Lod during the Middle Ages

From a provincial capital to a marginal city

In the Byzantine period, Lod (Lidda in Greek and in Latin) was a central city in the area west of Jerusalem—situated on the intersection of the major routes running through the center of the country: the Syria–Egypt trunk road and the road from the Coastal Plain to Jerusalem and across the Jordan. In addition, it was a significant site for Christian pilgrimage, the home of Saint George’s Church, first mentioned by the traveler Theodosius in 518 CE (Wilkinson 1977: 75) and frequently appearing in other travelogues and even in the writings of Muslim geographers.

Lod was conquered by the Muslims, apparently without battle, in 636 (Le Strange 1890: 28). It was named, after the Greek name, Lidd. The Muslim occupation entailed no immediate drastic changes in the life of the country’s inhabitants. The new conquerors left the existing frameworks intact, and Greek remained the language of administration. The division of western part of the Land of Israel into provinces, which dates back to the days of Theodosius II (r. 408–450), was also maintained. However, the names of the districts and their capital cities were changed. Palaestina Prima, the Byzantine province that included the south and center of the country, became Jund Filasṭīn, and the northern part of the country, Palaestina Secunda, became Jund al-Urdunn. In the Byzantine period, the capital of Palaestina Prima was Caesarea, but with the Muslim conquest, the capital of the province—now Jund Filasṭīn—was moved to Lod (Yaʿqūbī, 328). In less than a century, however, Lod lost its centrality due to the establishment of a new capital nearby, the city of Ramla.

The various versions of the founding story of Ramla allude to tension between the Christians—the longtime residents of Lod—and the new administration. It is said that during the reign of the Umayyad caliph al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik, the caliph’s brother, Sulaymān, was governor of Jund Filasṭīn and lived in Lod. He, or one of his men, quarreled with the local priest, who deceived Sulaymān when he tried to purchase a plot of land from the priest, perhaps to establish his administrative center there. Consequently, Sulaymān (or, according to another version, his adviser) decided to destroy Lod and establish a new capital in its place (Gat 2004: 16–20).

The new City, Ramla, obtained Lod’s function as the capital city of the region. As a result, the city declined. Some sources claim that Lod was completely destroyed: “Sulaymān built Ramla, and this was the cause of the destruction of Lod” (Yāqūt 3: 69; al-Jāhshiyārī: 48). “When Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik ascended the throne of the caliphate, he built the city of Ramla and destroyed the city of Lod and moved the inhabitants of Lod to Ramla” (Yaʿqūbī, 328). This opinion cannot be accepted, because Lod is mentioned as the capital of a province in the ninth and tenth centuries (Ibn al-Faqīh, 103; Ibn Khurdādhbih, 23). The Jerusalem-born geographer al-Muqaddasī mentions the city and the church in the tenth century. Moreover, according to al-Muqaddasī, the celebrations of Saint George in Lod, which were held every year on November 2, were known to the Muslim peasants as the date of sowing. They would attend these celebrations because they honored Saint George, whom they identified with the prophet al-Khiḍr (al-Muqaddasī, 183; cf. Elad 1995: 66, 135).

In the Ḥadith, the oral law of Islam, it is relayed that the prophet Muhammad said that Jesus would kill the Dajjāl, the Islamic equivalent of the Antichrist, who would descend into the world forty days before the Day of Judgment, at the gates of Lod. This tradition is mentioned in the writings of Arab geographers dealing with Lod (original Ḥadith: Jāmiʿ al-Tirmidhī 2244: 33; geographers: al-Muqaddasī, 176; Yāqūt, 4: 254; Mujīr al-Dīn, 71). It is easy to see the connection between the abovementioned Ḥadith and the tradition that connects Saint George to Lod.

At the end of the tenth century, it was said of Lod that “it has a large mosque at which a large crowd of the inhabitants of the capital (Ramla) and the surrounding villages gather. It has an admirable church” (al-Muqaddasī, 176). Al-Muqaddasī (159) relates that the church of Lod was one of the models for the design of the magnificent Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. However, Saint George’s Church of Lod, which symbolized in Christian eyes the victory of Christianity over its enemies, was a target for foes who wished to harm it. It was destroyed in 614, during the Persian-Sasanian conquest, rebuilt, and destroyed again in 1010, at the behest of the Fatimid caliph al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh (Glaber: 132–135; Adémar de Chabannes, 178). The Crusader historian William of Tyre claims that when the First Crusade approached Lod, the Muslims burned the church (William of Tyre, 1: 332). But according to other Crusader sources from that period (see Pringle 1998: 10–11), William’s account was probably inaccurate.

