the exploration of a crusaders fortress montfort in palestine

7/30/2019 The Exploration of a Crusaders Fortress Montfort in Palestine

1/43

The Exploration of a Crusader's Fortress (Montfort) in Palestine

Author(s): Bashford DeanSource: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 9, Part 2: A Crusader'sFortress in Palestine: A Report of Explorations Made by the Museum 1926 (Sep., 1927), pp. 5-46Published by: The Metropolitan Museum of ArtStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3255835

Accessed: 11/10/2010 02:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mma.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Metropolitan Museum of Artis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mmahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3255835?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mmahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mmahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3255835?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mma


2/43

THE EXPLORATION F A CRUSADERS'FOR-TRESS(MONTFORT)N PALESTINEI. INTRODUCTION

Bleak spots there are in all collections. InEuropean armor it has been ever our prob-lem to secure for our galleries specimens ofarmor dating from the Crusades. But, un-happily, they could not be obtained evenfrom the most complete museums abroad,and by tempting exchanges. A few dug-uparms may be had, it is true, but in themain they are not to be found, and the fewfragments hitherto described are in handsimmutably fixed. Where, then, should oneseek for armor dating from the twelfth andthirteenth centuries? Of this epoch, in fact,the remains of the entire cultureare meager,surprisingly meager, when we consider itas a time of a general awakening of theEuropean mind, as shown in its strugglesin pursuit of a true religion, order, art.Indeed, it is probably fair to say that of thematerial achievements of these centuries,important as they are, we should know lesstoday than, for example, of the EgyptianEighteenth Dynasty (which, as a chapter inhuman development, is fouror five times asremote), were it not for the saving graceof the Christian Church, whose buildingsretained painted windows, elaborate tomb-stones (showing interesting "documents"),ivories, enamels, sculptures, and illumi-nated books.Secular objects of the twelfth andthirteenth centuries are today hardly to bediscovered in European countries; what-ever existed in towns and castles has beenthoroughly picked over and lost since earlytimes. Rubbish heaps (last resort of eagerarchaeologists) have been found well-nighbarren; buildings of the period have beendespoiled of their ornaments, and oftenindeed so rebuilt that it is difficult totell where the early leaves off and the late

begins. Finally, there is no possible chanceof securing permission whereby earlyChristian burials may be examined withthe view of discovering cultural data.In Palestine, on the other hand, secularobjects of the twelfth and thirteenth cen-turies, European in origin, still exist.Perhaps, indeed, this is the only region inthe world where they are retained in con-siderable number, in great variety, and ofartistic merit. One has only to consider thatPalestine, in certain parts at least, waspractically a European province, or king-dom, for nearly two centuries; that itbristled with castles, swarmed with crusa-ders of all grades of society, led by greatpotentates of their several nations; thathosts of Christians evacuated their strong-holds suddenly or within a relatively shortspace of time, able to take with them prob-ably few of their European belongings:hence many objects of value are yet to beretrieved from ancient caches or dust-heaps,notably in regions where native villageswere far from the European forts. Manyspecimens of their belongings must alsobe preserved in cemeteries, for the mortal-ity of the Westerners was unprecedented,as a result of battles and epidemics. In sucha region, in a word, might be found theanswer to our problem.These thoughts were in the writer's mindfor years, especially after the World War,when it became reasonably evident thatunder an English mandate an explorationalstudy of the crusading castles of Palestine(forbidden under the Turkish regime)wouldbe permitted and that museums would beallotted representative specimens of theirfinds. Hence it was that in 1925 the oppor-tunity was taken to visit Jerusalem and tomake inquiry of the local authorities as towhat had been done already in matters of

5


3/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTinvestigation and what might now be donewith a reasonable chance of success. It wasat this time that the writer met MajorP. L. O. Guy, Acting Director of the De-partment of Antiquities of the Governmentof Palestine, and with him preliminaryarrangements for a reconnaissance weremade; these were confirmed during the fol-lowing winter in Jerusalem, on the onehand by a Trustee of the Museum, GeorgeD. Pratt, and on the other by Dr. JohnGarstang, Director of the Department ofAntiquities.The suggestion was made by the Eng-lish officials that the most promising sitefor our preliminary survey was the crusad-ing fortress of Montfort (Kal'at el Kurein),(fig. I).1 Here we should be able to dis-cover, with least difficulty, whether bysuch explorational work we could advanceour special problem, the study and exhibi-tion of armor and arms, though we shouldnaturally endeavor at the same time totrace other lines of culture.

II. THE CASTLE AND ITS HISTORY

The crusading ruin selected by the De-partment of Antiquities possessed manyfeatures favorable for our work. It hadremained since the thirteenth century rela-tively unchanged, that is to say, severelydismantled, but about in the condition inwhich its besiegers left it. For one thing, itssituation had been so remote that it hadnever been used as a source of buildingmaterials for existing towns. Then, too,should objects be found in it we had everyreason to conclude that they would be of'It had been visitedabout I872by Lieutenant(afterwards Field Marshal) Kitchener, whocauseda view of it to be engravedwhich ourfig.5resembles: lso a groundplanwhichdiffersconsiderablyromMajorHarryF. Key'ssurveyin ourfig. 4, the latterhavingbeen baseduponactualexcavations.Cf. H. H. Kitchener& C. R.Conder,Surveyof WesternPalestine(editedbyE. H. Palmerand Walter Besant for the Com-mitteeof the PalestineExplorationFund. Lon-don, 188I). Of Kal'at el Kurein (Montfort),a shortdescription abouta page) is given onpp. i86if.,and a briefbut accuratenoteconcern-ing its history. Kitchenercites M. G. Rey,Monuments de l'architecture militaire descroisesen Syrie (p. 148)and WilliamMcClureThomson'sThe Landandthe Book(NewYork,1859. 2 vols. Vol. I, pp. 457-459).

high quality, for as a castle Montfort wasone of the most distinguished in Palestine-a veritable architectural monument. Thus,its keepwas built of trimmed stones, smooth-laid, some of them great in size (nine feetlong). Its buildings formed a mass of ma-sonry ninety feet high in parts, in widtheighty feet, and in length nearly three hun-dred and fifty feet-or four hundred andfifty if we include the tower and retainingwall of the residence and its "garden."Surroundingthe castle the curtain with itstower extended fifteen hundred feet, and ifa second outer wall were present (which isnot beyond question), its circumference,measured by known landmarks, was notless than forty-five hundred feet.Of so important a fortress an interestinghistory could be compiled, even after thelapse of centuries; for our present purpose,however, the following may suffice.Its site was probably fortified from pre-historic times, doubtless with additionsby Jewish kings and Romans. The greatstones which form the base of its keep are ofearly date, the crusaders making use ofthem, just as they did of similar material,as Jacques de Vitry2 records,in the buildingof the great castle at Athlit. In fact, in ornear the keep of Montfort coins dating fromimperial Roman times were dug up; also, inthe residence, an interesting sculpture inmarblewhich the crusadersmay have foundlocally. At the beginning of the thirteenthcentury the French built the castle on itspresent lines. Fifteen miles away they hadbuilt Toron, or were building it (i 107); andthe name, Montfort, sprang probably fromthe name of a distinguished family, whichpresently disputed with Hughues de SaintOmer for the possession of Toron, andwhich appears later in Jacques de Vitry'shistory of Jerusalem. Be this as it may, thecastle was French until I2293; in this yearthe lords of Mandelee (Jacob de Armigdala)

2Jacquesde Vitry, History of Jerusalem nI180.3References to Montfort n 1229as the "Newcastle," n the "land of Acre,"maymean hat itwas alreadyseveral decades old. Cf. TabulaeOrdinisTheutonici.Ex. TabulariiRegii Bero-linensisCodice Potissimum.E. Strehlke,Berlin,1869,p. 51. (Forthis note the writer s indebtedto hiscolleague,T. T. Hoopes.)

