‘Abdul-Karim Rafeq, a distinguished Syrian historian who pioneered the use of sharia (Islamic law) court records (sijillat) as sources for social and especially urban history and wrote extensively on Ottoman Syria and Palestine, came across the Arabic term Filastin on a number of occasions (Rafeq 1990; Gerber 2008: 51). Among Rafeq’s Arabic sources for late 19th century Palestine was an 1879 Arabic manuscript by Damascene author Nu’man al-Qasatli, entitled: ‘al-Rawda al-Numaniyya in the Travelogue to Palestine and some Syrian Towns’ (Rafeq 1990; Gerber 2008: 51), which provides an 1870s survey of Palestine. This increase in the use of the Arabic terminology of Falastin and Filastin in the second half of the 19th century and the growing perception (local, regional and international) that modern Palestine/Holy Land was distinct, if not separate, from modern Syria, were among the multiple indicators of the paradigm shift in the perception of late Ottoman Palestine. However, with reference to the textual ‘usage’ of the terms Filastin, Filistin and Falastin in indigenous ‘literary-scholarly’ sources in Arabic, the context of the predominantly pre-modern oral/aural culture of Palestine should always be kept in mind. Also, crucially, unlike the introduction of printing presses in Europe in the 15th century – which gradually led to mass literacy and mass publications – Palestine had its first printing presses five centuries later, in the late 19th century – and subsequently one famous printing press in Jaffa was called ‘Palestine Press’, مطبعة فلسطين‘ ’– therefore, inevitably the volume of ‘literary-scholarly’ output on Palestine in Arabic prior to the late 19th century (in comparison with the mountains of sources in European languages) was limited.

For a host of reasons (top of which was the European powers’ scramble for, and actual penetration of, Palestine/Holy Land), the perception of the importance of Palestine by the rulers of the shrinking Ottoman Empire began to change radically in the second half of the 19th century. This was a gradual process and was also reflected in Ottoman Turkish‒English dictionaries of the early and mid-19th century: the term ‘Holy Land’ was often rendered into ‘Filastin’. One such original dictionary was produced in 1856 by Sir James Redhouse, An English and Turkish Dictionary, which was later used as the basis for many Turkish‒English dictionaries, translated the English term ‘Holy Land’ into the Arabic script as ‘Dar Filastin’ دار فلسطين) ), or or ‘land of Palestine’; Redhouse 1856.).8 In Islamic terminology, with which both Redhouse and Ottoman officials were familiar, the Arabic singular form dar may mean ‘house’, ‘place’, ‘land’, ‘country’, ‘region’ or ‘territory’. This dictionary was commissioned by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, the largest and most important American missionary organisation in the 19th century. The Board started a new mission to Palestine in 1819. But Redhouse himself had worked for the Ottoman government for many years, first as a draftsman in the late 1820s before he returned to England in 1834 to publish his first Ottoman‒ English dictionary. In 1838 Redhouse returned to Istanbul to work for the Ottoman government as an interpreter to the Vezir-i Azam (effectively Prime Minister) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In 1840 Redhouse was transferred to the Ottoman Admiralty and became a member of the Ottoman Naval Council. In this capacity, he went to Syria-Palestine to help with communications between the British and Ottoman fleets which at the time were blockading the Egyptian forces in the Levant under the command of Ibrahim Pasha. After the end of Egyptian rule in Palestine and Syria in 1841 Redhouse received the Sultan’s Imperial Order Iftar Nisani in 1941, one of the chivalric orders of the Ottoman Empire. He remained in Istanbul until 1853 before returning to London to work for the British Foreign Office.

Another key indicator of the shift in the perception of the country of Palestine/Holy Land was the Ottoman administrative reorganisation in Palestine – reforms which were partly instituted under growing pressure from the European allies who had backed the Ottoman Empire in its struggle against the Egyptian occupation of the Levant in 1831‒1840 and during the Ottoman‒Russian (Crimean) War of 1853‒1858. The ‘sick man of Europe’ was also increasingly falling under the financial control of the European powers, whose penetration of Holy Land/Palestine was unstoppable.

Eyalets (provinces or pashaliks) were a primary administrative divisions of the Ottoman Empire, a division which lasted from the mid-15th century until the 1860s, and were headed by senior officials known as valis, or general governor. In 1859, in A Gazetter of the World. Or Dictionary of Geographical Knowledge (Vol. 1), a member of the British Royal Geographic Society, described Acre as a pashalik of the Ottoman Empire and a part of Palestine.

In the 1860s the greatly weakened Ottoman Empire replaced these eyalets with vilayets (Arabic: wilayah). Both the eyalets and vilayets were subdivided into sanjaks or liwas. The sanjaks were divided into qadas, which in turn were divided into nahiyahs. In the early 1870s the Ottomans also created a special administrative status for Jerusalem, together with four other sub-districts, called mutasarrifiyyah (Arabic) or mutasarriflik (Ottoman Turkish)

(Büssow 2011: 5; Abu-Manneh 1999: 36). The administrative ‘reforms’ of the 1860s and 1870s were introduced under the impact of growing European influence and they followed the devastating Crimean War (1853‒1856), which involved Russia, Britain, France and the weakened Ottoman Empire.

The immediate cause of the war centred on the fierce struggle of European powers for Palestine and over the ‘rights’ of Christian minorities in the Holy Land. Combined with a power struggle for the Holy Land and Jerusalem, these cataclysmic events propelled Palestine to centre stage in both European and Ottoman thinking. The far-reaching Ottoman administrative changes of the 1860s and 1870s, combined with intense European rivalry over the Holy Land, not only produced administrative consequences for Palestine but also contributed to a profound shift in the way Palestine was perceived, reconfigured and experienced in the late Ottoman period.

The shift began with a change in the perception and reconceptualisation of Palestine in the course the late Ottoman period (Tamari 2011) and was embodied in the administrative and territorial reorganisation of the country.

Inspired by the creation of the independent administrative Mutasarrifate of Mount Lebanon in 1861, the autonomous Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem (Arabic: متصرفية القدس الشريف ; Ottoman Turkish: Kudüs-i Şerif Mutasarrıflığı)

was established in 1872 and given the special administrative status of mutasarrıflığı or mutasarriflik. The shift in the perception of Palestine was partly reflected in the scale of the new Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem. To begin with it was at least five times bigger than the sanjaks of Nablus and Acre put together. This very large Mutasarrifate was never intended to be a sanjak but rather a kind of super sanjak, practically a wilayah, an independent province completely separate and remarkably distinct from the historic Ottoman administrative divisions of al-Sham. Also, the political status of the Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem was unique in another respect: it came under the direct authority of Istanbul (Büsso 2011; Khalidi, R. 1997: 174).

Crucially these radical and far-reaching administrative reorganisations in Palestine were carried out with the consent or active support of the influential local Palestinian elites (Foster 2016a). No local Palestinian opposition to administratively separating Jerusalem and much of Palestine from the al-Sham region was recorded. The Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem consisted of, in addition to the district of Jerusalem, four other large districts (qadas): Jaffa, Gaza, al-Khalil (Hebron) and Beersheba. With its huge size, this made it effectively a new province, at the centre of which was the holy city of Jerusalem. The latter for many centuries had been central to Provincia Palaestina, Byzantine Palaestina Prima and the Arab province of Jund Filastin; it became the provincial capital of the Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem, a new province which was often conflated or equated with ‘Palestine’.

In 1911‒1912 the Governor of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, Cevdet Bey, wrote a letter to the popular Jaffa-based newspaper Falastin ( (فلسطين calling himself the ‘Governor of Palestine’ (Foster 2016b; also Kushner 1987).

In 1872 the Ottomans also created the administrative sanjaks of Nablus and Acre, both of which, together of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, formed the territorial basis of Mandatory Palestine in 1917-18. However, historians failed to recognise that both the historical roots of Mandatory Palestine and the territorial basis of the sanjak of Acre go back to the 18th century and to the fact that the province (pashalik) of Acre was not a traditional province created by the Ottoman authorities. The province of Acre was a modern creation of the mid-18th century. It was effectively imposed on the Ottoman Empire by Dhahir al-ʿUmar, who militarily defeated the Ottoman army, occupied Acre in 1749 and made it the capital of his Galilee-based emirate. The latter, in effect, had replaced the old Ottoman administrative province of Sidon. In fact, the weak Ottoman authorities were subsequently forced to recognise al-ʿUmar’s regime in large parts of Palestine and he was officially granted by them the title of ‘Sheikh of Acre, Emir of Nazareth, Tiberias, Safed, and Sheikh of all Galilee’ (Philipp 2015).

After al-ʿUmar’s death, Ahmad Pasha al-Jazzar, now officially recognised as the Governor of the pashalik of Acre, continued to rule, as al‑ʿUmar, from the same capital, Acre, from 1776 until his death in 1804. This modern regional, administrative and power legacy of the 18th century persisted well into the 19th century and formed the basis of the sanjak of Acre.

While the Ottomans, with the support of local Palestinian elites, sought to send a clear message by creating an important administrative distinction between sanjak (Acre and Nablus) and mutasarriflik (Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem), some otherwise perceptive authors continued to refer, rather inaccurately, to the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem as the ‘Sanjak of Jerusalem’ (Abu-Manneh 1999). Clearly the naming, size and status of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem meant that it was consciously conceived as a ‘super sanjak’ with a particularly eminent status.

Ottoman administrative reorganisation of Palestine in the 1870s also provides us with some clues as to the unmistakable links between the politics and economy of 18th century Palestine and that of evolving late Ottoman Palestine. Acre and Nablus were Palestine’s most powerful trade and manufacturing centres throughout most of the 18th and 19th centuries and both were central to Palestine’s and al-Sham’s global trade in cotton and textiles. Also, crucially, Acre had been the capital of two practically independent Palestinebased regimes, those of Dhaher al-ʿUmar and Ahmad Pasha al-Jazzar, for almost half a century from 1746 to 1804. Also, interestingly, when the two sanjaks of Nablus and Acre were established, they were initially placed under the political authority of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, rather than that of Damascus (al-Sham). This suggests the beginning of a new conceptualisation of Palestine based on the idea of a unified Holy Land – an idea which began to shape European thinking in the 19th century and a discourse with which both Ottoman officials in Palestine and local Palestinian elites were acutely aware – subject to direct rule from an Istanbul-appointed mutasarrif.

The mutasarrifate and the two sanjaks of Acre and Nablus were commonly referred to locally and internationally as ‘Palestine’.

Images and perceptions are always very powerful and the new south‒ north division of Palestine/Holy Land inadvertently echoed historic south‒month divisions of the country under both the Byzantines (with originally Palaestina Prima and Palaestina Secunda) and early Islam (Jund Filastin and Jund al-Urdun). Paradoxically, however, although the sanjaks of Acre and Nablus were soon to be attached to the wilayah of Beirut, mainly in order to counter persistent Western intervention in the Holy Land/Palestine, the creation of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem (as well as the two sanjaks of Nablus and Acre) were perceived and actually referred to by the British consul in Jerusalem as the creation of ‘Palestine into a separate Eyalet’9 (Abu-Manneh 1999: 39). The boundaries of this distinct Palestine eyalet, or unified Holy Land, were (by and large) the territory which became known as Mandatory Palestine (Foster 2016b).

Officially the Ottoman authorities, deeply concerned about European interference in the ‘Holy Land’, sought to confine the geographic term Filastin to the Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem and a 1913 Ottoman geography textbook (Mekatib-i Ibtida’iye, Juğrafiya-i Osmani, Matbaa-i ‘Amire, 1332 [1913/1914], p. 193) had a map showing the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem equated with فلسطين (‘Palestine’).10 However, the combination of the sanjaks of Acre and Nablus with the province or Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem produced a radically different perception of Palestine/Holy Land and the combination of the ‘Three in One’ administrative districts was referred to in the register of the Islamic Sharia Court of Jerusalem as ‘Eyalet al-Quds’ (the ‘Province of Jerusalem’) (Abu-Manneh 1999: 43).

Historical continuities in the geographic division of Palestine should be kept in mind. The three-way division of Ottoman Palestine from south (Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem) to north (the sanjaks of Nablus and Acre respectively) echoes previous divisions of the country under both early Islam (Jund Filastin and Jund al-Urdun) and the Byzantines (Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda and Palaestina Salutaris) (Rosen-Ayalon 2006: 15). Of course, perceptions are very powerful and with historical hindsight this perception of late Ottoman Palestine/Holy Land as ‘Three in One’ – ‘One mutasarriflik and two sanjaks in one eyalet’, centred on Jerusalem and led by the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem – is not entirely unjustified or historically unprecedented. Historically, we have already seen this ‘Three in One’ representation of Provincia Palaestina under the Byzantines in Late Antiquity, during which period the notion of the Holy Land also emerged and was consolidated. Of course, the ‘Three sanjaks’ are equivalent to the ‘Three Palestines’ (Palaestina Prima, Palaestina Secunda, Palaestina Tertia); they are based on the creative analogy of ‘Three in One’.

The Ottomans were themselves direct heirs to Byzantium and would have been aware of Byzantine and Arab histories of the Near East and Palestine.

After all, the autocephalous and independent ‘All Palestine’ Orthodox Church, based on the Church of Jerusalem, operated for centuries under the Ottomans and its Patriarchs were officially approved by the Ottoman government. But from British imperial or colonial perspectives, we can also see the ‘Three in One’ analogy in the way modern Iraq was constituted by the British after the First World War, and constructed from the three Ottoman provinces of Baghdad, Basra and Mosul, with the capital Baghdad providing the focal point for modern Iraq as well as the historical reference to the great Muslim capital under the Abbasids. In the case of Palestine, for the British (as well as for all European powers in the 19th century) Jerusalem provided the historical reference and focal point for the modern conception of Palestine.

Six important and closely related developments in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries contributed towards the ‘unifying’ factors of ‘Three in One (Palestine) Eyalet’. These Palestine/Holy Land developments deeply affected the Ottoman reorganisation and actual administration of Palestine. These developments were:

• Large-scale pilgrimage and mass tourism in Palestine.

• The construction of new road systems to accommodate the influx of Christian pilgrims.

• The establishment of Palestine/Holy Land missions, both diplomatic and ecclesiastical.

• The new Palestine/Holy Land photography produced mountains of images and played a unifying factor.

• Holy Land knowledge production (scriptural mapping, ordinance surveys and archaeological excavations).

• Palestine archaeology and famous archaeological discoveries related to the extent and splendour of Byzantine Palaestina, such as the Madaba Mosaic Floor Map, discovered in 1884.

The town of Nazareth became very important at the end of the 19th century as the first modern carriage roads were built to serve the influx of Christian pilgrims and the main road was constructed in lower Galilee to connect the Christian holy places of Nazareth, Kafr Kanna and Tiberias (Karmon 1960: 251). The influx of Christian pilgrims and European tourists to Palestine linked the Galilee very closely with the rest of Palestine. And this can be seen in the construction of seven European-style clock towers at the heart of the public spaces of key cities of late Ottoman Palestine (Jaffa, Haifa, Acre, Nazareth, Safad, al-Quds and Nablus), built between 1900 and 1903 at local initiatives and from stones quarried in Palestine.

Designed to commemorate the silver Jubilee of the reign of the Ottoman Sultan ‘Abd al-Hamid II, the clock towers served as new symbols of modern time-keeping and modernity. With the exception of the clock tower of al-Quds — which was blown up by the British in 1922 — these clock towers have remained key landmarks of Palestinian modernity. The impact of the industrial-scale pilgrimage and modern mass tourism on the administration of late Palestine can hardly be overstated. Consequently, and, perhaps not surprisingly, in 1906 the two districts of Nazareth and Tiberias in the Galilee were attached to the Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem, mainly in order to accommodate the new mass pilgrimage and tourism from Russia, Europe and the US and facilitate the issuance of a single tourist visa to Christian pilgrims and travellers in Palestine (Bussow 2011: 70; Kark 1994: 131).

Not only had they reinforced the links between, and ‘unity’ of, the Christian holy sites of Jerusalem and those of the Galilee (Nazareth and Tiberias included). They also began to have a major impact on the political economy and the new geographical perceptions of the country – perceptions, as we shall see below, shared by European and Ottoman officials in Palestine as well as local Palestinians.

Of course, throughout the second half of the 19th century Ottoman officials in Palestine were determined to resist European intervention in the Holy Land, while making concessions to European powers either under intense pressures or due to shifting Ottoman alliances with European powers. From the perspective of the changes in late Ottoman Palestine, the perception of the Ottoman administrative rearrangement of Palestine as a ‘Three in One’ province, consisting of two administrative sanjaks and mutasarriflik and centred on the Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem, evidently had a major impact on British imperial thinking during the First World War but especially after 1918. For instance, in 1921 the first British High Commissioner for Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, established the Supreme Muslim Council which consisted of a president and four members, two of whom were to represent the former Mutasarrifate of Noble Jerusalem and the remaining two to represent the former sanjaks of Nablus and Acre.

These two sanjaks and one mutasarriflik corresponded to the three administrative districts of late Ottoman Palestine (Dumper 1994).

Central to the paradigm shift in late Ottoman Palestine was the perception throughout the late 19th century that the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem, together with the sanjaks of Nablus and Acre, unified historic ‘Palestine’, or the Holy Land, into a distinct country. This was not confined to European and Palestinian authors. Politically and strategically this conception was also evident from an important Ottoman document, Filastin Risalesi, a military handbook issued for limited distribution to the officers of the Eighth Army Corps in Palestine at the beginning of the First World War. A demographic and geographic survey of the Palestine province, the manual included topographic maps, statistical tables and a geo-ethnography of Palestine. It also contained a general map of the country in which the boundaries of Palestine extended far beyond the frontiers of the Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem. In 1872 the boundaries of this mutasarriflik, with its five districts (qadas) of Jerusalem, Jafa, Gaza, Beersheba and al-Khalil, had analogies to both the Byzantine delineation of Palaestina Prima and the early Arab Islamic delineation of Jund Filastin. The northern borders of the Filastin Risalesi map included the Litani River and the city of Tyre. The map encompassed all of the Galilee and parts of southern Lebanon, as well as the sanjaks of Nablus and Acre (Tamari 2011).