Talk:Turabay dynasty

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

An emir of the Turabay, 1664

• ... that the Bedouin emirs of the Turabay dynasty (emir pictured) presided over nearly a century of peace and prosperity in northern Palestine? Source: (Sharon 1975, The Political Role of the Bedouins in Palestine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, p. 28)
  • ALT1:... that the Turabay emirs (emir pictured) compelled the Druze strongman of the Lebanon, Fakhr al-Din, to abandon his plans to subjugate northern Palestine? Source: "compelled [Fakhr al-Din] to abandon his plans for subjecting northern Palestine" (Sharon 1975, The Political Role of the Bedouins in Palestine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, p. 29)

• Reviewed: Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind
• Comment: Actual portraits of Ottoman Levantine political figures before the 19th century are rare.

Moved to mainspace by Al Ameer son (talk). Self-nominated at 03:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC).

Substantial article on fine sources, offline and French source accepted AGF (but please mark as French), no copyvio obvious. I love the succinct hook. The image is licensed and a fine illustration even if no personal portrait. - Go for GA, says GA --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turabay dynasty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 04:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll begin looking at this. At first impressions, the sectioning seems short, with only two content sections. That said, similar articles such as House of Plantagenet, Gordian dynasty, and Sargonid dynasty are also quite short. Flavian dynasty is longer, although it seems an outlier in this regard. What the articles often do seem to have is separate Timeline and Geneology sections, although the relevant information is covered in image format here currently. CMD (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Reading through, the article is very well written. "Safed" is treated in the text as two meanings, a city, and the province governed by the city, without distinction. eg. "(Mamluk province) of Safed", "under Safed's direct administration". Use should be consistent and clarified. Aside from that, I don't have many comments to make. From the text I get the impression remaining Turabay's simply faded into the remaining population, although this isn't explicitly stated. Also left as a question is what happened to the last mausoleum, although perhaps it just decayed. In terms of context, the reason for the shift of the Banu Haritha, and the timeframe where this began, might be helpful.

Article seems neutral, stable, and images are appropriately licenced. Putting this on hold, for the minor issue mentioned to be dealt with and a response on a potential timeline. Best, CMD (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Thank you for taking up this review. This was a minor dynasty compared to the ones mentioned above. Information about their early [pre-Ottoman] origins and their demise and descendants are fragmentary, the bulk of available information centers on their role as the oft-appointed/heritable highway guards, tax farmers and sanjak governors of this relatively small corner of Palestine in the 16th-17th centuries. I addressed the Safed/Safed Sanjak discrepancies, I believe. I will look deeper into the sources present and elsewhere to determine when and why the Haritha tribe began its eastward migration. The sources present do not mention what happened to that mausoleum—shame it's no longer extant. Will research a bit further to see if I could find some information about it. I will update you in a few days/week, though I do not expect good news... Al Ameer (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The Haritha's migration occurred in the late 17th century, before the final political demise of the Turabays, no specific year or range of years has been provided by the sources. No particular reason is given by Sharon 1975 (p. 29), Sharon 2004 (p. 177) or Ze'evi (p. 94 and note 23). Bakhit mentions nothing either. However, Sharon 1975 p. 29 note 105 points the reader to further information about the migration in d'Arvieux's Voyage dans la Palestine (1718) pp. 261–262, but these two pages only say: from *google translate*

This is how the Bedouin Arabs live and die, such as those who inhabited Mount Carmel and the surrounding area, during my time with the Great [Turabay] Emir, and that these observations were written. There has since been a lot of revolution in this Government. The Arabs who gave it madness to the authority of the Pashas no longer have it, and it is now the Turks who take it upon themselves, to the great displeasure of the Peoples, who found that of the Turabeyes very happy. These Arabs[*] have been raging in other parts of Palestine beyond the Jordan River for several years. We can give news of it in the flight, if we bring to light the remake of my Memoirs. [*]It is the strength of the Arabs of the desert not to be fixed for a long time in the same places: the beauty and the conveniences of a country attract them, they remain there as long as they can; the slightest revolution keeps them away: God formerly delivered the Provinces of Ammon and Moab to their Ancestors according to the Prophecy of Ezechiel, says Father Calmet, that they should conquer them by force of arms; but because the Caldens subjugated these Countries, and by having led the inhabitants to the Eufrat, the Arabs voiced charms of the beauty and the fertility of these Provinces, throwing themselves there and conferring there in the place of the first inhabitants: the favorable Commentator remarks that in this passage from Ezechiel the genius and the way of living of our Arabs are perfectly well expressed: their food, he says, is the dairy, their dwellings of tents, their wealth of the herds, their the mounts of camels, without cities, without villages, without houses, without fixed abodes; they move from one place and from one Province to another, depending on the weather, their fancy, and the quality of the pastures attract them there.

So all I could infer from d'Arvieux is that the Haritha bedouin migrated east because it was both in their nature, as nomads, not to remain fixed in one area, and circumstances such as the weather and quality of pastures. Would adding something along these lines suffice? As for the mausoleum, I could not find anything other than Sharon, who writes "As far as I know, it does not exist anymore". Al Ameer (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I think your addition of the general timeline is sufficient if the sources are that vague. Very happy to pass this now. CMD (talk) 08:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The country of Israel has existed “palestine” never had

Please reference any ancient "palestinian" coins, texts, documents, or any other proof of this purported state in your response. 71.84.27.125 (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Turabay - Terabi[n]

TLDR: The page currently presents the view that Jenin was part of the ibn Turabay's territory around 1520, which is backed by the work of Oppenheim, Sharon, and Abu-Husayn. However, this view requires emending the text of Evliya Çelebi's account, while an alternative interpretation — supported by Stephan and Parkes — suggests that Jenin was instead a hereditary fief of the Tarabin without requiring textual alterations. I believe this alternative view deserves more attention in the article.

