1 (2016): 59–77
Edinburgh University Press
DOI: 10.3366/hlps.2016.0129
© Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies
www.euppublishing.com/journal/hlps
Ahmad Amara
PhD Candidate
Department of History and the Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies
New York University
Postal Address:
P.O. Box 7838
Nazareth Illit, Israel
ahmadamara@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This article explores and contests dominant representations of the Bedouin
in Historic southern Palestine as nomads and savages, through the study of
inter-Bedouin land conflicts in the second half of the nineteenth century. By
studying the late Ottoman period, the author seeks to examine Bedouin-
State interactions surrounding the question of territoriality and space-
making, as well as the long-standing impact of the Ottoman heritage in
southern Palestine. The available Ottoman archival resources shed important
light on Ottoman representations of the Bedouin, their space and modes
of living, and challenge hegemonic representations of the Bedouin as well
as the broader pre-Beersheba Bedouin historiography. More specifically,
the archival material shows that research categories that are dominant and
prevalent in the study of the Bedouin today, such as ‘nomadism’ and
‘pastoralism’, need to be re-thought, and new approaches to the study of
the Bedouin need to be employed.
Introduction
Upon his arrival in Gaza in 1880, and acting under the order of the
Jerusalem governor to reconcile the Azazmi and the Tayaha, the Jerusalem
60 Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies
Mayor Salim al-Husseini gathered the Azazmi and the Tayaha sheikhs in
the local government house in Gaza. Together with others, he conducted
the necessary negotiations to establish a peace agreement between them.
In the process of the associated investigation, the Azazmi detailed the items
robbed from them as well as the extent of the damage that the Tayaha had
caused. Both parties agreed on compensation of 500 French liras to be
paid by the Tayaha. The Jerusalem governor approved the agreement and
ordered the Battalion (tabur) commander Ali Bey to go to Gaza and collect
the 500 liras from the Tayaha. On 7 January 1888 this compensation was
distributed to the concerned Azazmi in the Gaza administrative council.1
The compensation was paid through the Azazmi sheikhs. The details and
the amounts paid were put on an official government report (mazbata)
that was signed by the sheikhs, by Ottoman officials, and witnesses.2 A list
detailing the names of the Azazmi families, the amount received, and items
for which they were compensated, was attached to the mazbata. Most of
the compensation was for loss of wheat and barley.3
The second half of the nineteenth century in southern Palestine wit-
nessed increased Bedouin fighting and increased Ottoman centralisation
of governance.4 Due to inter-Bedouin fighting, the Ottoman government
undertook a number of unusual steps, mainly peace-making efforts and
territorial demarcation. In the period under study, we know of four
missions that were orchestrated mainly through Jerusalem by its governor
Rauf Pasha (1877–1889). Rauf Pasha was a particularly strong governor
who dedicated particular attention to southern Palestine and to Bedouin
1 The eight-year time gap (1880–1888) is not well explained in the available
documents. Either it is a mistake of Salim Effendi with regards to the date of his mission,
or most probably the collection and distribution of the compensation took a long time.
2 A mazbata is an official report, signed and usually submitted by a committee or a
group. The sheikhs who signed the mazbata were: Salam bin Hammad; Nassar Shimon;
Salman al-Waldi, Audeh bin Zayid, on 7 January 1888 (26 Kanunuevvel 1303). The report
was also signed by the members of the Gaza council, and the witnesses: Sheikh Hmud
al-Wheidi the naib (chair of the nizamiye and shari’a courts), the chair of the Gaza municipal
council, the battalion head (Mohammad Ali), and Salim Effendi. Sheikh Hmud al-Wheidi
was the director of the southern Bedouin block- ). Conversion of the
dates included within this document was carried out through the Turk Tarih Kurumu
Official Website, www.ttk.gov.tr.
3 Başbakanlik Ottoman Archives (BOA), ş.D. 2280/10, 9 Haziran 1308/21 June 1892,
the mazbata and the attached compensation list are dated 20 Kanunuevvil 1303/10 January
1888.
4 Although ‘Palestine’ was not existent as an independent and defined geographic or
administrative unit at the end of the nineteenth century, I use the term here largely to
relate to the areas that remained later within the area that became Palestine. Southern
Palestine is the area that was roughly south of the line that connects Gaza and Hebron and
was administratively located within the area of the Jerusalem Governorate (mutassariflik),
and particularly the Gaza sub-district. After 1900 it is roughly the area of the Gaza and
Beersheba sub-districts.
A. Amara Beyond Stereotypes of Bedouins as ‘Nomads’ and ‘Savages’ 61
5 Such phenomena are alluded to in various degrees in the work of Clinton Bailey,
Arif al-Arif, Ruth Kark, Havazelet Yahel, and Seth Frantzman and others. On Bedouin
autonomy and minimal Ottoman interference see: Bailey (2009), Rabia (2001). Many of
these resources and others rely on British sources as well as on accounts of European
travellers in the region, and Ottoman source material is almost absent from all of these
sources.
