11 On the significance of small finds Two new mother-of-pearl cross-pendants from ʿAtlit and their wider context Simon Dorso,1 Yves Gleize2 and Élise Mercier 3,4 During the hot month of August 2016, one of the authors (S.D.) had the opportunity to join the excavations at Montfort Castle. He remembers vividly how, while he was slowly digging his way through one of the north-eastern outer towers in the company of Rafi, Rabei and the other excavators, Adrian Boas was carefully and patiently registering and sorting the many small artefacts found inside and outside the building. Undoubtedly, one of Adrian’s major contributions to the field is the unprecedented and wide-ranging attention he dedicated to the “Crusader” material culture. In his now classical and recently re-edited volume on the subject, Adrian devotes two pages to pendant-crosses found in what was once the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.5 The wearing of cross-pendants was presumably widespread among both Oriental and Latin Christians. Depending on whether one chose to make it visible or not, it could have been regarded as a public marker of faith and religious belonging – evoking the “external symbol of the Crusader’s status” (cruce signati); while also perceived as a more intimate piece of jewellery, perhaps valued for its beauty as an ornament, or for its special meaning as a reminder (for instance of a pilgrimage to the Holy Places) or even as a prophylactic artefact (due to the material from which it was carved or because it incorporated a relic).6 Usually of small size, 1 2 3 4 Université Lyon 2, UMR 5648 CIHAM. Inrap, UMR 5199 PACEA University of Bordeaux. Université de Poitiers, EA 3811 HeRMA. The authors thank Liza Lurie (Israel Museum) and Alegre Savariego (IAA, Rockefeller Museum) for providing information and access to the items in their respective institutions, and Naomi Paz for the linguistic editing. 5 Adrian J. Boas, Crusader Archaeology. The Material Culture of the Latin East (London, 1999, 2nd ed., 2016), 171–172. 6 On the wearing of the cross and its symbolic meaning in the context of the Crusades, see James A. Brundage, “‘Cruce signari’: The Rite for Taking the Cross in England,” Traditio 22 (1966), 289–310; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (London and New York, 2001), 24–25, 113–114; Giles Constable, “The Cross of the Crusaders,” in Crusaders and Crusading in the Twelfth Century (Abingdon and New York, 2008), 45–91; Cecilia Gaposchkin, DOI: 10.4324/9781003146926-12 236 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier such pendants transcended gender and social classes. They could be highly valuable or very cheap, made from rare or from common materials. Those found in the Kingdom of Jerusalem are often in bronze, sometimes adorned with semi-precious stones or glass or, less frequently, in mother-of-pearl; and one can assume that some were also created in stone, bone or wood, whose conservation is uneven.7 Such a cross-pendant could be a unique piece of work or one of many identical pieces cast from the same mould.8 To this day, although the total number of cross-pendants firmly attributed to the period of the Crusades and uncovered during excavations remains unknown, they have been found in various contexts in domestic areas, in castles as well as in graves. The finding of two new items in the ʿAtlit cemetery adds to our current knowledge on their use and meaning and on mother-of-pearl craftsmanship in Palestine prior to the modern period. More generally, it allows us to consider an undocumented aspect of the relations between the town and its extra-muros funerary area, and contributes to the discussion on pilgrimage material culture. Two cross-pendants from ʿAtlit cemetery and their context of discovery ʿAtlit cemetery, the best-preserved and largest funerary area of the Latin East (ca. 1,900 graves identified from the surface only), covers ca. 0.8 ha on the northern coast of Israel, immediately north of the castle and burgus of Chastel-Pèlerin, founded during the Fifth Crusade (1217) (Figure II.11.1). The cemetery was discovered in the 1930s by Cedric Norman Johns, who exposed, documented and Invisible Weapons. Liturgy and the Making of Crusade Ideology (New York, 2017), 72–87. On the protective dimension of cross pendants, see Sam Cleymans and Peter Talloen, “Protection in Life and Death: Pendant Crosses from the Cemetery of Apollo Klarios at Sagalassos, Turkey,” European Journal of Archaeology 21–2 (2018), 280–298. 7 Two mother-of-pearl cross pendants, however differing from ʿAtlit crosses, were excavated in Jabal Harun pilgrim hostel, possibly dating from the thirteenth century, see Brigitte Pitarakis, “The Crosses,” in Petra – The Mountain of Aaron II. The Nabataean Sanctuary and the Byzantine Monastery, eds. Z. T. Fiema, J. Frösen and M. Holappa (Helsinki, 2016), col. figure 20–1, 2. For examples of bronze cross-pendants, see Arlotte Douglas Tushingham, Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961–1967 (Toronto, 1985), 346, 423 (Figure 71–21); Kenneth G. Holum, King Herod’s Dream. Caesarea on the Sea (New York and London, 1988), 218 (figure 160), 224 (figure 166), 288 (mention of a stone cross as a grave good); Bellarmino Bagatti, Emmaus-Qubeibeh. The Results of Excavations at Emmaus-Qubeibeh and Nearby Sites (1873, 1887, 1890, 1900–1902, 1940–1944) (Jerusalem, 1993), 165–166 (figure 66). Note that at least two bronze cross-pendants (items 47.1333 and 47.1335) were discovered by Johns in graves from ʿAtlit cemetery (Jennifer Thomson, Death and Burial in the Latin East. A Study of the Crusader Cemetery at ʿAtlit, Israel, Unpublished PhD Diss. (Cardiff, 2006), 183. One of them is a “Greek” cross with arms ending in the very common trifolium shape, resembling pendants from Sebaste (IAA 933.229, Israel Museum), Caesarea (Kenneth G. Holum, King Herod’s Dream . . ., 224 (fig.66)). 