In detail:: This page and the Jenin page state that around 1520, Jenin belonged to the territory of the ibn Turabays. This might be an error originating from Oppenheim.

What can be reconstructed from historical sources is "only" that at the beginning of the Ottoman period, Jenin belonged to the Lajjun district and that there was an ibn Turabay dynasty, which ruled from the Jezreel Valley down to the Nablus area and acted as tax farmers (see the sources compiled by Abu-Husayn). Geographically, it would make a lot of sense if Jenin belonged to this area within the Lajjun district (see the map).

However, the source for Jenin is Evliya Çelebi, and what he actually writes does not back this reconstruction: He writes that Jenin was in the Ajloun Sanjak and was granted as hereditary fief to Terabi oghlu because they had allied with the Ottoman Selim I and accompanied him to Egypt around 1520. (Similarly Roger 1664, p. 92: Jenin belongs to one "Emir Therabée").

To fit this account from Çelebi into the history of the Turabays, one has to alter the text twice:

• Oppenheim (1943, p. 52), Sharon (1975, p. 26 f.; 2017 only repeats 1975), and Abu-Husayn change "Ajloun" to "Lajjun." Only Abu-Husayn comments on this at all: "Clearly, this is a mistake; for Lajjun, not 'Ajlun, was the Palestinian sanjak actually held by the Turabays" (p. 185, FN 83). However, it is so obvious that it probably doesn't require much more commentary.
• All three interpret "Terabi" as "ibn Turabay." None of the three comment on this. However, this actually requires commentary: Sharon (1975, 2017) has listed the various spellings of "(ibn) Turabay"; "Terabi" is not among them (1975, p. 26; 2017, p. 176: "Turabak, Tura Bak, Tura Bay, Turabay"). Accordingly, Çelebi's translator, Stephan, identifies "Terabi" with the Tarabin ("Terabin") tribe (p. 87 f.; p. 27 f. of the PDF), not the ibn Turabays. Similarly, Parkes 1949 (p. 159) interpreted these "Terabi" as the "Tarabin"; at the same time, however, he apparently also transferred all mentions of the Turabays in Safad and the ibn Turabays in today's West Bank to the Tarabin, which is certainly incorrect.

Three more comments:

1. "Hereditary fief" is something different from district government; it could easily have been the case that the ibn Turabays were district governors and had tax farms both in the Jezreel Valley and the Nablus area, while at the same time, someone else — such as the Tarabin — also had tax farms in this district. Hütteroth / Abdulfattah 1977, p. 103, fig. 11 have marked all villages in the Lajjun district that were fiefs of the Turabays; Jenin wasn't one of them.
2. Geographically, it would make sense if the Tarabin had accompanied Selim I to Egypt; later sources provide strong evidence that they controlled vast areas between Palestine and Egypt along the northern coast of the Sinai, the route taken from Palestine to Egypt.
3. Contrast also these two data about the Terabi oghlu and the Turabay:

Stephan 1937, p. 88, translating Çelebi:
"Description of the Town of Terabi Oghlu [=Jenin]:
... They number about twenty thousand musketeers, including cavalry men on kuheilan breed horses. Their houses, built of mud and lime, number seven hundred. There is a Friday mosque and other small mosques as well as tiny shops, gardens, and orchards."
p. 87: "Amidst them, under a white dome, is the shrine of Sheikh 'Izz-ed-din bin esh Sheikh Muhammed er Rifa'i. Beside him the ancestors of the Terabi Oghlu <chieftains?> are buried within."

Sharon 2017, p. 177:
"The Turabays did not alter the mode of their Bedouin life. They lived in tents, and used to roam along the coast between the Carmel and Caesarea where they spent the winter months. They clung to the nomadic life out of pride, and although they could move into a palace, they refused for a very long time to do so, as attested by the french traveler d'Arvieux [1635-1702] who spent considerable time with them and left a detailed report about them, the best description outside the Arabic and Turkish sources. [...] They also made Jinin their administrative headquarters and buried their dead in the 'Izz ad-Din cemetery there."

=> Sharon seems to have taken over the mention of the graveyard from Çelebi, but the two different lifestyles described in the two contemporary sources — Çelebi and d'Arvieux — don't align very well.

The version on the Jenin page and this page is the more recent and majority version, which has the backing of Oppenheim, Sharon, and Abu-Husayn. However, it should at least be mentioned that this version requires altering the text, and that there is an alternative historical reconstruction (by Stephan and Parkes) which does not require such changes and assumes that, within the territory of the ibn Turabays, Jenin was a hereditary fief of the Tarabin. Given the stark differences between Çelebi's description of the Jenin population and d'Arvieux's description of the ibn Turabays, I'm not even sure whether the Oppenheim/Sharon/Abu-Husayn version should really be presented as the more plausible one on Wikipedia.

The strongest argument in favor of the Oppenheim/... version seems to me to be the tomb inscription in Jenin. However, here Sharon also altered the text; in his source, the inscription is actually reported as:

"Basmalah [in the name of God]. This is the tomb of the slave who is in need of Allah, the Exalted: al-Amir Turabay b. Sayyid Ali. 1010 AH [i.e. 1601 CE]."

That still certainly fits better with the Turabay version; however, it again doesn’t fit without issues, as the text once again needs to be corrected to fit

DaWalda (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)