For practical reasons, the historical evolution of terms and place names often precedes and follows the evolutions of concepts. Although the geo-political term Palestine can be traced to the late Bronze Age and the indigenous Philistines, the consolidation of the concept of Palestine can be traced to Herodotus and other Greek historians, ethnographers and geographers of Classical Antiquity. This study intends to link Bronze Age Palestine and Classical Antiquity Palestine with modern times and explore the etymology of Palestine toponyms – the term derives from the Greek words topos (‘place’) and onoma (‘name’) – and their changes through and across time.

Modern Palestinian collective memory and place names have evolved from the Neolithic Age into the modern period by embracing multiple traditions and preserving the shared and multi-layered heritage of the land. In a largely peasant society with one of the most fertile lands in the Fertile Crescent, many Palestinian Arab toponyms were based on plant foods (such as varieties of beans, lentils), fruit trees (olive, fig, vine) and natural geographical sites (hills, meadows, springs, streams, wadis, valleys and mountains).

By and large the names of Palestinian villages and towns were very stable, but names of provinces and districts were evolving.

Palestine is found on the earliest known world maps beginning with Late Antiquity and the famous ‘word map’ of Claudius Ptolemy (100–c.

170 AD). Of course, cartography is a practical science and since Ptolemy produced a map of the world known to Hellenistic society in the 2nd century cartography has never been about ‘objective’ representation of reality. In the Middle Ages cartography was developed by Muslim geographers such as al-Khawarizmi and deployed in the service of the Abbasid state and for practical purposes such as international Muslim trade, navigation and pilgrimage. In modern times cartography and renaming were also central to expanding European trade and empire-building (Bassett 1994:

316–335).

Place names (including human settlements such as villages, towns, cities, streets and countries and natural places such as mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, springs and wadis) are meant ‘to provide clues as to the historical and cultural heritage of places and regions’ (Kearns and Berg 2002: 284). Yet in reality place names are not just spatial references; they are rooted in power relations and struggles over land and resources and the identities of the people that inhabit these places (Kearns and Berg 2002).

Struggles over land, toponyms, naming and renaming between indigenous peoples and settler-colonists are common. Examples include Zimbabwe (Rhodesia), Islas Malvinas (the Falkland Islands), Istanbul (Constantinople), Northern Ireland (Ulster; the Six Counties), Azania (South Africa), Aotearoa (New Zealand), Palestine (Israel), al-Quds (Jerusalem) (Masalha 2007, 2012, 2013; Benvenisti 2002; Zerubavel 1995, 1996; Yacobi 2009; Gann 1981; Nyangoni 1978; Abu El-Haj 2001; Ra‘ad 2010; Berg and Kearns 1996; Berg and Vuolteenhaho 2009; Nash 1999; Housel 2009; Kadmon 2004). In modern times the drive to rename geographical sites is also about staking claims to a country. This focus on place names in the context of nationalism shows how hegemonic political elites and state authorities use the toponymic process as a way of constructing a new collective memory and ‘inventing traditions’ (Hobsbawm and Ranger 1996) and as a tactic of land-grabbing as well as an ideological reversion to a supposedly ancient or mythical ‘golden age’. State authorities deploy renaming strategies to erase earlier political, social and cultural realities and to construct new notions of national identity (Guyot and Seethal 2007; Nash 1999; Azaryahu and Kook 2002; Azaryahu 1996, 1997).

In view of the Zionist ethnic cleansing of most of Palestine in 1948 and the current reality of coloniser/colonised in the country, the liberal Zionist slogan that the history of modern Palestine centres on the idea of ‘one land, two peoples’ rings hollow. The asymmetry of power in Palestine informs the works of nearly all Israeli ‘New Historians’. This work, by contrast, challenges this ‘Zionist nationalism’-based perspective and argues for decolonising methodologies; this work argues that the nationalism perspective serves to camouflage the heart of the conflict in Palestine; it argues further that at the heart of the question of Palestine is the vastly asymmetrical conflict between an eliminationist European settler-colonialist movement, backed by major Western powers (first Britain and now the US), and the indigenous people of Palestine. Furthermore, place-naming cartography and state-sponsored explorations were central to the modern European conquest of the earth, empire-building and settler-colonisation projects, the Zionist enterprise included. Scholars often assume that place names provide clues to the historical and shared heritage of places and regions. This work uses social memory theory to analyse the cultural politics of place-naming in Israel. Drawing on Maurice Halbwachs’ study of the construction of social memory by the Latin Crusaders and Christian medieval pilgrims, the work shows Zionists’ toponymic strategies in Palestine: their superimposition of Old Testament and Talmudic toponyms was designed to erase the local Palestinian and Arab Islamic heritage of the country. In the pre-Nakba period Zionist toponymic schemes utilised 19th century Western explorations of Old Testament ‘names’ and ‘places’ and appropriated Palestinian toponyms. Following the ethnic cleansing of Palestine in 1948 and the ruptures of the Nakba, the Israeli state, now in control of 78 per cent of the land, accelerated its toponymic project and pursued methods whose main features were memoricide. Continuing into the post-1967 occupation, these colonial methods continue to threaten the destruction of the diverse cultural and historic heritage of the land.