6 Nasasra et al. provides an excellent analysis of the state of scholarship concerning the
Bedouin communities and their changing paradigms.
62 Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies
Jerusalem (Manna’ 1986: 121).7 From the late 1870s until 1890, both offi-
cials were involved in Bedouin affairs, mainly in reconciling land disputes.
Both were accused of receiving bribes of money and horses from the Tara-
bin sheikhs. Salim Effendi al-Husseini was accused of receiving two stal-
lions, a mare, and 500 lira from the Tarabin. In return he unjustly allocated
to them lands that belonged to the Azazmi (Büssow 2011: 543–546).8
Arif Bey was accused of receiving 1,600 lira – also from the Tarabin – for
releasing their sheikhs from prison.9 This whole affair of allegations
and investigations began after a complaint that was filed by a number of
Bedouin sheikhs, mainly the Azazmi, against the Husseinis.10 The detailed
investigation documents provide rare insights into state-Bedouin affairs in
the relevant period, particularly since the file (referred to hereafter as ‘the
investigation file’) contains the statements of a dozen local Bedouin.11
Usually, Bedouin voices are almost completely absent from the
writings on Bedouin history, as these voices are usually not available or
marginalised. Although the Bedouin voices in the investigation file were
partly manipulated and limited due to the nature of an interrogation,
they remain unique and rich. These voices inform us of first hand
self-perceptions and understanding of Bedouin experiences in the late
nineteenth century, of Bedouin identity and space. The available sources,
beyond providing us with an alternative account of Bedouin conflict,
demonstrate sophisticated and dynamic inter and intra Bedouin socio-
economic relationships and networks, and also give a rich account of
Ottoman statecraft. As for Bedouin conflict, the available documents
demonstrate that it was mainly driven by the use of and the control over
7 Haj Salim bin Hussein Effendi al-Husseini, a Muslim Ottoman, lived in Jerusalem,
being head of the municipality at the time of the investigation in 1892, when he was
54 years old, and was literate. In the year 1872, al-Husseini was appointed to the
Gaza secretariat, with a salary of 500 gurush. Toward the end of 1872, al-Husseini was
appointed to the administrative council in Jerusalem, when Kamel Pasha was appointed
as Mutasarrif. Further, al-Husseini was also a member of the Majlis al-Tamyiz (Meclis-I
temyiz-I Hukukve Cinayet- Council of Judicial Appeals and Crimes), and he finished his
tenure there when his legal membership term ended in 1297 (around 1880). Arif Bey,
the Jerusalem Ma’arif Director, was interrogated. His full name was Arif bin Musa Pasha
al-Husseini, his age was 33 years, and he was literate. See, BOA, S.D. 2280/10 9 Haziran
1308/21 June 1892; see also, Manna’ (1986: 121). The documents refer to Jerusalem as a
‘liva’, (district) whereas Jerusalem became a Mutasarriflik from 1864.
8 It is assumed that this was an Ottoman lira, which had an exchange rate in Jaffa in
1900 of 110 gurush. Compare also that the Jerusalem mayor monthly salary in 1908 was
2,000 gurush. See Schölch (2006: 104); Büssow (2011, 563–564).
9 BOA, S.D. 2280/10 9 Haziran 1308/21 June 1892.
10 Hasanabu Abdoun and Awadabu Ruqayiq, both from the Tayaha; Salim Nabhan
from the Hanjra; and Hasan al-Malta’a and Musa al-Samad of the Azazmi. See, BOA, S.D.
2280/10 9 Haziran 1308/21 June 1892; see also, BOA, DH.MKT., 1750/62, 26 Zilhicce
1307/13 August 1890.
11 The file includes about 50 pages of Arabic and Ottoman Turkish documents.
A. Amara Beyond Stereotypes of Bedouins as ‘Nomads’ and ‘Savages’ 63
No man will plant orchards and make improvements on land not his own;
but give him secure title, and, under the crude husbandry of even ignorant
peasants, Philistia will quickly recover her ancient prosperity. This however,
will never be realised until the Bedawin [sic] are driven back to their deep
deserts, and kept there by a firm and stable government. Neither vineyards,
nor fig-orchards, nor vegetable-gardens can exist while these plunderers are
allowed to roam at will with their all-devouring herd and droves of camels.
(Thomson 1880: 193)
17 According to al-Arif, the prisoners were: Hmmad al-Sufi, Saqrabu Sitta, Audih
al-Zria’i (Tarabin); Hajjajabu Hajjaj, Salim bin Nabhan, Farhan bin Qteish (Hanajrih), Ibn
Hammad (Azazmi), Hasan al-Malta’a (Azazmi), Hasanabu Shinnar, Suleiman al-Sania’,
Zaria’ al-Huzayil, and Jabr bin Atiya (all Tayha). Al-Arif (1934: 188–189).