8 A mould to cast small metal cross pendants was discovered in al-Kurūm (IAA 1999.1785, Israel Museum). On the significance of small finds 237 Figure II.11.1 Aerial views and plan of ʿAtlit castle, town (A) and outer cemetery (B). © authors 238 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier restored many of the tombs but did not proceed to full-scale excavations, focusing instead primarily on the castle and its adjoining town.9 Excavations at the site resumed in 2015 under the direction of Dr Yves Gleize, in collaboration with the Israel Antiquities Authority and with the support of the local council and community.10 Since its initial discovery by C. N. Johns, the north-west corner of the cemetery has completely disappeared due to natural erosion and the increasing encroachment of the beach. The entire site is now threatened by the incursion of the sea, and the recent damage caused by the 2019 winter storms further demonstrates the urgent need for archaeological intervention and protection measures. Within the scope of our excavation project three areas were designated inside the cemetery in order to determine its internal organisation and chronology, while applying the most advanced methods to understanding its population and funerary practices. The two pendants discovered during our 2019 season were found in Area 1, situated in the south-west part of the cemetery. Only one of them was found in a stratigraphical context: it was uncovered in grave S1SP24, which consists in a single primary burial marked on the surface by several stones, including a spolia. The burial follows a south-west–north-east orientation similar to the majority of the graves in Area 1. The grave, a simple pit originally sealed by a cover of wooden planks, caused damage to an earlier burial (S1SP21), indicating a relatively late event in the short sequence of the cemetery (in use only during the thirteenth century) (Figure II.11.2). This relative chronology is further supported by the numerous bones in secondary position as well as scattered potsherds from the fill of S1SP24, which include glazed wares of Italian provenance. The pendant was found beneath the right hemithorax and between the right humerus and ribs of an immature individual, alongside another pendant made of a rock-crystal bead hung from a copper alloy ring (Figure II.11.2 and Figure II.11.3). The deceased youngster (between four and nine years old), was lying on the back with the head turned to the south-west and hands crossed over the abdomen. The direction of the face towards the east can be attributed to the body’s decay in an empty environment. Due to its young age, it was not possible to identify the sex of the subject, whose skeleton did not present any noticeable pathology. The second cross-pendant was found on the surface during the backfilling of the area, at some distance from the rubble piles, and its worn appearance suggests that 9 See Cedric N. Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (ʿAtlit), David’s Tower (Jerusalem) and Qalʿat ar-Rabad (ʿAjlun), ed. Denys Pringle, 2nd ed. (London, 2019). 10 Yves Gleize, Mathieu Vivas, Simon Dorso and Dominique Castex, “Le cimetière d’Atlit, un espace des morts au pied de Château-Pèlerin (royaume latin de Jérusalem – XIIIe siècle),” in Les vivants et les morts dans les sociétés médiévales. XLVIIIe Congrès de la SHMESP (Paris, 2018), 187–204; Yves Gleize and Simon Dorso, “ʿAtlit, Crusader Cemetery: Preliminary Report,” Hadashot Akheologiyot 131 (2019). Yves Gleize, “Archaeothanatology, Burials and Cemeteries: Perspectives for Crusader Archaeology,” in Crusading and Archaeology, eds. V. Shotten-Hallel and R. Weetch (London and New York, 2021), 284–299. On the significance of small finds 239 Figure II.11.2 View of burial S1SP24 during the excavations. © authors 240 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier Figure II.11.3 Drawing of burial S1SP24 showing the location of the cross-pendant (star). © authors it may have been exposed to the elements for some time, although it is uncertain as to whether it was originally on the surface or had come from a grave excavated during the season and had escaped the attention of the excavators. If the latter, although unfortunate, its small size provides extenuating circumstances for its having been overlooked. On the significance of small finds 241 The 2019 mother-of-pearl pendants The mother-of-pearl pendant from burial S1SP24 measures 45 x 33 x 6 mm and is therefore almost twice the size of the second pendant, discovered on the surface (22 x 19 x 4.5 mm). Despite the difference in size, the two pendants present many similarities (Figure II.11.4:1 and 2). Both were worked from a single piece of shell, which was first sawn to obtain the desired shape and then further worked with small tools through direct cutting and carving, as evidenced in the recurrent irregularities. While their decor is simple, consisting of incised lines and geometrical motives, considering the small size of the pieces they nonetheless required a certain skill and meticulousness as despite the relative hardness of the material, its shiny surface tends to flake. The crosses are of the “Greek” type, with equal arms underlined by a slightly projecting band at their base and terminating in a triangular point. On the larger cross, the central part at the junction