04 Makowski.Indd

JIA 6.2 (2019) 209–239 Journal of Islamic Archaeology ISSN (print) 2051-9710 https://doi.org/10.1558/jia.36308 Journal of Islamic Archaeology ISSN (print) 2051-9729

A Preliminary Report on Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon)

Piotr Makowski1 with contributions by Dorota Malarczyk,2 Zofia Kowarska,1 Szymon Lenarczyk,1 Jakub Brochocki3

1. Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology of the University of Warsaw 2. The National Museum in Kraków 3. Independent scholar

[email protected]

The article discusses the results of limited fieldwork carried out in 2012 at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) church near the village of Rachkida, about 9 km northeast of Batroun. The church, which was probably built by a local Christian community like other villages in the region, was founded on remains from the Byzantine period. As far as could be ascertained, the main body of the building is a three-aisled basilica extended to include a porch on the west side and an additional chapel with two apses at the east end. The church was used in the 12th and 13th centuries and may have kept its sacral function throughout the early Mamluk period, perhaps even later. Throughout its post-ecclesiastical history it functioned as a relatively well-preserved, freestanding roofed building. A large number of diverse finds from the Late Ottoman and French Mandate periods indicate frequent use as a shelter or even a place of temporary habitation. The medieval and post-medieval pottery from the site forms a small but nevertheless significant assemblage, offering unique insight into the local material culture of northern Lebanon. More importantly, it provides a preliminary analysis of several categories of pottery which, to date, have been absent or only cursorily mentioned in archaeological research from Lebanon.

Introduction While interest in the material culture of the medieval and post-medieval Near East has been growing in the past few decades, many research areas remain to be examined with greater thoroughness, not the least the medieval churches of northern Lebanon or, more specifically, the former Crusader County of Tripoli (Figure 1). A number of recently published works have contributed extensively to knowledge of church architecture and wall painting decoration (the most important being Immerzeel 2009; Nordiguian and Voisin 2009; Sader 1997; Vorder- strasse 2011). Yet much remains to be accomplished in this field from a purely archaeological perspective, including a crucial improvement of church development chronology to move

Keywords: Lebanon, Crusader churches, County of Tripoli, Crusader pottery, Ottoman pottery

Figure 1 The location of Rachkida in northern Lebanon. © P. Makowski, and J. M. Chyla. beyond the art historical criteria, on which it is usually based to date (Waliszewski et al. 2013, 293). The present study is a modest contribution towards this end. The archaeological excavation of the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) church near the village of Rachkida, about 9 km northeast of Batroun, carried out on July 2–13, 2012, was a joint undertak- ing of the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw and the Univer- sity of Saint Joseph in Beirut.1 The church is situated 425 m above sea level (GPS coordinates), on a flat plateau overlooked by the Lebanon mountain range (Figure 2). The main body of the building is a three-aisled basilica-like structure, extended to include a porch on the west side and an additional chapel with two apses at the east end (Figure 3; Nordiguian 2013, 187, fig. 18). In its present form, the compound is most certainly the result of several construction phases. A number of modern repairs, such as bands painted on the walls and additional sections of walls that are clearly different from the rest of the interior walls, were made some 50 years ago by a Lebanese architect, Camille Asmar, whose activity in this area has been confirmed by the local residents as well as in the written sources. The wall paintings from the Rachkida church have long engendered the interest of histo- rians of the Crusader art. They have been dated on the grounds of style to the late 12th century, but it now seems that some of the murals could be even slightly earlier (Hélou 2006, 58, pl. 5; Immerzeel 2009, 111–112; Nordiguian and Voisin 2009, 169, 234–235, 263, 281, 300–301, 406–407). 1. Fieldwork was conducted by Zofia Kowarska, Szymon Lenarczyk and Jakub Brochocki assisted by Rouba el-Khoury, a student of the University of Saint Joseph in Beirut. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 211

Figure 2 The St. George’s (Mar Girgis) church seen from the southeast. © Z. Kowarska.

Like other villages in the region, the church in Rachkida appears to have been built by a local Christian community. There is no evidence, written or otherwise, to indicate support from the Crusader state. However, the properties of various Frankish families were hardly limited to the coastal line, e.g. the lords from Batroun owned several churches in the more peripheral parts of their district (Mouawad 2001–2002, 416). Moreover, the Embriaco family from Jbail (Gibelet) seems to have founded a small group of sacral buildings in the Lebanese mountains and the Rachkida church may have been among these.2 The only support for this theory, however, are the evident Frankish elements in the architectural form and wall paintings of the Rachkida church. There are no evident traces of human habitation in the immediate vicinity, but because of its strategic features the church site was considered promising in terms of providing a stratigraphic overview of settlement history. Thus, the project was aimed at establishing a general dating of the main phases of the functioning of the church, while providing insight into the pottery and other small finds recorded from the fieldwork. As far as the architecture of the church is concerned, remarks will be limited to a minimum in anticipation of a separate study by Lévon Nordiguian. The excavation also prepared the ground for conservation of the severely damaged wall paintings, which have since undergone four seasons of restoration work by the Association pour la Restauration et l’Etude des Fresques Médiévales du Liban (AREFML), an initiative started by Vladimir Sarabyanov and later continued by Dimitri Cheremisin.

Stratigraphy (by Kowarska, Lenarczyk, Brochocki, and Makowski) Throughout its post-ecclesiastical history, the church in Rachkida functioned as a relatively sound, freestanding, roofed building with intermittent human activity ongoing inside and around it. This precluded the accumulation of a consistent stratigraphic sequence with clearly sealed units. However, at least four main phases, or rather time horizons have been distinguished based on data from a typological analysis of the ceramic assemblage.

2. This issue will be discussed in Marcin Gostkowski’s forthcoming paper. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 212 Piotr Makowski The first phase can be dated securely to the Roman period.3 The small assemblage of ceramic finds, although of interest in its own right, was not associated with any substantial remains. Apart from that there is little structural evidence of occupation of the site during this period. Moreover, the archaeological material is highly fragmented, excluding any ceramic form reconstruction. A well-defined context of finds discovered directly above bedrock level in Trench 1 attests to settlement in the Roman period. The small scale of the excavations did not yield a more substantial picture of Roman occupation, but numerous Roman sherds were noted in nearly all of the disturbed layers and in the nearest surround- ings of the church. Numerous, probably late antique spolia were also incorporated into the wall structure (Figure 4). Some of these can be considered fragments of column shafts or oil/wine presses. The largest number of such remnants can be found in the northern wall of the main body of the church. The second phase of occupation can be firmly dated to the Byzantine period. According to Nordiguian, the columns and capitals in the interior are reused from

Figure 3 Plan of the church. © S. Lenarczyk. an earlier building, most probably a Byzantine church (Nordiguian and Voisin 2009, 406). How- ever, the masonry bond, building techniques, and layout, among other features, place the form of the church in the early Crusader period, although it is likely that the basilica-like design repeats to some extent the ground plan of an Figure 4 A late antique column shaft inserted earlier, probably Byzantine foundation. Salvage into the structure of a medieval wall. © S. Lenarczyk. 3. Urszula Wicenciak from the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology University of Warsaw kindly identified the ceramic material from the Roman as well as Byzantine strata. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 213 excavations in Trench 1 in 2012 revealed a Byzantine occupational level. The large quantity of plain tesserae present in nearly all of the distinguished contexts indicates also the existence of a mosaic floor somewhere in the vicinity of the church or in the building itself. Pos- sibly, it should be assigned to this earlier, Byzantine phase. Nearly all layers connected with the functioning of the medieval church were disturbed with modern fillings that accumulated via intensive but intermittent squatter- like activity rather than permanent Figure 5 The presbytery of the church in 2012. © Z. Kow- occupation. Large quantities of plas- arska. tic bags in most stratigraphic units points to deposition of the latest layer of debris in the second half of the 20th century. The original stone pavement of the church also seems to have been plundered in relatively recent times. In Trench 1 located in the church presbytery (Figure 5), a kind of floor or walking level was detected below the contaminated grayish brown layer containing stones of various size and modern fill (Context 6) (Figure 6). This level, 0.07–0.1 m thick, consists of a sort of Figure 6 Trench 1, Context 6. © Z. Kowarska. mortar of white or sometimes light gray color, very compact and uni- form, without additional inclusions. Numerous circular and longitudinal pits, 0.03 m deep, were identified in this stratigraphic unit, tracing the position of the stone features installed once in the presbytery. Thus, we have here a compact building level for the bema of the Cru- sader church and at the same time perhaps the original level of one of the functioning phases directly preceding the latest form of the presbytery. The architectural elements in question must have been dismantled or plundered in the most recent phase. A very modest ceramic assemblage yielded a few tiny fragments of Byzantine casseroles, giving a chronological horizon for dating the phase preceding the establishment of the medieval church. A very similar stratigraphic unit consisting of relatively flat stones separated by earthed clay with yellow gravel was recorded also in Trench 2 (Context 3) (Figure 7). It may be interpreted as the highly disturbed level of the original pavement of an earlier foundation.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 214 Piotr Makowski An undisturbed context from the Crusader period was identified in Trench 3, which was opened alongside the southern wall of the church. The stratum adjoins the foundation wall of the medieval building. Mixed human bones were uncovered in the upper stratigraphic units of the trench 3, together with modern garbage, brown earth and small gravel. They presumably represent the dis- placed remains of the church cemetery after its destruction. A fully preserved skeleton in anatomical order was found at the bottom of context 3. It was covered with stones in a form of simple burial that is a standard also at other medieval sites in the region (Salamé-Sarkis 1980, 111, fig. 6) (Figure 8). The church is still sporadically visited by the local community. Religious cult is of a rather commemorative and individual character, and rituals taking place mainly in the apse, where a few modern images of Saint George and candles are stored. Sev- eral wooden benches kept inside also suggest that now the church may serves periodically as a place of gathering place for a small group of people or even for a liturgy. Figure 7 Trench 2 after excavation. © Z. Kowarska.