6


4/43

THE EXPLORATION OF A CRUSADERS' FORTRESS IN PALESTINEwere in possession of the castle, and in thisyear they deeded it to Herman de Salza,Grand Master of the Order of the Hospitalof Our Lady of the Teutons. And in thesame year the Germans began to put it inorder; they translated its name to "Stark-enberg"4 and established it as the head-quarters, seat of archives, and treasury of

ments and affixing their great seals of leadand wax, sitting upright in stiffly pad-ded hauberks, with coiffes of mail fallingcushion-like around their necks, their handsslipped through slits in their sleeves ofmail; around them a score of "true wit-nesses" (testes vero) included Conrad ofNassau, Odo, Constable of the Kingdom

FIG. I. MONTFORT VIEWED FROM THE WEST

the order in Palestine. Apparently theywere then having trouble to make both endsmeet, for the original owner of the castlebinds them closely to pay up when theproper time comes-the French had eventhen little neighborly affection for theirGerman colleagues, these grim brothers ofthe Hospital whom we picture in the statehall of the castle at Acre, signing the docu-

4Kal'atel Kureinhas the same significance,accordingo the writer'scolleague,Dr. LudlowS. Bull.

of Jerusalem, Baliames of Sidon, Thomasof Acre, Richard Filangerius, Marshal ofSicily. But the Hospitalers were firm intheir own faith: they gathered their re-sources, and they prevailed upon the Dukeof Austria to intercede with Gregory IXto invite all Christians to help the Germanbrothers to complete their castle and tomaintain it, assuring Christian subscribersthat this work was of "immense utility":it fed the poor, it tended the sick, it re-leased them from the thrall of the Saracens,

7


5/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTit caused them to be treated with respect,in the region away from the sea, etc.5The names of its Grand Masters are

the rear (western end), probably tunneling,certainly protected by huge mantlets.Their operations are recorded by their

LbWESTELEVATION

SOUTH LEVATION

.NORTH LEVATIONFIG. 2. DETAILS OF THE TOWER SHOWN IN FIG. I

recorded. Kitchener6 notes the master ear-lier than Herman de Salza as Helmerich(1223), and after him Conrad (1240); thenJean de Nifland (1244): his was the greatperiod of the castle. In 1266 came the

historian Ibn Ferat, who describes howthe outworks were taken and the lowercourt. The Grand Master, Jean de Saxe(1270-1272), is in straits; the enemy under-mines a wide section of the south retaining

"MILL"

."I Lh4ARUINANDw QUDARRY

FIG, 3. GROUND PLAN OF THE SITE OF THE CASTLE. I INCH EQUALS 300 YARDS

great siege of Montfort by Melek edDhahir Bibars, when the Order repulsedthe Sultan. But in I271 the Saracens cameagain, and with greater engines of siege.They worked their way up to the castle at5E.Strehike,op. cit., p. 57 (no.72).6H.H. Kitchener, p. cit.

wall of the castle (one sees this today, figs.5-6); the defenders capitulate; the SultanBibars orders the demolition of the works;much gear of war is taken away; reservoirsare emptied (and searched ?); woodenstructures are burned. Montfort was butone of many European fortresses evacu-

8


6/43

RESIDENCE

POSTERN

DRAIN D H

R4MAONRDCNOTH

QI I

FIG. 4. SECTION AND PLAN OF THE CASTLE. I INCH EQ

TANK

h


7/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTated in Palestine at this epoch; the Teu-tonic knights retired to Acre, then to theirisland outposts. Rhodes held out until 1522.

III. THE SITE AND EXPLORATIONOF THE CASTLEPlans for a Reconnaissance.In the winterof 1926 a permit was issued by the Depart-ment of Antiquities in Jerusalem to theMuseum to enable our survey to be made.Funds were subscribed for the work by

our present results are largely due, and tohis notes in the field we are especiallyindebted. We had hoped also to enlist inour work the aid of G. F. Lawrence, of theLondon Museum, whose labors of manyyears in all parts of London have contrib-uted in so great a degree to the extraor-dinary success of his institution; butunfortunately for our plan, Mr. Lawrence'sleave could not be arranged by the Trusteesof the London Museum.

FIG. 5. MONTFORT FROM THE SOUTHWEST, FROM THE SITE OF THE CAMP

Clarence H. Mackay, ever a generousconfrereen armes; by Stephen H. P. Pell,who resurrected Fort Ticonderoga; by agreat patronof ours,Archer M. Huntington;and by the Curator. The help of W. L.Calver was secured to direct the work inthe field-a circumstanceparticularly fortu-nate, since Mr. Calver was experienced andresourceful in discovering old camp sitesand recovering from them all manner ofobjects. For many years he had carried onhis studies in this field in New York and itsneighborhood, by no means a promisinglocality. And, as director of the field-workof the New York Historical Society, he hadbuilt up a collection of extraordinary com-pleteness. To his skill as a collector, then,

Our program arranged that operationsbe begun at our site during March, 1926.Mr. Calver accordingly arrived in Jerusa-lem early in the month and obtained aides,overseers, and a number of trained work-people-the latter from Egypt-togetherwith a camping outfit, through the Depart-ment of Antiquities of the Governmentof Palestine, whose Director, Dr. JohnGarstang, befriended us with great cour-tesy. In fact, these arrangements were intrain before Mr. Calver left New York. Ittook longer than anticipated to arrangetechnical details, and it was not until theend of the month that actual work began.Meanwhile, Mr. Calver took the oppor-tunity to visit various crusaders' castles,

Q1


8/43

FIG. 6. CLOSE VIEW OF MONTFORT FROM THE SOUTHWESTTAKEN AFTER THE DEBRIS HAD BEEN REMOVED FROM THE CASTLE AND

THROWN DOWN THE HILLSIDE

FIG. 7. KEEP OF THE CASTLE AND, IMMEDIATELY TO THE RIGHT, THEPROFILE OF THE MOATTHE POSTERN WAS PROBABLY TO THE LEFT OF THE KEEP NEAR THE

CLUMP OF TREES


9/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTnot omitting those in Transjordania, andto learn what had been already accom-plished in Palestine in their exploration. Wehere record our especial indebtedness toDr. Garstang, to Major Guy, and to MajorHarry F. Key, who became the engineer ofour party, and to whom all of its memberswere indebted for help in technical direc-tions. In the matter of obtaining unskilledhelp it was found, happily, that in the near-

-l_ I I Im irn ~'=

FIG. 8. DOORWAY OF THE KEEP

est village, Ma'lia, the ancient "castle ofthe King," about four miles from Montfort,laborers could be hired, as many as fifty ata time.Field-work,then, began on March 29 andcontinued until April 29 (incidentally, thebest season for work of this kind in northernPalestine), when Mr. Guy arrived at thecastle and recommendedthat the remainingdays at Mr. Calver's disposal (up to MayIO) be devoted to "tidying up" the entirearea excavated, building abutments, andintroducing cement into walls whose con-dition was precarious. All finds were trans-ported to Acre between May 3 and May 7.

On May II Mr. Calver met a governmentcommission in the new museum at Acre,this commission consisting of Mr. Guy, theAbbe Abeel, representing the museum inJerusalem, and Mr. Ory of the Departmentof Antiquities. At this session the repre-sentatives of the government selected fromour finds the objects desired for the Pales-tine museums, and presented representativespecimens to The Metropolitan Museumof Art. It is with these specimens, accord-ingly, that the present review is largelyconcerned: we have not had the oppor-tunity to examine the materials retained inPalestine, which in the nature of things are,and should naturally be, the better of thosediscovered.It will be seen above that our field-workextended over a period only of about amonth. This was due to the fact that Mr.Calver could not (unfortunately for us)remain absent during a longer time fromhis professional duties in New York. Con-sidering these conditions, then, and bearingalways in mind that in the Orient intensiveeffort is difficult, it is remarkable what anamount of work was accomplished. In pointof fact, according to the estimate of MajorKey, our reconnaissance disposed of debrisequaling 71,000 cubic feet, weighing, ifconsisting of one-third soil and two-thirdslimestone, about 4,500 tons. Fortunately,however, this material had not to be carriedfar, rarely more than forty feet, before itcould be thrown down the side of the hill(see figs. 6 and 23).It should be mentioned that as our exca-vations proceeded every effort was made topreserve the shattered walls. Especially inchambers J and K the collapse of masonrywas prevented by underpinning and bybuilding retaining walls. Also the survivingarch of the keep, which was in a precariouscondition, was reinforced with concrete.Site of the Castle. The position of thecastle was a convenient one in crusadingtimes. It lay half-way between Acre andTyre, and only about six miles from the sea.From it or by it passed a trail of highway tothe southeast leading to the Sea of Galilee,thence to the valley of the Jordan andJerusalem. From the north-Beirut, Sidon-crusading hosts found their way south-

12


10/43

THE EXPLORATION OF A CRUSADERS' FORTRESS IN PALESTINEward through Tyre and could presentlyturn into the road through the mountainsby Montfort, a road which for centurieshas been largely abandoned-to such adegree, indeed, that our fortress appears to-day inaccessible, described only briefly inBaedeker's Palestine (1912) and little

In its position Montfort has numerousanalogies of similar date in Europe fromScotland to Spain (cf. Segovia), notably ineastern France and western Germany. Asone views it from the west its generalappearance is shown in fig. I, which givesthe readeran idea of the present state of the

