Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/29/2019 HamiltonReviewMuslims Under Latin Rule 1100_1300
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hamiltonreviewmuslims-under-latin-rule-11001300 1/3
Review: [untitled]
Author(s): Bernard HamiltonReviewed work(s):
Muslims under Latin Rule 1100-1300 by James M. PowellSource: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 55,No. 1 (1992), pp. 126-127Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of School of Oriental and African StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/620485
Accessed: 08/09/2009 06:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
School of Oriental and African Studies and Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
http://www.jstor.org
7/29/2019 HamiltonReviewMuslims Under Latin Rule 1100_1300
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hamiltonreviewmuslims-under-latin-rule-11001300 2/3
1 26 REVIEWS26 REVIEWS
it at somestage.He offersa convincingriticismof the view of Voobusthat the Ethiopicwastranslatedrom a Syriacversion,and his ownconclusions ie in with those that have been
reachedby a numberof earlierscholars: heEthiopicversion was clearly made from theGreek,butthe evidenceprovidedbythe way inwhich somenamesandloanwordswere trans-cribed particularlyheappearance f correctlyspelled Aramaic words indicates that thetranslators had some basic knowledge ofAramaic,which was probablyderived fromAramaic-speakingews;Syriacnfluence n theGeiez text is likely,not necessarily nly at thetime of the original translation;occasionalcorrectionof the Geieztext on the basis of aCoptic text is a fair possibility; here is clearinfluence rom Arabicsources fromthe four-
teenthcenturyonwards the Cc, Cd, D and Etexts), and Arabic may also have been themediumby whichGreek, Syriac,and CopticelementsnfluencedheGeiez text.
Of the remainingmaterial n PartI, it mustsufficehereto refer o the surveyof EthiopianService Books (? 15), whose numerous pre-scribedreadingsprovideevidence or substan-tial portionsof the textof thesynopticgospels.Zuurmond otes thatquantitivelyhecontribu-tion of theServiceBooks o the textual riticismof thegospels s huge,but thatqualitativelyt ispoor. Thesurvey tself s very helpful,but it isnot clearhow far the textualevidenceof the
ServiceBooks wouldrepaydetailed nvestiga-tion.
Zuurmond'sedition of Mark (Part II) isbasedon twenty-fourmanuscripts. hese havebeenchosen out of thesometwo hundred ndfifty manuscripts f the gospels that he hasexaminedand classified on the basis of pro-viding heevidenceof all manuscriptsown tothe early ifteenth enturyand of a selectionoflatermanuscripts.npractice e hasincluded llmanuscriptsf the A andB groupsdownto themiddleof the fifteenth entury nd,whereposs-ible, threerepresentativesf each of the latergroups butnoneof theM group).Hisintention
is to present he oldestform of the text that isavailable o us, andaccordingly e has chosenthe Aa-textas his base,and AbbaGarima asthe best representative f this-as we havealreadynoted. He follows Abba Garima Iexceptwhere otherrepresentativesf the Aa-text (AbbaGarima II,the LalibalaMS)clearlyhave a superior eading,and onlyoccasionallydoes his textdiffer rom he Aa-text.All textualvariants with some imited xceptions of themanuscriptshat have been used have beenrecorded n the apparatus,but orthographicandgrammaticalariants andthenonlyof theoldermanuscripts have beenrelegated o anappendix.
All thisseemseminently ensible nd correct.One may, however, wonder whetherZuurmond'sdecision to standardize he or-thographyof his base-manuscript,nd of theevidence n theapparatus,argelyaccording oDillman's Lexicon and Grammar was alsocorrect.There is admittedlya problemherewhichadmitsof no easysolution.The orthogra-phy of all the manuscripts f the Aa group isarchaic,andin additionAbbaGarima has anumberof peculiaritiesf its own, such as thealmostconsistentappearance f 's ' in initial
it at somestage.He offersa convincingriticismof the view of Voobusthat the Ethiopicwastranslatedrom a Syriacversion,and his ownconclusions ie in with those that have been
reachedby a numberof earlierscholars: heEthiopicversion was clearly made from theGreek,butthe evidenceprovidedbythe way inwhich somenamesandloanwordswere trans-cribed particularlyheappearance f correctlyspelled Aramaic words indicates that thetranslators had some basic knowledge ofAramaic,which was probablyderived fromAramaic-speakingews;Syriacnfluence n theGeiez text is likely,not necessarily nly at thetime of the original translation;occasionalcorrectionof the Geieztext on the basis of aCoptic text is a fair possibility; here is clearinfluence rom Arabicsources fromthe four-
teenthcenturyonwards the Cc, Cd, D and Etexts), and Arabic may also have been themediumby whichGreek, Syriac,and CopticelementsnfluencedheGeiez text.