Pottery from the Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman and French Mandate periods The rescue excavation at the Rachkida church yielded a widely diverse pottery assemblage total- ing 401 fragments from 18 stratigraphic units. For most of these there is no valid chronological data to be obtained from stratigraphic research, hence the need for comparative research, which leaves most of the following asser- tions at a hypothetical level, but still distinguishes specific occu- Figure 8 Trench 3. The stone covering of a simple grave. pation trends. The process has © J. Brochocki. been helped along by a number of

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 215 well-known types and imports estimating approximate chronological frames for the particular phases discerned at the site. The functional repertoire is small and comprises mainly vessels for preparing, serving, and storing food. Among them, the most popular are undoubtedly bowls (ca. 33%) and cooking pots (ca. 23%). Storage vessels are slightly more rare, but finds of different kinds of jars are still relatively numerous (ca. 15%) (Figure 9). This specific proportion is not particularly surpris- Figure 9 Share of forms from the Crusader, Mamluk, and Otto- ing and testifies to the rather man and French Mandat periods, calculated by mini- ephemeral or periodic character mum number of forms. © P. Makowski. of the post-ecclesiastical habitation of the church. Unglazed Coarse Wares For obvious utilitarian reasons unglazed coarse pottery is the most common ware in the ceramic assemblage from the church in Rachkida (71.57%) (Table 1). However, the disturbed stratigraphy makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to currently observe the line of its development. Nevertheless, some general tendencies can be observed. A few types of dominant fabrics are relatively easily distinguishable and the differences in fabrics and forms suggest at least two production centers. A significant part (26.68%) of the sherds was made from orange to reddish brown clay with a relatively large amount of limestone grit (Figure 10:a, c). Most of these wares represent rather standard, simple forms, such as thick-walled cooking pots with an everted rim (see Thalmann 1978, fig. 32, nos. 6–7) and jars with oval-shaped rim (Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988, fig. 15, n. 6; Homsy-Gottwalles 2012, pl. 1 Mob.112.06), both widely represented at many sites. They may correspond to the communal pottery as distinguished by Ḥassān Salamé-Sarkis (1980, 212– 216, figs 37–38) at Tripoli and Tell ʿArqa (Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988, 23–29, figs 11–16). The second group, with a definitely smaller share in the assemblage (19.95%), comprised wares produced from light red or beige clay with a definitely smaller amount of identifiable inclusions (Fabric 2). It may be similar to the so-called Beirut Frankish Plain Ware or Beirut Coarse Red Ware (François et al. 2003, 329, fig. 7; Shapiro, Stern 2012). A small part has a thin beige or brown slip. These wares comprise mainly storage or, more seldom, cooking wares (Figure 10:b). A characteristic example is, for instance, a regional amphora with a low ring base (Homsy-Gottwalles 2016, fig. 8) (Figure 10:e). It is also possible to distinguish a few wares that probably belonged to the first phase of the medieval occupation of Beirut’s downtown area. A good example is a standard, thin-walled cooking pot (Figure 10:d). The composition of the fabric is distinctive: reddish clay containing

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 216 Piotr Makowski inclusions of limestone as well as Pottery class Quantity Share of dolomite, black iron ore, and Unglazed coarse wares 287 71.57 % quartz. The amount of limestone Fabric 1 107 26.68 % is certainly smaller than that in Fabric 2 80 19.95 % later-period wares. Also, the form others 100 24.94 % seems to be a continuation of Bowls with gritty glaze 14 3.50 % early Islamic patterns and differs Glazed slip-painted wares 11 2.74 % from the thick-walled Crusader Monochrome glazed slip-painted wares 22 5.49 % wares. Moreover, the preserved fragments do not have a glazed Sgraffi to ware 1 0.25 % interior surface, which was a typ- Ottoman glazed slip-painted wares 16 3.99 % ical feature of Frankish products. Çanakkale wares 4 0.99 % It cannot be excluded, however, that the glaze had not survived Gray wares 5 1.25 % on the bottom part of the inte- Plain handmade wares 41 10.22 % rior. According to Sami el-Masri, wares from this time horizon Table 1 Quantifi cation of pottery from the Crusader, Mam- should be dated to the Fatimid luk, and Ottoman and French Mandate periods. period (1997–1998, 106–110, fi gs 5–10; Seeden and el-Masri 1999, 397, fi g. 1, nos. 1, 3). Similar wares, however, also continued to be used throughout the 12th and 13th centuries (for further references, see: Vezzoli 2015, 136). Of undoubted interest is a dark-brown coated, high-necked jar manufactured from well- fi red and dense, reddish clay with limestone inclusions (Figure 11). It clearly differs from the

a) b)

c) d)

0 5 10 cm

a) Ra12.I.3.43 ; b) Ra12.IIIB.8.12; c) Ra12.IIIA.3.1; d) Ra12.IIIB.8.1; e) Ra12.II.1.12 Drawings: Piotr Makowski, Photos: Michał Ruszkowski

Figure 10 Unglazed Coarse Wares. © P. Makowski, and M. Ruszkowski.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 217 rest of the ceramic assemblage, which suggests that it is not a local product. Its form does not find any satisfactory parallels in Lebanon, but its thickened rim may resemble a few examples from Tell ʿArqa (Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988, 27, figs 15, nos. 1–3). Surprisingly, its surface treatment, type of fabric, and form makes it similar to the Frankish- period local wares from Potamia in central Cyprus. Moreover, the form of incised wavy-comb decoration is widely represented in Potamia’s medieval Figure 11 High-necked coated jar. © P. Makowski. assemblage (François and Vallauri 2001, 528–530, fig. 2, nos. 2, 16–17; 3, n. 2). One should note, however, that this pattern is also relatively common on unglazed wares from the Tripoli castle (Salamé-Sarkis 1980, 235). As regards the dating of utilitarian pottery, most publications do not give precise chronological clues. Generally speaking, the evident longevity of forms, which is observable at many sites, makes it difficult to seriate coarse wares from the Lebanese hinterlands (Pieri and Rous- set 2003, 118). It is only relatively recently that unglazed coarse pottery from securely defined contexts at Anfeh and Balamand has been put within the concrete chronological frames of the late 12th and 13th centuries.

Bowls with gritty glaze There are at least 14 sherds in the assemblage that can be categorized as the so-called Gritty Glaze Bowls. An analysis of their distribution pattern shows that they are particularly popular on the Palestinian coast (for the list of sites, see: Stern 2013a, 144) but occur also in southern Syria (Major 2015, 22). Symptomatically, chemical and petrographic analyses of the ʿAkko assemblage indicate that this pottery class was manufactured on the Lebanese coast, most probably in Beirut (Stern and Waksman 2003, 173–175). Surprisingly, the presence of Gritty Glaze Bowls in archaeological records from the territory of Lebanon is still vaguely defined, although this should be seen as the result of inconsistent terminology in the published record, as pointed out by Miriam Avissar and Edna Stern (2005, 8), who identified a considerable part of table glazed vessels from the Tell ʿArqa cistern (Thalmann 1978, 24–25, 30, fig. 33, nos. 6–11, 34, nos. 7–15, 35, nos. 5–7) as wares belonging to this pottery class. The formal similarities may also suggest that a part of the monochrome glazed wares from Tripoli should be connected with this tradition (Salamé-Sarkis 1980, fig. 31, n. 8). Bowls with gritty glaze from Rachkida seem to correspond also to the homogenous group of Beirut table wares of sandy fabrics recovered from the Notre-Dame monastery in Balamand (Homsy-Gottwalles 2012a, 413, pl. 1). From a formal point of view, all fragments found in the Rachkida excavation belong to a relatively unified group. They were manufactured from reddish or red-brown clay with a huge amount of limestone grits and mica or sand inclusions. Most of them are also covered by a dirty-green or brown monochrome glaze. Only one sherd has a trace of an additional slip-painted abstract decoration.

Figure 12 Gritty Glaze bowl (a) and Glazed Slip-Painted Wares (b-c) © P. Makowski.

A characteristic feature of these wares is an irregular and gritty interior surface that is the result of applying a badly fired glaze on an uneven and thin layer of slip or whitish wash. This effect is additionally enhanced by the large amount of mineral inclusions visible on the surface. This treatment, however, often failed to cover the whole interior, resulting in dark-brown streaks visible on the glaze. The state of preservation of most of our examples does not allow for even a hypothetical reconstruction of vessel, excluding more advanced structural comparisons with other sites. However, nearly all our examples have common morphological features, such as gently out- curved walls and relatively low ring-bases with globular-ended feet (for a similar shape, see: Beaudoux 2010, pl. 14, n. 97) (Figure 12:a). Bowls with gritty glaze are dated securely to the second half of the 12th and the first half of the 13th century, and they evidently vanished during the Mamluk period (Avissar and Stern 2005, 8).

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 219 Glazed Slip-Painted Wares Glazed Slip-Painted Wares are certainly a common feature of most of the Crusader sites in the Levant. In Rachkida, this pottery class is represented mainly by ring-base bowls with a very characteristic form, i.e. slightly outturned foot (Figure 12:b). This distinctive morphological element seems to be very popular at Lebanese sites (Beaudoux 2010, pl. 14, n. 93, 96–97; Chervát 2002, fig. 50, n. 25; Pieri and Rousset 2003, fig. 6, n. 7, 11–12; Salamé-Sarkis 1980, fig. 16, nos. 16–20, 22) and also occurs on monochrome glazed bowls (Homsy-Gottwalles 2016, fig. 2; Salamé-Sarkis 1980, fig. 30, n. 18), and, more rarely, on sgraffito wares (Bartl and Chaaya 1999, fig. 3). It should be noted here that Stern interpreted its presence as a possible indicator of the ware’s Cypriot provenance (Avissar and Stern 2005, 60, fig. 24, n. 1; Stern 2012, pl. 41, fig. 4, nos. 1–4; 2014, 72, fig. 1, n. 3). The pattern of decoration containing compositions of circles separated by triangles with concave arms also seems to be very popular on the territory of Lebanon (Bartl and Chaaya 1999, 30, fig. 4; Pieri and Rousset 2003, fig. 6, n. 12; Salamé-Sarkis 1980, pl. 54) and is known from Frankish sites in southern Syria (Major 2015, fig. 40, n. 3). Particular attention should be paid to a ware that seems to represent a rather rare group of local wares with flanged rims with rounded endings (Figure 12:c). Similar shapes are also known from ʿAkko (Stern 1997, 47–48, fig. 7, nos. 65–66), Caesarea (Pringle 1985, 183, fig. 5, n. 27), and Saranda Kolones (Rosser 1985, 89, fig. F, n. 3, pl. 15) as well as many other Palestinian sites. It is interesting to note that this unique morphological feature was probably produced only from the 12th to the 13th century. It may be in fact a rare variation of a common local form of bowls with ledge rim attested at Baalbek (Fischer-Genz et al. 2012, 294, pl. 1, n. 4), Trip- oli (Salamé-Sarkis 1980, fig. 17, n. 1), and Tell ʿArqa (Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988, 19–20, fig. 3, n. 2; Thalmann 1978, 25, fig. 33, nos. 1–2).