FIG. 9. KEEP SEEN FROM THE MOAT, WHOSE SIDE ISCOVERED WITH FALLEN MASONRY

visited by tourists. Thomson, for one, didnot know of the presence of this early road.The site of the castle must have causedprofessional satisfaction to mediaeval en-gineers. It is an abrupt shoulder of a hill,jutting out between the arms of the streamWady Kurn,which flows southwest into theMediterranean. It is the natural place foran acropolis, six hundred feet higher thanthe stream, almost precipitous on itswestern end, and sloping by easy stagestoward the east, thus furnishing desiredchangesof level in an approachto the castle.

castle as shown from the rear.The roundingwall, or curtain, and the tower mark animportant retaining wall; the masonrybehind it and at the right of the tower wasa great square building; one sees here thefarther wall of it marked by two arches.The ruins beyond this transverse wall willshortly be described. Partway down thehill are the remains of surrounding wallswith curtain towers: these appear, however,only on the left (northwest) side of thecastle, those on the steeper or south sidehaving disappeared. This picture shows at

i3


11/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTthe base of the acropolis a winding roadwhich leads today to the village of Ma'lia,and, in the lower right-hand corner, thebrook or river Wady which flows from theright to the left, joining the northernbranch as it passes to the sea (cf. fig. 3). Inancient times a road proceeded on eitherside of the base of the promontory toward

plan of an early thirteenth-century fortresssuch as, for example, Coucy, not far fromLaon, classical from the drawings ofViollet-le-Duc. This comparison makesclear that the great square building enclos-ing K and L of our survey is the residence(palace) of the castle. The space to the left(east) is the inner bailey, which was en-

FIG. IO. VIEW FROM THE KEEP LOOKING NORTHOVER THE VALLEY OF THE WADY KURN

the horizon directly behind the castle, andled the pilgrim through ancient villages tothe Sea of Galilee, twenty-odd miles away.Major Key's sketch survey of the groundplan of the castle appears in fig. 4, togetherwith his median section. The west end of thecastle shown in fig. I appears at the right.We see the upper rounding curtain-wallabout the region 0, the tower at N, andnearby a part of the outer wall.To understand the disposition of thepresent ruin, we have only to review the

closed on the north by a wall or curtain ofwhich only a part is still preserved (eightyfeet to the east). The construction J be-comes the chapel of the castle, an identi-fication supported by architectural andother evidence, e. g., the finding here ofnumberless fragments of stained glass. Thewall which forms the eastern boundary ofthe chapel and of the inner bailey separatedclearly the residence of the castle from thesoldiers' quarters, the shops, and the outerbailey, or space surroundingthe great keep,

14


12/43

THE EXPLORATION OF A CRUSADERS' FORTRESS IN PALESTINEwhich formed the eastern end of the citadeland served formanoeuveringthe retainersofthe castle. The front wall (barbican) of theouter bailey was pierced by a great gatewayfurnished with bridges and drawbridgesleading over the ditch, or fosse, which inPalestine was doubtless dry, and used onlyas a trap against besiegers. Somewhere inthis neighborhood must also have been apostern gate which would enable the gar-rison to make sorties in time of need-per-

the fortress, as shown by our clearing ofthe ruin, let us keep in mind its groundplan and section (fig. 4), and then, likevisitors, pass through it from end to endby means of the photographs here repro-duced. We follow the path coming in fromthe west (fig. I) which curves around thesouth side of the ruin, then work our wayup the side of the hill. Here we pitch ourcamp (fig. 5): looking upward at the ruinwesee at the left (west) the retaining wall and

FIG. II. STAIRCASE DESCENDING FROM THE KEEP TO CHAMBER B

haps at the point of the wall of the castleat the side of a wall of retention, or revet-ment, shown on the south side and forminghere the boundary of the barbican.The ground plan of the castle demon-strates that numerous rooms were presentbetween the great wall which formed theouter (west) face of the inner bailey and thechapel. These chambers have been letteredB, C, D, E, F, and G. In the work of clear-ing these chambers, numerous objects werefound which suggested the function of theseseveral rooms-circumstantial evidencewhich confirms us in our conclusions thatMontfort was similar in the disposition ofits parts to a typical castle in France.Better to understand the topography of

tower which mark the "garden" of theresidence; just below this (mid-distance)appear the masonry and a great roundtower of the outer wall; above the line ofbushes are traces of rubble showing thatthis wall continues to the right. At the topa transverse wall frames two great archesand marks the east wall of the residencewhose block of masonry here forms a sharpcorner; on the face (south) of this masonrywe see two deep fissures or excavationsrunning close and parallel to the founda-tion: these date from 1271 when the Sultanundermined the walls. We imagine withwhat heroism the Saracens, high up on anarrow ledge, maintained their positionagainst the operations of the Hospitalers,

15


13/43

FIG. 12. CHAMBER B, VIEW NORTH FROM THE STAIRCASE TO THE KEEP

FIG. 13. VIEW FROM THE KEEP TOWARD THE RESIDENCE BEFORE EXCAVA-TIONS WERE MADE


14/43

THE EXPLORATION OF A CRUSADERS' FORTRESS IN PALESTINEwhose heavy rocks, dropped from fifty feetabove, must constantly have crashedthrough the mantlets, enabling the Ger-man archers and crossbowmen to pick offsurvivors as they scurried down the steephill. Farther to the right the ruin is mar-gined by the tall masonry of the base of

.~._ - ' A .Z '

FIG. 14. VIEW FROM THE KIAFTER EXCAVATIONS WEICHAMBERS ON T

the keep. Coming closer to the castle, weare able to discover new details. In theresidence against the skyline we discernwhat is apparently a pedestal: this we willlater recognize as the collective base of thearches which supported the roof of thesecond story of the residence. We now seemore clearly the slope at the right of theruined keep: this is the profile of the moatof the castle. Had we passed this way a fewweeks later (fig. 6) we should have seen thehillside covered with stones and dirt which

our workpeople had cast down. Continuingour clamber up the hill and to the right weglance at the great blocksof limestonewhichform the base of the keep, blocks which, aswe have noted, probably date from Romantimes, if not earlier (fig. 7). Also, above thesegreat stones, at the left, in the neighborhood

F

::.EP TOWRD7HE:ESIEN B

EEP TOWARD THE RESIDENCERE MADE, SHOWING THE'HE NORTH SIDE

of the clump of trees, we seek for the posi-tion of the postern gate. We next reach thedeepest part of the moat near its steep eastwall; thence we climb to the keep over themasonry of the barbican (fig. 9). We findthat the keep itself has crumbled away;vestiges of only its lower structures remain:these are a single arch of a doorway badlyshattered (six feet wide with traces of agate which opened to the south, fig. 8), anda bit of the transverse wall toward the sideof the castle. Now, turning and facing

I7


15/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTnorth, we obtain a fine view of the valley(fig. io). Deep below us lies the Wady Kurnwhich forms a bend to the east where inearly times may well have been a great millpond at whose dam almost directly belowus lies the ruin of a "mill," or "chapel," or"guardhouse," later to be referred to. (Fora view of the castle from the "mill" cf.

BJ'5 g1 7 .

BFIG. 15. VIEW FROM THE FAFTER EXCAVATIONS WE

CHAMBERS ON

fig. 23.) Next we go down into the castleby a flight of wide stone steps (fig. II). Atthe bottom we find a stone platform whichruns across the castle (chamber B, fig. 4),from which on either side we see distanthills (figs. I and 12). Here our workpeoplehave cleaned out a mass of debris. Weexamine at close range the great blocksforming the base of the keep, numbers ofstone projectiles of artillery, a great tankof stone (watering trough for horses?), a

drain taking refuse down the side of thehill, sculptured arches, thirteenth-centurycarved capitals (the last from chamber F).The Soldiers' Part of the Castle. Beforeour excavations, had we stood on themound of the keep and looked westward,we could have seen at a distance of sixtyyards (fig. 13) the transverse wall marking

(EEP TOWARD THE RESIDENCEIRE MADE, SHOWING THETHE SOUTH SIDE

the nearer boundary of the residence,behind it the top of the tower of fig. I, andrunning toward it a backbone of heavymasonry, on each side of which, roundingdownward at the sides, lavya deep tangle ofbrush and trees. After all debris has beencleared away we view the same site in figs.14 and I5 (the latter showing a bit more tothe south), the only landmarks recognizableboth "before" and "after" being the wallof the residence and the shadow of a deepi8


