Untitled

iconoclasm on mosaic pavements of synagogues and churches 215
2002: 548-549). The nave mosaic pavement was
damaged by the iconophobic crisis. The animated
images were almost completely removed and were
carefully replaced with the same tesserae or others
of local stone.
In sum, all the Umm al-Rasas mosaics were
damaged by iconoclasts, although some were disfigured
by careful removal of the tesserae only
from the head and the outline was left. In most of
these cases the figures were repaired very crudely.
For some reason figures of humans or animals on
the same mosaic were left intact (Piccirillo 1993:
figs. 304,389, 393; Schick 1995: 193-195).
C. Conclusions
The main issues regarding the iconoclastic crisis
are where, who, why, and when these activities
were performed. Various responses are presented:
Where
Iconoclasm was limited to specific areas, certain
churches, and few synagogues in Palaestina and
Arabia. It involved damage to the ornamentations
on reliefs and mosaics. No evidence of iconoclastic
damage is observed on any mosaics in Syria-Phoenicia
or North Africa, except perhaps for a few
cases in Egypt (Schick 1995: 205-207). Schick suggests
that perhaps iconoclasm ‘in Palaestina is due
to the Christians here being Chalcedonians rather
than Monophysites, as in the adjacent areas’. The
nature of the damage attests that this destruction
in these places was deliberate.
Who
Iconoclastic damage and disfigurement affected
and characterized mosaics of churches. Ognibene
(1998: 384) argues, ‘the phenomenon …generally
defined as “iconoclasm”…perhaps should
be more correctly considered as a manifestation
of “iconophobic intolerance”’. Few synagogue
pavements suffered from iconoclasm. In many
of the church mosaics the state of the destruction
is complex: some of the disfigured and damaged
pavements were repaired crudely or carefully, and
others were left unrestored. In many cases the
iconoclasts were conceivably the clergies or the
original local community of Christians or Jews.
This is attested by the fact that the mosaic pavements
were disfigured with care, to avoid unnecessary
damage; repairs were careful or crude, using
the same or different tesserae. They signify the
continue use and function of the structure. Mosaics
in which some parts or images were spared,
and the disfigurement carefully chosen, may imply
that the iconoclasts were Christians or Jews, who
revered some singular element of a sacred space.
Damaged floors left unrepaired mean that the
building was not in use at the time the disfigurement
took place, or that the destruction could
be put down to later occupants, perhaps Muslims,
and it occurred around the late Umayyad
period or later (Piccirillo 1993: 42; Schick 1995:
197, 209-210). Schick (1995: 205) presumes that
‘deliberate damage of images is very much a phenomenon
of Christian churches’. That no secular
mosaics or Muslim building were damaged,
and ‘the lack of firm evidence for damage done
by Jews, [point] to it being first and foremost a
feature of Christianity’.
Why
Iconoclasm on mosaic pavements of synagogues
and churches shows different tendencies, although
the damage might have been generated in different
periods and instigated by a change of attitude
to figurative art by members of the clergy or by a
local community. Yet the systematic damage to
church pavements implies a much more determined
movement. It is palpable that depictions
of humans and animals disturbed the iconoclasts
who disfigured the mosaic floors. But this type
of iconoclasm was not initiated by Christians
in the Byzantine Empire, who objected to, and
destroyed only icons, while common images did
not present any difficulty (Schick 1995: 213, 223;
Dunbabin 1999: 204). Conversely, almost all the
damaged floors were repaired—some carefully
with geometric and plant designs. This indicates
that many of the communities survived, and ascertained
that they could continue the use of their
churches. Furthermore, church mosaic pavements
with animated images in Arabia and Palaestina
continued to be created at least until the late 8th
century.
The intense debate as to the motivation for
iconoclasm has raised diverse assumptions (Schick
1995: 196, 209,210, 223, Tables 10 and 11;
Dunbabin 1999: 204). (1) The destruction, and
particularly its lack of repair, was the work of
later Muslim rulers under the Abbasid caliphs;
this was a planned action performed at a single
time throughout the region. (2) The damage was
the result of an extreme Muslim edict, namely