The toponyms of historic Palestine derive from a wide range of sources, including Phoenician, Philistine, Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew and Arabic – toponyms which are representative of the multi-layered cultural identity of Palestine. The social and cultural importance of toponymic memory and geographical rendering of sites and terms in historical writing is evident in many histories from antiquity, medieval and modern Palestine. One classical example is the listing of the name of ancient Palestine in Histories (or The History, 1987) by Herodotus, written from the 450s to the 420s BC.

Herodotus is believed to have visited Palestine in the fifth decade of the 5th century BC. Like the classical tradition of Greek and Roman historiography, Herodotus’ work put the greatest value on oral testimony for contemporary history (Robinson, C. 2003: 26). Herodotus was the first historian to denote a geographical region he called Palaistinê (Παλαιστίνη), which was far wider than ancient Philistia. He refers to Palestine or ‘Syria’, or simply ‘Palaistinê’, five times, meaning an area encompassing the distinct region between Phoenicia and Egypt (Rainey 2001; Jacobson 1999). Herodotus also mentions the city of Ascalon (Akkadian: Isqalluna; Greek: Ascalon; Arabic: ‘Asqalan; Latin: Ascalonia; Hebrew: Ashkelon), a great ancient seaport city which dates back to the Neolithic Age. At the time of Herodotus Palestine was deeply polytheistic and consequently, in contrast to the myth-narratives of the Bible, Herodotus does not mention Jews or monotheism but describes Ascalan as having a temple for Aphrodite and its polytheistic tradition. Although Herodotus’ Histories is now considered a founding work of history in Western literature, and serves as a key record of the ancient traditions, politics, geography and clashes of various powers that were known in Greece, Western Asia and North Africa, when it comes to Palestine and toponymic memory Western Christian writing relies not on Herodotus’ Histories but on the myth-narratives of the Bible.

Interestingly, however, the Greek toponym for Palestine and Ascalan were preserved in indigenous Palestinian Arab tradition and by medieval Arab historians, geographers and travellers, and ‘Ascalon’ became known to the Palestinian Arabs from the 7th century as ‘Asqalan’.

The emphasis of this work is on the indigenous (individual and collective)

agency and the ability of the peoples of Palestine to borrow, adapt, shape and transform outside influences and their own environment.

Consequently, the superficial use of the term ‘Hellenisation’ in Palestine is problematic. This uncritical use marginalises the indigenous agency and over-emphasises the Hellenistic side of the relationship as the primary source of power and legitimacy. However, aspects of the ‘toponymical Hellenisation’ of Palestinian urban place names are evident. Toponymical ‘Hellenisation’ of urban Palestine, which began with the conquest by Alexander the Great in the late 330s BC and developed over several centuries, was markedly accompanied by extensive economic growth and development that included urban planning and the establishment of well-built fortified cities. Distance and regional trade and gradual ‘cultural Hellenisation’ had some impact on Palestine and this was felt in the urban centres and major cities. In addition to the impact of Hellenisation on the historic cities of Gaza, ‘Asqalon, Jerusalem and Jaffa, ongoing Hellenisation of place names and renaming of Palestinian cities affected Scythopolis (Beisan), Ptolemais (Akka/Acre), Diospolis (Lydda), Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin), Sepphoris (Diocaesaraea/Saffuriyah), Nicopolis (Emmaus), Petra (Greek: rock; Aramaic: Raqmu; Arabic: al-Batra), Philadelphia (‘Amman), Antipatris (Surdi fonts/Binar Bashi), Flavia Neapolis (Nablus) and Sebastos (Sabastiyah). Sebastia (Greek: Sevastee) is today a large Palestinian village, located some 12 kilometres north-west of the city of Nablus. Rebuilt in 63

BC, its name derives from Sebastos (‘venerable’), the Greek equivalent of the Latin Augustus, a name chosen in honour of Emperor Augustus. For many centuries, the town was the seat of a bishop, first in Palaestina Prima under the Byzantine Empire, then in the province of Jund Filastin under Islam and again a Latin bishop in the Frankish Kingdom of Jerusalem.

