![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The Jewish population of Nájera (La Rioja) formed one of the largest and most prominent aljamas within the Kingdom of Navarre and, later, in the Kingdom of Castile. Two separate Jewish quarters are documented within the city, but their location and chronology have not been the subject of a systematic survey. This paper presents preliminary results from a multi-year study of the urban remains of medieval Nájera that places the aljama of Nájera within its urban context. The Jews of Nájera are identified with two successive areas of occupation. The first, within the city proper, was occupied until the construction of Santa María la Real in 1052. The second, located above the city on the hill known as Malpica, was juridically independent of the Christian town and remained so until the expulsion of the Jews in 1492. This settlement can be identified with standing architectural remains on Malpica including a circuit wall and remains of substantial stone foundations.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the following: My project co-directors, Dr. Victor Martinez of Arkansas State University and Dra. M. Milagros Martínez, Dr. Javier Ceniceros of the Museo Najerillense. Mayors Marta Martínez and Jonás Olarte of Nájera, Dra. M. Pilar Duarte Garasa and Dra. M. Nieves González Cabrero of the Sección de Conservación del Patrimonio Histórico-Artístico of the Gobierno de La Rioja, the Amigos de la Historia Najerillense, and the CMU Center for Geographic Information Science. I would also like to thank Jorge Angás and César Serrano of DroneAdventures for their assistance with the aerial photography of Nájera. The assistance, advice, and friendship of all of the above people made this project possible. Any errors in this manuscript, however, are my own. This project has received funding through an internal CMU grant.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Scott de Brestian is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Art and Design at Central Michigan University. He is co-director of the Najerilla Valley Research Project, an international multidisciplinary project that is examining changes in urbanization, rural settlement, art and architecture in the upper Ebro valley of Spain between the 1st century BCE and the 15th century CE. He earned his Ph.D. from The University of Missouri.
Notes
2 Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas españolas, 252; Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías, 446–65; Lacave, Juderías y sinagogas españolas, 167. García Turza, “La morfología” mentions the Jewish quarters but focuses on the Christian settlement.
3 Peterson, Frontera y lengua, 384–86.
4 Carrete Parrondo, “El repartimiento de Huete,” 136.
5 For Castile as a whole, Nájera’s contribution to the poll-tax was seventeenth-highest, greater than Logroño and somewhat less than Pancorbo and Sepúlveda.
6 Cantera Burgos, La judería de Miranda del Ebro, 112. Although the document mentions thirteen individuals, it is generally understood to be referring to thirteen households. Irish translates this to some thirty to seventy people. Irish, Jews and Christians in Medieval Castile, 68–69.
7 This figure accords well with Irish’s estimate of eighty to one hundred families for Palencia at the end of the thirteenth century, as that city paid rather more than Nájera in 1290. Irish, Jews and Christians in Medieval Castile, 69.
8 Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías, 62–9. His final suggested total is just under 1000 people.
9 Estimating medieval populations is far from an exact science. The area encompassed by the town in 1782, excluding the later extension across the Najerilla but including the Jewish quarter on Malpica (for which see below), produces a total of approximately 15 hectares. This places Nájera below such cities as Toulon (18 ha, estimated 3100 population), Grenoble (20 ha, estimated 3000 population) and Durham (25 ha, estimated 2600 population). Toulon ranks as the densest small city in the dataset of R. Cesaretti et al., “Population-area relationship.” In 1900, the population of Nájera was 2836.
10 García Luján, Judios de Castilla, 41.
11 Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías, 70–1, 457. The latter payments were made conjointly with the Jews of several neighboring communities (458).
12 Nájera is not listed among the aljamas of Rioja Alta until 1488. In that year its contributions to the royal fisc exceeded that of the Jews of nearby Navarrete, which had surpassed those of Nájera in the records since 1450. This does not seem to reflect an increased population, however, as its payments fall back below those of Navarrete in 1490 and 1492. See Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías, 70–5.
13 For Tudela, see Baer, Die Juden, v. 1, 920–1 (1115), 933–5 (1170), 940–1 (1211). The fuero was renewed again in 1355: Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías, 451. For Funes see Baer, Die Juden, v. 1, 935–7 (1171).
14 León Tello, “Nuevos documentos,” 162; García Luján, Judios de Castilla, 35–41.
15 Two clauses relate to Jews in Nájera. Clause 1: “Per homicidium de inffancione, vel de scapulato, aut de iudeo, non debent aliud dare plebs de Naiera, nisi CCL solidos sine saionia.” Clause 12: “Si aliquis homo percusserit iudeum, quales livores fecerit, tales pariat ad integritatem quomodo de inffancione, aut de scapulato.” Rodríguez R. de Lama, Colección Diplomática, vol. II, no. 33, 79.
