Al-Baladhuri attributes to Muawiya the transfer of Persians from Baalbek, Homs and Antioch to coastal towns, including עכו AKO. His account places the action within the consolidation of Arab imperial rule. Here “Islamic colonization” describes the ruling project; it does not identify the personal religion of every person transferred.
The same work separately describes a later concentration of craftsmen for coastal naval production. That related activity helps explain the strategic setting, but it cannot be added to the earlier relocation as though both passages describe one precisely counted arrival. The distinction keeps imperial settlement, labor deployment and the identities of the people concerned visible.
How is this dated?
The relocation passage gives 42 AH. A civil-tabular reconstruction places that Islamic year across parts of 662 and 663 CE, corresponding broadly to AM 4422–4423; it supplies no event month. The related shipwright passage gives 49 AH and belongs to a later episode. These are dates transmitted by a later chronicle, not contemporary arrival certificates. No exact-day calendar placement is assigned from either year.
Guided reflections
- How does identifying the transferred people as Persians sharpen the description of an Arab imperial settlement policy?
- What additional evidence would connect the later craftsmen’s deployment to permanent settlement at עכו AKO?
Footnotes
- Al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-buldan, PDF p. 97, printed p. 97. — Al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-buldan, PDF p. 97, printed p. 97. ↩
- Al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-buldan, PDF p. 97, printed p. 97. — Al-Baladhuri, Futuh al-buldan, PDF p. 97, printed p. 97. ↩