The Mosaic PaveMenTs and LiTurgicaL FurniTure oF The church oF BishoP John aT KhirBeT Barqa–gan Yavneh

Lihi Habas

The church of Bishop John at Khirbet Barqa–Gan Yavneh is a basilica divided into a wide nave and two narrow aisles by two rows of pillars, with a gabled roof of wooden rafters supporting ceramic tiles. The mosaic pavement shows evidence of fire, presumably resulting from the burning of the beams; scores of shattered tiles on the pavement also bear evidence of the collapse of the roof. All that remains of the liturgical area of the church is fragments of an altar and a chancel screen (see below). An inscription in the mosaic pavement dates its installation to 511 CE.

Mosaics

The church was paved with mosaics, which are partially preserved in the nave, the intercolumna-tions and the atrium. In the aisles and the western part of the nave, only the bedding of the mosaic is left. Tiny tesserae, including green, turquoise and gold glass tesserae, attest to the presence of wall mosaics that have not survived.

The nave was decorated with a carpet of popu-lated vine scrolls, nine rows of which were ex-posed; all the rows but one contain five medallions. The western part of the carpet was destroyed by the fire. There is no evidence of deliberate destruction. From the architectural data, the size of the scrolls and the central location of the large medallion and the dedicatory inscription, the mosaic of the nave can be reconstructed as a carpet of populated vine scrolls containing twelve rows (Fig. 1). We may assume, on the basis of numerous parallels, that the scrolls sprouted from an amphora/kantharos (Dauphin type IV:b) or acanthus leaf (Dauphin type IV:c) located in the center of the first row (Dauphin 1976: 116-117, Fig. 2). The amphora/kantharos or the acanthus leaf may have been flanked by a heraldic pair of animals. This pattern appears in many Byzantine churches in Palestine:

the animals are peacocks in the church at Shellal (561/2 CE; Trendall 1957: 12-21, Figs. 3-4, 5:b, Pls. 1-4), in the Armenian ‘Mosaic of the Birds’ in Jerusalem (Schick and Bliss 1894: Figs. on pp. 258-259) and in the synagogue of Ma‘on (Nirim) (Avi-Yonah 1960: Pls. 3-8), lions in the church at Hazor Ashdod (511/2 CE; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 67-69, Pls. 71:1-2, 72:1, No. 93), panthers in the Church of the Deacon Thomas at ‘Uyun Musa Valley (Piccirillo 1993a: 187-188, Fig. 263), sheep and stags in the churches at Khirbet ‘Asida (Baramki and Avi-Yonah 1934: Pls. 10, 11:2) and el-Maqerqesh, Beth Guvrin (Abel 1924: 592-598, Fig. 4, Pls. 13:2, 14).

Despite the bad preservation of the mosaic, one can discern a composition that emphasizes the central vertical row, towards which face most of the motifs that populate the scrolls of the horizontal rows. The scrolls of the central vertical row enclose an amphora (Fig. 2), a camel laden with what are probably wine jars (Fig. 3), a large medallion containing a harmonic shield/circle (Fig. 4), a platter apparently bearing a fish head (Fig. 5), a large medallion with a dedicatory in-scription in Greek, a ship laden with wine or oil jars (Fig. 6) and a frontally depicted peacock with outspread tail (Fig. 7). Most of the scrolls are iden-tical in size, creating a steady rhythm. The rhythm is interrupted twice by the harmonic shield/circle and the dedicatory inscription, both enclosed in large medallions that ignore the vine scrolls and either cut them or partly obscure them.

The harmonic shield/circle (a geometric motif of squares converging and expanding in perpetual motion) is located in the center of the carpet and creates a perpetual circular movement, obliging the worshiper to pause, take a short break before the next move, continue east, and once again pause opposite the dedicatory inscription, enclosed in the second medallion.

