Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
d'histoire
Prawer J. Colonization Activities in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome 29, fasc.
4, 1951. pp. 1063-1118;
doi : 10.3406/rbph.1951.2115
http://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_1951_num_29_4_2115
(1) The author feels it a pleasant duty to thank his masters and friends
of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem : Professor R. Koebner whose work
The Settlement of Europe inspired the following study and Professors
J. Baer and L.-A. Mayer for their help and benevolent criticism of this
article. The author wishes also to express his thanks to Mr C.-N. Johns,
formerly field archeologist of the Dept. of Antiquities in Palestine, for his
kind remarks and corrections, and to Prof. Ch.-E. Perrin of the Sorbonne
for his encouragement and help in the final redaction of this study.
1064 J. PRAWËR (2)
The coastal cities fell one by one before the Crusaders, and
gradually there grew up in them new communities, essentially
Frankish, with an ever-increasing population of
Syrian-Christians, and later on, even Moslems. Nevertheless, throughout
this period, a period of half a century, the danger of a Moslem
counter-attack continually threatened the Kingdom, and in
order to meet such an emergency, settlements were erected
with the express purpose of defence. Interesting as these
fortresses are in themselves, it is not within the scope of this paper
to deal with them, because they seldom served any function but
administrative or military (1). Here we are concerned only with
those fortresses, either newly constructed or reconstructed,
which developed later into what French historians would call
in Europe « urban agglomerations ». Several of these places
eventually developed into cities ; others became villages
mushrooming around fortresses ; and some remained primitive
fortresses as originally constructed. To a large degree, the
character of the colonization, and indeed the original purpose
of their construction, was responsible for their ultimate status,
but there were important economic and social factors that
tended to encourage development along urban or rural lines
in some places and not in others.
Very few entirely new settlements were founded by the
Crusaders. There was a tendency, which can be explained
(1) The best works on the subject are by P. Deschamps, Les châteaux
des Croisés en Terre sainte : I. Le Crac des Chevaliers, Paris, 1934 ; II.
La Défense du Royaume de Jérusalem, Paris 1939.
(5) COLONIZATION ACTIVITIES 1067
(1) Wil. Tyr., XV, 25. The meaning is not absolutely clear and there
is a difference between the Latin text and the French translation. In
all probability it is not a faulty translation, but an additional explanation
which the Frenchman, as usual, thought worthy to interpolate : Porro
qui circumcirca possidebant regionem... suburbana loca aedificaverunt quam
plurima, habentes in eis familias multas et agrorum cultores ; de quorum
inhabitatione facta est regio tota securior et alimentorum multa locis fini-
timis accessit copia. The translation runs: Li gaengnor des terres gaeng-
nierent les terres d'entor le chastel qui mout grant bien fist ; il i venoit assez
blé. Ne demora guieres qu'il i firent bones viles qui rendoient granz rentes.
In the first case the villages have been founded by the aristocratic land-
proprietors (we take « possidebant regionem » as not meaning living in
the country, but holding the land) ; in the second case, the villages sprung
up spontaneously, although even in this case the fortress-people, being
the landed-proprietors, would have had to decide.
(7) COLONIZATION ACTIVITIES 1069
(1) Wil. Tyr., XI, 26, (RHOc, I, p. 500) : Per idem tempus, cum adhuc
christianus populus ultra Jordanem non haberet ullum praesidium, cupiens
rex in partibus Ulis regni fines dilatare, proposuit... in tertict Arabia
castrum aedificare, cujus habitatores terram subjectam et regno tributariam
ab hostium irreptionibus possent protegere.
(2) Idem, ibidem.
1074 J. PRAWER (12)
This city is Ramie, a city which at that time, the first half
of the xiith century, was of primary importance to the
kingdom, because of its strategic position with regard to Jerusalem
and Jaffa. A system of colonization was perfected here,
important not only for the city it originally erected, but also
for the example it served for similar processes throughout the
country. Insufficient space is devoted by modern
historiography to the fall of Ramie. Contemporary histories mention
it only in passing. Actually it has singular importance.
There are three sources which describe the entry of the
Crusaders into the city. They differ in the quantity of details
but are on the whole complementary (2). From these, we
(1) The Latin text has suburbana loca and the French translation
et les villes d'entor. The word ville had already in the xnth century the
modern meaning of city. Cf. Ch. Lamprecht, Étude etc., p. 143, n. 1.
A. Dauzat, Les noms de lieux, origine et évolution, Paris 1937, p. 157.
But this is not the case in the xnth century translation of William of
Tyre. Cf. Les viles entor leur citez que l'en claime casiax. Wil. Tyr.,
IX, 19.