16/43

FIG. I6. VIEW FROM CHAMBER E LOOKING TOWARD THE STEPS LEADINGTO THE KEEP

FIG. 17. VIEW OF THE CHAPEL BEFORE EXCAVATIONS WERE MADE, LOOKINGTOWARD THE KEEP


17/43

FIG. i8 VIEW OF THE CHAPEL AFTER EXCAVATIONS WERE MADE, LOOKINGTOWARD THE KEEP

FIG. 19. VIEW OF THE CHAPEL LTHEHAPEL LOKING WEST TOWARD THEWALL OF THE RESIDENCE


18/43

THE EXPLORATION OF A CRUSADERS' FORTRESS IN PALESTINEgroined arch, dark and projecting, in themid-distance. Into view have come, twentyfeet below the surface, floor partitions ofchambers, columns, doorways, and arches.These chambers we recognize by corre-sponding letters on the plan of fig. 4. Onthe left lie B, C, D, E, and J, and on theright B, C, F-H. H is the innerbailey whose

Through a narrow doorway in C we nextlook into chamber B, against whose rearwall is the staircase which we descended.By our side in chamber E are steps lead-ing to an upper apartment; on the ceilingwas a rosetted keystone (fig. 35). Behindus is the wall which separates E from thechapel: to this led a doorway which had

FIG. 20. CENTRAL COLUMN OF THE RESIDENCE, VIEWEDFROM THE BREACH IN THE EAST WALL

border, many feet in width, has fallen downthe hill, perhaps during the siege of 1271.If we walk through the chambers B, C, D,and from the chamber E turn around (fig.I6) and look toward the base of the keep(from which near the head of the stairs wetook the former picture, fig. 15), we seeunder the great archway, which marks theheight of these chambers, the interior ofchamber D. Here are some poorly madepartitions which Major Key notes as oflater date than the remaining stonework.

been closed with masonry, probably at thetime when temporary partitions were builtin chambers E and D.Now let us retrace our steps throughchamber D, where again an ornamentalkeystone was found (fig. 37), to C. Here wecan find our way aroundto the rooms on thenorth side, for this chamber has a wing orannex leading to this side (figs. 4 and 14)in which are two staircases, the smallerascending to the west, the largerto the east,the one leading probably to the defenses of

21


19/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTthe north wall, the other to the soldiers'quarters, according to a fashion not un-common in the thirteenth century. Cham-ber C was probably a kitchen of the gar-rison: in it was found an array of greatearthen vessels, some of them set up andin order, all clearly for provisions. In aniche near the entrance stood a huge jar.In one cornerof this chamber,which is overtwenty feet square, there may have been a

lances, spikes, all lying in a bed of charcoal,indicating that they had remained theresince the burning of the castle. ChambersF and G (fig. 14) retain a bit of their groinedroof: here were found sculptured keystones(figs. 32, 34), many scraps of glass andpottery, and a few objects in iron. Theouter wall of the castle beside these cham-bers has been destroyed, but from what re-mains of it nearer the keep it is quite proba-

FIG. 21. EAST WALL OF THE RESIDENCE VIEWED FROM THE GREAT ROOMFROM THE BREACH IN THIS WALL A FINE VIEW OF THE KEEP

MAY BE OBTAINED

booth for drugs, for here were found amortar (fig. 44) in an upright position,probably occupying its original situation,and numberless fragments of small bottlesor flasks. In the "annex," passing outwardinto chamber F, was probably the workshopof the castle in which armor was repaired.Here (fig. 14, bottom of picture, right) werefound blooms of iron, a crucible, varioustools, hammers, chisels, fragments of chainmail, pieces of a basinet, a bit of the visor ofa great helm (would that we had more of it-it is unique!), scales of body defenses(jazerans), upward of forty bits of armor.Here also were heads of arrows, darts,

ble that there was here an alleyway, aboutten feet wide, which led down from the keepto a gate of the inner bailey, and which wasintended as an entrance for horsemen, asuggestion the more probable when onerecalls that no entrance of this kind occurson the other (south) side of the castle.Residence. When we pass through thepassageway west from chamber G, we enterthe forecourt of the residence, or innerbailey (fig. 14), a space measuring seventy-five feet in front of us and nearly forty feetwide. At our right the great side wall hassuffered,and much of the neighboring earthand masonry of the inner bailey has fallen22


20/43

THE EXPLORATION OF A CRUSADERS' FORTRESS IN PALESTINEdown the hill. In front of us is the greattransverse wall of the residence and thedoorway. To our left was the facade of thechapel, a room measuring about seventyfeet by twenty-five, broken into three sec-tions by groined arches. Before makingour excavations, if we had stood with ourback to the residence on the south side and

averaging thirteen inches in diameter (per-haps forty in all), which were doubtlessshot into the chapel at the time of the siege-a circumstance which suggests that therewere windows on the south side as well ason the north, filled, too, with stained glass,which proved a tempting mark for thebesiegers; and finally, the great doorway

FIG. 22. CHAMBER K IN THE BASEMENT OF THERESIDENCE

looked towards the keep, we should have (fifteen feet wide) of the chapel, which op-seen (fig. 17) a corner of a groined arch of ened to the inner bailey as seen in fig. 4.the chapel wall and a tangle of shrubbery The west end of the chapel appears in fig.and rubbish. Afterward, from the same po- I9, in which Mr. Calver is seen directingsition (fig. I8) we can follow the descend- the work of the laborers who are cleaninging ribs of the groined ceiling: here we out the debris near the great wall of thefound a keystone rosette delightfully sculp- residence: here was found a well-carvedtured (at Acre), traces of crocketed ogive head, helmeted, which probably served aswindows in whose sides are recessed borders a corbel (fig. 30). This wall separated the(for panels of stained glass), a doorway masters' quarters from the rest of theleading to chamber E; also, scattered about, castle: here were the rooms of ceremony,numbers of great round stone projectiles, probably the treasury of the Hospitalers

23


21/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTand their hall of archives,7 together withthe rooms of the Grand Master-thebrothers ordinary probably lodging in orabove rooms D and E, the latter communi-cating with the chapel. The residence, then,was practically a building by itself: it meas-ured sixty feet square and at least seventyfeet high, having walls six feet thick.


22/43

FIG. 24. THE "MILL" ON THE WADY KURN AT THE FOOT OF THECASTLE HILL

FIG. 25. GROINED CEILING IN THE GREAT CHAMBERIN THE "MILL"


23/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTtwo carved keystones (figs. 33 and 36), afragment of a painting on a wooden panel(fig. 52), bits of stuff, glass, pottery, andmoulds for leatherwork (figs. 38 and 39).From one corner at the south a chute pro-jected refuse down theside of the hill. -----

Back of the residencewe expected to find, ~thanks to European anal-ogies, the garden of thecastle: here was an en-closure sixty-odd feet indiameter, which may havebeen of such a nature; itsretaining wall was roughlysemicircular and of greatstrength, twelve feet in di-ameter; at one side (north)of it is still retained the FIG. 26. GROTEfine tower (figs. I, 2), prom- CORNER OF CAFinent as we approach the SCAIcastle from the west, theonly well-preserved tower of the castle, un-accountably well preserved, when we recallthat it was on this side of the fortress thatthe besiegers gained their entrance. Thistower is of especial significance, since al-though not high (fifty-six feet on the northside), it exhibits in all probability the essen-tial architectural features of other (if not allother) towers of the castle-small windows,

'sT,ITLE

FIG. 27. CROCKETS FROM WINDOV

loopholes, and entrance ports on the outerfacade, and, toward the inside, deep-set bal-conies with high ceilings which providedgrateful shade-as one sees in numerouscrusadingcastles, e.g., Rhodes. The block ofmasonry, by the way, which surmounts onecorner of our tower is possibly the lastevidence of the type of machicolations thatcrowned the towers of Montfort.