16 “ … alia casa de Iudas usque ad illam portam antiquam ad illo azor de illos judios … ” Rodríguez R. de Lama, Colección Diplomática, vol. II, no. 12, 41.
17 The fuero of Nájera also mentions an azor and gate: Clause 49: “Plebs de Nagara debent in illo castello operari in illo açor de foras cum sua porta et nichil aliud.” (“The people of Nájera are required to work on the castle and on the outer wall with its gate and nowhere else.”) Rodríguez R. de Lama, Colección Diplomática, vol. II, no. 33, 81. The natural reading of this is that the inhabitants of Nájera had responsibility for the outer wall (açor de foras) and castle, but not internal walls such as those belonging to the Jewish quarter.
18 “ … in barrio Sancti Michaelis, quod olim fuerat vocatum Barrium Iudaicum.” Peterson and Andreva, Becerro Galicano Digital [doc. 124].
19 The district as shown on the 1782 map (appended to the legal document A.H.N. Sección Clero 2.958) includes some surrounding territory that was likely a later addition, including an area to the north of the medieval walls and a set of parcels to the east, an area to which the titular church was relocated in the eighteenth century. Prior to the relocation this latter area seems to have been largely unoccupied.
20 Passini, Villes médiévales, 75–9.
21 The questions of the existence and location of the Jewish quarter of Logroño have been the subject of intense debate over the last twenty to thirty years, though without any detailed analyses or published studies of the question. Some, such as Lacave Riaño, Juderías y sinagogas españolas, 164–6, accept the equation without much discussion. Others, such as María Teresa Álvarez Clavijo, deny the existence of any Jewish quarter sensu stricto altogether. See discussion in Martínez González, La producción cerámica, 347–50. Most of the debate has occurred at conferences and informal venues. It is not within the scope of this paper to render judgment on the question, but the resemblance is worth noting.
22 Cantera Burgos, La judería de Miranda del Ebro.
23 Lacave Riaño (Juderías y sinagogas españolas, 167) considers this to be a modern name, since Cantera said that there were no traces of the Jewish quarter of Nájera in his 1955 work (Cantera Burgos, Sinagogas españolas, 252). It is conceivable that the name is modern, but it certainly antedates the 1950s, as the name appears on a map dating to 1920 (Instituto Geográfico y Estadístico, Provincia de Logroño, cat. no. 260484). The street itself (though unlabeled) can be seen on the 1782 plan.
24 When the church of San Miguel was relocated to the area north of the modern Plaza de San Miguel, its new location lay in the “huerta de San Bartolomé.” (“the garden of St. Bartholomew”) García Turza, “La morfología,” 79–80.
25 The medieval towns studied by R. Cesaretti et al. in “Population-area relationship” had an average estimated population density of 130 people per hectare. Only 12% (21) had an estimated population density above 200 per hectare, and all but one of those (Clermont-Ferrand) had an estimated population over 10,000.
26 On the name, see Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías, 461.
27 Irish, Jews and Christians in Medieval Castile, 71–73.
28 On the eleventh-century expansion of Nájera, which saw the development of new neighborhoods and a rough doubling of the occupied area, see García Turza, “La morfología,” 69–72.
29 The second San Miguel was closed in 1880 and the remains were incorporated into the modern Casa de Cultura in 1989.
30 “ … in barrio Sancti Michaelis, et a porta de currali monachorum usque ad portam ecclesie … ” Rodríguez R. de Lama, Colección Diplomática, vol. II, no. 158, 231. It should be mentioned that the immediately subsequent reference to a “barrio Sancti Michaelis iuxta palatium regis” (“district of San Miguel next to the royal palace”) denotes a separate location, connected with a church or chapel to San Miguel located in the area of the Alcázar.
31 “In Nayara … ecclesiam Sancti Michaelis, cum sua hereditate vel cum ipso barrio integre … ” Ubieto Arteta, Cartulario de Albelda, no. 38, 50–7.
32 Other areas being either not yet built-up or belonging to the other parish of San Jaime (in the barrio de Sopeña) in the southern part of the town.
33 Contra see García Turza (“La morfología,” 85), who argues that both Jewish quarters were occupied simultaneously for several centuries.