132 The Mosaic PaveMenTs and LiTurgicaL FurniTure oF The church oF BishoP John aT KhirBeT Barqa–gan Yavneh

The motifs inhabiting the horizontal rows are described from left to right. Row 4 contains four quadrupeds walking or leaping toward the am-phora in its center. Row 5 contains winged animals, of which two unidentified birds and a duck survive, facing the center toward the camel laden with wine jars. In Row 6, only the outermost scrolls survived; one contains a hen facing the center, surrounded by chicks facing in all directions, seven of which remain (Fig. 8), the other a leaping horned animal, its body facing out of the carpet while its head faces the center, toward the harmonic circle. Row 7 was destroyed beyond recognition by a fierce fire. Row 8 contains a heron standing on long

spindly legs, stooping and facing the center, and a ram moving toward the center to the platter with the fish head. On the right is a chase scene facing outward and consisting of a lion (?) springing on its prey, of which only the long tail remains, and a birdcage, only half of which is preserved; it is uncertain whether the cage had an occupant. Row 9 is split at the ends into two medallions; despite the severe damage, one can make out a basket and a frontally depicted eagle with outspread wings and head turned right, facing a lost medallion on the axis of the carpet (Fig. 9). To the right is another chase scene facing outward, showing a leopard leaping diagonally upward and pursuing a fleeing animal. In Row 10, despite severe damage, we can make out, on the left of the dedicatory inscription, a scroll containing a pomegranate, a citron of the kibbad type and an apple, with a knife depicted outside the scroll (Fig. 10). Row 11 contains a bird and a female griffon with long udders facing the center toward the anchored ship (Fig. 11), and a birdcage with wide-open door. Row 12, which is well preserved, contains animals all facing the center toward the peacock; there are a quadruped leaping diagonally, a bird resembling a hoopoe or a phoenix, a waterfowl, perhaps a heron, and a crouching rabbit. The space between the scrolls is decorated with vine leaves and bunches of grapes, birds facing all directions, a jar and a small goblet.

The vine-scroll carpet is surrounded by a triple border (Fig. 12). The innermost frame is composed of polychrome bands, the central one has a guil-loche pattern and the outer border consists of a complex meander forming a swastika pattern.

The eastern end of the nave was decorated with two rectangular geometric carpets of unequal size. The larger of the two contains a net of diamonds filled by small diamonds, and the smaller contains a net of rectangles filled by small diamonds.

Of the panels between the pillars, only two sur-vive in the northern aisle. One is decorated with a polychrome net of diamonds, the other consists of a stripe with large rhombi and a checkerboard pattern.

Technique and styleThe mosaic pavement is characterized by a tech-

nical and stylistic uniformity, expressed in a flat and schematic creation. The scrolls, tendrils, leaves and

Fig. 1. Reconstruction of the nave mosaic.

133Lihi Habas

bunches of grapes do not intertwine or cover one another. The grapes are depicted in a standardized manner with a white spot highlighting the center of each grape with no color gradation. The depicting of leafs is reduced to the veins. The bodies of the quadru-peds and birds are depicted as a homogeneous surface in one color, or in a random mix of colors. Despite this, within the generally schematic tendency, the craftsman distinguished between the sexes (udders for the female griffon, male genitalia for the sheep) and the species: long or webbed feet for waterfowls; different types of beaks, some long and broadening at the base (heron), others hooked (eagle, female grif-fon); combs (hens); claws and talons (eagle, female griffon, peacock); hooves and horns (rams); paws (lion and panther); skin spots (leopard) and various types of tails and ears. The mouth of the animal is sometimes open and exposes the tongue and teeth. All these identifying characteristics are displayed schematically with little or no details added.

In a few cases, a slight effect of three-dimen-sionality is created by the interplay of light and shadow or by highlighting lines. This technique accentuates the underside of wings (phoenix), the hind quarters of four-legged animals (rams, rab-bit). Similarly, we see the darker front of the abdo-men of the horned animals and the lightening of the dark color towards the wing tips (duck, female griffon). In only one instance, the light color of a lion’s back gets gradually darker towards the belly.

Attention is also paid to details, such as out-lining the place where the legs or wings emerge from the body of the animal. In the depiction of objects, the play of light and shadow highlights the polygonal body of the amphora and the jar.

Animals are posed in various postures: some face front (eagle and peacock with outspread wings and tail), others leap diagonally (panther, lion), and others (horned animals) flee, occasionally glanc-ing backward at their pursuer. The expression of dynamic movement originated in Roman proto-types of chase and hunting scenes. In the Byzantine period, these scenes were reduced, copied and placed in locations totally unconnected with their original settings, such as the vine-scroll mosaic in the Gan Yavneh church. The lively activity of the chicks around the hen can also be traced back to an earlier prototype of a domestic scene.

