Untitled

ightly observes that the different compositions—
the position of the single vase in the centre (groups
I-IV) or the four corner vases depicted as the
point of departure for the scrolls (group V)—do
not constitute a chronological criterion, but the
geographical distribution is significant in defining
workshops. These designs can hardly indicate a
school with far-reaching changes in style. Different
artists must have executed these pavements
following some common designs.
The following characteristics of the inhabited
vine scroll pattern are shared by churches and
synagogues pavements of groups I-III (Avi-Yonah
1960b: 31; 1975a: 192; Hachlili 1987):
• A pattern of an overall and aesthetically
pleasing composition.
•
•
•
•
A formalized geometric motif of vine
branches dividing the floor into circular
medallions.
A rhythmic, symmetrical setting arranged
horizontally in antithetic groups on either
side of a central axial column.
Stylization of fauna and flora.
Proportions according to the size of the
medallions, hence no difference in the size
of animals or birds.
• Horror vacui.
To these common characteristics should be added
another, which occurs exclusively on synagogue
pavements, namely the Jewish symbols placed in
a central position on the Ma#on and Beth She"an
synagogue pavements. Most of the motifs used
in these mosaics are not limited to the inhabited
scroll pavements, but also occur on other types of
overall geometrically patterned pavements, for example,
the synagogue at Na#aran (Vincent 1961:
pl. 7), the church of SS. Cosmas and Damianus at
Gerasa (Piccirillo 1993: fig. 535); Horvat Berachot
(Tsafrir and Hirschfeld 1979: fig. 17), and Hall A
at the Beth She"an monastery (fig. XII-6).
The appearance of the motifs in these contexts
implies that the designs and motifs are simply
decorative. Furthermore, the addition of the symbolic
panel to the synagogue by the Jews supports
this assumption as differentiating the synagogue
buildings from the neighboring churches, also
decorated with inhabited scrolls, was evidently
necessary.
All the details of the pavement, both the general
composition of the floor, the individual patterns
and motifs, and especially the Jewish symbolic
the ‘inhabited scrolls’ mosaic pavements 145
objects, were probably taken from model or pattern
books according to individual or communal
taste. This can be deduced from the uniformity
of, and similarity in composition, schemes, and
motifs. However, as the individual styles are obviously
dissimilar, there must have been many artists
and workshops producing mosaics in different
parts of the country. Also, communities or artists
may have preferred certain combinations of
motifs without specific significance attached to
them, for instance, the motif of the bird-cage.
*
The inhabited scrolls appear frequently on mosaic
pavements in Palaestina, Arabia, Syria, and Phoenicia
mostly during the 6th century (Balty 1995:
118-121). Comparable mosaic pavements mostly
date to the same period, although the composition
continued in use until the 8th century on
some Jordanian pavements. The appearance of
the inhabited scroll pavements in the 6th century
can be attributed to the development of this style
from geometric-organic floors and the spread of
these fashions in Palaestina and Arabia (Kitzinger
1977: 89). The artist’s object, in Avi Yonah’s
words (1936: 17), was ‘to give a surface agreeably
coloured and patterned… as [this] would
help him to subordinate his subjects to the optical
unity of the pavement’. The earliest of these
compositions is the one portrayed on the Gaza-
Maiumas synagogue, which has an absolute date
of 507/8.
The common characteristics of all these mosaics
is an overall design of vines issuing out of an
amphora or sometimes an acanthus leaf in the
centre, flanked by birds or animals, or from
amphorae or acanthus leaves in corners to form
medallions inhabited with objects, animals, and
human figures. Different basic compositional
schemes exist: division into two parts, vertical and
horizontal (group I); a central axial row with antithetical
design (group II); a central focus (group
III). Yet regardless of the composition, the floors
consist of a square or rectangle which was subdivided
into squares; the medallions and motifs
were executed within these, producing an even,
overall stylized carpet. Kitzinger (1976a: 71) sums
up: ‘these sixth-century rinceaux patterns are, in
fact, essentially geometric constructions in organic
disguise’.
Distinct differences occur between the inhabited
scroll mosaics of groups I-III and the mosaics