18 Rustum pasha invited the Tarbin sheikhs: Hammad al-Sufi; Hamad al-Zria’i, Abu
Shbab, Abu Hajjaj, Hmud al-Wheidi, and Qaudabu Mugheisib. Al-Arif also mentions a
story about the Flus and Namus, Bribe or Good manners, which came up again in an
interview in Hura with Nasasrah. According to Clinton Bailey, Rustum Pasha remanded
thirteen of the Tarabin sheikhs, see Bailey (1990: 331).
19 Al-Arif adds that a Bedouin sheikh called Hasan al-Batil told him that it was Izzat
Pasha who decided to interfere and end the fighting, and that peace was also reached due
to the involvement of sheikh al-Batil. Al-Batil lied to both, al-Sufi and the Tayaha sheikh
Abu Shinnar, stating that each of the sheikhs was interested in peace and was waiting for
the other in the house of the infamous sheikh, Ali Bin Atiya, to whom we will return
later. Al-Arif (1934: 182–189). The peace between al-Sufi and Abu-Sitta generated a
marriage between Hammad al-Sufi and the daughter of the Abu-Sitta sheikh. The peace
between the Tarabin and the Azazmi was based on reconciliation, and thesanad was signed
by Mohammad bin Ayyad al-Sufi (Tarabin) and Suleiman bin Salih Jukheidim, Al-Arif
(1934: 193).
68 Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies
As we will see next, the Bedouin were also active agents in this episode of
Ottoman administration and politics in the region.
between the Tayaha, the Tarabin, and other Bedouin, were preventing the
ploughing and the cultivation of Bedouin lands. Moreover, the fighting
led to the damage of crops of nearby villages, and to assaults on the
residents (ahali) and travellers. As the decision noted, the twenty-six
Cavalry (mounted troops) present in the area were busy collecting tax
revenues and with other general security issues. Thus, the troops could not
manage the situation and protect the crops of the nearby villages. Instead,
100 mounted troops were needed as a backup, to be sent temporarily, and
to return to their original place upon finishing their mission. The Sultan
confirmed the Council of State’s decision.20
The Ottoman action apparently came in 1877 as a response to four
different petitions by Bedouin and non-Bedouin in the Gaza sub-district.
As Yuval Ben-Bassat shows, Bedouin were participants in the common
practice of petition writing to the Sultan and to the Ottoman authorities.
These petitions serve as an important written account of Bedouin history,
despite the effects of partial mediation by the petition writers (Ben-Bassat
2013, 2015). The petitions from the mid-1870s were seemingly part of
the Gaza inter-elite tension between the Husseini family and other Gazan
notables, and centred mainly around the position of the mufti. In two
petitions, the Gazan non-Bedouin complained that the son of the Husseini
mufti was using his ties with the Bedouin to encourage them to attack
the villagers and farmers. On the other hand, Bedouin also dispatched
two petitions to the central government in Istanbul in the same spirit.
They complained that the Husseinis with their tribal allies were stirring
unrest among the Bedouin tribes in the Gaza sub-district. The petitions
demonstrate the integration of the Bedouin in the socio-political life of the
region, as well as complicating consideration of the question of Bedouin
attacks on villagers and farmers.21
The Ottoman government’s main concerns were focussed on the two
major interconnected issues of security and land cultivation. Ottoman
documents refer to the Bedouin raids and misbehaviour as early as
1708, and later in 1860.22 The instability, non-cultivation, and damage
to the crops meant financial loss and a decrease in potential taxes for
the government. Land also appears in the investigation file as a main
source of the fighting.23 The file referred to three different accounts
20 I.şD. 41/2144, 28 Agustus 1294/ 9–9–1878. The decision concerned an
arrangement to pay the salary of 100 mounted troops
21 BOA, HR. TO., 554/80, 6 Nisan 1293/18 April 1877; BOA, HR. TO., 554/56,
9 şubat 1292/2 February 1877.
22 BOA, Dahiliye, 13711, (1708); See also, BOA, A.MKT.UM., 390/47, 21
Cimazilahir 1276/15 January 1860.
23 Interrogated on 14 July 1892 (2 Temmuz 1308), BOA, S.D. 2280/10 9 Haziran
1308/21 June 1892. He attended for interrogation by himself, unlike the Bedouin, who
were mostly brought by the police.
70 Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies
24 See Al-Arif (1934, 100), there he mentions that only a small proportion of their
lands was cultivated.