The depiction of objects combines different viewpoints: the base and body of the vessels and the ship are shown frontally, while the rim of the vessels and the deck of the ship are shown in three-quarters perspective, enabling the viewer to discern the contents of the vessel or the cargo of the ship. However, the basket and the birdcage are depicted entirely frontally.

The mosaic was laid on a bedding of white mortar, 0.2 m thick. The atrium was paved with white 4 sq cm tesserae, laid diagonally. Within the church, most of the tesserae are square and meas-ure 1 sq cm, although occasional use is made of round and triangular tesserae. The general density is 81 tesserae per sq dm; the density of the eagle’s head is 90 per sq dm and that of the griffon’s head is 100 per sq dm. According to Dauphin’s classifica-tion, this mosaic is of medium quality (Dauphin 1976: 123-125, 133, Fig. 6).

Based on its technical and stylistical quality, the pavement of the Khirbet Barqa can be classified along with other flat and schematic mosaic floors from the region of Gaza and the northern Negev in the early 6th century, for instance, in the churches at Hazor Ashdod, close to Gan Yavneh (511/2 CE; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 67-69, No. 93) and Horvat Sokho (Gudovitch 1996: 19*-21*). This is in contrast to the semi-volumetric approach of the synagogue at Gaza (508/9 CE; Ovadiah 1969; 1975), with its echoes of classic tradition; the lat-ter is actually quite similar to the semi-voluminous style developing in the synagogue at Ma‘on (Nirim) (Avi-Yonah 1960: 25-33) and the church at Shellal (561/2 CE; Trendall 1957), and the plastic portray-als of the ‘Justinianic Renaissance’ style (Kitzinger 1951). These can be observed in churches of this region in the second half of the 6th century, such as Kissufim (576, 578 CE; Cohen 1993), St. Stephen’s at Horvat Be’er-shem‘a (Gazit and Lender 1993) and the Petra church (Waliszewski 2001).

Composition and iconographyIn the vine-scroll carpet, the tendrils create

closed scrolls, separate but meeting one another. From the scrolls sprout vine leaves and bunches of grapes in all directions, both inside and outside the scrolls, creating a crowded and overloaded impression.

134 The Mosaic PaveMenTs and LiTurgicaL FurniTure oF The church oF BishoP John aT KhirBeT Barqa–gan Yavneh

In contrast to the leaves and bunches of grapes sprouting in all directions, the motifs that populate the scrolls, the inscription in the medallion and the objects between the scrolls face the observer coming into the church from the west. Some of the motifs are positioned in the center of the scroll, while others forcefully break out of its frame, add-ing to the crowded impression.

The Gan Yavneh mosaic shows features associ-ated with the ‘Gaza School,’ as defined by Avi-Yonah. He identified this style by the orientalizing influences he observed in it: a geometric approach, rigid symmetry, and the prominence of a central axis flanked by symmetrical groups arranged on both sides and facing each other. Additional ele-ments are the amphora in front of the entrance, the absence of human figures and the inclusion of the ‘bird in the cage’ motif. Avi-Yonah listed eight mosaic floors which he ascribed to the Gaza school of mosaic art, the product of a local artisans: syna-gogues at Gaza, Ma‘on (Nirim) and Beth Shean, churches at Shellal, ‘Ein Hanniya, Khirbet ‘Asida,

el Maqerqesh (Beth Guvrin), and the Armenian chapel in Jerusalem (Avi-Yonah 1975a; 1975b). Ovadiah supported Avi-Yonah’s analysis (Ovadiah 1975: 554-557).

Other scholars, however, expressed reservations about the existence of a Gaza school of mosaic art (Dauphin 1976: 122, 130, 140-141; Hachlili 1987; 2009: 144-147; Waliszewski 1994: 571-573; Talgam 1998: 80). They pointed out that mosaics containing peopled scrolls, an amphora in the lowest row and a prominent central axis were found elsewhere in Palestine. These mosaics displayed nuances in technique, composition, and style that originated in different workshops. Balty interpreted ‘school’ to mean an atmosphere of cul-ture and creativity, which existed in various areas and was influenced by local taste. She advocated the hypothesis that such schools operated in a number of urban centers (Apamea, Madaba, Gerasa, Beth Shean, etc.) and spread their influence to the sur-rounding countryside. The schools at work in the eastern provinces employed a uniform repertoire

Fig. 2. An amphora.