(2) Wil. Tyr., X, 17 : Nostri vero urbe, ut prcdiximus, reperta vacua,
in quadam parte eius, castrum mûris et vallo communièrent, difficile
arbitrantes murorum ambitum cum paucis habitatoribus occupare.
(3) Ramie developed at the expense of Lydda. After the foundation
of Ramie the inhabitants of Lydda migrated there. Cf. Encyc. of Islam,
(17) COLONIZATION ACTIVITIES 1079
(1) Fulco Garnotensis, II, 15. The Syrians are described as Syri
agricolae loci ipsius suburbani, another version quasi suburbani seems
to be faulty.
(19) COLONIZATION ACTIVITIES 1081
(1) Wil. Tyr., XIV, 22. A Jacobitic source mentions also the event
in 1138. Martin, Les premiers Princes Croisés et les Syriens Jacobites
de Jérusalem. Journ. asiat. XII (1889) p. 35.
(2) V. Guérin, Description géographique, historique et archéologique de
la Palestine : Judée II, 307 ss. Survey of West. Palestine, III, 268 ff.
(3) These first settlers are mentioned in a document of 1168. See
below.
(4) Idrisi in ZDPV., VIII (1885), p. 123.
(5) Identified by Conder in Quarterly Statement (Pal. Exp. Fund),
1890, p. 39. This place is to be found on the very detailed map of Beit-
Jibrin district villages of the Palest. Dept. of Antiquities (not printed)
less than a mile north-west of Beit- Jibrin.
1088 J. PRAWER (26)
has been published several times (*), and was analysed by two
scholars Beugnot and Prutz (2). Their analysis however is open
to discussion. They both think the settlement dependent
for jurisdiction on the Cour de Borgeois of Jerusalem and the
viscount there. According to Beugnot it was founded by
settlers from Jerusalem, and it is an example of a commune
rurale, like those founded in France.
This is not a case of a « military settlement » nor a commune
rurale. We have before us a document that describes a process
we have already seen from the chronicles, at Darum and Kerak.
It is not a « military settlement », because thirty families would
but slightly increase the military strength of the place. — It is
an attempt by the inhabitants and possessors of the fortress to
strike roots, to establish a settlement with agriculture as the
base of its economy. The settlers, like their European
prototypes, are farmers and artisans (?). We have before us a
« bourc », and since the settlement was not spontaneous but
organized, we may even call it justly a ville neuve and the
charter of Master Raymond not less than a charte de
peuplement, a real carta puebla (4). The purpose of the settlement
is clearly stated in the document : ut terra melius populetur,
that the lands be populated and redeemed, undoubtedly taking
into consideration the economic needs of the fortress. Let us
examine the settlers, their rights and duties. They are all
« Franks », gathered from the four corners of the Christian
world, many of them already assimilated by Palestine, as
shown by their surnames. Not all are Jerusalemites, as held
by Beugnot. There are only two Jerusalemites : Bernardus de
Josaphat, i. e. Bernard from the Valley of Josaphat in
Jerusalem and Petrus de Jerusalem. On the other hand, there is
one from Edessa (de Rohas), one from Hebron (St Abraham),
and two from Ramie or ar-Ram, near Jerusalem (de Ramis).
Besides these, there were people from Auvergne, Gascogne,
Lombardy, Poitou, Catalonia, Burgundy, Flanders,
Carcassonne, thus mostly from France and its southern and
northern neighbours Q). These must have been, newcomers, their
unaltered European names betraying their origin.
Every settler received a stretch of land of two carrucae i.e.
about 62,5 ha (2) for cultivation and upon which to build a
house, and settle. In return he was obliged to pay an annual
tax (terragium), the tithe of his crops and fruits, except olives,
which lay between the two, it was a short step to call the
« custom of Ramie » the « custom of Lydda » (x). It is also
obvious why this custom of Ramie was transplanted to Beit
Jibrin ; during the twenty years period following the conquest,
Ramie was in a constant state of war as pointed out above.
During this period of warfare the « Ramle-Lydda-customs » were
created.
In the years 1153-1168 (the years of development of the
settlement at Beit Jibrin) Ramie was alraedy the geographic
centre of the Kingdom, strongly fortified on all sides, and
enjoying complete peace. This custom then had been created
earlier and applied wherever useful, i. e. in areas whose
conditions approached those of Ramie in the first two decades
of Crusaders' rule.
The consuetudo spread throughout the Kingdom. An example
is Beit Jibrin, which undoubtedly was not the only place to
use this term of settlement. The use of undefined expressions
like judicium et consuetudinem servabunt in documents, which
otherwise excel in leaving nothing to the tight-fisted
judgements of the owner of the lands, shows that these expressions
were well known and in common usage - unlikely to be
interpreted as a taille — a usage established by a colonizing
practice in the country.