Below the "garden" with its tower andretaining wall the shoulder of the hilldescends steeply: here we obtain our bestview of the curtain, or ringwall of the castle(cf. figs. i, 3, and 5): a crumblingtowerat the southeast is the bestreminder of the defenseswhich appeared at inter-vals along a ringwhich to-day can be traced onlywith difficulty. On thenorth side (fig. 4) a bit ofthe wall is present in a linewith chamber C, and be-low the keep a corner ispreserved with steps.Had the castle an outerring wall? This probablyexisted, judging by con-

)UE HEAD FROM temporary analogies,*AL, CHAMBER C though it may have beenI:3 little more than a moundsurmounted by a pali-sade and enclosed with a ditch. There ex-ist certain indications of this: notably thebridgehead (south) and the important ruinto the north (Kitchener's "mill") at thedam of the Wady Kurn, by which a lake-probably a thousand yards long-was cre-ated. The "mill" we have already lookeddown upon from the wall of the castle(fig. Io): it was, in fact, so large and costly a

FRAME,HAMBER J. SCALE 1:3FRAME, CHAMBER J. SCALE I :3

structure that it would hardly have beenleft outside of a ring wall in a country sub-ject to constant incursions of a formidableenemy. Its ruins alone measure in masonryat least one hundred and fifty feet in length(figs. 23 and 24); several chambers showgroined arches (fig. 25), springing from deli-cate clustered capitals and provided with or-namental keystones. In a word, the "mill"

26


24/43

THE EXPLORATION OF A CRUSADERS' FORTRESS IN PALESTINEwas a necessary unit in the economy of thecastle: it may well, from the character of itsrooms, have been used as a rest-house for

windmills, for constantly filling the greatcisterns on the neighboring hill six hundredfeet above (fig. 23).

FIG. 28. CAPITAL WITH FIGURE MOTIVE, CHAMBER Fpilgrims, even providing them with achapel, but surely with outlying farmbuildings for provisions, cattle, and horses,the latter, followingnumerous analogies,only under excep-tional conditions be-ing cared for in the B---Bcastle. None the less .J:the "mill" mayhave ground thecorn of the castleat certain seasons.But at all times itwas clearly theguard-house of thedam which insuredthe integrity of alake. In fact, it ishardto overestimate ithe care with which iia crusading fortressguarded its watersupply. There is atradition at Mont-fort (Thomson) that FIG. 29. CAPITALS Fa covered way as- STONE BALLS OF ARcended from the"mill" to the castle, and Kitchener statesthat here the bridge itself was really partof an aqueduct: in any event, meanswere at hand, probably in the shape of

RTTI

Of these cisterns three were explored inthe castle. The largest, as one might expect,was under the keep, a great cementedchamber forty feet' in length, twenty-eight feet wide, andover twenty feetdeep, built with

second cistern was,'t-hectas one might alsoere,th predict, under thekitchen (C). Thisitngin was a bottle-shaped,- affair, about sixteen

feet in transverse di-ameter and twentyli~i T~iSifeet deep. The thirdII|e o Ir cistern, cylindrical,111 I f Si| ~ _bout fifteen feet

us i|aa both in diameter~iiir IJg- l and in height, wasunder the chapelOM CHAMBER F; ALSO near the entrance.

[LLERY (TREBUCHET) In this position sucha cistern suggests

the custom of sanctuary. All the cisternswere, by the way, found to be in goodorder but, much to our discomfiture, lack-ing in objects of interest: we hoped that27


25/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTthe defenders of the castle might, in theiragony, have used them as safe-depositvaults-alas, a similar idea, five and a half

southwest of the castle (fig. 4). Beyond this,over the Wady, four hundred and fiftyyards distant, there are the foundations of atower and an extensive quarry, out of whichmaterials for building the castle wereprobably obtained.IV. OBJECTS FOUND DURING THE EXPLORA-

TION OF MONTFORTObjects gathered by our exploring partyconsisted of (i) architectural ornaments,

(2) other carvings in stone, (3) pottery, (4)

FIG. 30. HELMETED HEAD AS COR-BEL, CHAMBER J

centuries earlier, may well have occurredto the Saracens!A final word about a possible outermostdefense of the castle: this may have in-cluded the "mill" and the bridgehead

FIG. 32. FOLIATE ORNA-MENT WITH SCROLL. CEIL-ING OF CHAMBER F

FIG. 31. POLYCHROMED ORNA-MENTATION IN FLEURS-DE-LIS OFRIB OF GROINED CEILING, CHAM-

BER J. SCALE I :8

arms and armor, (5) various objects inmetal and wood, (6) glass, (7) tissues, (8)coins. These specimens were obtained inalmost every instance in the debris removedfrom various chambers of the castle. Thecisterns yielded little of interest, and norubbish heaps were brought to light-afact the more remarkablesince the directorof our reconnaissance has an incredibleflair for locating ancient dust-heaps andmaking important finds in them. He speed-ily discovered in chamber K the rubbishchute through which refuse of the residencewas dropped down the hill; he traced outthis line of descent but ascertained that somuch debris had covered it up in the past28


26/43

FIG. 33 FIG. 34 FIG. 35

FIG. 36 FIG. 37KEYSTONE ORNAMENTS FROM GROINED CEILINGS OF CHAMBERS K, G, E, K, AND DRESPECTIVELY, READING FROM LEFT. THE DIAMETERS OF THE ROSETTES AVERAGE

14 INCHES


27/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTcenturies and distributed the materials overso great a distance that it proved impracti-cable to dig them out successfully. Nor werecemeteries investigated. The only gravesor tombs in the neighborhood of the castlewere believed to have been pre-Christian:these were rock-cut, found near the westfoot of the castle, and had been examineda score or more years ago. Inquiry made in

onably large cemetery. Until local burialsare examined no exploration of the castlewill be complete.i. Architectural Ornaments. The sculp-tured stonework of Montfort yields valu-able notes as to thirteenth-century or-nament-capitals, corbels, keystone orna-ments, crockets-none the less that these canbe dated with reasonable accuracy. The

FIG. 38. MATRICES OF BADGES (?), LITHOGRAPHIC STONECHAMBER K. SCALE 1:3

the neighboring village yielded little infor-mation about them: objects in glass hadbeen taken from them, but apparentlynothing more. No cemetery was discovereddating definitely from the occupation ofMontfort, yet there can be little doubt thatin the immediate neighborhood manyburials were made. The fortress was occu-pied and garrisoned at least for threescoreyears; its people died in great numbers: itis generally admitted that Syrian feverand dysentery claimed at least as large apercentage of the Westerners as the armsof the Saracens. The unsuccessful siege of1266 must have filled on either side a reas-

decorations of the castrum novum werehardly earlier than 1229, even if the con-struction of the castle began earlyin the thir-teenth century. They were, we concluded,added as finishing touches in 1220-1240.In details of style they seem in certaininstances even a bit later. If earlier than1229, they would have been French; if later,German, though it is possible that the Hos-pitalers retained the foreign stone-cutters.The motives appear French. Of capitals9

9Kitchenerpeaksof "unimportantragmentsof capitalscarvedwith flowersandfleur-de-lys"-of the lattertype nothingwas noted:perhapshe had in mind the form shown in our fig. 29.30


28/43

FIG. 39. MATRICES FOR LEATHERWORK (?), LITHOGRAPHIC STONECHAMBER K. SCALE 1:3


29/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTtypical specimens appear in fig. 29: themost imposing capital (fig. 28, chamberF) shows a figure quite twelfth century intreatment. The small head (fig. 26) hasevidently been detached from a capital,and one of similar size (fig. 30, chamber J)is probablya corbel. Two small foliate crock-ets (fig. 27), boldly sculptured, formed partof the decor of a window of the chapel (J).Scrolls with foliation, as shown in fig. 32,are obviously ceiling motives. Especiallydecorative are the keystone bossets of which

find better stone ornaments of their periodin any of the castles of western Europe,save of the highest rank.2. Stone carvings other than architectural.In this group we call attention first of allto two blocks apparently of lithographiclimestone picked up in the debris of cham-ber K: they were chiseled with ornamentsin intaglio, and served evidently as mouldsinto which softened material, e. g., leather,could be pressed. One of these (7 x I I x 3inches) is carved on the wide side with an

FIG. 40. WINE JAR, IMPERIAL ROMAN, FROMCHAMBER J

several are here represented (figs. 33-37),illustrating in relief conventional groupsof leaves of vine, fig, cornflower, andoak (?). They are admirably cut, betterindeed than the photographs suggest; insome cases they are undercut, almostajoure. Noteworthy in the castle was theevidence of polychrome decoration; in somecases the ribs of the arches were painted intempera with transverse bands and runningmotives. In one instance (fig. 31) fleurs-de-lis are represented in black against ayellow background; in another case theeffect of porphyry is introduced by paintingtriangular spots in red on the ribs of roughlimestone (fig. 36).The foregoing details bear witness to thehigh quality of Montfort as an architecturalmonument. In fact, it would be difficult to

heraldic shield and fleur-de-lis. The shieldbears the eagle displayed on a backgroundof diaper (fig. 38) and is evidently the badgeof the German Ritterorden. Hence we areled to believe that the fleur-de-lis whichaccompanies it may not be of French origin.In this connection we recall that this typeof ornament appears not infrequently inGerman work. Thus in the Munich CivilGuard, even late in the sixteenth century,the fleur-de-lis appeared as the great lateralornament of morion or burganet. Anotherside of the same slab (fig. 38) providedmoulds for smaller circular objects, whichinclude a five-lobed flower and stars of sevenand eight points, finallyfleurs-de-lis-forms,by the way, which occur not uncommonlyin coins of the period. On another face ofthe stone appears a diaper design of