135Lihi Habas

of subjects and motifs, which explains why these same motifs were repeated over a wide area. Still, each group developed its compositional style to suit its own taste. Wherever there are parallels in composition and iconography, differences in style become apparent (Balty 1995: 135-137).

Balty’s theory applies here. The three mosaic floors from the synagogue in Gaza (508/9), and the churches at Gan Yavneh (511), Hazor Ashdod (511/2) and Horvat Sokho are similar in chronol-ogy, location, composition and style. Nevertheless, schematic and flat designs are executed differently in each mosaic, evidence of individualistic expres-sion and technique of both the artists and the schools of craftsmanship operating in the region.

Most of the motifs are common in the entire area, and several will be discussed here. The genre depictions relating to transport of goods raise the issue of land trade. This is expressed by the laden camel, a new motif in Byzantine iconography. The camel entered Byzantine iconography primarily as a beast of burden. In the Levant it was a means of

transport for humans as well as goods (Toynbee 1973: 137-140).

Caravans of camels laden with goods with their drivers, and camels as an individual motif in geo-metric and vegetal carpets appear in several churches located on the desert margin (Habas 2005, I: 256-263, II: Figs. 115 b, 200, 213, 254-257; 2009a: 54-63, Figs. 1-8). A man identified as Orbikon leads a camel laden with Gaza jars and baskets in the Kissufim church (576, 578; Cohen 1993: 277, Figs. on pp. 278-279, Pl. 22 c). In St. Stephen’s at Horvat Be’er-shem‘a, the vine-scroll carpet of the nave includes depiction of a man leading a camel laden with goods (Gazit and Lender 1993: 275-276; Hachlili 2009: 172-173, Pls. 6:5, 7:18 b). In Petra, the scene develops over three scrolls in the northern aisle of the church. In the center a camel is depicted kneeling under the weight of a heavy wooden beam, with two persons on both sides (Waliszewski 2001: 231-233, Pl. 312). In the church at Khirbet el-Waziya, individual camels appear as filling motifs on the mosaic (Aviam 1995: 52-53, Fig. on p. 53).

Fig. 3. A camel laden with wine jars.

136 The Mosaic PaveMenTs and LiTurgicaL FurniTure oF The church oF BishoP John aT KhirBeT Barqa–gan Yavneh

Fig. 4. A harmonic shield/circle.

Fig. 5. A platter with a fish head.

137Lihi Habas

Maritime trade is represented by transporta-tion of amphorae stacked on a ship or a boat. In the Church of SS. Lot and Procopius (557 CE?) at Khirbet el-Mukhayyat a man is depicted rowing a boat laden with sealed jars apparently containing wine or oil. Saller and Bagatti explained this scene as a merchant transferring merchandise from one bank of the Jordan River to the other (Saller and Bagatti 1949: 55-67, Fig. 7, Pls. 19:1-2, 21:3; Piccirillo 1998: 344-350, Figs. 190, 192, 199). Ships laden with cargoes of amphorae appear in the church at Haditha (Avi-Yonah 1972: 118-120, Pls. 21, 23:a) and as part of the myth of Odysseus and the Sirens in the House of Kyrios Leontis at Beth Shean (Zori 1966: 128-130, Fig. 4, Pl. 11). Similar scenes occur in the churches at Rayân and Khirbet Cheikh Messaoud in Syria (Donceel-Voûte 1988: 262, 304-306, Figs. 297, 344, Pls. 12-13).

Several mosaic parallels of the tray with a fish have been found in the churches of Israel. In St. Stephen’s at Horvat Be’er-shem‘a, a man named Victor holds a plate with a fish tail on it (Gazit and Lender 1993: 276, Pl. 20 c). This motif appears in two chapels on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem. In St. John’s chapel in the Russian monastery of the Ascension, a whole fish lies on a tray, while in Dominus Flevit the fish appears cut in two with no plate (Bagatti 1984: 280, Fig. 160; Narkiss 1979: 24, Fig. 36). A fish head on a plate also appears in the Petra church (Waliszewski 2001: 234, Fig. on p. 312).