Monochrome Glazed Slip-Painted Wares The Monochrome Glazed Slip-painted Ware seems to be very popular at medieval sites in both northern (for examples, see: Bartl and Chaaya 1999, 30; Beaudoux 2010, 90, pl. 13, nos. 91–92; Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988, 12–14, figs 6–8; Homsy-Gottwalles 2016, 314–324; Salamé- Sarkis 1980, 186–191, figs 29–31) and southern Lebanon (Pieri and Haidar-Vela 2012, 214, fig. 13, n. 4). The examples from Rachkida were manufactured from different fabrics, which probably reflects the production of different workshops and a wide range of dates. Despite the above, all the wares possess common features that are characteristic of this pottery class, such as a light-red color of the clay and a thick cream-colored slip or a very thin wash covered by a layer of monochrome green or yellow lead glaze on the interior. It is generally assumed that these wares are significantly varied and widely dated. Avissar and Stern distinguished two main types that can satisfactorily be applied to most of the finds (2005, 10–15). Both types appear in the ceramic assemblage from Rachkida. Closer attention should be paid to a small fragment of a rounded-conical bowl with very low ring-base (Figure 13:a). This ware, manufactured from pale red clay with black grits and limestone inclusions, is covered on the interior with a thin layer of beige wash and monochrome glaze of a mustard-yellow color. From a morphological point of view, the best parallels link it to a vessel (S.R.11.354.18) from Anfeh identified as a Beirut Lead Glazed Bowl 1 (Homsy-Gott- walles 2016, fig. 2). More remote parallels can be found at Tripoli (Salamé-Sarkis 1980, fig. 29, n. 24) and Tell ʿArqa (Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988, 12, tb. 3, fig. 7, n. 1). Comparable char-

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 220 Piotr Makowski acteristics have been recognized also as classifiable features of a distinctive sub- type of monochrome glazed wares known from ʿAkko (Stern 1997, 43, fig. 6, n. 43, 2012, 98–99, pl. 4.48, nos. 1–3; 2013a, 155– 156, fig. 4, nos. 48–49) and numerous Pales- tinian sites (for further references, see: Avissar and Stern 2005, 80, fig. 34, n. 6). Based on evidence Figure 13 Monochrome Glazed Slip-Painted Wares. © P. Makowski. from Palestine, Stern argues that it should be dated to the 13th century, which corresponds quite well to the dating of the Beirut Lead Glazed Bowls (Homsy-Gottwalles 2016, 315). A few extremely fragmented sherds with a characteristic deep green glaze with a tendency to flake certainly belong to Avissar and Stern’s second type. Similar wares form a relatively homogeneous group in Palestine (for prominent examples, see: Avissar 1996, 96, 100–102, fig. 13, nos. 36–41; Cytryn-Silverman 2010, 126, pl. 9.31, nos. 1–31; Stern 2013, 197, fig. 16, nos. 1–2), where they are usually dated to between the mid-13th and 15th centuries. They also sporadically occur in different parts of the Levant, e.g. Damascus (Toueir 1973, 210–212, pl. IB, nos. a–g, VI, nos. 6–9), the southern Syrian coast (Major 2015, 21–22, pl. 39) and the Apamea region (Vezzoli 2011, 262–263, fig. 2, nos. 6–10). The lack of precisely established stratigraphic relations, however, usually does not permit precise dating. In Lebanon, this wide tradition is represented probably by green monochrome tin-glazed sherds, which constitute a dominant pottery class in phase 3 of the occupation of Beirut’s downtown area dated to the 13th and 14th centuries (el-Masri 1997–1998, 109). Numerous discoveries from Palestine (for notable examples, see: Pringle 1986, 136, 147) and Jordan (for some general observations, see: Walker 2005, 81–82, 2009, 41–42) have confirmed that some types of monochrome glazed ware continued to be produced during the late Mam- luk/early Ottoman period. A bowl with a unique form having a high, trumpet-like base may have belonged to this group (Figure 13:b). According to Stern, such vessels must have been local imitations of the popular Ottoman wares that were being produced at this time in the Troad region (Syon and Stern 2014, 253, fig. 11, n. 10; Stern 2014, 84, fig. 7, n. 13). Conversely, this form finds an even closer parallel to the wide ceramic assemblage from Tripoli dated to the 13th and 14th centuries (Salamé-Sarkis 1980, fig. 29, n. 7). It should be noted, however, that the chronological frames established by Ḥassān Salamé-Sarkis have a significant margin of uncertainty.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 221 Ottoman Glazed Slip-Painted Wares Although not well represented and exclusively residual, Ottoman ceramic imports provide valid data for contextualizing the chronological framework for the last phase of occupation of the church. Ottoman Glazed Slip-Painted Wares are represented by 16 sherds in the Rachkida assemblage. Wares belonging to this pottery class are generally covered on the interior and rim with slip-painted decoration containing an abstract composition of concentric splashes or streaks possibly alluding to more elaborate floral patterns. The examples from Rachkida bear both transparent yellow and green glaze with slip-painted designs visible beneath as pale green forms over a dark green background (Figure 14:a, c–d) or as yellow over brown (Figure 14:b). The remarkable formal and stylistic similarities lend credence to the idea that these sherds were produced in the famous Didymoteicho workshop. It is generally believed that the workshop distributed a large number of wares throughout the Eastern Mediterranean during the 19th and mid-20th centuries (Bakirtzis 1980; François 1995, 203–204; Vroom 2014, 186–187). Recently, this opinion has been questioned significantly (Liaros 2018, 213). Moreover, very similar dishes were produced in many other places in north-western Turkey, e.g. in Ganos (Armstrong and Günsein 1995). Such wares may have also been produced in southern Levant. It seems safer, therefore, to use a neutral term not suggesting a specific producer for the ware. A bowl with characteristic down-turned hooked rim and vertically slanted dripped green glaze with a white slip underneath, resulting in a lighter tone, was undoubtedly a very popular form during the late Ottoman period (Figure 14:c). It was a typical product of the Didymote- icho workshop, but was also produced in Çanakkale (Tekkök 2011, 228, fig. 2a–b), Ganos (Arm- strong and Günsein 1995, 197, fig. 15, n. 77) and probably other Turkish locations. Archaeolog- ically, it has been identified at a number of late Ottoman and Mandate sites, most of which are located in northern and central Palestine (for some examples, see: Boas 2000, pl. 3, nos. 1–3; Tsuk et al. 2016, fig. 32, nos. 2–3, 5–7; Stern 2016, fig. 3, n. 3). The example from the Rachkida assemblage finds very close parallels in the material from excavations on Eli Cohen Street in Ashkelon (Peretz 2014, fig. 12; de Vincenz 2014, 1). In Lebanon, it is present in the recently studied assemblage from the 1996 and 1997 rescue excavations in Beirut (Homsy-Gottwalles 2017, 246–247, fig. 3, 7). Very similar fragments were also found in the church of Saint Elias in Bqufa near Tripoli, where they were dated erroneously to the 13th and 14th centuries (Salemé- Sarkis 1980, 176–186, fig. 24, nos. 3–4, 26, nos. 5–6, pl. 72, n. 7). The presence of late Ottoman imports in the Crusader/Mamluk strata can be explained as intrusion of debris containing later sherds after the church wall collapsed (François 1995, 209). This fact, nevertheless, casts doubt on the legitimacy of the chronological frames as proposed by Salamé-Sarkis. It seems that, particularly in earlier works, Ottoman wares were frequently mistaken for the more commonly known Crusader bowls with their glazed slip-painted decoration. In light of the current studies, it can be safely assumed that the two pottery classes represent different repertoires of forms and fabrics. Moreover, decoration patterns were evidently reduced to mere vertical streaks during the Ottoman period (Avissar and Stern 2005, 19). Another widely attested type is a bowl with a low ring-base and a ledge rim (Figure 14:d). This form is extensively represented in the monochrome wares as well as in Çanakkale Ware (Homsy-Gottwalles 2016, fig. 19). To cite only a few examples, a similar form can be found in ceramic assemblages from numerous sites in southern Levant, such as ʿAkko (Stern 2016, 91, fig. 3, nos. 4–5), Majdal Yābā (Tsuket al. 2016, 59–61, fig. 32, n. 4), Safed (Stern 2014a, 148, fig. 1,

Figure 14 Ottoman Glazed Slip-Painted Wares. © P. Makowski. n. 16, 2, n. 16), Yavne (Fischer and Taxel 2007, fig. 33, n. 6), and Yoqneʾam (Avissar 2005, 75–76, fig. 2.25, no. 1, 5). It has been suggested that it may refer to or even imitate a popular ware, namely the Didymoteicho (Stern 2016, 91).

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 223 Çanakkale Wares Four sherds in the assemblage can be classified as so-called Çanakkale Ware. They were manufactured by one of the most important pottery production centers of the Ottoman Empire operating on the Asian coast of the Dardanelles between the late 17th and 20th centuries. This industry was certainly concentrated in the city of Çanakkale, but additional workshops must have also functioned in several other places of the Troad region (Tekkök 2011, 226–229). The chronology of this pottery class has yet to be established, although it is generally assumed that they were widely distributed throughout the Ottoman empire in the second half of the 18th and at the beginning of the 19th century (Vroom 2014, 180–183) and probably copied on Cyprus (von Wartburg 2001, 369) as well as in other locations. No traces of a production have been identified in the Levant to date (Stern 2016, 92). By the end of the 19th century the industry had lost importance and the quality of the wares dropped significantly. Elements of the glazing technology and production cycle of the Çanakkale tradition have survived on a limited scale and continue to be practiced by modern potters (Tekkök 2011, 229–234). Hayes distinguished two main chronological types of Çanakkale Ware based on archaeological evidence from Saraçhane (1992, 268–270). The Rachkida set evidently belong to the second group, chiefly dated to the 19th century and characterized by a white slip and man- ganese-painted designs (mainly floral) under a transparent glaze on the interior. They have a smooth, hard, and light red fabric, which con- tains a few fine lime and quartz inclusions. Two examples represent the same standard type of stylized leaf-like decoration extending outwards from the center, painted in dark purple. These are apparently fragments of larger, abstract floral rosette compositions that can be considered as one of the most common patterns used by Çanakkale potters (for a parallel, see: Hayes 1992, fig. 101, n. 1) (Figure 15:a). Two parallel bands appear on the broad rim of another sherd (Figure 15:b). Both patterns occur on sherds from the salvage excavations in the Bey 071 Figure 15 Çanakkale Wares. © P. Makowski. zone of Beirut’s down-