32


30/43

FIG. 41. LAMP IN GREEN GLAZE, CHAMBER K

FIG. 42. EARTHENWAREPITCHER, CHAMBER C

FIG. 44. STONE MORTARCHAMBER C. SCALE I : I2

FIG. 43. STONE BRAZIERCHAMBER K

FIG. 45. STONE TROUGH FROMTHE KITCHEN, CHAMBER C


31/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTlozenges separated by strings of pearls afterthe manner of the diapered backgroundsin stained glass of the mid-thirteenthcentury (fig. 46). The second of thesematrices (4 x 9.5 x 2.5 inches), broadlytriangular in section, represents on itsmain face two fishes (fig. 39), evidentlysymbolized forms of the red or beardedmullet, Mullus barbatus. Possibly theseornaments were intended as symbols of the

FIG. 46. ARMOR OF ABOUT 1200 FROMSTAINED GLASS IN THE ROYAL ABBEY OFSAINT WANDRILLE, SHOWING BODY ARMOROF SCALES, AS WELL AS CHAIN AND PLATE

Christian Church: they are admirablymodeled, with quite a thirteenth-centurytouch of their own, especially in the barbelswhich terminate in little trefoils. The otherfaces of this stone provided moulds forornamental bands, perhaps sword belts orgirdles, perhaps running ornaments forcaskets of hardened leather; also on oneend of the block is a fine little palmette.This style of ornament occurs also inpainted glass of the period, dating roundlyfrom the middle of the thirteenth century.Perhaps the most extraordinary objectamong the stone carvings is a great "winejar" or pot, measuring nearly a yard in

width and twenty-six inches high (fig. 40),which was discovered, badly broken, inchamber J. It is a curious affair, imperialRoman, with three leopard-shaped legs,great carved handles, and ornamented withprojecting heads, also with wreaths andfillets. It is puzzling to suggest why anobject of this kind should turn up in thedebris of a thirteenth-century chapel:it may have been used as a fountain-anda fountain it was, since the mouths of thefigures are pierced-or as a baptismal fontor receptacle of holy water. In this connec-tion we recall that in churches during theMiddle Ages pagan objects were often usedin ignorance of their early purpose, e.g.,the Roman sarcophagus or bath which inthe cathedral of Tarragona has served forcenturies as a baptismal font. In the presentcase it is not impossible that the Gany-mede and the Silenus with the infantBacchus may have been given biblicalnames. Of other stone objects we mentionhere only three types: troughs of varioussizes and shapes, e.g., figs. I2 and 45; mor-tars, e. g., fig. 44 the latter found near thestaircase in chamber C; stoves or braziers,the one shown in fig. 43 discovered in thedebris of chamber K.

3. Pottery. Fragments of pottery wereabundant in all excavations: enough ofthem to fill forty baskets were examinedand placed in the hands of the Palestineauthorities. Most of this material consistedof common earthenware, cups, pots, dishesor saucers, occasionally a pitcher (fig. 42),most of them stout brown pottery; ap-parently no painted faience turned up.Many pieces were glazed in single colors,green being a common type ("jews' glass").Of this material several green lamps werediscovered, as infigs.41 and 47. Of common-est type were the unglazed lamps seen infigs. 47 and 48, a form which with slightvariation can be traced back a thousandyears B.C. The most decorative lamp ofpottery in our series is one (fig. 49) bearinga somewhat foliate ornament with anArabic inscription. The most importantlamp (fig. 50o)is a hanging one, not inpottery but in glass, shattered, but retain-ing its form: it is transparent above, bluebelow, bearing on several zones a calli-

34


32/43

FIG. 47. LAMP IN GREEN GLAZE, GLASS PHIAL, ARCHAICUNGLAZED LAMP. SCALE I:3

FIG. 48. LAMP OF POT-TERY, ARCHAIC. SCALE

1:3FIG. 49. LAMP OF POTTERYWITH ARABIC INSCRIPTIONCHAMBER K. SCALE I:3

FIG. 50. GLASS "MOSQUE LAMP," TRANS-PARENT ABOVE, BLUE BELOW, WITH

BANDS OF ARABIC INSCRIPTION INGOLD EGLOMISE, CHAMBER K


33/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTgraphic inscription, Arabic, in gold eglo-mise: this specimen remains in the museumin Acre.4. Arms and Armor. In this field speci-mens were found representing various

round or nearly round in section, not flat-tened as in typical European mail, but theydo not demonstrate that the rivets passedstraight through the ring in the fashion oforiental armor of all periods. Links of

FIG. 51. ILLUSTRATION FROM A MIDDLE XIII-CENTURY "OLD TESTA-MENT," SHOWING ARMOR AND ARMS, NOTABLY POT-HELMETS

FROM THE PIERPONT MORGAN LIBRARYdivisions of the subject, viz., (a) bodyarmor, (b) helmets, (c) arrows, (d) spears,(e) swords and daggers, (f) crossbows,(g) buckles, (h) horse trappings, (i) artillery,most of this material (fig. 53) having beenfound in chamber C. It proved fragmentary

brass (latten), two fifths of an inch indiameter, were found adherent to parts of ahelmet and of a scale of a jazeran (C).Of jazerans several scales are illustrated (C,D, E). They are of two types, large andsmall: the larger tallies closely with those

FIG. 52. FRAGMENT OF THE LOWER BORDER OF A PANEL PAINTED IN TEMPERAANTEDATING 1270. SCALE 1:2

and will find its place only in a study col-lection for specialists.(a) Of body armor "documents" werefound exemplifying both chain mail and de-fense of scales (jazeran). Of the former sev-eral "lumps" (U), badly rusted,were pickedout of the debris in chamber C which showrings of large diameter (three fourths of aninch). These indicate that the "wire" was

of the jazeran (of about 1200) shown in aglass panel from the royal abbey of SaintWandrille (Dean Collection), fig. 46. In ouractual specimens the holes for rivets, orrusted rivets themselves, are traced.(b) Head-pieces were represented byfragments, which, none the less, prove ofgreat interest to the student, e.g., partof aventail of a pot-helm (A-at VEN) show-

36


34/43

B

?- -- X:E 0

1 G 1

p

o PN

T

S

U

'11- w-V - ;l/T i -^ '

V - I. RISK ljllW' l- "I III).,iyti .-AIIv wFIG. 53. ARMOR AND ARMS OF I270, MAINLY FROM SPECIMENS FROM CHAM-BER C OBJECTS ABOUT ONE THIRD NATURAL SIZE EXCEPT HELMETS (ONE

EIGHTH) AND CROSSBOW (ONE TENTH)

C ?2

K

L

CZ)

R


35/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTing rows of close-set perforations. Two sidesof this fragment are intact; the fractureson the other sides are recent and showclearly that the rest of this plate, or someof it, was present when the workman dug itup. Indeed other parts of this helmet willprobably be found among the specimensdeposited in Acre. So far as we recall, nohelmet of this type is extant: it is picturedabundantly in seals of the period and inmanuscripts, notably in Mr. Morgan'ssplendid Old Testament of the mid-thir-teenth century 10(cf. fig. 51, a detail repro-duced from Folio 24B): we here illustrate,A, a pot-helmet from this folio, indicat ngby dotted lines the position in which ourfragment of a ventail occurred. There werealso discovered parts of a basinet withbrim, which in B we represent tentativelysuperimposed on the drawing of a similarcasque copied from the above manuscript.On the back of one of these fragmentswere attached several links of the camail.(c) Of arrows both heads (abundant)and shafts were found, the heavier of whichare probably crossbow bolts. In 0 thearrow-point capped the shaft; in N and Pthe arrow-head was provided with a shankwhich fitted a cylindrical cavity, probablyof a reed. Wooden shafts, V, are of cypresswood and were painted in transverse bands,blue and red alternating, and with "eyes"in color, as symbols of luck.(d) Spear-heads were represented invarious sizes. One in our series, Q, wingedand socketed, is typical of the period.(e) Of swords and daggers only frag-ments of blades and mountings were found.The latter include the iron "ferrule" of ascabbard of a sword, S, and bronze "fer-rules" of scabbards of daggers, L and R; aplain chape, T, and an ornamented one, W(both sides figured).(f) At one point in chamber C a mass ofcrossbow nuts of bone for holding and re-leasing the spanned cord, M, turned up,half a dozen or more, all that remained ofthe crossbowsthemselves. Judging from thestructure of these nuts these arms were

