Muslim Fortresses in the Levant: Between Crusaders and Mongols (126 page)

134 Ibid., 62–3.

135 Ibid., 62.

136 Combe, E.
et al
., eds,
Répertoire chronologique d’épigraphie arabe,
Publications de l’Institute François d’Archéologie orientale (Cairo, 1939), vol. 10, 276, inscription no. 3800 A.

137 Thee is no actual reference or mention of the qualifications of the figure who supervised the building. The term
Muhandis
found occasionally in the sources seems to refer to a land surveyor, engineer or contractor. Behrens-Abouseif, D., “Muhandis, Shād, Mu’allim – notes on the building craft in the Mamluk period,”
DI
72 (1995): 295.

138 At the fortress of Belvoir, stone was brought from three different quarries, one as far as 20 km away. Ellenblum, R., “Construction methods in Frankish rural settlements,” in
The Horns of
, ed. B. Z. Kedar (Jerusalem, 1992), 173.

139 Vitruvius,
The Ten Books on Architectur
, trans. M. H. Morgan (Cambridge, MA and London, 1926), 49–50.

140 An account of the site and an architectural analysis are given by Ellenblum,
Modern Histories,
258–74.

141 The fortress passed into the hands of the Franks along with many other fortresses in the Galilee in 1240–41, after a treaty was signed between the Ayyubid Sultan,
Ayyūb and Richard of Cornwall. Prawer,
Latin Kingdom
, vol. 2, 271. It seems, however, that the Franks did not rebuild the fortress during this period. If any restoration work was done it was probably carried out from 1255 onwards under the supervision of the Hospitallers.

142 Barbican meaning the outer defense of a fortress. Bastion, a projecting part of the fortification.

143 Battista and Bagatti,
Monte Tabor
, 86.

144 Abū Shāma,
, 108–9; Battista and Bagatti,
Monte Tabor
, 40

145 Edwards, R.W.,
The Fortifications of Armenian Cilica
(Washington, DC, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1986), 18–24.

146 Johns, “
,” 26–8.

147 Ellenblum, “Construction,” 169–89.

148 Tapered curtain wall stones can be seen at
. But many of the stones do not comply with this rule.

149 Edwards,
Fortification
, 22.

150 Raphael, K. and Tepper, Y., “The archaeological evidence from the Mamluk siege of Arsūf,”
MSR
9/1 (2005): 85–100, fig. 7.

151 Johns, “
,” 29.

152 The siege of Nicea 1097,
Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum
, ed. R. Hill (London 1962), 2, VIII, 14; the siege of Tyre 1112, William of Tyre, book 13, ch. 6, 10
–
11; the siege of Ascalon 1153, ibid., bk. 17, ch. 27, 226; and at the siege of Arsuf 1101, ibid., book 17, ch. 23, 220–2.

153 Duffy, C.,
Fire and Stone: The Science of Fortress Warfare 1660–1860
(London and Vancouver, 1975), 62.

154 The shot space of time between the first and second phase should be regarded with some suspicion, it seems more than possible that
initial idea was to build along the whole spur. If this was the case the second phase and first stages should be presented as one. It is possible that the construction was delayed due to the fear that the German Emperor and the Ayyubid Sultan, al-Malik al-Kāmil, would attack before the fortress was completed. I would like to thank Professor Ehud Netzer of the Department of Archaeology at the Hebrew University who suggested this idea in a conversation we had on methods of construction in the winter of 2005.

155 Barthoux, “Forteresse de Saladin,” 48.

156 Shapira, Y., “The tower in the Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem,” MA thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2000, 49 (Hebrew).

157 Ibn
Allāh,
Tashrīf al-ayyām
fī sīrat al-malik
, ed. M. Kāmil (Cairo, 1961), 255.