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 224 Piotr Makowski town area. Moreover, fragments from both Rachkida and Beirut represent nearly exactly the same shapes (Homsy-Gottwalles 2017, fig. 4). In Palestinian territory, close counterparts can be found in ceramic assemblages from the Ottoman flour mills in the Ridwan Gardens inʿ Akko (Stern 2016, 91–92, fig. 3, nos. 8–10), Habonim-Kafr Lam (Avissar 2009, 11, fig. 2.7, n. 4), Ḥorvat ʿEleq (Boas 2000, 555, pl. 3, no. 7-9, 10, no. 4–9), Kafr ʿAna (Gophna et al. 2007, 56, fig. 3.13, n. 9), Majdal Yābā (Tsuk et al. 2016, 59, fig. 31, n. 12), and Yoqneʾam (Avissar 2005, fig. 2.25, n. 7). The morphological repertoire of Çanakkale Ware has a very limited character and is greatly similar to that of the other late Ottoman workshops from Greece and north-western Turkey, such as the above-mentioned Didymoteicho. The most popular form is undoubtedly a low ring-base bowl with divergent walls and a ledge or hooked rim. Although Çanakkale Wares are frequently considered to be common imports in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, they are relatively rare in the archaeological record. Generally, they appear in prosperous trade centers, such as ʿAkko (Stern 2013, fig. 7.8; 2016, 91–92, fig. 3.8, n. 10), Alexandria (François 1999, 133–136, fig. 31, nos. 331–335), Beirut (Aubert 1996, 80; Hom- sy-Gottwalles 2017, 247–249, fig. 4) or, Damascus (François 2008, 70 900, nos. 1–3; 2009, fig. 4, n. 22; 2012, 481, fig. 5, n. 2), although they were also found sporadically in the rural landscape of Palestine (for prominent examples, see: Avissar 2009, 11, fig. 2.7, n. 4; Boas 2000, 555, pl. 3, nos. 7–9, 10, nos. 4–9; Tsuk et al. 2016, 59, fig. 31, n. 12). Evidently the social status of the Çanakkale Wares was greatly varied. At Kouklia, for instance, they were the dominant type of pottery in peasant households. This suggests that they should be considered as cheap and highly accessible table wares (von Wartburg 2001, 386–387). In the Levant, however, they frequently seem limited to the social elite (François 2009; 2012) and are present always in quite small quantities (Milwright 2008, 129). The relatively small number of Turkish and Greek imports in the ceramic assemblages of the Ottoman Bilād al-Shām is, however, definitely misleading and does not seem to reflect the real situation. Marcus Milwright recently presented references from French consular documents attesting to large quantities of pottery being sent directly from the Dardanelles to Beirut in the last decade of the 19th century (2008, 139, 142, tab. 3). We can suspect that this shipment was not a separate event and that many ships reached the Lebanese coast carrying mainly luxurious products, such as textiles. Although ceramic vessels certainly did not constitute the main trade product sent to the Levant, there is no doubt that pottery from the Troad region as well as Thracia reached the main urban centers of Bilād al-Shām, such as Damascus and Jerusalem, in great quantities. Recent finds from the Palestinian and Lebanese hinterland prove that they were later distributed in the rural markets.

Gray Wares Five sherds in the assemblage were made from a characteristic dark gray fabric, which probably is the result of firing red clay in an oxygen-reduced environment. This quality is usually treated as a diagnostic feature of the so-called Gaza Ware. While this pottery class has not been identified on the Lebanese coast and the examples from Rachkida do not belong to the wide- spread repertoire of forms of Gaza Ware, one can assume that the gray wares from Rachkida are, in fact, local imitations of products from famous workshops distributed in huge quantities throughout the rural markets of Palestine. The occurrence of gray wares is similarly explained in Malka in northern Jordan (Walker 2005, 82–84).

Figure 16 Gray Wares (a–b); Plain Islamic Handmade Ware (c) (© P. Makowski, and E. Strachocińska).

A form that undoubtedly deserves special attention is a narrow-base jug or, less likely, a small cup (Figure 16:a). The preserved fragment has the characteristic concentric grooves on the bottom of the vessel that occur sporadically on various forms of Gaza Ware. The jug represented most probably a traditional Mahlibia or Tus vessel used to store water, yoghurt, and milk. This form has an elongated shape with two handles at the shoulder (for a good example, see: Salem 2009, fig. 4.4, n. 7). A thin-walled vase (Figure 16:b) is particularly surprising due to the lack of even remote analogies.

Plain Islamic Handmade Wares A few small sherds and one fragment of a shallow bowl belong to the so-called Plain Islamic Handmade Ware. This class of pottery has not been published so far from the territory of Leba- non, mostly due to inattention to these finds rather than their absence from archaeological sites. The rise of plain handmade ware in the period between the 11th and 13th centuries is the most evident in Jordan (for general observations, see: Milwright 2000, 193–195; Sinibaldi 2013, 169–174; Walker 2009, 41, 56) and in Palestine (Avissar and Stern 2005, 88–90 with further references to specific sites). Deposits from well-stratified sites, such as Tiʾnnik (Ziadeh 1995, 210– 211; 217, fig. 8-10) or Yoqneʾam (Avissar 1996, 66–71, fig. 2.20) and numerous ethno-archaeological studies (see Walker 2009, 52–54 with further references) prove that such wares continued to be used without any significant morphological change until the Mandate period and beyond. Because of this considerable longevity of the ware’s characteristic forms, particular vessels cannot be dated based on their type but only by the stratigraphic context (Avissar and Stern 2005, 88). Hence it is hardly surprising that the handmade pottery from Rachkida cannot be dated precisely. However, a late Ottoman dating seems much more probable.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 226 Piotr Makowski Plain handmade wares show a great regional variance. In Rachkida, all fabrics are extremely coarse and granular. A gray or black core clearly indicates very low quality of firing. A preliminary analysis showed that the repertoire of mineral inclusions is quite similar to the dominant fabric of other coarse wheel-made wares. This may suggest that both pottery types were manufactured from clay that was probably acquired from the same or at least related local source. This assumption, however, needs to be verified with petrographic methods. Unlike wares from southern Jordan and Palestine, the organic inclusions, such as straw and chaff, used as temper, are either absent or rare in the fabric structure of finds from Rachkida. There are many calcite inclusions, however, and it is striking that the practice of using crushed calcite as a temper for handmade pottery was observed as recently as in 1999 by St John Simpson in a traditional household workshop in the village of Assia near Byblos (2011, 24). Although the quality of manufacture is definitely very low, all handmade fragments from Rachkida were carefully smoothed on the surface. This may be a testimony to burnishing vessels with pebbles and lightly firing them in the hearth. Such practices were ethnographically observed in the village of Chirine (Matson 1974, 345). The quantitative analysis shows that the proportion of plain Islamic handmade ware in the entire assemblage is only 10.22% (Table 1). This small amount of handmade wares certainly cannot illustrate any crucial socio-economic change in the functioning of the local community. It is clear that the wares did not comprise a dominant or even relevant part of the table, cooking, or storage vessel sets. On one hand, they must have been used simultaneously with other commonly accessible wheel-made vessels by the squatters settling the church ruins, but on the other hand, the handmade wares clearly differ from the rest of the ceramic assemblages, coming down heavily in support of the hypothesis that they were locally produced to satisfy individual and definitely specific needs. It seems relatively probable, for instance, that they were used for commemorative activities. The presence of handmade sherds may also be testimony to ephemeral contact with a much more isolated community. The only reconstructable form is a small bowl that does not occur in other regions where plain handmade wares are more common (Figure 16:c). Although the bowl is rather crude, it seems to imitate the much more sophisticated patterns from glazed table wares that are characteristic of the Ottoman period, with one addition in the form of a rim terminating in a stylized wave. This is particularly surprising because during this period the community living inside the church building certainly had no need to imitate or duplicate wheel-thrown wares.

Absence of so-called HMGP ware It is important to note that there is not a single sherd of the so-called HMGP ware in the entire ceramic assemblage from Rachkida. This appears to be a general tendency for all of the Leba- nese coast (van der Steen 1997–8). Recent survey projects have also demonstrated the absence of this pottery class from the coastal territory of southern Syria (Major 2015, 20).

Tobacco pipe The pipe from the excavations in Rachkida was manufactured from relatively fine clay of a buff color. The shank and bowl of the pipe are nearly completely preserved, although the stepped ring termination is apparently beveled on the upper part, and the rim of the bowl is partly damaged. A closer examination shows that the pipe displays no traces of any additional sur-

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 227 face treatment. It is possible to discern, however, two obliterated parallel stripes of the lozenge decoration on the bowl. It has a characteristic oval-shaped stem- socket preceded by a fine constriction. A narrow bore diameter and a relatively flat keel are unusual morphological features. There are no extensive traces of use on its surface, making it possible that the pipe was an unfinished or even unsuccess- ful product (Figure 17). Although the pipe from Rachkida is of a rather simple shape, it does not find any satisfactory parallels in the literature. Figure 17 Ottoman tobacco pipe. © J. Brochocki, and Issues of chronology and production ori- E. Strachocińska. gins constitute the most important chal- lenges in the archaeological interpreta- tion of clay tobacco pipes ever since the study of Ottoman material culture became a separate branch of historical archaeology and developed its own scientific literature. These problems should be considered from both a local and an extra-regional perspective. In Lebanon, clay tobacco pipes have so far been documented from excavations in various parts of Beirut (Bartl 2003; Bouzek 1996, 146; van der Lingen 2003; Turquety-Periset 1982, fig. 4, n. 25; 5, nos. 26–29) but were also found in Anfeh (Homsy-Gottwalles 2016, fig. 19), Baalbek (Sarre 1925, 132, fig. 65, 65a), Balamand (Homsy-Gottwalles 2012a, pl. 2), Tell ʿArqa (Hakimian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988, 30, table: XVI), Tripoli (Shehadeh 2006, 333), and the Plain of Akkar (Bartl and Chaaya 1999, 32, fig. 5), and there is little doubt that the corpus will increase as other sites of Ottoman periods will be excavated and published. Numerous ceramic imports recognized in the Ottoman assemblage strongly suggest that Rachkida and the coastal sites could have been a part of the same local network in both the 19th and 20th centuries. During this time pipes from Beirut must have also been widely distributed throughout the rural markets, giving smokers from isolated sites in the mountains, such as Rachkida, access to the fine and relatively inexpensive clay pipes manufactured on the coast. This strongly supports a provisional hypothesis that the object as discussed above precedes the mass production of pipes in Beirut in the latter 18th and 19th centuries. The lack of any evident similarities of morphological type with finds from various Beirut excavations is thus hardly surprising. A few documents testify to limited tobacco cultivation in the northern reaches of Lebanon, as well as along the central coast and in the Bekaa Valley (see: van der Lingen 2003, 134 with further references), indicating that smoking tobacco must have been a familiar custom among Lebanese rural communities. The pipe from the Rachkida church may be the first published material evidence of a tradition of tobacco smoking in the mountainous hinterlands. From a purely typological point of view, the pipe from Rachkida can be classified as belonging to a group of early bowl-pipes. According to Robinson’s typology, the earliest examples of tobacco pipes were very small, made of gray- or buff-firing white clay, furnished with relatively