Eagles shown frontally or in a three-quarter position with spread wings appear on the axis of a vine-scroll carpet in the church of el Maqerqesh, Beth Guvrin (Abel 1924: 592-595, Fig. 4, Pls. 13:2, 14-15), in Jerusalem in the chapel (?) of Stephan on Mount Zion (Vincent 1908: 406-408, Pl. 1:1) and in the Armenian ‘Mosaic of the Birds’ (Schick and Bliss 1894: Fig. on p. 259); at Khirbet Yattir (Eshel, Magness and Shenhav 2000: 164-165, Fig. 13); in a chapel of Suwayfiyah near Amman (Piccirillo 1993a: 264, Figs. 469, 471), in the northern aisle of the Petra church (Waliszewski 2001: 233, Fig. 13, Pls. on pp. 312, 317) and in the synagogue at Ma‘on (Nirim) (Avi-Yonah 1960: Fig. 13, Pl. 3:3). A frontally depicted eagle along with the Greek letters ΑΩ appears in the south chapel

of the monastery of Mar Liyas at Wadi Rajib (Pic-cirillo and al-Qudah 2003: 311, Figs. 2-4) and in the Church of the Deacon Thomas at ‘Uyun Musa (Piccirillo 1998: 341-342, Figs. 150-151, 186). Two eagles appear in the Church of St. George at Khirbet el-Mukhayyat, with three crosses below one of the eagles (535/6 CE; Saller and Bagatti 1949: 72, Fig. 8, Pls. 23:3, 28:2).

A peacock in frontal view with tail spread out like a fan appears in a niche in St. George’s at Gerasa (529 CE; Biebel 1938: 329-330, Pl. 72 c), in the center of the nave of the Church of the Prophet Elijah at Madaba (608 CE; Piccirillo 1994: 384-390, Plan 1, Photos 1, 9) and in the octagonal church at Capernaum (Corbo 1975: 44-45, Photos 17-18). A peacock with fanned tail also appears in the Beth Shean synagogue, in the central axis of the mosaic carpet above a seven-branched menorah (Bahat 1981: 83-85, Fig. on p. 84).

A birdcage, with or without a bird inside, is a common motif. It belongs to bird hunting descrip-tions in which an empty cage, with its gate opened, stands close to a bait; or sometimes a cage with a female inside is set up as a lure for a male. From the many examples, we will list the synagogues in Gaza, Ma‘on (Nirim) and Na‘aran, and churches in Shellal, Khirbat ‘Asida, the Armenian mosaic at Jerusalem (Avi-Yonah 1975a: Pls. 179:2, 180:1-2, 181:1; Ovadiah 1975: Pl. 40; Vincent and Benoit 1961: 163-177, Pls. 7, 14 b) and St. Stephen’s at Horvat Be’er-shem‘a (Gazit and Lender 1993: Pl. 21 e).

The crouching rabbit motif belongs to a vintage cycle, where the rabbit is shown eating a grape cluster either still on the vine or spilling out of an overturned basket. In some cases, as in Gan Yavneh, the crouching rabbit appears cut off from the cycle, without grapes at all. Other examples appear in the church at Hazor Ashdod (Ovadiah 1975: 554, Pl. 39; Ovadiah and Ovadiah 1987: 67-69, Pl. 73:1, No. 93), in the monastery of Martyrius at Ma‘ale Adummim (Magen and Talgam 1990: 110-114, Figs. 25-26, 32) and in the Chapel of Elias, Maria and Soreg at Gerasa (Saller and Bagatti 1949: 270-274, Pl. 45). In the Petra church, a rabbit appears on one side in the same crouching position as at Gan Yavneh, while on the opposite side another raises its head to reach a grape cluster hanging from the vine scroll which adorns the mosaic pavement

138 The Mosaic PaveMenTs and LiTurgicaL FurniTure oF The church oF BishoP John aT KhirBeT Barqa–gan Yavneh

(Waliszewski 2001: 228, Pl. on p. 311). A rabbit and a fox appear in the Church of the Holy Martyrs (el-Khader) at Madaba (Lux 1967: Pl. 34 b).