'0ABookof OldTestament llustrations f thethirteenthcentury, in The Pierpont MorganLibrary,New York(M. 638). Cambridge,Rox-burghe Club, 1927.

highly developed by 1270 (cf. the neighbor-ing Spanish crossbow of the sixteenth cen-tury).(g) Of buckles five types are represented(F, H, I, J, G), all of bronze save J (iron).The first is oriental in style; the second is abelt buckle with a long attachment; thethird has lobate corners (the earliest of thistype known to the writer); the fourth, iron,heavy, square-cornered, having a strap-roller, is apparently the earliest of this formto be dated; the fifth, gilded, is singularlydelicate.(h) Of horse trappings bossets are pos-sibly represented among copper disks andtheir attachments which were found in the"armorer's workshop" (C) and elsewhere,although it may be queriedwhether bossetswere in generaluse by I270. The disk shownin fig. 54, E, G, is supported on a stout ironshank articulating with remains of an ironring; the shank may have joined its fellowin a loop in the mid-line of the horse'smouth, as in certain early bits, whichfunctioned both as snaffle and curb. Sucha bosset may readily be confused with ob-jects of similar form used, for example, aslamp-hangers or handles of cabinets, ofwhich also specimens were found atMontfort (fig. 54, H, J). In K (fig. 53) abronze ornament is pictured which is prob-ably a loop for a rein. Curiously enough nospurs or stirrups or horseshoes were dis-covered.(i) In siege artillery Montfort was un-questionably rich. Its only traces, however,occur in various parts of the castle in stoneprojectiles, "cannon balls," varying in di-ameter from about ten to seventeen inches,most of them roughly sculptured (fig. 29).None, in fact, compare in quality withnumerous specimens from Rhodes, whichalso are larger in size, up to twenty or evenmore inches. In Rhodes admirableexampleswere seen by the present writer near themole in shallow water. One may readilypicture the size of the revolving slings(trebuchets) from which these huge stonemissiles were shot. In the present case thegreater number of the stones may havebeen slung into the castle by the besiegers(e. g., into the chapel); incidentally, we mayassume that at the time of dismantlement

38


36/43

THE EXPLORATION OF A CRUSADERS' FORTRESS IN PALESTINEthe best projectiles, as valuable gear of war,were taken away by the Saracens.5. Various objectsof metal and wood (fig.54). Lamp-hangers of bronze (H, J) (orhandles) and bits of chain (F) may here be

A

G

F

H

E

was encased in lead? Of ordinary knivesnothing was observed; they had doubtlesscrumbled away, though a razor survivedin excellent condition (A). Of spoons nospecimens in metal are recorded; three

B

r c, -'11 "C

I D1:D\ ,,

a

IFIG. 54. OBJECTS IN METAL AND WOOD. HALF SIZE, EXCEPT B AND C

(THREE FOURTHS) AND I ( FULL SIZE)

mentioned; thimbles bilaterally symmet-rical, not radially (I); chisels; a largecarpenter's hammer with claw; needles(probes?) of bronze (C); a fine bronzekohlstick (B); iron nails and spikes ofvarious sizes; structural ironwork,includingrings for suspension with their anchors.Two large sheets of lead were found in cis-tern No. 2-perhaps the roof of the castle

wooden spoons, however, survived (D);their handles were slender, of rat-tail type.Wooden objects included various oddsand ends, among them a wooden tent peg,three feet in length, on whose side wascarved an heraldic shield (now in the mu-seum at Acre). A bit of a wooden panelturned up in chamber K which on one facewas covered with canvas and gesso and

39


37/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTpainted in tempera (fig. 52)-interestingas indicating that in the scheme of decora-tion of the residence pictures were notlacking. The present fragment is but thelower edge of the picture, showing the feetof two personages, one of them, judgingfrom his red shoes, portrayed in secularcostume. So far as the writer recalls, thisaffords the only concrete evidence thatmid-thirteenth century European paintingson panels occurred in Palestine.

FIG. 55. FRAGMENTS OF STAINED GLASSFROM THE CHAPEL, MONTFORT. CORNERS

OF PANELS; ALSO IN THE CENTERA FACE IN GRISAILLE: SCALE I:3

6. Glass. Glass, like pottery, survived incountless fragments (fig. 56). Scraps ofnumerous bottles or flasks indicate clearlythat the bottoms of the flasks were shapedvery much as in the modern wine flask,with a sub-conical eminence lifted up withinthe cavity of the flask. In most cases, appar-ently, the lower rim of the flask wasreinforced with an attached (fused) border(G). In some cases the flasks were appar-ently "Florentine," oval and ovate in out-line (J), with neck short or long, simple orbordered; in other cases the neck of theflask was so blown as to suggest a string of

beads (A). In numerous instances theopening of these vessels was lipped (C).In one instance a carafe-like neck appears,strengthened by a transverse ring blownfast to the bottle (G). Very small contain-ers of glass turned up in chamber C, sug-gesting that there was here an apothecary'sshop: in rare cases the phials were square(fig. 47). Specimens of what we interpretas "feet" of glass vessels also occurred(fig. 56, E): these were formed out of bits ofglass which were attached to the inside of abowl, and which, after being again heated,were pushed through the wall of thebowl as hollow legs, an inch or more inheight. This result was accomplished bypushing a four-sided core (iron?) into thelump of hot glass. Ornamented bowls andcups were noted (D, F); in some of these theouter surface was relieved with "nail-head"eminences, these attached to the surfacesof the bowl in such a way as to produce apattern-a type well known in early glass.In other cases the surface of the object wasdecorated by spirally applied bands orthreads. In certain instances (F) both the"nail-head" and "spiral-line" designs ap-pearon the same object. In rare instancesthe applied ridges were arrangedin a radialpattern; in one case (D) a radial designin bands was formed by moulding the sur-face of the object. A glass cover, defective,for a flask (or ointment box?) turned up ina single instance (shown below the presentA): it is provided with a knob-like handle.Among the most interesting objects inglass discovered were hangers of lamps.These, formed as lumps of cobalt blue glassabout the size of the terminal joint of aman's thumb, were fixed to a bowl of trans-parent glass; the blue glass had been drawnout and bent over so as to form hangers forchains or cords (B). The number of thesehangers discovered indicates that lamps ofthis type were in common use. The findingof an important lamp in blue-and-whiteglass with Arabic inscription in gold hasbeen recorded above, p. 34. In this connec-tion may be noted certain scale-like orna-ments white (I) or cobalt (H), applied towhite glass, which were probably groupedas bands or wreaths surroundingthe bowlsof lamps.

40

i


38/43

/CFf;-p'-n

I _ -\

I 1-

------ ===s iA

I

-i11

's I

F

/' H

FIG. 56. FRAGMENTS OF GLASS: BOTTLES,SCALE I :3 CUPS, BOWLS,LAMPSUPS, BOWLS, LAMPS

A

D. '-':Z -z .7- - ---- - -- : : - i;,-. 4

E


39/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTTo the specialist probably the most un-expected discovery was that of numerousfragments of stained glass which turned upin the chapel (J) and sparingly in chambers

E and D, demonstrating that certainwindows of the fortress were richly deco-rated. Not only was "colorless" glass used,but green, blue, and horn-colored. Curi-ously enough no specimens of red glassappear in our series. The pieces show thatthe glass was painted in grisaille with both

our fragments shown occupying their ap-proximate places. In fig. 55 bits of glassare arranged showing corner-patterns ofwindows: in one specimen appears anornament like a fleur-de-lis. It is worth not-ing that of some of the windows the back-ground was crosshatched, in others plain.Our present evidence that human figureswere shown in the stained windows of Mont-fort is based upon the single fragment of ahead in white glass, grisaille, here figured.