of the arms features a sophisticated decoration, comprising a net pattern on one side and a geometrical motive of four segments forming a central rhombus on the other side. On the smaller cross, the square area at the intersection of the two arms has been left untouched. The pendants were hung or attached via a narrow channel (2 mm in diameter) drilled laterally through a protrusion of the upper arm of the cross. The pendants might thus have been suspended from a person’s neck or sewn into a piece of fabric or article of clothing. The pendants discovered by C. N. Johns: products of a unique workshop? Mother-of-pearl cross-pendants are not an unusual find in ʿAtlit, with C. N. Johns having found nine of them, seven inside the town walls and two in the outer cemetery (Figure II.11.4:3–11).11 With the 11 mother-of-pearl cross-pendants found to date, ʿAtlit has provided by far the largest collection of such artefacts for the period of the Crusades in the Latin East. An incomplete rosary was found in a grave from Caesarea in the southern part of the stadium in 2003 (Figure II.11.4:14), and two other pendants were discovered in Acre (Figure II.11.4:12)12 and, very 11 Items 34.161 (= 47.1334) and 34.75. The latter was found broken and does not appear on figure 4, see Jennifer Thomson, Death and Burial in the Latin East . . .: appendix 1, Hanna Rose Buckingham, Identity and Archaeology in Daily Life: The Material Culture of the Crusader States, Unpublished PhD Diss. (Cardiff, 2016), 35–36. On Johns’ pendants, see Silvia Rozenberg, “Metalwork and Crosses from the Holy Land,” in Knights of the Holy Land, ed. Silvia Rozenberg (Jerusalem, 1999), 117–119; Avinoam Shalem, “The Poetics of Portability,” in Histories of Ornaments. From Global to Local, eds. G. Necipoglü and A. Payne (Princeton and Oxford, 2016), 259–260; Liza Lurie, “Drei kleine Kreuzhanhänger,” in Byzanz und der Westen, 1000 vergessene Jahre (Schallaburg, 2018), 191. 12 Item IAA 2013–574. The Acre cross-pendant was discovered during excavations at the site of the current Knights Hotel, Area A. It was associated with the inner floor (locus 152) of a thirteenth-century domestic building which also yielded many iron nails, three coins (including one minted in Tripoli during the thirteenth century) as well as medieval pottery. The same locus also revealed several copper alloy artefacts, including two mounts, a buckle plate, and a pin. Our thanks to Danny Syon, director of the excavations, for sharing this information before its final publication. For a preliminary report, see 242 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier recently, in Jaffa (Figure II.11.4:13).13 All of these can be attributed to a thirteenthcentury context, with the Jaffa cross being mixed with Late Ottoman finds. Mother-of-pearl cross-pendants were known in both the West and the East even before the Crusades, presenting a great diversity of shape and size.14 It has been argued that the shell material, relatively abundant along the shores, was cheaper than metal and that many mother-of-pearl pendants imitated the shapes and decorations of bronze or more valuable metal pendants. Several facts support the idea that Johns’ crosses, as well as the two pendants uncovered in the cemetery, were manufactured in the same workshop. First, all the pendants but two (Figure II.11.4:3 and 10) seem to have been carved following one of three models: Type 1 (Figure II.11.5:2, 4–13) groups the smaller crosses, which present a central square body with slightly thinner projecting arms terminating in broader triangular points underlined by a band. We suggest that the fragmentary pendant from Jaffa also belongs to this type and should be regarded as residual “Crusader” material. Type 2 (Figure II.11.4:1, 8, 9) groups larger crosses with arms equalling the width of the body, terminating in triangular points underlined by a band or a lateral incision. The central parts of these crosses are decorated with geometric designs or cross-like incisions. Type 3 (Figure II.11.4:11, 12) groups simpler crosses, without relief but with arms broadening at the end. We suggest that the Acre pendant belongs to this type, although it is slightly more sophisticated, with crossed incisions on one side and arms terminating in small points resembling the protrusions through which most of the ʿAtlit pendants are attached. Although thicker, the exemplar from ʿAtlit now displayed in the Rockefeller Museum was also attached by such a protrusion, which broke at some point, perhaps before it had received its decoration. On several items from both types, the hanging end presents a specific shape somewhat resembling the biretta (lat. Beritum). It has been suggested that this shape may have intended to evoke the dome of the Holy Sepulchre or its aedicule.15 When compared to the wide range of possibilities and to the diversity of contemporary mother-of-pearl crosses, the homogeneity of the ʿAtlit corpus is obvious. Such a similarity of shape and decoration is hardly coincidental. The crosses Danny Syon, “‘Akko, the Knights Hotel: Preliminary Report,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot 122 (2010). Interestingly, the same site also had a workshop manufacturing pilgrims’ ampullae; see Danny Syon, “Souvenirs from the Holy Land: A Crusader Workshop of Lead Ampullae,” in Knights of the Holy Land: The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, ed. S. Rozenberg (Jerusalem, 1999), 110–115. 13 The pendant from Jaffa comes from excavations in the French School compound. It was uncovered among the nineteenth-century remains of a former Catholic school, mixed with Crusader-context material, including four unworked shells from the Red Sea. Our thanks to Yoav Arbel, director of the excavations, for sharing this information before its final publication. For a preliminary report, see Yoav Arbel, “Yafo, the French School: Preliminary Report,” Hadashot Arkheologiyot 130 (2018). 14 See, for instance, Daniel T. Potts, “Nestorian Crosses from Jabal Berri,” Arabian Archaeology and Epigraphy 5 (1994), 63. 15 Robert Spirģis, “Finds in Latvia of 13th-Century Pilgrims’ Crosses from the Holy Land,” Journal of Historical Archaeology & Anthropological Sciences 3–3 (2018), 494–495. On the significance of small finds 243 Figure II.11.4 Mother-of-pearl cross-pendants from the Kingdom of Jerusalem. S. Dorso/IAA 244 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier Figure II.11.5 Mother-of-pearl cross-pendants found outside the Levant. On the significance of small finds 245 also present certain recurrent irregularities that hint at a unique workmanship. For instance, the drilled extremity through which the pendants were attached all reveal an absolutely identical treatment. Not only is the shape similar, but the slightly thinner junction between the point and the arm is always deeper on one side, suggesting the work of a unique hand. Evidence of a workshop in Squares P8–Q8 All the pendants discovered by Johns in the town originate from the same limited area (squares P8–Q8) Figure II.11.1: A.16 Given that the other mother-of-pearl pendants found outside ʿAtlit were all single finds, such a high concentration of relatively rare and, in this case, very similar artefacts, is unusual enough to draw attention. It seems quite unlikely that a single person would have hoarded as many as seven pendants, or that a group would have abandoned or lost all its pendants in the same place. It makes more sense to consider that Johns’ collection represents the production of a workshop or the stock of a store. Unfortunately, the report of the British archaeologist on this area is relatively poor and we must rely mostly on a few general pictures of his excavation area. A review of the other finds from squares P8 and Q8 also suggests that motherof-pearl jewellery was not the only production in the area. Johns identified a potter’s kiln from the thirteenth century and noted the relative profusion of bronze artefacts, such as pins, belt buckles, “aiglets”, “charms” and “tiny boot buttons”, used to decorate clothing.17 The same squares also delivered many artefacts made of animal bones, including not one but a series of bone belt buckles, some broken and/or unfinished, gaming dies, a comb, a whetstone and what may be a ruler carved in stone (Figure II.11.6:1–13).18 Work in shell and mother-of-pearl is often recorded in workshops specialising in other hard materials of animal origin, and one can assume that there was a workshop or store in Chastel-Pèlerin that produced such merchandise. This hypothesis is supported by another mother-ofpearl artefact: a very small, engraved plaque that Johns considered to be an inlay element (IAA 41.177, Figure II.11.6:16). The other items from the area include a unique heart-shaped artefact made of ivory that, once finished, may well have 16 Today in display at the Rockefeller Museum. 17 Johns, Pilgrims’ Castle (ʿAtlit) . . .: 5, III–137, IV–147–149. Such tiny “boot buttons” were also discovered in one of the ʿAtlit graves excavated in 2019 along the radii of a skeleton. 18 The steatite whetstone (item 40.1208, Rockefeller Museum) and the ruler (item 41.95, Rockefeller Museum) might have been used in the workshop. A bone die was also found by Johns in the outer cemetery. Two broken bone rings (items 40.1022 and 40.1023, Rockefeller Museum) are similar to those found on the sacrum of a skeleton from a grave excavated in 2017 in the Crac des Chevaliers, confirming their identification as belt buckles (Teofil Rétfalvi, “Burials in Crac des Chevaliers Excavated in 2017,” in Bridge of Civilizations: The Near East and Europe c. 1100–1300, eds. Peter Edbury, Denys Pringle and Balázs Major [Oxford, 2019], 84, figure 6.4.). 246 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier Figure II.11.6 A selection of artefacts created in hard material of animal origin from squares P8 and Q8 (ʿAtlit Town, Johns Excavations). © S. Dorso/IAA On the significance of small finds 247 been intended to serve as a pilgrim badge of some sort (Figure II.11.6:14).19 Heartshaped badges were relatively common in the medieval West, and an unpublished medieval pilgrim ampulla from Banyas, now on display at the Israel Museum, is also decorated with a heart surmounted by a springing fleur-de-lis and with the letter I in its centre.20 The previous body of evidence suggests that the northern part of the town, between the castle and the outer cemetery to which it was connected through a gate and a small bridge, not only hosted what Johns referred to as “Crusader houses” but possibly also an industrial area where pottery as well as artefacts in metal, animal bones and shell were produced. Given the number and homogeneity of the cross-pendants from ʿAtlit, one may assume that they came from this local workshop. Materiality and symbolic value Shell, and especially mother-of-pearl, artefacts were popular among Christian pilgrims because of the symbolic values ascribed to the material itself. Scallop shells were often represented on eulogia ampullae, and they are well known as pilgrim insignia, many of which have been found in “Crusader” contexts in the former Kingdom of Jerusalem.21 Johns himself discovered one “in front of the [town] church”, of which its two pierced holes evidence its use as a badge (Figure II.11.6:15).22 In the Middle Ages, cowrie shells and coral were also used for the production of pendants. And like mother-of-pearl, they were prized for their apotropaic virtues.23 In the Christian context, shells and mother-of-pearl were strongly associated with pearls, metaphorically linked to virginity, the Immaculate Conception and, therefore, to the Virgin Mary, following the Gospels and Early Christian 19 Today on display at the Rockefeller Museum. 20 Item IMJ 2010.28/1, gift of Danny Syon to the Museum. 21 For a review of similar finds in medieval Palestine, see Inbar Ktalav, “There and Back Again: A Tale of a Pilgrim Badge during the Crusader Period,” in Bones of Identity. Zooarchaeological Approaches to Reconstructing Social and Cultural Landscape in Southwest Asia, eds. N. Marom et al. (Oxford and Havertown, 2016), 323–338. To Ktalav’s inventory and map can be added the Johns’ scallop shell and three more from the excavations in Jerusalem, Maale Mugrabim (personal communication of Hervé Barbé). For similar finds in France, see Sophie Vallet, “La coquille du pèlerin dans les sépultures médiévales du sud-ouest de la France: nouveaux résultats et perspectives de recherches,” Archéologie du Midi medieval 26 (2008), 238–247. 22 Item stored in the Rockefeller Museum (ref. 41.324), discovered “in front of the church” to the west, according to Johns’ inventory card, i.e. not far from the inner cemetery. 23 On cowrie pendants, see Annette Lennartz, “Die Meeresschnecke Cyprea als Amulett im Frühen Mittelalter. Eine Neubewertung,” Bonner Jahrbücher 204 (2006), 163–232. On coral pendants, see Aleksandr E. Musin, “Corals in the Christian Culture of East Europe and Mediterranean Area,” Russian Archaeological Yearbook 4 (2004), 366–387 [in Russian], Robert Spirģis, “Pilgrimage Context: Finds of Mother-of-Pearl Crosses of the 13th–17th Centuries on the Territory of Modern Latvia and Lithuania,” in In Stone and Bronze. Collection of Articles in Honor of Anna Peskova (Saint Petersburg, 2017), 561–582 [in Russian]. 248 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier literature.24 Medieval theologians also had in mind the famous commentaries of Origen and Jerome on the parable of the Hidden Treasure and the Pearl (Matt. 13: 44–46), which associated Christ to a “pearl of great value”. The metaphoric link with the Conception and Resurrection made mother-of-pearl cross-pendants an appropriate burial item. Like the scallop shells found in many graves, or the pilgrim staffs (one was discovered in ʿAtlit cemetery, Area 2), the pendants too may have had a role in identifying the deceased as a pilgrim.25 Indeed, the name of the site (ChastelPèlerin/Castellum Peregrinorum), which commemorates the participation of the Crusaders in its foundation, was not its only link to pilgrimage. ʿAtlit was located between two of the major thirteenth-century landing harbours for pilgrims: Acre and Caesarea. Although a comparatively recent site, it was rapidly integrated into a network of secondary pilgrimage sites along the coastal road to Jerusalem. Starting from 1230, several thirteenth-century pilgrims’ guides mention two main objects of devotion in relation to Chastel-Pèlerin: the head of St Euphemia, which was kept inside the castle; and a Marian site, sometimes associated with Christ and the Flight into Egypt, located just outside the town.26 The fame of the virgin saint and martyr and the miracles associated with her relics, as attested to by the Templar brothers during their trial (but which extended far beyond the Order) certainly 24 Verena Han, “Décoration artistique de la nacre dans les pays balkaniques pendant la domination ottomane,” Balkan Studies 24 (1983), 413–414; Beate Fricke, “Matter and Meaning of Mother-ofPearl: The Origins of Allegory in the Sphere of Things,” Gesta 51 (2012), 35–53; Michel Feuillet, Lexique des symbols chrétiens (Paris, 2017), 35–36, 87. Although he condemned the wearing of precious stones and pearls, Clement of Alexandria directly associated pearl material to Christ and to Jerusalem (Stromates, c. 12). 25 Gleize and Dorso, “ʿAtlit, Crusader Cemetery . . .”. 26 Henri-Victor Michelant. Itinéraires à Jérusalem et descriptions de la Terre Sainte (Paris, 1882), 91, 180, 229; Phillip of Savona, Philippi Descriptio Terrae Sanctae, ed. W. A. Neumann (Vienna, 1872), 76; Riccold of Monte Crocce, Pérégrinations en Terre Sainte et au Proche-Orient, ed. and trans. R. Kappler (Paris, 1997), 72–75; Gabriele Giannini, Un guide français de Terre sainte en Orient latin et Toscane occidentale (Paris, 2016), 274; Denys Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187–1291 (London and New York, 2012), 17–18, 211, 352–353, 364. On the head of St Euphemia, see Helen J. Nicholson, “The Head of St Euphemia: Templar Devotion to Female Saints,” in Gendering the Crusades, eds. H. J. Nicholson and S. Lambert (New York, 2002), 110–112. Nicholson assumed that the relic, which was taken to Cyprus and then to Malta by the Hospitallers, was stolen and lost in the Mediterranean on Napoleon’s flagship L’Orient during the battle of the Nile in August 1798. It is possible, however, that the relic had arrived at the Order’s house in Paris at least two centuries earlier. In 1607, the Parisian burgess Pierre de l’Estoile recorded in his diary that the relics of St Euphemia were offered to the Sorbonne by the Grand Master of the Knights of Malta and were brought to the Parisian college in a procession on the 28th of December 1606: Pierre de l’Estoile, Journal du règne de Henri IV, roi de France et de Navarre, vol. 3 (The Hague, 1871), 405–406. The relics mentioned by Pierre de l’Estoile might also have been something other than the head of the Virgin martyr. Perhaps the unspecified relics of St Euphemia sent to the West inside a piece of wood from the True Cross by the Templar Master Thomas Bérard in 1272: Alain Demurger, Les Templiers, une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen Âge (Paris, 2005), 179–180. On the significance of small finds 249 attracted many pilgrims.27 This interest probably increased following the restricted access to the Holy Sites imposed by the Muslim re-conquest of Palestine, which led ʿAtlit and the neighbouring sites to become substitutes for the major sanctuaries. By the second half of the 1260s, Frankish-held territories had become reduced to a narrow strip along the coast, and only the fortified cities truly constituted safe havens.28 This, and perhaps also the overcrowding of Acre following the influx of refugees during the last decade of Frankish rule, may have led pilgrims to be buried in ʿAtlit, offering an explanation for the high density and number of graves inside the outer cemetery. Such density within such a limited time span probably exceeded what might be expected under normal circumstances from the estimated population of the burgus. The location of the burial ground, outside the town and therefore unprotected (in contrast to the parish church inside the walls and which possessed its own cemetery), may also have been linked to the presence of a devotional site. Specific burial grounds or charnel houses devoted to pilgrims who passed away during their journey in the Holy Land are known to have existed outside the walls of Jerusalem (Aceldama) and Acre (St Nicholas cemetery). They are depicted on medieval maps and plans of the cities.29 The “charner” depicted on the Oxfordian mid-thirteenth-century map of Acre by Matthew Paris is located on the edge of St Nicholas cemetery, near the eponymous gate of Montmusard faubourg, not far from the turris peregrinorum through which processions seem to have entered the Old City during the Pardouns.30 It is not beyond reason to imagine that similar processions would have taken place in Chastel-Pèlerin, with crowds of pilgrims joining the Templars at the northern gate tower of the citadel’s bailey, before crossing the town through the monumentally paved “corridor” exposed by Johns and then exiting through the north gate towards the cemetery. Like in other pilgrimage centres, the location of a shop or workshop specialising in pilgrim souvenirs along this itinerary would have been very convenient and, without doubt, also very lucrative. This is indeed the case for squares P8 and Q8. Holy Land memorabilia: local and extra-regional networks The inclusion of ʿAtlit on the pilgrimage route also meant its integration within the pilgrimage economy. Although ʿAtlit probably remained a secondary port for 27 Jules Michelet, Procès des Templiers (Paris, 1841), 144–145; Codex processus Cyprici in Konrad Schottmüller, Der Untergang des Templer-ordens, vol. 2 (Berlin, 1887), 209; Malcolm Barber, The Trial of the Templars (Cambridge and New York, 2006), 244. 28 For a topographical description based on the treaties with the Mamelukes, see Rabei Khamisy, “The Templar Estates in the Territory of Acre,” Ordines Militares 18 (2013), 267–285 and Id., “The Treaty of 1283 between Sultan Qalāwūn and the Frankish Authorities of Acre: A New Topographical Discussion,” Israel Exploration Journal 64 (2014), 72–102. 29 See, for Jerusalem, The Hague, Kr. Bib. Ms. 76F, f. 1r; Brussels, Bib. Royale, Ms. 9823–98234; Paris, BnF, Ms. Lat. 4939, f.10v; and for Acre: London, BL, Ms. Royal 14 CVII, f. 004v-005r; Cambridge, Corpus Christi College, Ms. 016, f. 3v. 30 Pringle, Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land . . .: 45. 250 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier the landing of crusaders, in being a Templar stronghold one can assume that it constituted an important way station along the coast and hosted many pilgrims travelling by land. It is not surprising therefore that cross-pendants presumably manufactured in ʿAtlit would have found their way to other larger port cities, such as Acre, Jaffa or Caesarea, which were retaken by the Christians and refortified during the thirteenth century. Although, apart from Caesarea, these cities were arguably devoid of important sanctuary sites (Acre was not even considered to belong to the Promised Land), local pilgrimages were encouraged through the granting of papal indulgences.31 Acre, the de facto capital city of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, engaged in arts and industries directed at the pilgrimage market, producing ampullae, jewellery, flasks, reliquaries, portable icons and other memorabilia.32 The iconography and shapes of these objects were adapted to the current demand and to the new sites of devotion, which often lacked any canonical traditions.33 As always with pilgrimage, the local market had much larger ramifications, extending far beyond the Mediterranean to the borderlands of Christendom. Aleksandr Musin, Robert Spirģis and others have suggested that mother-of-pearl crosses found in medieval contexts in Russia, Lithuania, Latvia and elsewhere constitute evidence of pilgrimage to the Holy Land at the time of the Crusades.34 Some pendants possibly made in ʿAtlit may indeed have arrived at other “crusading outposts”, like the then recently founded Riga,35 where a pendant-cross similar to ʿAtlit type 1 was discovered during excavations at the Alberta Laukums site (Figure II.11.5:18).36 Recent analysis has concluded that the shell is of Mediterranean 31 David Jacoby, “Ports of Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, Eleventh-Fourteenth Century: Jaffa Acre, Alexandria,” in The Holy Portolano: The Sacred Geography of Navigation in the Middle Ages, eds. Michele Bacci and Martin Rohde (Berlin, 2014). 32 David Jacoby, “Aspects of Everyday Life in Frankish Acre,” Crusades 4 (2005), 95–98. 33 Syon, “Souvenirs from the Holy Land . . .”. 34 Aleksandr Musin, “Archaeology of the Ancient Russian Pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the 12th– 15th Centuries,” in Theological Works n° 35: Collection of Thirty-five Essays to the 150th Anniversary of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem (1847–1997) (Moscow, 1999), 96–97 [in Russian]; Id., “Russian Medieval Culture as an ‘Area of Preservation’ of the Byzantine Civilization,” in Toward Rewriting? New Approached to Byzantine Archaeology and Art. Proceedings of the Symposium on Byzantine Art and Archaeology, Cracow, September 8–10, 2008, eds. P. Grotowski and S. Skrzyniarz (Warsaw, 2010), 11–44; Igor Gotun, “Middle Eastern Pilgrimage Crosses of Southern Rus Settlements,” The World of the Orient 1–2 (2017), 111–130 [in Ukrainian]; Spirģis, “Finds in Latvia of 13th Century Pilgrims’ Crosses . . .” 494–499. 35 On Riga and its role in the Baltic Crusade, see Darius von Güttner-Sporzyǹski, “Northern Crusades: Between Holy War and Mission,” in The Crusader World, ed. A. J. Boas (Abingdon and New York, 2016), 149–150. 36 Spirģis, “Finds in Latvia of 13th Century Pilgrims’ Crosses . . .”; Id., “Mother-of-pearl Crosses Found in Riga and Turaida,” Senā Rīga 8 (2015), 110–127 [in Latvian]; Id., “Pilgrimage Context: Finds of Mother-of-Pearl Crosses . . .”. On the significance of small finds 251 origin.37 Other pendants too have been found in Russia, including two items similar to ʿAtlit type 1 in Smolensk and two pendants of ʿAtlit type 1 and 2 in Novgorod and Pskov (Figure II.11.5:12, 17). These finds present further evidence that the Levantine pilgrimage trade was renewed during the Crusades, with cities like Novgorod, which used to import prestigious and devotional artefacts from Byzantine Palestine, including cross-pendants carved from stone and mother-of-pearl.38 At first glance, the dispersion area (Figure II.11.7) of cross-pendants possibly manufactured in ʿAtlit, could infer, as proposed by Musin and others, that they were particularly prized amongst Orthodox Christians. However, many have been found in sites experiencing very dynamic religious and economic contacts during the thirteenth century, implying important fluidity in terms of religious identities and good exchanges. Figure II.11.7 Map showing the location of known “ʿAtlit”-like mother-of-pearl pendantcrosses. © authors 37 Robert Spirģis, “A Discovery of the Thirteenth Century in Riga: Pilgrim Crosses from the Holy Land, the Oldest Petroleum Product in the Territory of Latvia?” Communication at the 75th Conference of the Archaeology and Ethnography Section of the University of Latvia: Latvia Diaspora and Intercultural Communication (Riga, 2017). 38 Musin, “Russian Medieval Culture . . .” 16–21. For a vast number of cross-pendants found in and around Pskov, see contributions in the V. V. Sedova seminar publications of the series Archaeology and History of the Region of Pskov [in Russian], especially vol. 28 (2013). Other mother-of-pearl cross-pendants of possible Palestinian origin are recorded by A. Musin in Ryazan, Kiev. 252 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier For instance, an intermediary group of crosses originates from an area witnessing an increasing importance of trade between the Levant and the Black Sea, two regions notably connected through the Genoese and Venetian emporia. A relatively large number of crosses, extremely similar to ʿAtlit types 1 and 2, have been found in Cherson and Sudak in the Crimean Peninsula (the Gazaria of the late thirteenthcentury Genoese sources) which by the 1230s had become one of the main areas of contact between Mediterranean merchants and the Golden Horde, a gateway to the Silk Road. In fact, Cherson (Chersonesos, modern Kherson) and Sudak (Soldaia) were both Genoese colonies, the latter being located only 30 km west of Caffa.39 At least eight or nine mother-of-pearl cross pendants were found in Sudak and its immediate surrounding, a high number which could have designated it as a production centre had the crosses not been found separately in different graves. A small cross from Sudak comes from a mid-thirteenth to fourteenth-century Christian burial inside Sudak castle (Figure II.11.5:16). Two medium crosses (Figure II.11.5: 4, 5) come from other cemeteries, one having been found in the fill of the grave of a Christian child dated between the thirteenth and the first half of the fourteenth century and located against a church (n° 4).40 There again, it was interpreted by the excavator as a pilgrim souvenir from the Holy Land.41 Three more crosses come from a collective burial in the so-called Watchtower cemetery (Figure II.11.5:10–19, 21), including one made of amber strongly resembling ʿAtlit type 1 and which could be a local copy of Holy Land crosses (n° 21).42 The cross from Cherson was also found in a thirteenth-century grave containing the skeletal remains of 67 individuals, in the northern quarter of the city destroyed by fire during the third quarter of the thirteenth century (Figure II.11.5:7).43 The possible Genoese connection is further supported by the cross from Izmir (ʿAtlit type, (Figure II.11.5:11), medieval Smyrna, which was the siege of a Genoese consul too.44 Another cross (ʿAtlit type 1) was excavated in Alanya castle in 2004 (Figure II.11.5:6), in one of eight Christian graves following a west–east orientation. Postdating the tenth century and dug near the ruin of a sixth-century Byzantine church, these graves delivered the remains of 27 individuals (three 39 Soldaia appears to have been one of the main urban and commercial centres in the area, where Venitian, Genoese and other Italian merchants are well documented and where, in the mid-thirteenth century, an uncle of Marco Polo had a house and an office; see Evgeny Khvalkov, The Colonies of Genoa in the Black Sea Region: Evolution and Transformation (New York, 2018), 11, 61–62, and figure 1.1. 40 Vadim V. Maiko, Medieval Necropolis in Sudak Valley (Kiev, 2007), 207–208, 255 [in Russian]. 41 Vadim V. Maiko, “Pilgrimage Relics from the Medieval City of Sudac and Its Surroundings,” in Laurea II. Lectures in Memory of Professor Vladimir Ivanovitch Kadeev (Kharkiv, 2017): [in Russian]. 42 Ibid., 99. 43 Larissa Golofast and S. G. Ryzhov, “Excavations in the Quarter X in the Northern District of Chersonesos,” Materials in Archaeology, History and Ethnography of Tauria 10 (2003), 190, 217 and figures 22–23 [in Ukrainian]. 44 Michel Balard, La Romanie génoise (XIIe- début du XVe siècle) (Rome, 1978), 44. On the significance of small finds 253 graves attest multiple burials). However, the mother-of-pearl cross-pendant was found in a single burial, below the jaw of a male adult individual, suggesting it was hanging from his neck.45 Although the castle of Alanya was rebuilt by the Seljuk sultan in the 1220s, Genoese ships were still raiding in the area in the late thirteenth century.46 Eventually, another pendant was excavated not far from Alanya, in Alahan monastery (Figure II.11.5:23). Of course, a Genoese presence in the vicinity does not mean that the ultimate owners of the cross-pendants would have been Genoese or even Latin Christians. Trading posts from the Gazaria, like Smyrna were frequented by merchants from all horizons, including Italian, Greeks, Byzantines, Turks and Russians, and the crosses could have been exchanged several times on their way from ʿAtlit. It is, however, noteworthy that comparatively few pendants have yet been reported in the West. At least three pendants of ʿAtlit types 1 and 2 are kept in Munich (Figure II.11.5:1, 2, 8), and a pendant given by J. Pierpont Morgan to the Metropolitan Museum is the closest example of the large pendant discovered in ʿAtlit’s burial S1SP24 (Figure II.11.4:15).47 The MET pendant is currently recorded as originating from France, but like Munich pendants its provenance is rather uncertain. Conclusion The two small pendants discovered in ʿAtlit during the 2019 campaign, and the hypothesis of a local workshop specialising in hard materials of animal origin, suggest that mother-of-pearl craftsmanship, among the “Crusader” and Palestinian industries, contributed to the pilgrimage material culture. After the Crusades, the manufacturing of devotional objects and Christian memorabilia in mother-of-pearl seems to have almost disappeared, until being reintroduced by the Franciscans towards the end of the sixteenth century.48 It then remained essentially in the hands of workshops in Bethlehem and Jerusalem, whose production was sometimes 45 M. Olu Arık, “Alanya Kalesı 2004 Yılı Çalışmaları,” Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 27 (2005), 213– 228 [in Turkish]; Handan Üstündaǧ and F. Arzu Demırel, “Alanya Kalesi Kazılarında bulunan insan iskelet kalıtılarının osteolojik analizi,” Türk Arkeoloji ve etnografia Dergisi 8 (2008), 79–90 [in Turkish]. 46 In 1289, a Genoese ship caught an Egyptian vessel carrying sugar, pepper and flax off Candelor (Alanya); see D. Jacoby, Medieval Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond (London, 2018), 154, 213. 47 On the Bavarian pendants, one of which possibly originating from Asia Minor, see Christian Schmidt, “Kreuzhanhānger aus Knochen und Perlmutt,” in Die Welt von Byzanz – Europas Östliches Erbe, ed. L. Wamser (Munich, 2004), 314, n° 557, 559 and 561. The MET pendant is recorded under inventory number 17.191.200. 48 Michele Picirillo, La nuova Gerusalemme: artigianato palistinese al servizio dei Luoghi Santi (Jerusalem, 2007), 16–24; Émilie Girard and Felicita Tramontana, “La fabrication des objets de dévotion en Palestine, de l’époque moderne au début du XIXe siècle,” Archives de sciences sociales des religions 183 (2018), 247–260. 254 Simon Dorso, Yves Gleize and Élise Mercier exported via the port of Acre.49 By the end of the Ottoman period the industry had partly evolved towards marquetry, and later still to the production of buttons made of shells imported from the Persian Gulf and, increasingly, from America, Australia and New Zealand. These now globalised products lacked any specific meaning associated with their origin in the Holy Land.50 Among the ʿAtlit collection of mother-of-pearl cross-pendants, the largest one was found in a child’s grave alongside another, rock-crystal, pendant. It is difficult to ascertain whether the pendant was intended to signify the status of the deceased as a pilgrim, but it certainly represented a token of affection and of the intimate Christian spirit surrounding a modest burial ceremony that had taken place sometime during the thirteenth century only a few metres from the sea. 49 Jacob Norris, “Exporting the Holy Land: Artisans and Merchant Migrants in Ottoman-Era Bethlehem,” Mashriq & Mahjar 2 (2013), 14–40. 50 Nahum Wilbuschewitsch, The Industrial Development of Palestine (London, 1920), 39.