How far was this colonizing practice original, and how
far was it successful? Neither question is easy to answer.
The colonization of Ramie, about the year 1100, is in any
case rather early in comparison with French colonization by
charter (and taking into account the origin of the Crusaders
we have to look to French influences). The whole of the Beit-
Jibrin document reflects French influence. First of all there
is a « charte de peuplement ». Secondly the settlers are free
men, their liberty being guaranteed by the right to leave the
(1) We shall not digress here into the problem of the legal status of
the Frankish settlers and their tenancies. They are, without any doubt,
burgenses and their tenancies borgesies. Cf. our article The Assise de Te-
neure and the Assise de Vente - A study of Landed Property in the Latin
Kingdom. Economic History Review, 2nd series, vol. IV, n° 1 (1951),
pp. 77-88. We are actually preparing a larger study on the whole problem
of burgenses in the Crusaders' States.
(2) Cf. Lamprecht, Étude etc., pp. 187-189 ; p. 236. Guérard, Cartu-
laire d. S. Père, Prolégom, p. 153.
(3) Cf. R. Koebner, op. cit., p. 65.
(4) Ibn Moyser in RHOr., IV, p. 472.
(5) This confirmation was unknown to Beugnot. Delaville Le Roulx,
Cartulaire général etc. I, n° 509, p. 350.
(33) COLONIZATION ACTIVITIES 1095
(1) The list of the older and new settlers is preserved in the juridically
most important document described as : De sacramento burgensium Ma-
homerie. Rozière, op. cit., n° 131, pp. 242-244.
(2) E. g. ...notum facimus mulierem quandam, Odierdam nomine, habi-
tatricem Mahumerie, cum effecta est gratuita soror conventus S. Sepulcri.
Rozière, op. cit., pp. 156-157, or frater Robertos Porcarius who investi-
vit the prior with his estate and received it back dum vioeret, custodiendas
et ad honorem S. Sepulcri regendas et propagandas. Ibid., p. 240.
(3) On the different fratres conversi, see R. Koebner, Camb. Econ.
Hist., p. 74, 85, and F.-L. Ganshof, ibid., pp. 314-315. E. Levasseur,
Hist. d. classes ouvrières, I, p. 194 s. On donati, ibid., p. 191.
(4) Fabri ; carpentarius ; cortiliarius ; Corveser.
(37) COLONIZATION ACTIVITIES 1099
etc, p. 192 maintains that the comptant was the usual form under which
the colonization progressed in South-Eastern France.
(1) RoziÈRE, p. 241 : Umbertus... qui quoniam terrain predictam se-
cundum statutum morem colère non poterat, et terram, et υίΙΙαηι desererat.
There were also cases of people who had not found enough sustenance :
Ainardus... nimia paupertate compulsus, nee habens unde uxorem suam
et liberos sustenare et educare posset, ad eorundem sustentationem et nutri-
mentum... (vineam) pro XXVI bisantios vendidit. Ibid., p. 239.
(2) RoziÈRE, ψ. 250, cf. a similar case in colonization in Central
France. Cart. S. Père, p. 437.
(3) Idem, ibidem. The same provision is to be found in a charter
dealing with new settlers in Central France at the end of the xith century.
Cart. S. Père, p. 402 : qui scilicet hospites ita terras militum ab eis exeo-
lendas habebunt, ut... neque quandiu militum terre inculte remanebunt ab
aliis alias accipere possint. On the other hand, the knights would give
their lands as far as possible to the hospites only.
1102 J. PR A WER (40)
(1) This special favour was granted, because : Robertos (the local
seigneur in case) benignum se erga dominos exhibuit. Rozière, p. 245 s.
(2) Rozière, op. cit., p. 293.
(3) Ibid., p. 250.
(4) Ibidem.
(41) COLONIZATION ACTIVITIES 1103
village was surrounded by a wall in which the gate still stood (*).
The boundaries were defined : the area extended to the middle
of the ancient village and included a hill, caves, carob trees,
and borderd an old cemetery or scattered graves. It included
also a part of a valley. Besides the canons received the
rights of commerce with Palmarea.
In the absence of any other information concerning the
deserted place between Palmarea and Haifa, we have to assume
that the canons of the Holy Sepulchre failed to colonize this
place. But if their attempt was a failure, it was not a
complete one. Their place was taken over by another group of
clergy, which introduced its own pattern of colonization and
succeeded. These monks came from Palmarea and we have
to turn there for further elucidation.
Our information is scanty, but we know of the existence
of a church (2) because of an exchange of letters on this subject
between Pope Alexander III, and the bishops of Nazareth,
Bethlehem, Acre and Lydda. The Pope demanded that the
place be committed to the monastic order of Cluny (3).
