Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Haifa" in English language version.
Last modified:
Porphyreon should rather be located at Tell es-Samak and south of it; hence the name could easily have migrated the short distance to Crusader Haifa. Roman-Byzantine Sycamina-Haifa – or Sycamina and Haifa if they are not one and the same place– can best be located in the Haifa Bay, at Bat Galim and Haifa el-'Atiqa, as suggested by Mittmann
Two Haifas, an old and a new town, are referred to in twelfth-century sources. New Haifa, or simply Haifa, was a fortified settlement (qasr or castrum/castellum) situated in what is today the south-eastern part of lower modern Haifa. it seems to have been established under the Fatimids towards the end of the eleventh century, and in 1100 it fell to Baldwin I after a month-long siege... Old Haifa, which in 1046 had been no more than a village, was by then deserted. Its ruins lay at the Nahr al-Matna (or Wadi Rushmiya), between New Haifa and the Palm Grove (Palmarea) around the Kishon estuary… The very precise details given in this charter allow the "old town" to be located at or near Tall Abu Hawam, as G. Beyer formerly proposed. This is identified as mutatio Calamon, a road station between Acre (Ptolemaida) and Shiqmona (Sicanminus) that is mentioned in AD 333 by the Bordeaux Pilgrim. Since the tell itself is shown virtually surrounded by water on the Survey of Western Palestine map c. 1877, it seems likelier that the main Roman settlement would have been on the road itself, a small distance to the south-west, than on the tell itself; its remains may even be represented by the subrectangular enclosure astride the road that is shown on the same map. Finds from the tell itself, however, include objects and pottery of the Roman, Byzantine and medieval periods, including the twelfth and thirteenth centuries… and Iron Age tombs extend along the foot of the mountain to the south-west.
After the Mamluk occupation, Haifa seems to have been virtually abandoned until the early seventeenth century. In the later eighteenth century, the town moved once more to a new site, this time some 2 km south-west of the twelfth-century centre. No trace of medieval Haifa has survived the neglect of the centuries, and since 1918, the rapid expansion of the port and city.
Haifa was taken [...] in August 1100 or June 1101, according to Muslim sources which contradict one another. Albert of Aachen does not mention the date in a clear manner either. From what he says, it appears that it was mainly the Jewish inhabitants of the city who defended the fortress of Haifa. In his rather strange Latin style, he mentions that there was a Jewish population in Haifa, and that they fought bravely on the walls of the city. He explains that the Jews there were protected people of the Muslims (the Fatimids). They fought side by side with units of the Fatimid army, striking back at Tancred's army from above the walls of the citadel (... Judaei civis comixtis Sarracenorum turmis) until the Crusaders overcame them and they were forced to abandon the walls. The Muslims and the Jews then managed to escape from the fortress with their lives, while the rest of the population fled the city en masse. Whoever remained was slaughtered, and huge quantities of spoils were taken. [...] [Note #3: Albert of Aachen (Albericus, Albertus Aquensis), Historia Hierosolymitanae Expeditionis, in: RHC (Occ.), IV. p. 523; etc.]
Les gens du Païs l'appellent Hheïfa, et les Francs Caïfa, parce qu'ils prétendent qu'il a été rebâti et augmenté par le Grand-Prêtre Caïffe. C'étoit autrefois une Ville ; les ruines et les masures qui l'environnent en rendent témoignage. On peut même assurer qu'elle étoit assez considérable. Elle est située sur le bord de la mer; mais elle n'a point de Port. Ce n'est qu'une rade, où le mouillage est assez bon et à couvert des vents de Midi ; mais fort exposée à ceux du Nord qui y sont violens et dangereux. Le Mont-Carmel n'en est éloigné que d'un quart de lieue ; les arbres toujours verds, dont cette fameuse montagne est couverte, rendent la situation de Caïfa agréable, quoique le terrein des environs ne soit ni bon ni fertile. Elle a été autrefois une Ville fort grande. On voit des ruines d'édifices jusques presque au pied du Carmel. Ce n'est plus à présent qu'un mauvais Bourg tout ouvert, habité par des Maures, des Juifs et quelques Chrétiens. Il n'y a de remarquable que les restes du Château et de deux Eglises, qui sont presque à rez de terre. Il y en a une autre dont les gros murs fort épais et fort bien bâtis sont encore debout. On s'en sert pour appuyer des magasins, des écuries et des chambres pour loger les Voyageurs.
