Untitled

of designs from general pattern books, for example,
when they used the inhabited scroll pattern on
their synagogue floors, a pattern that also appears
on church pavements; or when they decorated
their synagogues with geometric mosaic pavements
devoid of expressions of Judaism .
Those responsible for the choice of the composition
and design could adapt the images to the
local taste and choice. Classical themes could be
portrayed by mosaicists who may have altered the
images or the meaning. Designs could be created
of typical images with a new fusion of details and
stylization. The general repertoire of the mosaics
attests that the same themes and imagery persisted
throughout the Roman-Byzantine world;
the variety is the result of the mosaicists’ skill and
ability. The same conventions are observed on
many of the mosaics, demonstrating a common
source and tradition and upholding and utilizing
the image in various ways.
The patron might have chosen popular traditional
themes and episodes to display his activities,
and at times perhaps imported imagery, which
the mosaicist introduced according to the design
and formulae that were requested of him and
that accorded with the his expertise. Donors were
apparently free to choose whatever they liked
from the available sources; however, other criteria
such as the space available or the wishes of the
community leaders were probably also taken into
consideration when the composition was chosen
and designed. Trilling (1989: 66-69) argues that
in the Great Palace in Constantinople the patron
was the author—the emperor himself or someone
in his court—of the mosaic conception and programme,
which was formal and thematic. ‘The
choice and placement of individual scenes was the
responsibility of an artist, the mosaic’s designer.
It was he who gave a precise visual form to the
patron-author’s intellectually ambitious but visually
incomplete conception’. Dunbabin (1999:
323) maintains that it is difficult ‘to assess the
extend to which the content of mosaics was determined
by the wishes of the patrons…a substantial
proportion of the imagery suited the interests of
the class who commissioned them, and could be
used to communicate a message about the cultural
expectation of their owners, as they defined their
position in society’.
The task and contribution of the clergy, bishops,
priests, deacons, monks, high officials, and
the communal leaders (who are mentioned on
inscriptions) were probably to oversee the general
mosaicists, workshops, and the repertory 279
plan of the ornamentation. They had to ensure
that the content of the mosaics suited the communal
manner and position of the church or
synagogue. Hence, no biblical scenes or saints
are rendered on church mosaic pavements, and
no rural or everyday life scenes are depicted on
synagogue mosaic pavements.
Inscriptions and portraits might indicate the
patrons’ and donors’ role in the mosaic production
and how much influence they may have
exerted on its subject matter. Regarding the
mosaics which present patrons’ inscriptions and
illustrated portraits, they no doubt donated the
money for the work, but could also have been
involved in determining the content. This is even
more plausible considering that some men of religion
are mentioned among the individuals named
on church and synagogue pavements (see Chap.
XI, pp). Other benefactors whose inscriptions are
found include the laity, men and women, individuals,
families, and communities (Saller and Bagatti
1949: 202-203). The donors’ involvement in the
choice of the subject matter might be perceived
at the Sepphoris synagogue on the inscriptions
in the circular frame of the inner circle of the
zodiac, and in many of the other panels (Weiss
2005: 203-208; Di Segni 2005: 209-223), which
were most likely specially chosen for their location
and content. The same could be envisioned
for the inscription in the central medallion on
the Church of the Apostles at Madaba, which
names the three donors and the mosaicist (Piccrillo
1993: 106,fig. 78). The patrons at times
conveyed their requests and wishes for preferred
popular themes and for iconographic ideas they
were familiar with, directing the mosaicists as to
the extent and form of the pavement designs.
The same could be assumed for pavements
that display inscriptions of the mosaicists. These
might designate their involvement, beyond the
actual making of the pavement, through the influence
they enjoyed and possibly through being
the driving force behind the choice of the content
of the mosaic. Saller and Bagatti (1949: 168)
maintain that the inscribed and named mosaicists
were both the executors and the designers of the
mosaic pavement. Hunt (1994: 122) agrees with
this assumtion, and further considers the artist
‘as a cultural producer who operates within a
framework of social and economic relations with
the patrons, the market and so on’.
The inscriptions accompanying some of the
synagogue and church mosaic pavements in Israel