Of the remainingmaterial n PartI, it mustsufficehereto refer o the surveyof EthiopianService Books (? 15), whose numerous pre-scribedreadingsprovideevidence or substan-tial portionsof the textof thesynopticgospels.Zuurmond otes thatquantitivelyhecontribu-tion of theServiceBooks o the textual riticismof thegospels s huge,but thatqualitativelyt ispoor. Thesurvey tself s very helpful,but it isnot clearhow far the textualevidenceof the
ServiceBooks wouldrepaydetailed nvestiga-tion.
Zuurmond'sedition of Mark (Part II) isbasedon twenty-fourmanuscripts. hese havebeenchosen out of thesometwo hundred ndfifty manuscripts f the gospels that he hasexaminedand classified on the basis of pro-viding heevidenceof all manuscriptsown tothe early ifteenth enturyand of a selectionoflatermanuscripts.npractice e hasincluded llmanuscriptsf the A andB groupsdownto themiddleof the fifteenth entury nd,whereposs-ible, threerepresentativesf each of the latergroups butnoneof theM group).Hisintention
is to present he oldestform of the text that isavailable o us, andaccordingly e has chosenthe Aa-textas his base,and AbbaGarima asthe best representative f this-as we havealreadynoted. He follows Abba Garima Iexceptwhere otherrepresentativesf the Aa-text (AbbaGarima II,the LalibalaMS)clearlyhave a superior eading,and onlyoccasionallydoes his textdiffer rom he Aa-text.All textualvariants with some imited xceptions of themanuscriptshat have been used have beenrecorded n the apparatus,but orthographicandgrammaticalariants andthenonlyof theoldermanuscripts have beenrelegated o anappendix.
All thisseemseminently ensible nd correct.One may, however, wonder whetherZuurmond'sdecision to standardize he or-thographyof his base-manuscript,nd of theevidence n theapparatus,argelyaccording oDillman's Lexicon and Grammar was alsocorrect.There is admittedlya problemherewhichadmitsof no easysolution.The orthogra-phy of all the manuscripts f the Aa group isarchaic,andin additionAbbaGarima has anumberof peculiaritiesf its own, such as thealmostconsistentappearance f 's ' in initial
position nsteadof' i ' before hesemivowel y '(hencesuchformsasXyasus for Iyasus) or therelatedphenomenon f theoccurrencef formslikenaboyfornabEy. tmightbe argued hat the
occurrenceof ' non-standard' orthographywouldbe anunnecessaryourceof confusion othose who use the edition. However, he veryconcept of a standardorthography,which isrepresented y Dillmann, s problematic, ndstandardization of orthography inevitablyresults n an elementof artificiality.
In the introductorysections of Part IIZuurmondoutlines the procedureshe hasfollowed in the preparationof the edition(??21-26)and gives brief descriptionsof themanuscriptse has used(?27). (A fulllist of allgospelmanuscriptss given n section18of PartI.) Part II also includesan Epilogue in which
the Ethiopicversion n its oldestavaiiable orm(the Aa text) has been collated against theGreek,andsomecommentsadded.There s asingle ndexto both partsof thevolume.
Therearea number f mistakes ndmisprintsin the English ext, but on the otherhand suchchecks as it has been possible to undertakeindicate that the Ethiopicevidencehas beenrecordedaccurately. The Ethiopichas beencopiedby hand,notprinted.)Overallhere s noquestionbutthat thisvolumerepresents verysubstantial cholarlyachievement.Both thoseconcernedwith the textual riticism f the NewTestamentand thoseconcernedwith Ethiopic
studieswill ook forwardwith mpatienceo thepublicationof the editions of Matthew andLuke.
