Scopus map library, BB 900C [1] 1939/1; Jericho, Topocadastral series,
Sheet 19-14, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library, AD 900 A[1] 1942/4;
Esh Shune, Topocadastral series, Sheet 20-14, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1948, Mt. Scopus
map library, AD 900 A[1] 1948; Wadi el Qilt, Topocadastral series, Sheet 18-13, 1:20,000, Survey of
Palestine, Jaffa, 1941, Mt. Scopus map library, AD 900 A[1] 1941; Kallia, Topocadastral series, Sheet
19-13, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library, AD 900 A[1] 1942; Sweime,
Topocadastral series, Sheet 20-13, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1948, Mt. Scopus map library,
AD 900 A[1] 1948; Wadi el Fari’a, Topocadastral series, Sheet 19-17, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine,
Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library, AD 900 A[1] 1942/4; Kh. Es Samra, Topocadastral series, Sheet
19-18, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1948, Mt. Scopus map library, AD 900 A[1] 1948; Bardala,
Topocadastral series, Sheet 19/20-19, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map
library, AD 900 A[1] 1942; Es Samiriya, Topocadastral series, Sheet 19-20, 1:20,000, Survey of
Palestine, Jaffa, 1948, Mt. Scopus map library, AD 900 A[1] 1948; Es Safa, Topocadastral series, Sheet
20-20, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1942, Mt. Scopus map library, AD 900 A[1] 1942/2; Biesan,
Topocadastral series, Sheet 19-21, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1949, Mt. Scopus map library,
AD 900 A[1] 1949; Sirin, Topocadastral series, Sheet 19-22, 1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1940,
Mt. Scopus map library, AD 900 A[1] 1940/12; Jisr el Majami, Topocadastral series, Sheet 20-22,
1:20,000, Survey of Palestine, Jaffa, 1940, Mt. Scopus map library, AD 900 A[1] 1940/12; Palestine
Remembered – The Home of all Ethnically Cleansed Palestinians, Lists of Destroyed Villages,
http://palestineremembered.com; Zochrot – The Nakba (in Hebrew), Map of the Destroyed Villages
of 1948, http://www.nakbainhebrew1948; Palestine Exploration Fund Archive Web-site.