The original Palestine Orthodox tradition of Sebastia was restored after the defeat of the Latin Crusaders and continued under Islam into the modern era. Since 2005 a leading Palestinian Arab public figure, Atallah Hanna (Theodosios), with a strong commitment to Palestinian Arab national identity, has been the Archbishop Sebastia in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, a religious title which embodies the continuities and the deeply rooted toponymic social memories of historic Palestine.

As for the name of the Palestinian city Nablus, it derives from Greco- Roman name Flavia Neapolis (Νεάπολις) – the ‘new city of the Emperor Flavius’ – which was given to it by the Roman Emperor Vespasian in 72

AD. Thus Nablus shares its name with the Italian city of Naples. Flavia Neapolis had been founded near Tell Balatah, the site of the remains of an ancient Palestinian city Shechmu, traditionally identified with the Samaritan city of Schechem. The site of Balatah is one of the most ancient localities in Palestine and archaeologists estimate that the towers and buildings at the site date back 4000 years to the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages. Today Tell Balatah is listed by UNESCO as part of the Inventory of Cultural and Natural Heritage Sites of Potential Outstanding Universal Value in Palestine. Ancient and modern Palestinian cities are closely related not only in terms of toponymic memories. Archaeological evidence shows the historical continuities, interruptions, revival and continuous transformation of the urban centres of Palestine from the Early Bronze Age to the modern period:

Archaeological data take us beneath and beyond such recitation [of military battles] to gain a glimpse of what life was actually like in Hellenistic Palestine. A presentation of the period’s architectural remains, changes in its settlement patterns, and the variety of its material cultures helps us understand how the inhabitants of various parts of the country lived and how their lives changed during the course of these momentous centuries. Peaceful and increasingly wealthy and cosmopolitan lifestyles emerge from the obscuring dust of the historian’s preoccupation with battles. (Berlin 1997: Abstract)

Palestine’s educated urban elites and thriving urban spaces played an important part in shaping the early idea of Palestine. Both Latin and Koine Greek were the dominant languages of the Byzantine Empire until the 6th century; Latin remained the official language of the government in the 6th century, whereas the prevalent language of merchants, farmers, seamen and ordinary citizens in Palestine was Greek. Also, Aramaic – closely related to Arabic – was a prevalent language among the (predominantly Christian) Palestinian peasantry which constituted the majority of population in the country. In practice, Greek and Latin were the prevalent languages of the educated urban elites of Byzantine Palestine, affecting education, trade, administration, official documents, art and architecture and key place names throughout Palestine and the Eastern Mediterranean. Greek, however, became the lingua franca of late Byzantine Palestine, shortly before the advent of Islam. Consequently, the Hellenisation of Palestinian toponyms was not uncommon in Late Antiquity. A well-known example of Hellenisation from Late Antiquity is the work of the 1st-century Romano-Jewish historian and translator Josephus (Titus Flavius Josephus 37‒c. 100 AD) who spoke Aramaic and Greek and who became a Roman citizen. Both he and Greco-Roman Jewish writer Philo of Alexandria used the toponym Palestine (Robinson, E. 1865: 15). Josephus believed in the compatibility of Judaism and Greco- Roman thought, often referred to as Hellenistic Judaism.11 He listed local Palestinian toponyms and rendered them familiar to Greco-Roman audiences. In his works The Jewish War (1981) and the Antiquities of the Jews (2004) which include material about individuals, groups, customs and place names, Josephus almost never refers to Torah-authority Jewish scribes as ‘scribes’; instead he refers to them as sophists and elders. Similarly, Josephus refers to Jewish ‘sects’ (a loaded term) as philosophies or schools. The term he used to refer to Transjordan, Peraea (‘the country beyond’), is not found in the Bible, modern ‘Amman is referred to by its Greek name, Philadelphia. Medieval Muslims and modern Palestinians preserved Greco-Roman toponyms such Nablus (Greek: Neapolis, Νεάπολις), Palestine, Qaysariah12 (Caesarea; Greek: Καισάρεια), but not Philadelphia. Eusebius’ 4th century work on Palestinian topography, Onomasticon: On the Place Names in Divine Scripture (Notley and Safrai 2004; Eusebius 1971), refers to ‘Amman: this is now Philadelphia’.