MICHAEL A. KNIBB
JAMESM . POWELL ed : MuslimsunderLatin rule 1100-1300. [xi]221 pp. Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1990. $29.95.
As a resultof theirmilitary uccesses n theeleventh century, Western Christiansfound
themselves ruling over substantial Muslimpopulationsn the Iberianpeninsula, icilyandthe Crusader tates.Thiscollection f essaysbyadistinguishedroupofspecialistsxamines heways n which he Catholicworldcame o termswith hissituation. osephF. O'Callaghan ealswith Muslims n Castileand Portugal,aboutwhom littlehas been writtenbefore,RobertI.Burns's essay on Muslims in the crown ofAragon n the thirteenth entury s a masterlyresume of his earlier work; David S. H.Abulafia examines the decline of Islam inthirteenth-centuryicily;BenjaminZ. Kedarconsidersa hithertoratherneglected spect ofcrusading istory, heMuslimsof the FrankishEast, and James M. Powell writesabout thepapal attitude to Muslims in these frontiercommunities. part romB. Z. Kedar'sCrusadeand mission (Princeton, 1984),whichdealswiththe wholerangeof Western esponsesowardsIslamduring he medieval enturies,here s nosimilar comparativestudy of the place ofMuslims n Catholicfrontiersocietiesin thecentralMiddleAges.
Treatmentof Muslims in those societiesvariedverygreatly,but it isatrocitieswhich tillcontinue o be most widelyreportedn popular
position nsteadof' i ' before hesemivowel y '(hencesuchformsasXyasus for Iyasus) or therelatedphenomenon f theoccurrencef formslikenaboyfornabEy. tmightbe argued hat the
occurrenceof ' non-standard' orthographywouldbe anunnecessaryourceof confusion othose who use the edition. However, he veryconcept of a standardorthography,which isrepresented y Dillmann, s problematic, ndstandardization of orthography inevitablyresults n an elementof artificiality.
In the introductorysections of Part IIZuurmondoutlines the procedureshe hasfollowed in the preparationof the edition(??21-26)and gives brief descriptionsof themanuscriptse has used(?27). (A fulllist of allgospelmanuscriptss given n section18of PartI.) Part II also includesan Epilogue in which
the Ethiopicversion n its oldestavaiiable orm(the Aa text) has been collated against theGreek,andsomecommentsadded.There s asingle ndexto both partsof thevolume.
Therearea number f mistakes ndmisprintsin the English ext, but on the otherhand suchchecks as it has been possible to undertakeindicate that the Ethiopicevidencehas beenrecordedaccurately. The Ethiopichas beencopiedby hand,notprinted.)Overallhere s noquestionbutthat thisvolumerepresents verysubstantial cholarlyachievement.Both thoseconcernedwith the textual riticism f the NewTestamentand thoseconcernedwith Ethiopic
studieswill ook forwardwith mpatienceo thepublicationof the editions of Matthew andLuke.
MICHAEL A. KNIBB
JAMESM . POWELL ed : MuslimsunderLatin rule 1100-1300. [xi]221 pp. Princeton, N.J.: PrincetonUniversity Press, 1990. $29.95.
As a resultof theirmilitary uccesses n theeleventh century, Western Christiansfound
themselves ruling over substantial Muslimpopulationsn the Iberianpeninsula, icilyandthe Crusader tates.Thiscollection f essaysbyadistinguishedroupofspecialistsxamines heways n which he Catholicworldcame o termswith hissituation. osephF. O'Callaghan ealswith Muslims n Castileand Portugal,aboutwhom littlehas been writtenbefore,RobertI.Burns's essay on Muslims in the crown ofAragon n the thirteenth entury s a masterlyresume of his earlier work; David S. H.Abulafia examines the decline of Islam inthirteenth-centuryicily;BenjaminZ. Kedarconsidersa hithertoratherneglected spect ofcrusading istory, heMuslimsof the FrankishEast, and James M. Powell writesabout thepapal attitude to Muslims in these frontiercommunities. part romB. Z. Kedar'sCrusadeand mission (Princeton, 1984),whichdealswiththe wholerangeof Western esponsesowardsIslamduring he medieval enturies,here s nosimilar comparativestudy of the place ofMuslims n Catholicfrontiersocietiesin thecentralMiddleAges.