Negotiations were held in this regard about 1172 between the Pope
and king Amalric (4). The king assented to the Pope's request
and asked him to send monks for that purpose (5).
A source dated 1180 sheds some light on the condition of
Palmarea. This source mentions Palmerium quod et Solinum
dicitur. It is our Palmarea (6), as the other place mentioned
First let us remark, that the two last points confirm our
assumption about the two groups of inhabitants of the place.
Remembering what we have seen so far of Palestinian
colonization, we could easily imagine not only two groups of Frankish
settlers at the place, but even a territorial division of the
place into two bourcs : the seigneurial and monastic. It is
superfluous to look for analogies which are to be found almost
everywhere in Western and Central Europe. The first difficult
question arising from the privilege is, why should the rights
of the burgenses of the place, and very important rights too,
dealing with land alienation, why should they be mentioned
in a privilege granted to the monks? Should this provision
concern the familia only, it would be clear, but as it is,
this is not the case, these rights are granted to all burgenses.
There are two possibilities to explain in this case the word
burgenses. It is possible that all inhabitants of Palmarea
(meaning the familia and the manants of the seigneur) are
brought under this common denominator, or that only the
men of the lay-lord are meant by it. We are inclined to accept
the second possibility. The free alienation privilege is
described as ad usum et consuetudinem Burie. Now this Buria is
the ruined village which we met near Mt Tabor amongst the
states of the Cluniac monks. The above-mentioned sentence
proves, that there was a colonization movement near Mt
Tabor, conducted by the monks, and its customs have been
known, from the place of their origin as the usages and customs
of Buria. It is only logical to assume, that these usages, as
in the case of the usages of the clergy of the Holy Sepulchre,
accompanied the Cluniac monks wherever they tried their
hand at settlement. And so they came with them and their
settlers to Palmarea. But they found here other settlers already
living under other rules, probably harsher ones. The living
example of more lenient rules at the same place could cause
friction, or in any case it could have a deteriorating effect
on the lord's income. His men, being free men, could leave
him and settle on the lands of the monks. To forestall this
possibility, the lord of the place thought it wiser to pass an
HU j. PRAWËR (52)
(1) This fact is easily explained if we keep in mind that only the
archives of church institutions have been preserved. The archives of the
Kingdom and of the feudal lords have perished, and documents issued
by them have been only accidentally preserved in the clergy's archives.
(53) COLONIZATION ACTIVITIES ί 115
of existing olive tree. The men who worked the land received
3/4 of the crops, the king 1/4. We hear of an interesting method
of cultivation the olive groves, which stretched between two
streams and along their banks. Every inhabitant received a
share in the olive groves. The olives were gathered by common
work of all the inhabitants. Of the produce, 2/3 belonged
to the king, 1/3 to the inhabitants. We do not know whether
this example has its prototype in Europe. Our impression is
that olive groves which received no special attention, and
which were not the property of any particular inhabitant,
were a kind of an Allmende, the fruits of which the inhabitants
enjoyed communally. Therefore, the only actual work, picking
the olives, was done collectively.
Parcels of arable land were alloted to the inhabitants by
the king's agent. The terms were tempting. The workers
received 6/7 of the produce, the king 1/7. In the village there
were several communal institutions which were a monopoly
of the king. There was a bakery (furnus), for the use of which
the inhabitants paid every fifteenth loaf. Non-inhabitants
paid every tenth loaf. Another establishment was the communal
bath (balneum) whose use cost half a-dinar a time. There was
a flour-mill outside the village, at a place called Ferge. The
inhabitants had the use of it 3 days and nights a week (x).
For commercial purpose, there was a set of scales. The buyer
paid for its use from each quantity of grain worth a besant
one dinar (2). In addition the inhabitants received special
commercial rights. The king released them from all sales
duties on items of food, like bread, wine or meat.
The conditions for alienating the land and houses were
stipulated. They are as usual : The new owner was respons-
(1) We do not suppose that the use of the flour-mill was duty-free,
because the use was restricted by salvo iure regio. In all probability it
is a case of a special priority privilege.
(2) de unaquaque bisantiata pro mensuratione, denarium dabit. This
expression, has an analogy in the following sentence : 150 bisanciatas
frumenti vel olei aut vini sea cujuslibet fructusterre, ROL., XI (Ά. D.
1158), and there is no doubt about its meaning.
1118 J. PRAWER (56)
ible for the same payments as the previous one. If there are
houses on the land, the new owner must pay, when buying
the house, one caroubel from every besant, i. e. 1/24 of the
whole sum (*).
***
J. Prawer.