In addition to the Hellenisation of many Palestinian toponyms by the Jewish writer Josephus, the Founding Fathers of Christianity introduced religio-political dimensions to Palestinian place names. The role of this religio-social memory in influencing the geographical mapping and toponymic memory of Palestine was widely recognised in the 4th century AD in two famous works: St Jerome’s Vulgate translation into Latin and the subsequent work on Palestinian topography, Onomasticon: On the Place Names in Divine Scripture by Eusebius of Caesarea (Eusebius Caesariensis; 260/265‒339/340 AD) – a historian of Greek descent, a topographer and an exegete and one of the Founding Fathers who became the Bishop of Caesarea about AD 314. Eusebius’ work, Onomasticon (Notley and Safrai 2004; Eusebius 1971), the first comprehensive attempt to construct and ‘locate’ these places and names from the biblical narratives, was partly based on Jerome’s religio-imperial enterprise which was driven by the fact that Christianity had become an official religion of empire. It was these two works by two of the Founding Fathers of Christianity, Jerome and Eusebius, rather than Herodotus’ actual history of Palestine which formed the basis of Western religio-social toponymic memory and the reimagining of Palestine as a Christian Holy Land (Sivan 2008: 57). Eusebius, in Onomasticon, provides a list of place names of Provincia Palaestina, with additional geographical, historical and religious commentary partly based on biblical stories. His topography of Palestine was later translated into Latin. St Jerome relocated physically to Judaea in Provincia Palaestina while working on the Vulgate translation. Jerome, a founding father of Christianity and a major contributor to its seminal religious memory, was the first person to go back and translate the Old Testament from Hebrew rather than from the Septuagint (or ‘Greek Old Testament’).

The evolving multi-layered identity and conception of Palestine since the late Bronze Age has geo-political, secular, administrative and legal connotations. The Byzantine era also added a religious layer to the geo-political, secular conception of Palestine, in the form of the ‘Holy Land’. The religio-sacred representations of Palestine, the Holy Land, the ‘land of the Gospel’ as religious memory and an imagined sacred territory have been embraced and celebrated by the indigenous people of Palestine:

Muslims (from the Quranic traditions), Samaritans (based on the Samaritan Pentateuch), Jews (from the traditions of the Old Testament)

and Christians (from the traditions of the Old and New Testaments). This multifaith identity of Palestine is universally recognised.

Furthermore, the medieval Western Christian religious memory of, and pilgrimage to, the Terrae Sanctae had a major influence on the modern social memory theory of French sociologist Maurice Halbwachs (1877‒1945), whose seminal writings on the sociology of knowledge and the social construction of memory was entitled Mémoire Collective (1980).

In his work Halbwachs contrasted structured, evolving ‘social memory’ with actual history and thus established ‘collective memory’ both as a concept and as a distinct research field. The term ‘collective memory’ itself is traceable to the founder of modern sociology, Émile Durkheim (1858–1917), who wrote extensively in Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse (2003) about organised religion, collective memory, remembering and commemorative rituals. Halbwachs, a student of Durkheim and a positivist sociologist, contrasts ‘history’ with evolving ‘social memory’ and argues that an individual’s memories and understanding of the past are closely related to group memberships, ‘collective memory’ and group consciousness. According to Halbwachs (1992), this production of social memory is dependent upon a religious or political ‘cadre’ as well as the framework within which a group is situated within a society.

Halbwachs’ work on the social framing of collective memory and the construction (and reproduction) of social memory began with his landmark study on Les Cadres Sociaux de la Mémoire (1925, 1992) and La Topographie légendaire des évangiles en terre sainte: étude de mémoire collective (1941, 1992). Halbwachs was preoccupied with religious and nationalist social memory. His work La Topographie légendaire des évangiles en terre sainte focuses on publicly available commemorative symbols, rituals and representations. It also examines the religio-social memory of successive generations of medieval Christian pilgrims and Latin Crusaders in the Terrae Sanctae and their geographical subdivision of Palestine, Syria and Arabia, and how these groups ‘found’ and then ‘found’ again (reproduced)

particular place names from the Gospel narratives.