Lod during the Crusader period

Lod fell to the Crusaders as early as the beginning of their rule in the country, in 1099. A bishop named Robert of Rouen, who headed the Crusader camp that remained in Ramla after its conquest, became the Bishop of Lod and in charge of its seigneury (William of Tyre, 1: 374). In 1102, when Ramla was conquered by a Muslim force from Egypt, its inhabitants as well as Lod’s fled to the Church of Saint George, which withstood the attacks.

Lod was the capital of a unique Crusader seigneury, headed by the bishop of the city and not one of the nobles of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as was the case in other seigneuries (Jean d’Ibelin, 240; Röhricht 1893: 12–13, 74–75). Until the early 1160s, the bishops of Lod claimed the nearby estate, Ramla, for themselves, but this claim met with disagreement. Lod had a bourgeois tribunal (Jean d’Ibelin, 420), indicating the city was home to a stratum of Frankish settlers from Western Europe. Further evidence that at least some of the city’s residents were of European descent is the report by Jean d’Ibelin that in times of war, the city was obliged to send ten knights and two hundred sergeants (lightly armored warriors) to the Crusader army (Jean d’Ibelin, 422, 427).

We learn of Lod’s independent power from the fact that it had its own militia, the “militia of Saint George” (militia sancti Georgii). In 1137 it was headed by the bishop’s nephew, a man named Reynault, who was killed in a battle with Muslims on that year (William of Tyre, 2: 666).

The image of Lod in the twelfth century that emerges from the Crusader sources is of a vibrant and active city. The worship of Saint George and the impressive church built at that time stood in the heart of the city. Like all important places for Christianity, Saint George’s Church was held, at that time, by the Catholics. However, it is very likely that there was also a Greek Orthodox community in the city, as such a community held the church before the Crusades. Alongside the Christian settlement, Muslims probably also lived in the city, as the Crusader sources say that the bishop’s palace was “under the walls of the mosque” (Röhricht 1893: 18, doc. no. 80).

The little evidence about Lod’s economy during the Crusader period indicates the area made its living mainly from agriculture and pilgrimage—namely to the tomb of Saint George, which was an important branch of industry in the city. Pilgrims favored Lod for several reasons, one of which—though perhaps not the main one—was that it lay on the main road between Acre and Jerusalem.

The Crusader sources left no description of the city itself and usually no description of the church either. From few accounts that are available, however, it appears to have been a rather large and well-built structure (Johannes Phocas, 34), and a Muslim source describes the church as a “fine building” (Bahāʾ al-Dīn, 260). This can be learned also from the fact that in 1177, when Ramla and Lod were attacked by a Muslim force led by a converted Armenian officer who was under the command of Saladin, the residents fled to the church and found refuge on its roof (William of Tyre, 2: 428). According to archaeologist Dennis Pringle, it was a fortress that stood near the church to which the residents fled (Pringle 1998: 142). 

Archaeological research in Lod has so far found no clear remains from the Crusader period other than the structure of the church. Etan Ayalon surveyed an industrial building in the city, which he estimated was based on Crusader foundations (Ayalon 1990: 177–178; Ehrlich 2000: 148–149).

In 1187 Lod fell to Saladin. It is not clear what happened in the city during the following four years, but on Ramadan 4, 587/September 4, 1191, after the Battle of Arsuf, during which Saladin was defeated, he arrived in Lod and ordered the destruction of the church, at the same time as the destruction of Ramla’s fortress (Bahāʾ al-Dīn, 260; see also Mujīr al-Dīn, 68, 71).