34 González, El reino de Castilla, v. 2, 457–8. See also Amador de los Ríos, Historia social, v. 1, 330–1.
35 Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías, 450.
36 Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías, 448.
37 Lacave Riaño, Juderías y sinagogas españolas, 167.
38 García Turza, “La morfología,” 85. A small amount of the Malpica grayware was found in the (unpublished) excavations in the Manzana del Falange in the lower city; none is associated with the excavations of the Alcázar on the lower slopes of the Cerro de la Mota.
39 León Tello, “Nuevos documentos,” 157–9.
40 This stretch runs east as far as the Calle San Miguel. Although the walls can be traced further eastward, that portion has been heavily modified and possibly rebuilt at a later date, and bears a different appearance. There is evidence for towers, at least beside the later north gate, and no buttressing is currently preserved. The stretch west of the Calle San Miguel may, therefore, preserve an older building technique.
41 There is a persistent local tradition that this structure formed part of a bridge that once extended across the Camino de Santiago to the Cerro de la Mota, allowing communication between Malpica and the castle (Anguiano, Crónica de la muy noble, 168). There is no archaeological justification for this hypothesis, nor are there any contemporary references to such a bridge. It is possible that there was a link between the city walls and the walls of the Jewish quarter in this area and that this story preserves a distorted memory of that.
42 The author was shown this path in summer 2014 by Dr. Javier Ceniceros of the Museo Najerillense.
43 The only treatment at any length can be found in Maldonado y Cocat, “La Rioja en la guerra civil,” 67–9.
44 Pedro López de Ayala, Crónicas, Year 11, Chapter 7: “El rey don Pedro estando en Burgos sopo cómo el conde don Enrique … llegaron a Nájara, e ficieron matar a los judíos.” (“King Pedro, who was in Burgos, learned that count Enrique … arrived at Nájera, and slaughtered the Jews [there].)” See also Jeronimo Zurita y Castro, Anales de la corona de Áragon, 9.28. “se refiere [López de Ayala] que los condes y don Tello pasaron a la ciudad de Nájera y fueron muertos en la entrada de aquella ciudad los judíos que había en ella.” (“He [López de Ayala] refers to the fact that the counts and Don Tello passed through the city of Nájera and that the Jews which resided there were killed upon their entrance into that city.)” See García Luján, Judíos de Castilla, 41.
45 “ … un otero que está delante de la villa de Nájera … ” Pedro López de Ayala, Crónicas, Year 11, Chapter 10.
46 Maldonado y Cocat’s suggestion (“La Rioja en la guerra civil,” 68) that Enrique was stationed on the Cerro de la Mota can be rejected as there would be no good place for his army to deploy, nor is it easily visible from Azofra, as the taller Pico de Nájera lies between the two.
47 “non pudo recogerse por las puertas de la villa ca los del Rey estaban ya pegados a ellas, e llegó a muros del castillo que dicen de los judíos … ”.
48 “Otrosí de los del conde ovo algunos que aquel día tovieron un cabezo que dicen el castillo de los christianos … ” Pedro López de Ayala, Crónicas, Year 11, Chapter 10.
49 “ … los suyos que estaban dentro fordaron el muro de la villa [i.e. Malpica] e por allí entró el Conde y otros de los suyos.”
50 “E don Gonzalo Mexía, maestre que fue después de Santiago, que estaba con el conde, non se pudo llegar a los suyos aquel día, e pegóse al muro de la villa con unos cinquenta, e perdion los caballos, e del muro de la villa los defiendieron los que estaban dentro.”
51 Casanovas Miró, “Las necropolis judías hispanas,” 505–8.
52 Ibid., 503–4.
53 It should be noted that this does not mean there was no friction with the local Christian community. The account in the Cairo Genizeh of a convert to Judaism who was nearly executed by the Christians of Nájera and only rescued after a substantial ransom reveals some of the potential points of friction between the two communities. Ashtor, “Documentos Españoles,” 44–47; Engel, “Hebrew Letters of Old Castile.”
54 This growth eventually spread to the area between the Río Merdanix/Merdancho and the Najerilla, encouraged by the construction of the permanent bridge over the latter. See García Turza, “La morfología,” 76–77.
55 We cannot rule out the presence of wooden stairs or ladders leading down to the city below. Certainly, there are caves in the upper portions of the cliff that were accessible from below in some fashion. Such access, however, would have been rather difficult even for unencumbered individuals and impossible for animals or wagons.
56 Cantera Montenegro, Las juderías, 458.