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 228 Piotr Makowski thin walls, a narrow stem-socket and a usually stepped-ring termination (Robinson 1983, 266; 1985, 161–163). Despite having these features, the pipe from Rachkida cannot be easily compared with the numerous examples from an extensive corpus of objects from Greek sites. It is clearly not an import nor even an imitation of a prototype imported from Greece or Turkey. Generally, the same characteristics also apply to numerous finds from prominent sites from the territory of the southern Levant, such as Jerusalem (Abu Khalaf 2009, 17, fig. 3, n. 1), Kerak (Mil- wright 2000, fig. 2, n. 14), Ramla (de Vincenz 2011, fig. 1, n. 6), Tell Jezreel (Zirʾin) (Simpson 2002, 160, fig. 1, nos. 1–4) or Tiʾnnik (Ziadeh 1995, 210, fig. 1). Some of the finds could be considered as imports, but most of them were certainly local products, which follows the general outline of typological development known from the well-studied Greek and Turkish sites. However, none of the finds are exact copies. This relatively huge extent of formal diversity is probably the result of there being several production centers in the Levant. Without petrographic or chemical analysis of the clay it will be impossible to determine the exact place of manufacture of particular pipes. The absence of a pipe-maker stamp on the object from Rachkida could be treated as another chronological clue. Pipes rarely bore any maker’s seals or marks before the beginning of the 18th century (Robinson 1983, 268; de Vincenz 2016, 114). By the 19th century, such seals or marks had become a common feature on pipes. Moreover, by the late 18th century most pipes were manufactured from a reddish fabric, well-burnished and extensively decorated. These factors should nevertheless be considered as chronological indicators of pipes produced by specialized workshops. Because of its rather coarse character and no evident parallel in the published evidence, the pipe from Rachkida cannot be classified as such a product with com- plete certainty. To date, such coarsely executed, hand-molded pipes with no traces of burnishing or more elaborate decorative patterns have seldom been mentioned in publication (for an example from southern Jordan, see: Milwright 2000, 200). If we assume that the pipe from Rachkida was indeed manufactured by a local smoker who indirectly followed some well-known esthetic fashions, all of the aforementioned typological features will represent no chronological value. However, even taking the above into account, it seems unlikely that in the later 18th or 19th century a local pipe smoker would have tried to unsuccessfully imitate an old-fashioned pattern when he or she certainly had the opportunity to buy locally an inexpensive and well-manufactured product. To sum up, on the basis of indirect formal similarities from Greece and, more importantly, from Palestine, it can be assumed that the pipe from the Rachkida church was probably manufactured at the end of the 17th century or in the first half of the 18th century. A slightly later dating is also possible, but seems less probable. The pipe was probably a local product and was not necessarily made in a specialized workshop.

Discussion As said above, considerable progress has been made in the past few decades in the field of Crusader/Ayyubid and Mamluk pottery. Different aspects have been examined, such as identifying technological characteristics, reconstructing manufacturing processes, and tracing distribution patterns. In Lebanon, the most important contribution came from the international program of rescue excavations conducted in various parts of Beirut. Extensive evidence of medieval occupation was revealed in nearly all parts of the city, allowing the material to

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 229 be seriated and producing a general evolution of the ceramic records (Chervát 2000; el-Masri 1997–1998; Seeden and el-Masri 1999). Of particular importance is a medieval pottery crafts center brought to light by the French excavations near Martyrs’ Square. Petrographic and chemical analyses have confirmed that glazed sgraffito wares and coarse cooking vessels manufactured in Beirut in the 12th and 13th centuries were widely distributed to ʿAkko, Cyprus, Marseilles, and probably many other locations throughout the Mediterranean (François et al. 2003; Gabrieli et al. 2017; Waksman 2002). Although the significance of the pottery records from Beirut has been highlighted on many occasions, a vast majority of the material awaits publication. Most of the published archaeological reports include only cursory remarks on this issue (for examples, see: Arnauld et al. 1996, 112–116, 125–128, pl. 8; Aubert 1996, 80; Bouzek 1996, 137, 146; Evans 1996, 218, figs 1–3; Perring et al. 1996, 199–202, figs 21–22). The undoubtedly pioneering studies from Tripoli (Salamé-Sarkis 1980) and Tell ʿArqa (Hakim- ian and Salamé-Sarkis 1988; Thalmann 1978) are an important contribution to the medieval archaeology of Lebanon and they are still the main reference for current researchers. Extensive material for comparative studies has come also from the regularly published results of French investigations at sites such as Anfeh (Homsy-Gottwalles 2016), Balamand (Homsy-Gottwalles 2012a), Ej-Jaouzé (Pieri 2004), Tyre (for an outline of the topography of Tyre in the Frankish period, see: Antaki-Masson 2012; samples of medieval pottery have been presented in: Pieri and Haidar-Vela 2012), and Yanouh (Beaudoux 2010; Pieri 2004; Pieri and Rousset 2003) as well as the German excavations in Baalbek (Daiber 2008; Fischer-Genz et al. 2012, Vezzoli 2015). Pottery from the upper layers has not always received adequate attention or been excavated with the stratigraphic rigor it deserves. This is particularly apparent in Lebanon, where the study of Ottoman ceramics is undoubtedly less developed than in other regions of the Levant and still remains in a very introductory phase. Surprisingly little archaeological work has been done to address this issue. The most important assemblages have been provided by the salvage excavation project in different parts of Beirut (for example: Aubert 1996, 80; Chervát 2000, 65; Evans 1996, 218; Perring et al. 1996, 199–202). A wide variety of imports clearly illustrates the various trade connections there and the city’s strong economic potential, which in the territory of Bilād al-Shām can be compared only with that of Damascus (Homsy-Gottwalles 2017, 255). Despite this, Ottoman pottery from Beirut has been published only fragmentarily so far (Homsy-Gottwalles 2012, 2017). Post-medieval pottery has also been given cursory mention in archaeological reports from Anfeh (Homsy-Gottwalles 2016, 345–346, fig. 19), Balamand (Hom- sy-Gottwalles 2012a, 420–421, 424, 427, pl. 2), Yanouh (Pieri 2004, 248–249), and Sūq Ḥarāj in Tripoli (Shehadeh 2006). Moreover, early Ottoman Iznik wares were published in the Baalbek ceramologic report (Daiber 2008, 297, pl. 16, k–l). There are also a number of ethnographical works devoted to rural pottery workshops (for an example, see: Hankey 1968). One should also keep in mind that limited knowledge of Ottoman pottery has led to frequent misidentification of specific wares in the archaeological record, such as the case of the church of Saint Elias in Bqufa near Tripoli re-examined by Véronique François (1995, 209, 215). This brief overview of current research confirms the importance of the evidence from Rachkida resulting from the broad chronological framework that it represents. Pottery from the Crusader and Mamluk periods seems to be relatively homogeneous. Generally speaking, the inhabitants of Rachkida used mainly locally or regionally produced wheel-thrown

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 230 Piotr Makowski unglazed wares in the form of cooking, kitchen, and storage wares and some better known table glazed wares. In this respect, Rachkida shows strong ties with the coastal region. Most Lebanese sites seem to have belonged to the same network of pottery distribution. The closest parallels, therefore, link our assemblage to sites in northern Lebanon, such as Tripoli and Tell ʿArqa, as well as Anfeh and Yanouh. The issue of the provenance of particular wares is obviously very difficult to assess. A significant part of the glazed table wares, such as bowls with gritty glaze and Monochrome Glazed Slip-Painted Wares, can be linked to the Beirut workshop. A relatively substantial part of the assemblage probably represents also some sort of characteristic local pottery production from the northern part of the Lebanese coast. Petrographic research studies have confirmed that, besides Beirut (Waksman 2002; François et al. 2003), another important center of local pottery manufacture was situated somewhere in the northern part along the Lebanese coast, most probably in the region of Tripoli (Stern 2012, 38–39). Identifying the origins of unglazed coarse wares is even more problematic. Nevertheless, wares of Fabric 2 probably correspond to the so-called Beirut Frankish Plain Ware. This pottery class seems to be more significantly represented on coastal sites, that is, Tyre (Pieri 2012, 214, pl. 12, n. 3, 13, nos. 4, 5, 7, 14, n. 3, 15, nos. 5, 7) and Anfeh (Homsy-Gottwalles 2016, 326–340). The scarcity of finds suggests that the more utilitarian products from Beirut were not massively distributed at mountainous sites such as Rachkida or Yanouh. Despite this, the lack of lead-glazed common kitchen wares from Beirut, which are very characteristic for most coastal sites from the Crusader period, appears particularly surprising. It may suggest that these extensively distributed wares mainly reached the coastal urban sites, such as ʿAkko or Paphos (François et al. 2003; Gabrieli et al. 2017; Homsy- Gottwalles 2011, 179–180, figs 5–6) and were too expensive for the rural communities. Based on the current state of knowledge, it cannot be excluded that the ceramic assemblage from Rachkida was also significantly supplemented by other, even more local and hence unknown industries. It is difficult to assess, for instance, whether the Bekaa Valley maintained its role as a pottery distribution center during medieval and post-medieval times. According to Dominique Pieri, it had a crucial impact in late antiquity on the development of the ceramic assemblage that comes from Yanouh (Pieri and Rousset 2003, 117). It is symptomatic, however, that no trace of Crusader/Ayyubid and Mamluk pottery production was noted by the German excavators in Baalbek, certainly this region’s main urban center (Daiber 2008, 298). The homo- geneity of the ceramic assemblage from the area of Bustan Nassif on the other side may suggest that local workshop supplied the city during this period (Vezzoli 2015: 136). Evidence from the Crusader period suggests that the community in Rachkida had rather modest demands and probably did not have broader direct access to the more expensive or imported wares. There is only one very small pottery sherd with sgraffito decoration in the whole ceramic assemblage. The red paste (pâte rouge) used to make this vessel indicates a Bei- rut workshop production (François et al. 2003, 335–337, fig. 5, 11, nos. 14–15; Waksman 2002, 68–71, fig. 2), but its size is too small for a certain identification. Moreover, there are also no fine ware imports from other parts of Mediterranean, inland Syria or from more remote locations in the assemblage. A similar phenomenon has been observed at other sites explored in the mountains of Lebanon, such as Ej-Jaouzé (Pieri 2005, 253) and Yanouh (Pieri and Rousset 2003, 118). Recent research in Balázs Major has also demonstrated this general characteristic of pottery distribution in the littoral region of southern Syria (2015, 24). It clearly differenti-