We went on to Caipha, which is on the south side of the bay, opposite to Acre. I take it to be Calamon, which, in the Jerusalem Itinerary, is placed twelve miles from Ptolemais; Sicaminos is there mentioned, as three miles further in the way to Jerusalem; and Ptolemy puts it in the same degree of latitude as Mount Carmel: It might have been on the rising ground, at that point of land, which makes the southern entrance of the bay. Caipha is said also to have had the name of Porphureon, as it is conjectured, from the purple fish found on this coast, with which they made the Tyrian die; and to have been called Hepha, or rather Kepha, from the rocky ground it is situated on; out of which many sepulchres are cut, mostly like single coffins, but not separated from the rock, and very much in the Jewish taste; it is not improbable, that this place was inhabited by Jews. It was a bishopric, and there is a well-built old church entire, which might have been the cathedral. There are also ruins of a large building, that seems to have been the castle; and they have built two forts, as a defence against the corsairs; for this, in reality, is the port of Acre, where ships lie at anchor; it being a bad shoar on the other side, where they cannot remain with safety, by reason of the shallowness of the water.
Three miles from the river Nahr-el-Mechatte, is New Caiffa, which for several years was only a miserable village, sprung from the ruins of the ancient city of the same name, and constructed with the remains of its materials. At present it is defended towards the sea, by walls which were built since it fell into the hands of the chief of Acre, who has strengthened it with a citadel, and established a custom-house in it. This city presents nothing remarkable to the observer, as it contains only a kind of huts thrown together without any order. It is governed by an Arab lord, who discharges, at the same time, the duties of commissioner of excise. The inhabitants are Mahometans, and catholic and schismatic Greeks. This city exacts a certain tribute from such travellers as are desirous, either through motives of devotion or curiosity, to visit the church dedicated to the Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel. The sum demanded is a gafar for each person, which is equal to five pauls, Italian money. The Europeans settled at Caiffa are exempted from this imposition, which is required only from strangers. In the neighbourhood of this city may be seen the remains of the ancient Caiffa, called also Porphiry in the time of the Christians. It was the seat of a bishop, suffragan to that of Tyre; and was destroyed by Saladin. Nothing is now left of it but the ruins of the metropolitan church, concerning which no certain account can be given. All the houses are demolished, not excepting those even built since that period by the Turks, who have now quit it, and gone to establish themselves at New Caiffa. According to some geographers, and particularly Ptolemy, it would appear that this ancient city was formerly Sicaminon ; and this conjecture seemed to me probable, when I observed that there was no spot but that on which it stands, between Ptolemais and Mount Carmel, proper for containing a city. Nothing appears to the eye in the neighbourhood but sandy plains, which are too much subject to be moved by the wind to serve as a foundation even for a cottage. The author of the Theatre of the Holy Land describes this city as built by the high-priest Caiphas; but when we find that it was formerly called Ephe, Kephe, Caphe, and Gabe, the signification of which names is very different, we are inclined to reject that improbable opinion.
{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)Haifa was taken [...] in August 1100 or June 1101, according to Muslim sources which contradict one another. Albert of Aachen does not mention the date in a clear manner either. From what he says, it appears that it was mainly the Jewish inhabitants of the city who defended the fortress of Haifa. In his rather strange Latin style, he mentions that there was a Jewish population in Haifa, and that they fought bravely on the walls of the city. He explains that the Jews there were protected people of the Muslims (the Fatimids). They fought side by side with units of the Fatimid army, striking back at Tancred's army from above the walls of the citadel (... Judaei civis comixtis Sarracenorum turmis) until the Crusaders overcame them and they were forced to abandon the walls. The Muslims and the Jews then managed to escape from the fortress with their lives, while the rest of the population fled the city en masse. Whoever remained was slaughtered, and huge quantities of spoils were taken. [...] [Note #3: Albert of Aachen (Albericus, Albertus Aquensis), Historia Hierosolymitanae Expeditionis, in: RHC (Occ.), IV. p. 523; etc.]