Treatmentof Muslims in those societiesvariedverygreatly,but it isatrocitieswhich tillcontinue o be most widelyreportedn popular
7/29/2019 HamiltonReviewMuslims Under Latin Rule 1100_1300
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/hamiltonreviewmuslims-under-latin-rule-11001300 3/3
REVIEWS 1 27EVIEWS 1 27
histories, he massacre, nslavement, r expul-sion of Muslims from conqueredareas. Yetsuch cases were exceptional.The majorityofMuslims n thoseareasremained reemen,were
granted eligiousolerationbecause he Churcnrefused to countenanceforced conversionswereallowed o own property, nd were ruledby their own magistrates n accordancewiththeir own religious law. Toleration did notmean equality. Muslims were second-classcitizens, just as Christians iving in Muslimsocieties were at that time. Their religiousfreedomdid not includethe right publiclytocriticizeChristianity r to convertChristiansoIslam. Moreover,all Muslims had to pay areligiouspoll-tax and their legal rights werecircumscribed.
Nevertheless,as these essays show, great
diversity xistedwithin his general ramework.Thus n partsof Castile,despite reedom f cultthe Moorswerenotallowed o keepany of theirmosques,whereas n theneighbouring ingdomof Valenciamuezzinsontinued o call the faith-ful to prayeruntil the fifteenth entury.Therewere also considerable ifferencesn the legalstatus which Muslims enjoyed. In parts ofCastilethe life of a Moor was held cheap:atZorita he legal inefor killinga Moorwas onlyhalf that for killing a Christian.But in theKingdom f Jerusalemherewas paritybetweenChristiansand Muslimsfor some offences:aChristianman who raped a Muslim woman
incurredhe samepenaltyas a Muslimmanwhorapeda Christianwoman, hat of castration.As this law suggests,part of the price of
tolerationwas a sexualapartheid, esiredby there!igious authorities of both faiths, for themlxed marriage n whichboth partnersprac-tised their own religionhad no place in eitherChristian r Islamic houghtat that time. Thetwo communities ouldnot therefore e unitedthrough ntermarriage,ut only by the conver-sion of Muslims o theChristian aith.Thiswasachieved n Sicily, although it is not knownhow:Abulafia ointsout thatwhereas herehadbeenabouta quarter f a millionMuslims n the
island n 1060, only some 20,000 remainedbythe 1220s, the rest had become Christian.Elsewhere,urprisinglyew attemptsweremadeto evangelizeMuslims.The Papacy eft this tolocalchurchmen ho were argely pathetic.Nodoubt that was partlybecauseChristian and-owners in frontierregions were reluctant oencouragemissionary ndeavourswhichmightalienatetheir labourforce, but in most casesmeaningful communication was impossiblebecause he local Catholic lergywereunwillingto learn Arabic, while the Muslimsremainedmonoglot.Under hethirteenth-centuryrownof Aragon some friarsdid attempt o convertMuslims,but as Burnsexplains, he appealtoreasonwhich he friars ultivatedwas to a largeextent neutralizedby ' a decisive turn frommetaphysicso Sufimysticism'amongSpanishMuslimsat precisely hattime.
This collectionof studiesends in 1300,whenthe CrusaderStates had reverted o Muslimrule, there were virtuallyno Muslims eft inSicily,and Muslimcommunities urvivedonlyin the ChristianKingdomsof Iberia. Yet asMuslims n Christianandsbecame arer o theChurchbecamemore ntolerant owards hem.Powellargues hat thiswas because he Church
histories, he massacre, nslavement, r expul-sion of Muslims from conqueredareas. Yetsuch cases were exceptional.The majorityofMuslims n thoseareasremained reemen,were
granted eligiousolerationbecause he Churcnrefused to countenanceforced conversionswereallowed o own property, nd were ruledby their own magistrates n accordancewiththeir own religious law. Toleration did notmean equality. Muslims were second-classcitizens, just as Christians iving in Muslimsocieties were at that time. Their religiousfreedomdid not includethe right publiclytocriticizeChristianity r to convertChristiansoIslam. Moreover,all Muslims had to pay areligiouspoll-tax and their legal rights werecircumscribed.