FIG. 57. STAINED GLASS IN GRISAILLE, FRENCH, MID-THIRTEENTH CENTURY. ON THIS PANEL FRAGMENTS OFCORRESPONDING DESIGN FROM MONTFORT HAVE BEEN

PLACEDbands and interlaced foliation, as well aswith human figures, concerningwhich muchadditional information may be secured sosoon as the remaining finds from Montfortare examined in the museum at Acre. Atpresent, however, it can be definitely statedthat windows were present similar to theones shown in figs. 57 and 58. In fig. 58,the ogive of a window, North French, mid-thirteenth century, we have indicated howour fragments from Montfort may be in-terpreted, by apposing pattern to pattern.In such windows the borders would bein glass, blue or green or horn-colored. Infig. 57, a grisaille said to be from Saint-Denis, a similar arrangement is suggested,

7. Tissues. The specimens from our col-lection are unimportant. They representfabrics-linen, cotton, and woolen-poorlymade and badly preserved. No silk appears,and no pictured weaves; neither cords norbraids; no points, eyelets, or other definitestructures of costumes. Of footgear a partof a sandal was unearthed, and the sole of afelt shoe of a child.8. Coins. A score or more coins werepicked up at various points. Of some ofthese rubbings were made which weresubmitted to the Secretary of the NewYork Numismatic Society, Sydney P. Noe,whose determinations were later confirmedby the President, Edward T. Newell. To

42


40/43

THE EXPLORATION OF A CRUSADERS FORTRESS IN PALESTINEboth of these experts we are greatly in-debted for the present information. OfRoman coins one is of Elagabalus, of anissue intended for Tyre, about 220; anotheris possibly of Alexander Severus, 222-235.Of "crusaders' coins" we have severaldeniers of Henry I, as King of Cyprus(1218-I253). Later than I253 his deniers

France and Germany. By this means mightbe discovered not only the place of originof the buildersof the castle, but the dates atwhich various parts of the castle were built.1VI. RESUME AND CONCLUSIONS

Inquiries made by the writer when inPalestine in 1925 indicated that up to that

FIG. 58. STAINED GLASS IN GRISAILLE, FRENCH, MID-THIRTEENTHCENTURY. ON THIS PANEL FRAGMENTS OF CORRESPONDING DESIGN FROM

MONTFORT HAVE BEEN PLACED

bear the title King of Jerusalem. In thecase of one coin we have apparently a Lev-antine counterfeit of a denier of Blois.V. MASONS' MARKS

During the excavations numerous markswere found on blocks of stone which prob-ably represent the signatures of masonsworking in the castle, together with memo-randa as to the progress of building. Thesemarks have been carefully copied by MajorKey and are here reproduced (fig. 59) inthe hope that they may ultimately belinked up with marks in various castles in

time the crusading fortresses of Palestinehad been examined only as architecturalmonuments. Other objects which threwlight on epochs of the Crusades were prac-tically unknown. Little or no archaeologicalmaterials had been obtained from burials,and little effort had been made to retrieveobjects of any nature from thirteenth-century sites in either Palestine or Syria.Their arms and armor, which in early daysmust have been present in great numbers,

"Clement Heatoncalls the writer'sattentionto the seriesof similarmarks(talechons)n theouterwallof thechancelat Vezelay nearAutin).43


41/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTremain practically unknown. In the muse-ums in Palestine objects in iron of thecrusading period were not found; what wassaid to date from this period was of rela-tively late date. The spur of a crusader inone museum turned out to be a Mexicanspur of the eighteenth century; the spursand sword preserved in a famous shrineas relics of a crusading prince were, whileancient, certainly later than 1500. The onlyobjects indisputably of the age of theCrusades were two swords which werefound in the hands of an antiquary inJerusalem, which had turned up locally.Hence, as Mr. Guy assured the writer,whatever the present reconnaissance coulddiscover in a crusaders' fortress would pro-vide desirable materials for research.From this point of view our examinationof Montfort is of value, as a first step in thedirection of learning concretely whatmanner of people were the European hostsof the thirteenth century. Our presentcollection, accordingly, sparing as it is,pictures their material surroundings andbelongings. We now know, for example,what kind of mail they wore, at least as tothe size and weight of the links, finding forthe first time specimenswhich may be datedwith reasonable accuracy, that is to say,I271 or possibly a few decades earlier. Ourevidence is also final that a basinetworn at this time had a wide anddown-turned brim; also that a heaumewas borne with a finely perforated ven-tail. We are familiar with the types ofarrows which the crusader used in his en-gagements, and the points of his lances. Weare now convinced that he used crossbowswhich in size and mechanism were notunlike those retained in use in Europe evento a relatively late date. We have seen themoulds, finely chiseled in stone, into whichhe pressed his straps in decorating his beltfor sword or dagger, or his badges worn asmarks of recognition-objects delightfullydesigned and spirited. As works of art,in scarcely a European collection can onefind a more carefully devised heraldic eagleor fleur-de-lis than the ones discovered inPalestine. We know today many objectsassociated with the crusader's daily life-his pottery and glass, his pitchers and

bowls, his wooden spoons, his thimbles andneedles, even the kohlstick which he mayhave presented to an ambient friend. Wehave seen his tent peg carved with heraldicbearings which his people hammered intothe ground probably with the type of heavyhammer which here turned up, and carvedpossibly with the very chisels; or the ringsto which he tethered his steed, and howthey were fastened to the wall. We mayeven picture him carrying his pottery lamp,long beaked, green enameled, as he pickedhis way up the steep stairs, or may see hisoutline and the sheen of his mail by the lightof transparent glass lamps swinging fromthe ceiling by chains attached to handlesof cobalt blue glass. We know even defi-nitely what buckles he wore in his costume,and we can suggest what manner of bronzebosset touched his hand when he held hisstallion's bit.His architectural background also be-comes clear to us in the light of these stud-ies. From kitchen to palace we know a bitmore of the ornamentation of his rooms.A corbel showing the head of a crusaderof the first half of the thirteenth century,with its curious small basinet held inplace by a single chin strap, is a preciousdocument as a portrait no less than as anobjetd'art. If one looks above him, one maysee the art of the early stone-cutters (wholeft their marks on the masonry)in brackets,capitals, corbels, and crockets, or if onestands beside him in the chapel one will seehis pictures of saints painted on gesso andcanvas over panels, or, brilliantly lighted,his stained glass windows, even as theywould appear in his home in northernFrance or on the Rhine; indeed we mayreasonably infer that his taste in stainedglass windows was by no means limited tothe simpler types, for he had figuredwindows as well as windows showing tra-ceries in grisaille. The date of his windowsis of some interest to us, and one may querywhether the present specimens are Germanrather than French. Certain it is that in itsmaterial the glass behaves differently fromthat familiar to us from French sources. Itis more like the Persian glass of the period,made with better sand, either marvelouslytransparent or showing a yellowish cast

44


42/43

D l K t *

L

F ! G / r \ 4 v JFIG. 59. MASONS' MARKS OCCURRING IN VARIOUS PARTS OF MONTFORT. THE

LETTERS CORRESPOND WITH THE ROOMS SHOWN IN FIG. 4


43/43

BULLETIN OF THE METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ARTinstead of the pale green which one associ-ates with the French glass dating from theend of the twelfth and the first half of thethirteenth century. So far as the paintinggoes, the design of the grisaille traceriescan hardly be distinguished from that ofSaint-Denis, Chartres, or Bourges. Butthis assumes or indicates that the stainedglass windows of Montfort were completedbefore the epoch of the German Hospital-ers,who would probably not have employedFrench artists to complete their work.Indeed, if this grisaille be of German origin,one may say with reasonable confidencethat it is the earliest glass en grisaille ofcentral European workmanship,for similarwindows of Austria or Germany date hardlyearlier than 1330, or sixty years later thanthe specimens at Montfort. At least, how-ever, the fragment showing the human headis hardly of French origin; its treatment isquite unlike any which the writer has seenin a large series of French windows. Theear, eye, and nose are painted differently,suggesting rather the German glass of alater date.The outstanding feature in the presentstudy is the evidence that the knights ofMontfort were living not under conditionsof stress or hardship, but on very muchthe same material level which they would

have occupied in western Europe. Theobjects about them were of similar quality,and the luxury in camp in Palestine wouldscarcely be less than among the besiegersof Peronneor of Carcassonne. In the matterof the concrete results of our reconnais-sance, our regret is only that well-preservedspecimens of artistic importance were notforthcoming. But our work extended overso short a time (a month) that we couldhardly have expected better results. Inarms and armor, our especial interest in thepresent trip, little was found which, fromthe Museum's viewpoint, could be regardedas material for exhibition. In fact, allobjects of iron turned out to be very im-perfectly preserved, an indication that theconditions in Palestine were far fromfavorable for the study of objects in iron.Even, indeed, had we had considerable timeat our disposal and unlimited funds, Mr.Calver and his staff were firm in the faiththat we could not expect to obtain, underlocal conditions, such objects as a completehelmet or a well-preserved sword. It is this,indeed, that leads us to believe that furtherwork would not be fruitful in our specialfield. This does not, however, imply thatthe great castles in Palestine do not deservecareful exploration from other archaeolog-ical viewpoints. BASHFORDDEAN.

the exploration of a crusaders fortress montfort in palestine

Documents