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 231 ates Rachkida pottery from that of Baalbek, where the huge variety of imports was certainly the outcome of the site’s strategic position on trade routes linking Damascus and the coast, with Beirut in particular, until at least the late Mamluk period (Daiber 2008, 298). The pottery evidence from the late Ottoman period illustrates a signifi cant change in the cir- culation network of regional goods. One obviously cannot say where the inhabitants of Rach- kida acquired their ceramic imports, whether from a local or an urban market situated in the close vicinity of the village. Nevertheless, the use of several types of glazed wares, such as Çannakale Ware or Ottoman Glazed Slip-Painted Ware, certainly confi rms a growing demand as well as availability of the more luxurious products in the rural hinterland. It is also clear testimony of dropping prices for imported table wares. And yet the appearance of these products in the ceramic assemblage does not necessarily mean that the local community partici- pated in distribution or extra-regional trade from coastal sites, such as Beirut, Jbail, or Tripoli to Damascus and territories further inland. It demonstrates rather more close-knit relations between urban centers and the hinterland. This trend fi nds many equivalent parallels in Pal- estine, where at a number of a)excavated sites the range b) of the material culture c) was evidently enriched during the late Ottoman and Mandate periods (for the most prominent examples, see: Boas 2000; Tsuk et al. 2016). The quantities of imports present in the Rachkida assemblage can be related to Beirut’s economic prosperity and growing trade in the period between the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 20th century (for extensive comments on trade development in Ottoman Beirut, see: Issawi 1977; Hanssen 2005). This change may have resulted in its increased infl uence on the hinterland, and consequently more extended local distribution of imported pottery. The numismatic evidence seems to illustrate the same process. A group of Ottoman coins from the excavations evidently corresponds to intense human presence within the ruins of the church during the last phase of occupation (Figure 18). A full understanding of changes and continuities in the site settlement pattern from Roman to modern times cannot be gained from such limited excavation as has been carried out at Rachkida. Even so, one 0 1 2 cm easily distinguishes two chron- Photos: Adam Oleksiak ological gaps, the fi rst preced- a) R01; b) R04; c) R07 ing the founding of the medieval church. An evident hiatus Figure 18 Ottoman coins from the excavation at Rachkida. between the 7th and 12th cen- © A. Oleksiak.

Number and Context Description Size R01; Trench 1, Context 1 Ġurūš of Maḥmūd II (1808–1839), Qusṭanṭiniyya, 1244 AE; 1.04 g; 21 mm H/1828/9 CE (Schaendlinger 1973, 168:131, pl. 13, n. 131), perforated, used as a pendant R04; Trench 3, Context 2 Pāra minted probably by Maḥmūd I (1730–1754) in AE; 1.05 g; 16 mm Miṣr (Egypt) R07; Trench 3b, Context 4 Aqče of Selīm II (1566–1595) minted in Ḥalab, 974 H/ AR; 0.30 g; 15 mm (1566 CE) (Damali 2011, 850:11-HP-G2)

Table 2 Ottoman coins from the excavation at Rachkida. turies was also noted at Ej-Jaouzé (Pieri 2004, 254) and Yanouh (Pieri and Rousset 2003, 118), and seems to be a common phenomenon throughout the region (Waliszewski et al. 2014, 293). It can intuitively be assumed, therefore, that settlement revived with the Crusader penetration into the Lebanese mountains. Research on settlement patterns in this mountain range is still in its infancy, however. The second gap, which covers the abandonment of the church prior to its ephemeral reoccu- pation in the late Ottoman period, is difficult to trace in the archaeological record and should be considered with caution. The main difficulty is the scale of the disturbance of the stratigraphic sequence caused presumably by repeated plundering of the stone elements of the pavement and presbytery installations and by extensive post-ecclesiastical occupation. The second issue is the imperfection of ceramologic typologies, as these provide only snippets of chronological clues. Even so, only one sherd in the entire ceramic assemblage can be dated securely to the late Mamluk/early Ottoman period. Moreover, the scarcity of typical “Mamluk period” ceramics in the assemblage and the absolute absence of the so-called HMGP ware may suggest that it was during this period that the church was periodically occupied to the great- est degree. It is probable, however, that at least some of the local coarse wares continued to be used also during the Mamluk or even Ottoman periods (for a similar observation, see: Pieri and Rousset 2003, 118). Hence the initial impression could be little but a discursive illusion. Finally, the last and unquestionably the most significant difficulty is the lack of a wider archaeological context of the excavation at Rachkida. Conclusions The church was founded on cultural remains from earlier periods, the exact nature of which cannot be determined because of the limited nature of the excavation. Such extended use of a cult place has a close parallel in the Maʾad church (Chausson and Nordiguian 1996; Nordiguian and Voisin 2009, 395–396). Both edifices follow a basilica-like plan, derived most probably from an earlier Byzantine model. The settlement pattern reconstructed on the basis of the ceramic records is also similar to that of the church/temple in Yanouh (Pieri and Rousset 2003, 114). Without inscribed evidence a precise foundation date for the church cannot be established. Suggestions that it was built preceding the arrival of the Crusaders (there are indeed some rare examples of churches in Palestinian territory built in the 11th century, some of which were even erected by local Christian communities, see: Pringle 1982) have not been confirmed archaeologically.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 233 The church in Rachkida was functioning in the 12th and 13th centuries, but there is no way of determining when it went out of liturgical use. The fall of the County of Tripoli in April 1289 did not radically change the daily life of Christian communities in the Lebanese mountains. The church probably continued in its sacral function throughout the early Mamluk period, perhaps even later. Numerous textual sources illustrate extensive activity of Lebanese monasteries into the Ottoman period, like the monastery at Saydet el Natour in Anfeh (Antaki-Masson 2016, 283). During the late Ottoman and Mandate periods, a layer of debris accumulated over the floor of the medieval church, the site being apparently an open ruin throughout this time. The quantity of diverse finds from this period proves that the relatively well-preserved building was frequently used as a shelter or even as a place of temporary habitation. According to oral sources, a few Maronite families were still living in the village in the second half of the 19th century.4 Sev- eral wall paintings in the church interior are covered with soot from oil lamps or even hearths lit by temporary inhabitants, signifying relatively recent commemorative practices. The medieval and post-medieval pottery from the Rachkida church forms a small but significant assemblage. In the regional context of northern Lebanon, it offers unique insight into the local material culture. Despite the modest size of the assemblage, it certainly contributes to a broader picture of the Lebanese hinterland during the Crusader/Mamluk and late Ottoman and Mandate periods. Recent and ongoing projects in the southern Levant have also begun to fill the gaps in knowledge of the fine wares and the more utilitarian and coarse pottery from the Ottoman period. The study of ceramic finds from the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) church in Rachkida follows this general tendency, providing a preliminary analysis of several categories of pottery, which, to date, have been absent or only cursorily mentioned in research on the archaeology of Lebanon.

About the author Piotr Makowski, Polish archaeologist and art historian, PhD Candidate, Grant associate, Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology of the University of Warsaw. He has worked on several archaeological projects in Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Sudan, and Cyprus. His current research focus is on the transition between the Byzantine and Islamic periods through a study of pottery and field data.

References Abu Khalaf, M. 2009. “The Ottoman Pottery of Palestine.” In Reflections of Empire: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on the Pottery of the Ottoman Levant and Beyond, edited by B. J. Walker, 15–21. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 64. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Antaki-Masson, P. 2012. “La ville franque de Tyr: visite guidée de ses défenses, son port, ses quartiers, ses monuments.” In L’histoire de Tyr au témoignage de l’archéologie, Actes du séminaire international (Tyr, 2011). BAAL Hors Série 8, edited by G. Layoun, 205–222. Beyrouth: Ministère de la Culture, Direction Generale des Antiquites. 2016. “Le monastère Saydet el Natour Enfé. Résultats de l’étude historique et de l’archéologie du bâti.” In “Mission archéologique d’Enfeh: Résultats préliminaires des travaux de prospection et de fouille de 2011 à 2015.” by N. Panayot-Haroun with contributions by J. Abdul Massih, S. Amhaz,. P. Antaki-Masson, A. Chaaya, P. Courbon, D. Etienne, X. Faivre, G. Gernez and E. Ishaq. Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 16: 283–293.

4. http://fresquesliban.com/ hosted by the Association pour la Restauration et l’Étude des Fresques Médiévales du Liban,giving oral testimony from anonymous sources. © Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 234 Piotr Makowski

Armstrong, P., and N. Günsein. 1995. “Glazed Pottery Production at Ganos.” Anatolia Antiqua 3: 165–201. https://doi.org/10.3406/anata.1995.1184 Arnauld, P., E. Llopis, and M. Bonifay. 1996. “Bey 027 Rapport préliminaire.” Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 1: 98–134. Aubert, C. 1996. “Bey 002 Rapport préliminaire.” Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 1: 60–85. Avissar, M. 1996. “The Medieval Pottery.” In Yoqne’am I: The Late Periods, edited by A. Ben-Tor, M. Avissar and Y. Portugali, 75–172. . Qedem Reports 3. Jerusalem: The Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 2005. “The Pottery.” In Tel Yoqne’am. Excavations on the Acropolis, by M. Avissar with contributions by E. Braun, G. Finkielsztejn, Y. Gorin-Rosen, and R. Kool, 35–78. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 25. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Authority. 2009. “Ottoman pottery assemblages from excavations in Israel.” In Reflections of Empire: Archaeological and Ethno- graphic Perspectives on the Pottery of the Ottoman Levant and Beyond, edited by B. J. Walker, 7–14. . The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 64. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Avissar, M. and E. J. Stern. 2005. Pottery of the Crusader. Ayyubid and Mamluk periods in Israel. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 26. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1fzhfd0 Bakirtzis, C. 1980. “Didymoteichon: Un centre de céramique post-byzantine.” Balkan Studies 21: 147–153. Bartl, K. 2003. “Clay Pipes from Ottoman Beirut.” Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 7: 321–340. Bartl, K. and A. Chaaya. 1999. “Islamic Settlement in the Plain of Akkar/Northern Lebanon, Preliminary Results.” AlʾUsur AlʾWusta, The Bulletin of Middle East Medievalist 11(2): 29–33. Beaudoux, J. 2010. “La céramique de Yanouh-Kharayeb (campagne 2006).” In “Une campagne de sondages sur le tell Kharayeb à Yanouh (Liban) (printemps 2006),” by J.-Y. Monchambert, J. Bargman, J. Beaudoux, J. Cluny and E. Morvillez. Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 12: 73–95. Boas, A. 2000. “Pottery and small finds from the Late Ottoman village and the Early Zionist settlement.” In Ramat Hanadiv Excavations. Final Report of the 1984–1998 Seasons, edited by Y. Hirschfeld, 547–580. Jerusalem: Israel Explora- tion Society. Bouzek, J. 1996. “Bey 069 Sondage A.” Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 1: 135–147. Chausson, F. and L. Nordiguian. 1996. “L’église de Ma’ad et ses inscriptions.” Syria. Archéologie, Art et histoire 73: 37–46. https://doi.org/10.3406/ syria.1996.7499 Chervát, P. 2002. “Medieval Pottery.” In “Czech excavations in Beirut, Martyrs’ Square (Bey 069), Sondage A, Part I, General Survey. Pottery and other small finds of Hellenistic, Early Roman and Medieval periods, Glass and metal objects,”by J. Bouzek. Eirene. Studia Graeca et Latina 38: 56–66. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2010. “The Ceramic Evidence.” In Ramla: Final Report on the Excavations North of the White Mosque, edited by O. Gutfeld with contributions by N. Amitai-Preiss, K. Cytryn-Silverman, Y. Gorin-Rosen, E. Khamis, R. Laureys-Chachy, R. Nenner-Soriano, M. J. Pointing and N. Vilozny, 97–211.. Qedem. Monographs of the Institute of Archaeol- ogy. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 51. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Daiber, V. 2008. “The Fine Wares from Medieval Baalbek.” In Baalbek/Heliopolis. Results of Archaeological and Architectural Research 2002–2005: German–Lebanese Colloquium 2006, edited by M. van Ess, 289–317. . BAAL Hors Série 4. Beirut: Ministère de la Culture, Direction eG nerale des Antiquites. Damali, A. 2011. History of Ottoman Coins. Vol. 3. İstanbul: Nilüfer Damali Egitim, Kültür ve Çevre Vakfi.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 235 de Vincenz, A. 2011. “Ottoman Clay Tobacco Pipes from Ramla.” ʿAtiqot 67: 43–53. 2014. “Appendix: a Note on Ottoman Finds, Eli Cohen Street.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126. Internet edition: http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/images/Ashqlon-de-vinecnz.pdf 2016. “Chibouk Smoking Pipes: Secrets and Riddles of the Ottoman Past.” In Arise, Walk through the Land. Studies in the Archaeology and History of the Land of Israel in Memory of Yizhar Hirschfeld on the Tenth Anniversary of Demise, edited by J. Patrich, O. Peleg-Barkat and E. Ben-Yosef, 111–120. Jerusalem: The Israel Exploration Society. el-Masri, S. 1997–1998. “Medieval Pottery from Beirut’s Downtown Excavations. The First Results.” ARAM 9–10: 103–119. https://doi.org/10.2143/ARAM.9.1.2002170 Evans, J. 1996. “Bey 006 Islamic and Roman Period Pottery Preliminary Report.” Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 1: 218–223. Fischer, S. and I. Taxel 2007. “Ancient Javne: Its History and Archaeology.” Tel Aviv 34(2): 204–284. https://doi.org/10.1179/ tav.2007.2007.2.204 Fischer-Genz, B., H. Lehmann and V. Vezzoli. 2012. “Pots in a Corner: Ceramic and glass finds from a closed medieval context in Bustan Nassif (Baalbek).”Bulle - tin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 14: 289–306. François, V. 1995. “Byzantine ou ottomane? Une céramique peinte à l’engobe découverte en Méditerranée orientale.” Anatolia Antiqua 3: 203–217. https://doi.org/10.3406/anata.1995.1185 1999. Céramiques médiévales à Alexandrie: Contribution à l’histoire économique de la ville. Études alexandrines 2. Cairo: IFAO. 2008. Céramiques de la citadelle de Damas. Epoques mamelouke et ottomans. Interactive CD, Aix-en-Provence. 2009. “Céramiques d’époque ottomane à la Citadelle de Damas: Des découvertes archéologiques nouvelles au Bilâd al-Châm.” Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 30: 53–66. 2012. “Objets du quotidien à Damas à l’époque ottomane.” Bulletin d’études orientales 61: 475–506. https://doi. org/10.4000/beo.1038 François, V., A. Nicolaïdes, L. Vallauri and Y. Waksman. 2003. “Prémiers éléments pour une caractérisations productions de céramiques de Beyrouth entre de domination franque et mamelouke.” In Actes du VIIe Congrès International sur la Céramique Médiévale en Méditerranée, Thes- salonique, 11–16 octobre 1999, edited by C. Bakirtzis, 325–340. Athènes: Caisse des Recettes Archeologiques. François, V., and L. Vallauri. 2001. “Production et consommation de céramiques à Potamia (Chypre) de l’époque franque à l’époque ottomane.” Bulletin de correspondance hellénique 125(2): 523–546. https://doi.org/10.3406/bch.2001.7151 Gabrieli, R. S., Y. Waksman, A. Shapiro and A. Pecci. 2017. “Cypriot and Levantine cooking wares in Frankish Cyprus.” In Medieval Masterchef. Archaeological and Histor- ical Perspectives on Eastern Cuisine and Western Foodways, edited by J. Vroom, Y. Waksman and R. Van Oosten, 119–145. . Medieval and Post-medieval Mediterranean Archaeology Series 2. Tornhout: Brespols. https:// doi.org/10.1484/M.MPMAS-EB.5.113480 Gophna, R., I. Taxel and A. Feldstein. 2007. “Kafr ʿAna: a Rural Settlement in the Lod Valley.” Salvage Excavation Reports 4: 3–138. Hakimian S. and H. Salamé-Sarkis. 1988. “Céramiques médiévales trouvées dans une citerne à Tell ʿArqa.” Syria: Archéologie, Art et histoire 65: 1–52. https://doi.org/10.3406/syria.1988.7050 Hankey, V. 1968 . “Pottery-making in Beit-Shaebab, Lebanon.” Palestinian Exploration Quarterly 100: 27–32. https://doi. org/10.1179/peq.1968.100.1.27 Hanssen, J. 2005. Fin de Siècle Beirut: the Making an Ottoman Provincial Capital. Oxford Historical Monographs, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hayes, J. W. 1992. Excavations at Saraçhane in Istanbul, vol. 2: the Pottery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Hélou, N. 2006. “A propos d’une école syro-libanaise d’icônes au XIIIe siècle.” Eastern Christian Art 3: 53–72. https://doi. org/10.2143/ECA.3.0.2018703 Homsy-Gottwalles, G. 2011. “Les céramiques glacurées de Beyrouth aux XIe–XIVe siècles: production et distribution.” In Byzantium in Early Islamic Syria. Proceedings of a Conference organized by the American University of Beirut and University of Bal- amand, June 18–19, 2007, edited by N. M. El Cheikh and S. O’Sullivan, 171–189. Beirut: American University of Beirut and University of Balamand. 2012. “La céramique ottomane (XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles).” In Fascination du Liban. Soixante siècles d’histoire de religions, d’art et d’archéologie, edited by M. Martiniani-Reber, A. -M. Maïla Afeiche and M. -A. Haldimann, 223–227. Genève: Musees d’art et d’histoire de la Ville de Genève. 2012a. “Note sur les céramiques du couvent de Notre-Dame de Balamand.” In N. Panayot-Haroun et al., La monas- tère patrialcal de Notre-Dame de Balamand Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 14: 413–435. 2016. “The Medieval and Ottoman periods at Saydet el-Rih, Anfeh (Lebanon): Ceramic Evidence.” Berytus: Archae- ological Studies 56: 313–349. 2017. “Beyrouth post-médiévale. Étude de cas: la céramique.” In Glazed Pottery of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea Region, 10th to 18th centuries, edited by S. Bocharov, V. François and A. Sitdikov, 245–259. Kazan, Kishinev: A. Kh. Khalikov Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Science of the Republic of Tatarstan. Immerzeel, M. 2009. Identity Puzzles: Medieval Christian Art in Syria and Lebanon. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 8. Leuven: Peeters Publishers. Issawi, C. 1977. “British Trade and the Rise of Beirut, 1830–1860.” International Journal of the Middle East Studies 8(1): 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020743800026775 Liaros, N. 2018. “Late Ottoman Tableware from Didymoteicho and Some Notes on the Pots’ Form, Function, and Identity.” In The XIth Congress on AIECM3 Medieval and Modern Period Mediterranean Ceramics Proceedings, 19–24 October, 2015 Antalya, vol. 1, edited by F. Yenişehirlioğlu, 203–216. Ankara: Koç Üniversitesi. Major, B. 2015. Medieval Rural Settlements in the Syrian Coastal Region (12th and 13th centuries). Central European Archaeological Heritage Series 9. Oxford: Archaeopress. Matson, F. R. 1974. “The Archaeological Present: Near Eastern Village Potters at Work.” American Journal of Archaeology 78(4): 345–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/502748 Milwright, M. 2000. “Pottery of Bilad al-Sham in the Ottoman Period: A Review of the Published Archaeological Evidence.” Levant 32(1): 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.2000.32.1.189 2008. “Imported Pottery in Ottoman Bilad al-Sham.” Turcica 40: 121–152. https://doi.org/10.2143/ TURC.40.0.2037137 Mouawad, R. J. 2001–2002. “The District of Lower Batroun (Lebanon) During the Time of Crusaders: Part One, Kfar Chlamaine.” Mélanges de l’Univisitré Saint Joseph 63: 411–441. Nordiguian, L. 2013. “Chapelles rurales médiévales dans le territoire du comté de Tripoli (Liban): essai typologique.” In Les églises en monde syriaque, edited by F. Briquel-Chatonnet, 169–196. Études syriaques 10. Paris: Geuthner. Nordiguian, L. and J. -C. Voisin. 2009. Châteaux et églises du Moyen Âge au Liban. Beirut: Terra du Liban. Peretz, I. 2014. “Ashqelon, Eli Cohen Street.” Excavations and Surveys in Israel 126 Internet edition. http://www.hadashotesi. org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=13668&mag_id=121 Perring, D., H. Seeden, P. Sheehan and T. Williams. 1996. “Bey 006, 1994–1995 The Souks Area. Interim Report of the AUB Project.” Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 1: 176–206.

Pieri, D. 2004. “3H – Phase 6: Époque médiévale et moderne.” In “Mission de Yanouh et de la haute vallée du Nahr Ibrahim Rapport préliminaire 2002,” by P.-L. Gatier, G. Charpentier, M. Haïdar Boustani, R. Harfouche, F. Mercier, D. Pieri, P. Poupet and T. Zaven. Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 6: 248–249. 2005. “Note préliminaire sur la céramiques d’Ej-Jaouzé.” In “Ej-Jaouzé (Metn, Liban), Mission de 2003,” by L. Nacouzi with contributions by F. Alpi, and D. Pieri. Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 8: 252–261. Pieri, D. and N. Haidar-Vela. 2012. “Études sur le mobilier et l’artisanat: les céramiques (2008–2009).” In “Mission archéologique de Tyr – Rap- port préliminaire 2008–2009,” by P.-L. Gatier, A. Baud, D. Cahu, G. Charpentier, A. Devillechaise, C. Duvette, M. el-Masri Hachem, P. Ferreira, A. Flammin, N. Haidar-Vela, X. Husson, H. Kahwagi-Janho, C. Piaton, D. Pieri, and A. Schmitt, with contribution by T. Zaven. Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 14: 199–221. Pieri, D. and M.-O. Rousset. 2003. “Yanouh et la haute vallée du Nahr Ibrahim: la céramique.” In “Mission de Yanouh et de la haute vallée du Nahr Ibrahim Rapport préliminaire 1999–2001,” by P.-L. Gatier, G. Charpentier, R. Harfouche, M. Al-Maq- dissi, F. Mercier, L. Nordiguian, D. Pieri, P. Poupet and M.-O. Rousset. Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 5: 114–131. Pringle, D. 1982. “Church-building before the Crusaders.” In Crusader Art in the Twelfth Century, edited by J. Folda, 5–46. British Archaeological Reports International Series 152. Oxford: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. 1985. “Medieval Pottery from Caesarea: The Crusader Period.” Levant 17(1): 171–202. https://doi.org/10.1179/ lev.1985.17.1.171 1986. The Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar): Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the Crusaders and Mamluks A.D. 1099–1516. British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem Monograph Series 1. London: The British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem. Robinson, R. 1983. “Clay Tobacco Pipes from Kerameikos.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Institut Athenische Abteilung 98: 265–285. 1985. “Tobacco Pipes of Corith and the Athenian Agora.” Hesperia: Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 53: 149–203. https://doi.org/10.2307/147907 Rosser, J. 1985. “Excavations at Saranda Kolones. Paphos, Cyprus 1981–1983.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39: 81–97. https://doi. org/10.2307/1291516 Sader, Y. 1997. Painted Churches and Rock-cut Chapels of Lebanon. Beirut: Dar Sader. Salamé-Sarkis, H. 1980. Contribution à l’histoire de Tripoli et de sa région à l’époque Croisades. Problèmes d’histoire, d’architecture et de céra- mique. Bibliothèque archéologique et historique 106. Beyrouth, Damas, Amman: Institut Français d’Archéo- logie du Proche-Orient. Salem, H. 2009. “An Ethno-archaeological Approach to Ottoman Pottery: The Case of “Gaze Gray Ware”. In Reflections of Empire: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on the Pottery of the Ottoman Levant and Beyond, edited by B. J. Walker, 23–37. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 64. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Sarre, F. 1925. “Die Kleinfunde.” In Baalbek III: Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen und Untersuchungen in den Jahren 1898 bis 1905, edited by T. Wiegand, 113–141. Berlin: Vereinigung Wissenschaftlicher Verleger. Schaendlinger, A. C. 1973. Osmanische Numismatik von den Anfängen des Osmanischen Reiches bis zu seiner Auflösung 1922. Braunschweig: Klinkhardt und Biermann. Seeden, H. and S. el-Masri. 1999. “Michael Meinecke, Islamic Archaeology and Beirut.” Damaszener Mitteilungen 11: 391–402. Shaefer, J. 1989. “Archaeological Remains from the Medieval Islamic Occupation of the Northwest Negev Desert.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 274: 33–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/1357052

Shapiro, A. and E. J. Stern. 2012. “Beirut Frankish Plain Ware (BE.PL).” The Levantine Ceramics Project Internet edition. https://www.levanti- neceramics.org/wares/beirut-frankish-plain-ware-be-pl Shehadeh, L. 2006. “The Pottery Collection of Sūq Ḥarāj.” In “The Restoration Project of Sūq Ḥarāj in Tripoli,” by T. Weber et al. Bulletin d’archéologie et d’architecture libanaises 10: 328–335. Simpson, S. J. 2002. “Ottoman pipes from Zirʾin (Tell Jezreel).” Levant 34(1): 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.2002.34.1.159 2011. “Analyzing the Recent Past: The archaeology of death, pastoralism, pots and pipes in the Ottoman Jazira and beyond.” Al-Rāfidān: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 1–46. Sinibaldi, M. 2013. “The pottery from the 11th–20th centuries from the FJHP survey. Ceramics, Settlement and Pilgrimage at Jabal Hārūn during Later Islamic Periods (with Appendixes).” In Petra – The Mountain of Aaron: The Finnish Archaeological Project in Jordan, vol. 3. The Archaeological Survey, edited by P. Kouki, and M. Lavento, 169–198. Helsinki: Societas Scientiarum Fennica. Stern, E. J. 1997. “Excavation at the Courthouse site at ʿAkko: The Pottery of the Crusader and Ottoman Periods.” ʿAtiqot 31: 35–70. 2012. ʿAkko I. The 1991–1998 Excavations. The Crusader-period Pottery. Israel Antiquities Authority Reports 51/1–2. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority. 2013. “Crusader, Ayyubid and Mamluk-Period Remains from Tiberias.” ʿAtiqot 76: 183–208. 2013a. “The Fatimid, Crusader, Mamluk-Early and Ottoman Ceramic Finds from the ʿAkko Marina: Some Insights into Medieval Maritime Activity.” ʿAtiqot 76: 139–168. 2014. “The Crusader, Mamluk and Early Ottoman-Period Pottery from Khirbat Dinʿila: Typology, Chronology, Pro- duction and Consumption Trends.” ʿAtiqot 78: 71–104. 2014a. “Imported pottery from the late Mamluk and Ottoman Periods at al Waṭa Quarter, Safed (Ẓefat).” ʿAtiqot 78: 143–151. 2016. “The Ceramic Evidence from the Ottoman Flour Mills in the Ridwan Gardens, ʿAkko.” ʿAtiqot 87: 83–96. Stern, E. J. and Y. Waksman. 2003. “Pottery from Crusader Acre: A Typological and Analytical Study.” In Actes du VIIe Congrès International sur la céramique médiévale en Méditerranée, Thessalonique, 11–16 octobre 1999, edited by C. Bakirtzis, 167–180. Athènes: Caisse des Recettes Archeologiques. Syon, D. and E. J. Stern. 2014. “Excavation at the Dar el-Gharbiya Neighborhood of Kafr Yasif: a Crusader Estate in the Territory of ʿAkko.” ʿAtiqot 79: 233–261. Tekkök, B. 2011. “Remnants of Çanakkale Glazed Ware Production: a Long Tradition of Glazing in the Troad Region.” Near Eastern Archaeology 74(4): 226–235. https://doi.org/10.5615/neareastarch.74.4.0226 Thalmann, J. -P. 1978. “Tell ʿArqa (Liban nord), Campagnes I–III (1972–1974).” Syria: Archéologie, Art et histoire 55: 1–104. https://doi. org/10.3406/syria.1978.6626 Toueir, K. 1973. “Céramiques mameloukes à Damas.” Bulletin d’études orientales 26: 209–217. Tsuk, T., I. Bordowicz and I. Taxel. 2016 . “Majdal Yābā: The History and Material Culture of a Fortified Village in the Late Ottoman–British Man- date-Palestine.” Journal of Islamic Archaeology 3(1): 37–88. https://doi.org/10.1558/jia.v3i1.31876 Turquety-Periset, F. 1982. “Fouilles à la municipalité de Beyrouth (1977).” Syria: Archéologie, Art et histoire 59: 1–76. https://doi. org/10.3406/syria.1982.6748 van der Lingen, B. 2003. “Smoking in the Ottoman Empire and an Introduction to the Clay Tobacco Pipes from Beirut Souks Excava- tions.” Berytus: Archaeological Studies 47: 129–142.

© Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2020 Polish–Lebanese Excavations at the St. George’s (Mar Girgis) Church in Rachkida (Northern Lebanon) 239 van der Steen, E. 1997–1998. “What happened to Arabic Geometric Pottery in Beirut?” ARAM 9: 121–127. https://doi.org/10.2143/ ARAM.9.1.2002171 Vezzoli, V. 2011. “Preliminary Considerations on Ceramic Productions of the Islamic Period from the Middle Orontes Region: A Representative Assemblage from Apamea.” Al Rafidan: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 32: 258–275. 2015. “The Area of Bustan Nassif (Baalbek) between the 12th and the early 15th century: The ceramic evidence.” In Proceedings of the 10th International Congress on Medieval Pottery in the Mediterranean, Silves and Mértola, 22–27 October 2012, edited by M.J. Gonçalves., and S. Gómez-Martínez, 133–138. Silves: Câmara Municipal de Silves & Campo Arqueológico de Mértola. von Wartburg, M.-L. 2001. “Types of Imported Tableware at Kouklia in the Ottoman Period.” Report of the Department of Antiquities Cyprus 2001: 361–396. Vorderstrasse, T. 2011. “Painted churches of Medieval Lebanon: An Overview.” Chronos: Revue d’Histoire de l’Universitéde Balamand 24: 129–161. https://doi.org/10.31377/chr.v24i0.433 Vroom, J. 2014. Byzantine to Modern Pottery in the Aegean (7th to 20th Century): An Introduction and Field Guide. Second and Revised Edition. Turhout: Brepols. Waksman, Y. 2002. “Céramiques levantines de l’époque des croisades. Le cas des productions à pâte rouge des ateliers de Bey- routh.” Révue d’archéométrie 26: 67–77. https://doi.org/10.3406/arsci.2002.1024 Waliszewski, T., K. Chmielewski, M. Immerzeel and N. Hélou. 2013. “The Church of Saints Sergius and Bacchus in Kaftūn (Northern Lebanon) and Its Wall Paintings. Prelimi- nary Report 2009–2010” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 67: 291–322. Walker, B. J. 2005. “The Northern Jordan Survey 2003, Agriculture in Late Islamic Malka and Hubras villages: A preliminary report of the first season.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 339: 67–111. https://doi. org/10.1086/BASOR25066903 2009. “Identifying the Late Islamic period ceramically: Preliminary observations on Ottoman wares from Central and Northern Jordan.” In Reflections of Empire: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on the Pottery of the Ottoman Levant and Beyond, edited by B. J Walker, 37–67. The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 64. Boston, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research. Ziadeh, G. 1995. “Ottoman Ceramics from Tiʾinnik, Palestine.” Levant 27(1): 209–245. https://doi.org/10.1179/lev.1995.27.1.209