By 1192, however, after the Jaffa Agreement was signed between Saladin and Richard the Lionheart, Lod came under joint Muslim-Frankish rule, and it seems that in 1204 it returned to full Crusader rule (Ibn al-Athīr, 12: 195; Ibn Shaddād, 184). During this period, Saint George’s Church was rebuilt. A bishop serving the city is mentioned as early as 1202 (Hamilton 1980: 246–248). The church in those days, described as “large and sublime” (Felix Fabri, 257), continued to be a major site for pilgrimage, but the city itself seems to have declined, becoming a village, as we learn from quite a few testimonies (Felix Fabri, 257; Mujīr al-Dīn, 71). In 1266 the city—or what remained of it—fell to the Mamluk sultan Baybars. The sultan, who had returned victorious after conquering the mighty Crusader fortress in Safed, captured Lod and its neighbor Ramla effortlessly. A new chapter began in the history of Lod (Ibn Shaddād, 184; al-Maqrīzī, 1: 550).

Lod during the Mamluk period

Baybars appointed a Muslim governor, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Sawāq, over the city and ordered the destruction of Saint George’s Church, which was razed except for its apse, one arch, a pillar that stood between the Crusader nave and the southern Isle, and a low section of the northern wall. A mosque was erected over the southern and western parts of the ruined church. The new governor of the city supervised its construction, as recorded in the inscription fixed above the entrance to the mosque compound to this day:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Only he shall inhabit God’s places of worship who believes in God and the Last Day, and performs the prayer, and pays the alms, and fears none but God alone (Quran, 9:18, trans. Arberry) ordered the restoration of this blessed jāmiʿ our lord the mighty sultan, al-Malik al-Ẓāhir rukn al-dunyā wal-dīn, Abū al-Futūḥ Baybars b. ʿAbdallāh, the right hand of the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah grant him a long life; may Allah glorify his victories and forgive him. [This construction] was done under the supervision of the submissive slave, who longs for the mercy of his Lord, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Sawāq, may God forgive him, in the month of Ramadan, year 667 (June 1269).

Charles Clermont-Ganneau asserted that the mosque was clearly located on the remains of the Byzantine church that preceded the medieval one, and that the remains of the southern wall of the Crusader church were inside the mosque (Clermont-Ganneau 1899: 102; and see Pringle 1998).

Lod of the Mamluk period, just like Lod of the beginning of the thirteenth century, was a village, but nonetheless one within which remnants of the past’s glory were still clearly visible. The Franciscan monk Niccolò da Poggibonsi, who passed through Lod in 1346, described it as a “cluster of houses known as Lydda” (casamento si chiama lidda; Niccolò da Poggibonsi, 28). Another passenger, Mariano da Siena (1431), described it as a “city of ruins” (città disfatta; Mariano da Siena, 18). The Dominican monk Felix Fabri visited the city around 1480 and wrote: “In the past it was a big city, but it was destroyed by the Saracens” (Felix Fabri, 257).

Shortly afterwards, the judge and historian-geographer Mujīr al-Dīn wrote as follows:

It is reported from the Prophet’s mouth that he mentioned the Dajjāl and said: “Jesus son of Miriam will kill him at the gate of Lod.” This tradition expresses the advantage of the Holy Land (over other lands) because (its people will fight) alongside the divine prophet (Jesus) against the Dajjāl…. Lod was in times gone by a fine settlement in which (many) people lived. In Lod there was (my emphasis, S.G.) a well-built church with a wide courtyard to which the Christians dedicated many properties as endowments, and they adore it to this day [the late fifteenth century, S.G.] and Saladin destroyed it. The city became a small village at that time, but it is very beautiful and impressive in its exterior… it has a well-known mosque (established by Baybars), and it is impressive and full of light and its minaret is high” (Mujīr al-Dīn, 71).

It is possible that the description of Lod’s decline and poverty in the thirteenth–fifteenth centuries is a bit exaggerated. Apparently, there was an active khan in the city (Katya Cytrin-Silverman, pers. comm.), upon which Khan al-Hilu was built during the Ottoman period. The main road from Syria to Egypt, known during the Mamluk period as the postal route, passed through Lod. A small sabīl (water fountain) was built on the postal route, near the Ḥassuna family’s cemetery in the city.