Nevertheless,as these essays show, great
diversity xistedwithin his general ramework.Thus n partsof Castile,despite reedom f cultthe Moorswerenotallowed o keepany of theirmosques,whereas n theneighbouring ingdomof Valenciamuezzinsontinued o call the faith-ful to prayeruntil the fifteenth entury.Therewere also considerable ifferencesn the legalstatus which Muslims enjoyed. In parts ofCastilethe life of a Moor was held cheap:atZorita he legal inefor killinga Moorwas onlyhalf that for killing a Christian.But in theKingdom f Jerusalemherewas paritybetweenChristiansand Muslimsfor some offences:aChristianman who raped a Muslim woman
incurredhe samepenaltyas a Muslimmanwhorapeda Christianwoman, hat of castration.As this law suggests,part of the price of
tolerationwas a sexualapartheid, esiredby there!igious authorities of both faiths, for themlxed marriage n whichboth partnersprac-tised their own religionhad no place in eitherChristian r Islamic houghtat that time. Thetwo communities ouldnot therefore e unitedthrough ntermarriage,ut only by the conver-sion of Muslims o theChristian aith.Thiswasachieved n Sicily, although it is not knownhow:Abulafia ointsout thatwhereas herehadbeenabouta quarter f a millionMuslims n the
island n 1060, only some 20,000 remainedbythe 1220s, the rest had become Christian.Elsewhere,urprisinglyew attemptsweremadeto evangelizeMuslims.The Papacy eft this tolocalchurchmen ho were argely pathetic.Nodoubt that was partlybecauseChristian and-owners in frontierregions were reluctant oencouragemissionary ndeavourswhichmightalienatetheir labourforce, but in most casesmeaningful communication was impossiblebecause he local Catholic lergywereunwillingto learn Arabic, while the Muslimsremainedmonoglot.Under hethirteenth-centuryrownof Aragon some friarsdid attempt o convertMuslims,but as Burnsexplains, he appealtoreasonwhich he friars ultivatedwas to a largeextent neutralizedby ' a decisive turn frommetaphysicso Sufimysticism'amongSpanishMuslimsat precisely hattime.
This collectionof studiesends in 1300,whenthe CrusaderStates had reverted o Muslimrule, there were virtuallyno Muslims eft inSicily,and Muslimcommunities urvivedonlyin the ChristianKingdomsof Iberia. Yet asMuslims n Christianandsbecame arer o theChurchbecamemore ntolerant owards hem.Powellargues hat thiswas because he Church
believed hat the Muslimswere a threat o thefaith of their Christianneighbours.That iscertainlyhow the popes ustified heir policiesbut they were merely voicing the fears of
Christian ociety aboutthe loyalty of Muslimminoritiesat a time when Christendomwasonce more threatenedby a resurgent slam.Muslim eligious dentityhad a politicaldimen-slon because here was no separationbetweenchurchand state in Islam.Muslimswereundera religiousobligation o pray for the Muslimsovereign during the Friday prayers andbecause ewChristianulerswouldallow his, nmany places despite freedom of cult theMuslimswereunable o say the Fridayprayersat all. It was this kind of reactionwhichmadethe loyaltyof Muslim ommunitiesn Christianstates seem suspect to some people. But such
fearswereby no meansuniversal:n the King-dom of Valencia, or example, he Crown ofAragonwas prepared o arm its Moorishsub-jects to fight against its Christianneighboursand to protect them against the restrictivelegislation of the Church. This is furtherevidenceof the greatdiversityof approachestowards Muslim groups which existed inWesternEuropeduring he MiddleAges and towhichthis volumeof essaysprovidesan excel-lent introduction.
BERNARD HAMILTON
SVEND ELMS,ndfour others:EarlyIslamicarchitecture f the desert:abedouin tation neastern ordan. i188pp. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversityPress l990. ?25.