25 Twenty nine of which received also compensation for the tents.
26 BOA, S.D. 2280/10 9 Haziran 1308/21 June 1892, mazbata and list dated 20
Kanunuevvil 1303/10 January 1888.
27 Ali Ibn Hammad, 20 Haziran, estimated his age at 40 years.
28 For example, our famous sheikh Hammad al-Sufi introduced himself as working
in ‘ploughing and cultivation’. Similarly, ninety-year old Haj Salamaabu Ghalyun stated
that he was harrathzarra’ (ploughing and agriculturist- ), as did forty-year old
sheikh Salamaabu Ruqayiq. Finally, sheikh Mohammad al-Sania’, who owned a house
in Gaza and was married to a Gazan, used the same terminology in stating that he did
A. Amara Beyond Stereotypes of Bedouins as ‘Nomads’ and ‘Savages’ 71
filaha (cultivation) and cultivation. See, BOA, S.D. 2280/10 9 Haziran 1308/21 June 1892,
interrogated respectively, 13, 6, and 4 temmuz, 1308.
29 Letter of appointment of Major Abramson as the Chairman of the Commission
signed by Norman Bentwich, Legal Secretary, 19 August 1920, and the Commission’s
report dated 31 May 1921, PRO CO 733/18, 174761 (The Abramson Report).
30 This drop in barley value on the eve of British occupation probably helped to cast
the Bedouin more as nomads in the British orientalist-mind, rather than agriculturists.
31 21 Zilhiija 1309 sheikh Abdulla Effendi al-Ghusayn, who was born and lived in
Gaza, was a teacher, and was about fifty years old.
32 Articles 5 of the 1858 Ottoman Land Code.
72 Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies
I will examine the use of the term ‘Bedouin’ and the representations that
it carries with it.
Further, the term arab was also used by both Bedouin and non-
Bedouin to refer not only to the people but also to their habitation
areas. For example, some Bedouin stated that they were living in the
arab, and the investigator used the term arab in contrast to Gaza. In
other cases, Bedouin referred to their habitation area as buyūt al-shar,
the tents.41 More importantly, all Bedouin interrogated stated that they
were ‘born and lived in the arab, in our defined sites in the Gaza sub-
district’,42 or ‘in buyūt al-shar in our known sites’.43 Even if many lived
in tents, it did not mean they endlessly moved. It sounded acceptable
to the investigator that the 37-year-old sheikh Ali bin Atiya was born
in and continued to live in the same defined site. Thus, the tribe’s or
family’s habitation area was largely defined and permanent, which created
self-identification with the particular space. Such a wide array of terms
of identity and space has come nowadays to be largely reduced within
the term ‘Bedouin’, and associated with the desert (desert-dwellers) or
erased within assumptions of Bedouin nomadism (tent-dwellers). Such
representation has also undermined Bedouin links with the land, which
was enhanced through widespread agricultural activities. In his article
‘Where Have the Bedouin Gone?’ Donald Cole shows that except for
the name ‘Bedouin’ nothing in fact remained of most of the early
Bedouin life throughout the Middle East. Local, regional, and global
developments and changing conditions have transformed the Bedouin
through ongoing dialectic relations of continuity and change between
the earlier lifestyle (roughly referred to as ‘tradition’) and the changing
circumstances (referred to as ‘modernity’). According to Cole, Bedouin
today ‘refers less to a ‘way of life’ than to an ‘identity’. The way of life was
grounded in ecology and economy, the identity in heritage and culture’
(Cole 2003: 235–267).
Conclusions
Land rights and inter-Bedouin territorial affairs were an important entry
point to Bedouin affairs for the Ottoman government, and more broadly
to southern Palestine. As part of its reform programme, the Ottoman
government became more involved in Bedouin space and tried to frame
any agreements concerning land use in official documents. These legal,
political, and socio-economic factors, particularly Bedouin agriculture,
References
Abu Rabia, A. (2001) A Bedouin Century: Education and Development among the Negev
Tribes in the 20th Century (New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books).
Al-Arif, A. (1934) Beersheba and its Confederations (Bayt al-Maqdis-Jerusalem: Palestine
[Arabic]).
Al-Dabbagh, M. (1988) Biladuna FilastinA [Our Country, Palestine] (Beirut: reprinted
by Dar El-Huda, 1965 [Arabic]).
Bailey, C. (1990) ‘The Ottomans and the bedouin tribes of the Negev’, in Gilbar
Gad, G.(ed.) (1990) Ottoman Palestine, 1800–1914: Studies in Economic and Social
History (Leiden: Brill).
—(2009) Bedouin Law from Sinai and the Negev: Justice without Government (New Haven:
Yale University Press).
44 For an important call for a new approach to study the Bedouin under Israeli rule,
and to break the binary and isolation of studying the Bedouin, see Parizot (2001).
76 Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies