Talk:Sinjil

Saint Gilles

There is a problem with the story that "Sinjil" is derived from "Saint Gilles". According to Milka Levy-Rubin (2000). "New evidence relating to the process of Islamization in Palestine in the early Muslim period—The case of Samaria". Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. 43 (3): 257–276., this Samaritan chronicle mentions Sinjil as a Muslim settlement in the 9th or 10th century (i.e., before the Count from S. Gilles came along). It seems that the Saint Gilles theory comes from a single source, the pilgrim Fettelus who visited Palestine ca. 1130. On the other hand, Pringle (Secular buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, p95) says the crusader name was "Casale S. Egidii" and "Egidius" was the name of the saint also called Gilles. (My guess is that the crusaders called it Saint Gilles since the existing Arabic name sounded like it.) How to present this apparent contradiction? Zero^talk 03:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps, in Ronnie Ellenblum's Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem] pages 109, 165-166, he refers to the village as Baudyon de Saint Gille i.e. Castellum Sancti Egidii. The Frankish village was required to supply three knights to the kingdom's army. Ellenblum writes extensively on it. I'll add some info tomorrow. --Al Ameer son (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes that's a great source. But am I correct that he doesn't mention Count Raymond or the theory that the name derives from "Saint Gilles"? I see that on page 165 he has "Baudoyn de Saint Gille was required to provide three knights for the army of the Kingdom. The family established a settlement on their fief which was described in the Arabic sources and some of the Latin sources as a "fortress."" This seems to be a different explanation for "Saint Gille". Zero^talk 06:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Egidius is just the standard medieval Latin name for Gilles. Any Frank Gilles will come up in contemporary Latin chronicles as Egidius. Since the Arabic source apparently cited by the Samaritan chronicle for Sinjil is said to predate the Crusades, the etymology would appear to be apocryphal, as is almost invariably the case the world round. The only problem is that the Samaritan source postdates the Crusades (Abu l-Fath). If one can verify that the Arabic source it cites predates the Crusades, and survives independently, then Zero's point stands and without violating WP:OR, one could simply register the fact that the name Sinjil is registered as a Muslim settlement prior to the Crusades. However, we need independent confirmation for the earlier Muslim settlement. Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked someone who might know...and received a pointer to a published discussion in a book that I just ordered. Zero^talk 02:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Have book, will edit.. Zero^talk 12:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, to save someone from an incorrect edit, the author of the Continuo is unknown but was probably not l-Fath. However Levy-Rubin provides quite a few examples in favor of it being well sourced and historically reliable. Zero^talk 13:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up-to-date! Btw, is the "al-Qazwīnī " you mention any of the guys mentioned here? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. This one is Zakarīyā ibn Muḥammad ibn Maḥmūd al-Qazwīnī who wrote a book Āthār al-bilād. Can you see any wikimention? Zero^talk 23:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This one: Zakariya al-Qazwini, it looks like? ( "well known for his geographical dictionary, Athar al-bilad wa-akhbar al-‘ibad ")Huldra (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes! I didn't see the book named in that article. Zero^talk 23:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Crusader church (present mosque), year 1145

Pringle 1998, pp. 329-332, stated:
"The church of Sinjil is first mentioned in 1145 in an agreement settling a dispute over tithes between the abbey of Mount Tabor and the church of the Holy Sepulchre. In August of that year it was agreed between Abbot Pons and Patriarch William I that the abbey should retain possession of the church together with its oblations and those of the two dependent villages of Turbasaim (Turmus Aiya, Grid ref. 177.160) and Dere (Kh. Dair al-Fiqya, see Vol. I, mo. 83), half of the tithes and all the tithes from its three vineyards, in return forgiving a candle each year to the Holy Sepulchre, to which the remainder of the tithes would also be paid (Bresc-Bautier, 83-5, no. 24; RRH, p. 59, no. 234). How the abbey of Mount Tabor came to have been granted the church of Sinjil in the first place and by whom remain unanswered questions. It was only to retain the church, however, for another thirty years, for in October 1175 Abbot Garinus returned it with its parish rights and tithes to the prior of the Holy Sepulchre, Peter, because distance and expense were proving too heavy a burden for the abbey to bear. At the same time the abbey sold its vineyard, houses, buildings and movable property there to the Holy Sepulchre for 2,000 bezants and an annual gift of a candle and incense on the Feast of the Transfiguration (Cart, des Hosp., ii, 907-8, appx., no. 18; Bresc-Bautier, 310-11, no. 159; 353-4, appx.,no. 4; RRH, pp. 141-2, nos. 529-30). This sale was confirmed by Baldwin, lord of Sinjil, a month later (Bresc-Bautier, 311-12, no. 160; RRH, p. 142, no. 531)."

Ellenblum, 2003, pp. 106-107, stated:
"In 1145, Patriarch William of Jerusalem transferred the church and its parochial rights to the monastery of Mt. Tabor. The patriarch transferred the property and the contributions required for maintaining the church (“oblationes”), as well as half of the tithes of the villages of Turbasaim (most probably Turmus Ayya) and Dere (apparently Kh. al-Dayr), and all the tithes of the three vineyards belonging to the monastery of Mt. Tabor. The remaining half of the tithes was reserved for the Chapter of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. This income was meant to be used for the ecclesiastical needs of the place."

Alas, both seem to be based on Röhricht, 1893, RRH, p. 59, No. 234, cited in Holy Sepulcher, no. 24, Aug. 14, 1145, 84: “Willelmus,. . . patriarcha. . . controversiam de decimis casalis Sancti Egidii inter ecclesiam Sepulcri Domini [etecclesiam Sancti Salvatoris que est in monte Thabor]. . . sedavimus. Nam ut inter easdem ecclesias pax conservetur etema, ecclesiam prefati casalis Sancti Egidii cumoblationibus suis et suorum duorumque casalium, Turbasaim videlicet et Dere, decimarum medietate vobis libere et absolute concedimus, ac ut trium vinearumvestrarum, quas nunc habetis, decima similiter, omni inquietatione sopita, juri vestro remaneat adicimus. Aliam vero decimarum partem, ecclesie Dominici Sepulcricanonicis reservamus. Ex his quidem, que ex nostra concessione possidetis, ecclesiam et clericos in ea Domino famulantes procurare debatis. Si que etiam unde decimareddi debuerit, postmodum acquirere poteritis, decime medietatem ecclesie Sepulcri Domini persolvetis. Sed et ne hec a memoria future deleantur posteritatis, cereumunius rotule in festivitate Jherusalem annuatim prefate Dominici Sepulcri ecclesie horum dabitis in recognitione.”

It seems to me that Pringle and Ellenblum have translated/understood the 1145 Latin source quite differently?? Any Latin speakers out there? Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 5 July 2014 (UTC)