This short book represents ne in a seriesofstudies by Svend Helms and Alison Bettselucidatingthe history of settlement n theeasternJordanian esert,to a large extent thearchaeological istoryof the bedouinand theirpredecessors.The presentvolume is the con-tribution o the EarlyIslamicperiod
The focus is a site called al-Rlsha, some40 km. northof Ruwaishid formerlyH4), andto the east of QasrBurqu'.The site consistsof ascatterof fifteencourtyardbuildings, f whichone iS grander nd calleda ' khan , and a siteexplalnedas a small mosque. The survivingremalnsare of stone,preserved o a height ofnot more than one or.two courses(these mayhave been socles for pisesuperstructures).hesite was surveyed, hesurfacepotterycollectedand one smallsondagedug. On the basisof thepottery, hey suggest hat the site was foundedin the Umayyad eriod,possiblyalready yA.D.
700, and was still in occupation n the eleventhor twelfthcenturies.
The site is strikinglysimilar to the twoneighbouringmodernbedouin settlementsofUpper and Lower al-Rlsha, settled by theRwalaafter 1968,anddescribed y the Lancas-ters in theirchapteras ' a permanent ddress .The parallelisms thecentralmotifof the bookand provides he basisof an ethnographic ack-proJection f modernbedouinpractice nto theEarlyIslamicperiod,andan assessment f therelationship between such a site and theUmayyad usur or DesertCastles.
While he parallelism fthe site to modern l-
believed hat the Muslimswere a threat o thefaith of their Christianneighbours.That iscertainlyhow the popes ustified heir policiesbut they were merely voicing the fears of
Christian ociety aboutthe loyalty of Muslimminoritiesat a time when Christendomwasonce more threatenedby a resurgent slam.Muslim eligious dentityhad a politicaldimen-slon because here was no separationbetweenchurchand state in Islam.Muslimswereundera religiousobligation o pray for the Muslimsovereign during the Friday prayers andbecause ewChristianulerswouldallow his, nmany places despite freedom of cult theMuslimswereunable o say the Fridayprayersat all. It was this kind of reactionwhichmadethe loyaltyof Muslim ommunitiesn Christianstates seem suspect to some people. But such
fearswereby no meansuniversal:n the King-dom of Valencia, or example, he Crown ofAragonwas prepared o arm its Moorishsub-jects to fight against its Christianneighboursand to protect them against the restrictivelegislation of the Church. This is furtherevidenceof the greatdiversityof approachestowards Muslim groups which existed inWesternEuropeduring he MiddleAges and towhichthis volumeof essaysprovidesan excel-lent introduction.
BERNARD HAMILTON
SVEND ELMS,ndfour others:EarlyIslamicarchitecture f the desert:abedouin tation neastern ordan. i188pp. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversityPress l990. ?25.
This short book represents ne in a seriesofstudies by Svend Helms and Alison Bettselucidatingthe history of settlement n theeasternJordanian esert,to a large extent thearchaeological istoryof the bedouinand theirpredecessors.The presentvolume is the con-tribution o the EarlyIslamicperiod
The focus is a site called al-Rlsha, some40 km. northof Ruwaishid formerlyH4), andto the east of QasrBurqu'.The site consistsof ascatterof fifteencourtyardbuildings, f whichone iS grander nd calleda ' khan , and a siteexplalnedas a small mosque. The survivingremalnsare of stone,preserved o a height ofnot more than one or.two courses(these mayhave been socles for pisesuperstructures).hesite was surveyed, hesurfacepotterycollectedand one smallsondagedug. On the basisof thepottery, hey suggest hat the site was foundedin the Umayyad eriod,possiblyalready yA.D.
700, and was still in occupation n the eleventhor twelfthcenturies.
The site is strikinglysimilar to the twoneighbouringmodernbedouin settlementsofUpper and Lower al-Rlsha, settled by theRwalaafter 1968,anddescribed y the Lancas-ters in theirchapteras ' a permanent ddress .The parallelisms thecentralmotifof the bookand provides he basisof an ethnographic ack-proJection f modernbedouinpractice nto theEarlyIslamicperiod,andan assessment f therelationship between such a site and theUmayyad usur or DesertCastles.
While he parallelism fthe site to modern l-