As part of the rebuilding of the road, an important bridge, known as Jisr Jindas, was constructed north of Lod, on the Ayalon River (Fig. 1), on Baybars’ orders and under the supervision of the abovementioned governor of Lod, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Sawāq, as the inscription on both sides teaches us:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate, whose prayer is for our Lord Muḥammad and for all his Companions. Commanded to build this blessed bridge our Lord, the great sultan, al-Malik al-Ẓāhir (the clear, visible ruler) rukn al-dunyā wal-dīn (the pillar of the world and religion) Abū al-Futūḥ (the father of conquests) Baybars b. ʿAbdallāh, [and this was] in the days of his son, our Lord the sultan al-Malik al-Saʿīd Nāṣir al-Dīn Bereke Khan, may [God] preserve their victories and grant them forgiveness. [This construction] was done under the supervision of the submissive slave, who longs for the mercy of his Lord, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Sawāq, may God forgive him and his two parents. [The work was completed] in the month of Ramadan, year 671 (April 1273). 

Ronnie Ellenblum claimed in the past that the bridge was a Crusader bridge on the Lod– Jerusalem road. He based this on the crosses engraved in the stone at the bottom of the western side of the bridge, and on some of the stones that are typical Crusader masonry and even bear clear Crusader masons’ marks (Ellenblum 1987: 215–218).

It is difficult to accept this claim. While we know of no similar Crusader bridge, some bridges constructed by Baybars and his successors are generally identical to Jisr Jindās. In the epic Sīrat al-Ẓāhir Baybars (The Life of Baybars), it is explicitly stated that in 672 AH (sic; should be 671), Baybars built two bridges in the Ramla area. The second bridge is, most likely, the Mamluk bridge on the Yavne–Ramla road (now the Yavne–Rehovot road). As for the crosses at the bottom of the bridge, already Charles Clermont-Ganneau, one of the first scholars of the Land of Israel, wrote an excellent survey of the bridge (Clermont-Ganneau 1899: 110–118), noting the crosses and the stonemasonry. In his opinion, the bridge was built of stones taken from the church in Lod that was destroyed by Baybars (ibid.: 115). Moreover, the crosses should not be considered proof that the bridge is Crusader, as they are located at the base of the pillars on the west side of the bridge, on the water line, where they cannot be seen unless special effort is made to view them at a specific angle. They have never been seen from a distance, and it is unlikely that a Crusader would have set them in such a location.

Clermont-Ganneau speculated that the bridge was set on Roman foundations, and suggested that it was at maʿabarta de-Lod, a place where, according to the Jerusalem Talmud, Apostomus, a slave of the Roman emperor, burned the Torah. “Where did it burn? Rabbi Acha said: In maʿabarta de-Lod, and the rabbis say: in maʿabarta de-Teralosa” (Jerusalem Talmud, Taʿanit 4.5; Clermont-Ganneau 1899: 118).

Despite all the above, and despite Lod being the capital of a district (ʿamal), its scarce mentions in various sources—whether Muslim, Christian (except, of course, for the mention of the church and its sanctity), or Jewish—as well as the small number of buildings within it, indicates that it continued as a small settlement in the Mamluk period. Indeed, Lod never recovered from the establishment of neighboring Ramla, to which it lost its status as a major crossroads in the Land of Israel, the capital of a large economic space, and an important spiritual center.

In the summer of 1516, Lod, like the whole Land of Israel, fell to the Ottoman sultan, Selim I. A new chapter opened in the history of the country and the city.

Conclusion

Under Arab rule, Lod, which had been an important center in the Byzantine period and for a short time the capital of a province, became a settlement of secondary importance, following the founding of neighboring Ramla. The most important structure in the city was Saint George’s Church (Fig. 2), which served as a focal point for Christian pilgrimage. During the Crusader period, Lod was the capital of a seigneury, headed by the city’s bishop rather than a Frankish nobleman. It seems that at that time settlers from Western Europe lived there alongside local Christians and even Muslims. The Mamluk conquest led to the destruction of the church and the disappearance of the Catholic foundation of it. A large mosque was built on the ruins of the church, and a massive bridge was built north of the city. However, little is known about the city in those years. The paucity of interest in it indicates how insignificant Lod was in the Middle Ages.

Bibliography