Untitled

The Sepphoris Mosaicists
The Sepphoris synagogue nave mosaic pavement
is another example of the same model executed
once more by different mosaicists. The three
panels of the Torah shrine, the zodiac, and the
Binding of Isaac, enriched by several more bands,
are the decoration scheme of the this pavement
(fig. II-2). The depiction of these panels differs in
some respects from those on the other synagogue
mosaics but the basic features are much the same.
The artists who fashioned the Sepphoris pavement
are inferior in their work than the highly
skilled Hammath Tiberias craftsmen but they are
more innovative and competent than the Beth
"Alpha mosaicists.
Weiss (2005: 173) claims that two craftsmen
worked simultaneously in laying the Sepphoris
mosaics. He bases this opinion on the differences
in details of images and colouring, and the
unidentical depictions of pairs such as the lions
and menoroth, and other Jewish symbols (pls.
II.1b; IX.1b); the letters in the Aramaic inscriptions
of the aisle and main hall are different from
those between the columns. From these elements
Weiss learns that a mosaicist and his apprentice
laid the pavements of the Sepphoris synagogue.
Yet it seems doubtful that the reason would be
two different craftsmen working on either side
of the flanking images; much more plausible is
the deliberate utilization of unidentical symmetry,
a known feature in Jewish art (Hachlili 1989a).
More than one artist could have worked on the
synagogue pavement but it is difficult to identify
individual effects.
Weiss (2005: 166- 167, 170-173; figs. 110,
112) compares the Sepphoris synagogue mosaics
with the pavements of the Sepphoris Nile Festival
building, and proposes that although the artists
are unknown the synagogue mosaicists planned
the floor and the iconographic sources on the
basis of the mosaics of that building. He assumes
that both followed the same stylistic by virtue
of the resemblance of some details, even though
the synagogue mosaics are inferior in execution.
The valid examples showing some similarity are
the youth in the Aqedah on the left panel and the
hunter, the fishes, and the horses on both pavements.
2
2 Weiss (2005: 170) proposes that the figural style of the
Sepphoris synagogue mosaic could be related to stylistic
mosaicists, workshops, and the repertory 251
However, the excavators’ dating of the mosaics
of the Sepphoris Nile Festival building to the early
5th century should be reconsidered. It possibly
dates to the early 6th century as attested by the
different reading of Inscription 1 by Bowersock
(2004, but see Di Segni 2005b), and perhaps on
stylistic grounds too. The comparison and the
dating discussions should be reviewed. Different
explanations could perhaps be proposed for the
few parallels between the mosaics of the two structures,
namely artistic tradition inherited by the
craftsmen or the use of copybooks.
The Nile Festival building at Sepphoris is a public
structure which contains several mosaics containing
mythological scenes such as the Nilotic scene
(pl. V.3), the Amazons and the Centaur. Room 6
depicts a Nile landscape and celebration scene on
its upper section, and a hunting scene on the lowest
part (Weiss and Talgam 2002: 61-73, 83-85). The
mosaic field is partially divided by structures and
water into three parts (see Chap. III): two registers
display the Nile festival celebration and the
third renders hunting scenes. The scene includes
the personification of Egypt (pl. VIII.1a), the Nile
river, Nilus, and several putti, marking the level
of the floodwater on a Nilometer, surrounded by
Nilotic flora and fauna; fishes, birds. The central
part shows the celebration of the flood with
the horsemen advance to the city of Alexandria,
represented by a gate flanked by two towers and
pharos. The third register contains hunting scenes
of animals and their prey. Although the iconography
is divided between the Nile celebration and
hunting scenes the mosaic maintains the effect of
a harmonious and integrated composition.
Weiss and Talgam (2002: 80) contend that
these themes do not indicate a specific iconographic
program, nor do they express or reflect
any pagan rituals; indeed, ‘their use was decorative
and bore no religious significance’ (Weiss and
Talgam 2002: 83). The illustrations are classical in
subject matter, and somewhat in style too, having
originated in classical and Hellenistic imagery
and becoming integrated into a secular Early
Byzantine structure. Weiss and Talgam argue,
‘the artists try to revive the sensual quality of the
Classical nude, contrary to the prevalent trend in
Early Byzantine art to dematerialize this figural
style’, and they possibly made use of Theodosian
trends in Byzantine mosaics such as Khirbet el-Murrassas,
the Leontis House at Beth She"an, and Tabgha.