This work will show how the collective (religio-social) memory of Western scriptural scholars such as Edward Robinson and Victor Guérin (like the medieval Crusaders and pilgrims) ‘found’ again and (reconstructed)

in the 19th century particular place names in Palestine from the biblical narrative – place names which formed the basis of Zionist replacement toponymic projects. Place names, geographical sites and landscape are also – to borrow French historian Pierre Nora’s term, Les Lieux de mémoire (1996, 1997, 1998) – ‘sites of memory’ around which social groups consciously construct and cultivate social and cultural memory and individual and collective identities. Underpinned by the social memory theory of Halbwachs, Nora and others, this book also draws on other approaches:

the exploration of Israeli archival historical documents; Palestinian oral history and memory accounts; map-making and the cultural production of maps in Palestine‒Israel.

In the modern period, and especially during the British Mandate of Palestine (1918‒1948), the term ‘Palestinian’ was used to refer to all people residing in Palestine, regardless of religion or ethnicity, including those European Jewish settlers granted citizenship by the British Mandatory authorities. Earlier, in the second half of the 19th century, the British had set up the Palestine Exploration Fund (PEF) as an imperial project. It was founded in London in 1865 under the patronage of Queen Victoria and coined the terms ‘Western Palestine’ and ‘Eastern Palestine’ (the Survey of Western Palestine and Survey of Eastern Palestine) and mounted geographical map-making expeditions in Palestine in the 1870s. The large number of publications by the PEF included The Fauna and Flora of Palestine (Tristram 1884). There was no mention of the expression ‘Land of Israel’ by the PEF – this was later coined by the founding fathers of Jewish Zionism.

However, one of the key religio-political-strategic objectives of the PEF was clear from its own publication: Names and Places in the Old and New Testament and Apocrypha: with their Modern Identifications (Palestine Exploration Fund 1889). The PEF listed more than 1150 place names related to the Old Testament and 162 related to the New Testament. Shortly after the British military occupation of Palestine in 1918, the British Mandatory authorities set out to gather toponymic information from the local Palestinian inhabitants. Following the PEF, the Mandatory authorities assumed that the Palestinian Arabs (Muslim, Christian and Arab Jews) had also preserved knowledge of the ancient place names which could help identify archaeological and biblical sites.

In Palestine, the struggle between the coloniser and colonised over land, demography, power and ownership also centred on representation, misrepresentation and self-representation. The metaphoric self-representation of the European settler-coloniser as a ‘return to history’ works to uproot and ‘detach’ the native from history. The settler-coloniser invaded the space and appropriated the heritage of the local Palestinians and simultaneously detached itself from the colonised and disinherited Palestinian. The production of historical knowledge and power by the Ashkenazi Zionist settler-coloniser – a self-referencing ouroboros – resulted in the creation of a range of foundational myths, self-indigenising and self-antiquating strategies, including the myths of ‘exile and return’ and ‘return to history’. But the ‘many returns’ of Zionism, as Israeli scholar Gabriel Piterberg put it in The Returns of Zionism (2008), did not just manifest themselves in the obsessive ‘return to history’ by the European settler coming to reclaim the land, they were also constructed around erasure, the non-existence of the indigenous people of Palestine and the actual, physical uprooting of the Palestinians and their detachment ‘from history’.

Since the mapping and explorations of the PEF and especially since the establishment of an ethnically cleansing Israeli state in 1948, the production of historical knowledge and cultural struggle over the naming (and renaming) of Palestine sites/cities/towns and villages have become major weapons of Zionist settler-colonial nationalism, biblicisation, Hebrewisation and Judaisation strategies that sought to detach the Palestinians from the history of the country. Toponymy itself is a branch of onomastics or onomatology, the study of the origin, history and uses of names of all kinds. Anthroponomastics (or anthroponymy) is the study of personal names. Chapter ten will explore Zionist toponymic, anthroponymic and self-naming strategies. The eliminationist projects of Zionist settler-colonisation in Palestine did not just centre on land-grabbing and the ethnic cleansing of the indigenous people of Palestine. These projects also consisted of self-indigenisation, self-antiquation, biblicisation and Hebrewisation in addition to the Judaisation of the land.