The Gan Yavneh mosaic contains two motifs that are somewhat rare in the region: a hen with her chicks and a female griffon. The hen strolling with her chicks come from Roman farm episodes. In the Byzantine period this motif appears in the synagogue of Beth Alpha (Sukenik 1932: 42, Figs. 20-25), the Church of the Apostles at Madaba (578/9 CE; Lux 1968: Pl. 18 a-b; Piccirillo 1993a: 106, Figs. 81, 85) and St. Christopher’s in Qabr-Hiram, Lebanon (575 CE; Renan 1871: 610-611, Pl. 49), all later than the Gan Yavneh mosaic. The female griffon is extremely rare; it is depicted eating a lizard in the Imperial Palace at Constantinopole (Trilling 1989: 59, 70, Fig. 21).

The individual motifs were probably taken from pattern books. This can be inferred from the similarities among them. It is hard to establish who was responsible for the iconographic program: the craftsman, a donor, the community or perhaps Bishop John himself. In any case, the mosaic has a fascinating iconographic program that combines genre scenes from daily life with symbolic motifs. Side by side we see depictions of animals taken from domestic scenes, cycles of the chase and hunt of animals (predators and birds), transportation by camel and ship, and various species of birds as if taken from an ornithological catalogue. They are all shown in movement, together with depictions that are mostly frontal and partly static, bearing various layers of meaning. It should be noted that at Gan Yavneh there is absolutely no depiction of humans.

Illustrations of animals, birds and fruit origi-nated in the depictions of the xenia, which in the Roman period symbolized the abundance and prosperity enjoyed by the landlords and the com-munity and their hope for their continuity in the future. Christianity conveyed an additional message and added a religious meaning to these images by associating them with Divine Providence, blessings in their earthly life under the protection of the Church (Habas 2005, I: 297-298).

The pressing question is whether we should un-derstand the wine jars and fish as representing xenia, or whether the location in the vertical row hints at a more symbolic meaning. This is certainly the case

for the depiction of the platter bearing a fish head, which can be understood as a xenia motif, but can also refer to Jesus Christ through the Greek word for ‘fish,’ ΙΧΘΥΣ, initials of Ἰ[ησοῦς] Χ[ριστός], Θ[εοῦ] Υ[ἱός], Σ[ωτήρ], “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior.” Thus is true also for the frontal depiction of the peacock, the eagle and the phoenix, well known in art and the writings of the Church Fathers as symbols of Christ and resurrection (Habas 2005, I: 315-333, 443-447). In view of the depiction of the ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ in the Church of the Holy Martyrs at Tayibat al-Imam (447 CE) in Syria, with eagle, peacocks, phoenix, the four rivers of the Garden of Eden, a lamb and the holy cities Jerusalen and Bethlehem (Zaqzuq and Piccirillo 1999: 445, 450, 463, Pl. 6, Figs 3-5; Farioli Campanati 1999: 174; Wisskirchen 2005/6: 154-156, 163, Fig. 1), we may surmise that the mosaic pavement of the church at Gan Yavneh was imbued with Christian symbolic meanings in addition to its decorative and esthetic value and the everyday scenes that it contained.

LiTurgicaL FurniTure

The excavation of the church yielded fragments of a mensa and of two chancel screen panels, one solid and the other pierced, and a silver-plated bronze cross.

Four non-contiguous fragments of grey marble belong to an altar table. The upper surface of the table is smoothed, while the underside is rough and shows marks of chiseling. The table edge was originally smooth, but at a later stage short diagonal cuts were made with a chisel. Although the liturgi-cal area has not survived, the fragments attest that a marble altar stood there. The altar was usually placed in the center of the bema or on the chord of the apse on the central axis of the church.

Two adjoining fragments of a solid chancel screen panel were discovered out of context (Fig. 13). The fragments belong to the central part of a chancel screen of granular whitish-grey marble with grey veins. The panel is decorated with two frames enclosing Latin crosses. The back is deco-rated in a similar way but without the crosses; the treatment is rough and the surface bear short marks made with a chisel. The upper margin of the front

139Lihi Habas

Fig. 6. A ship laden with wine or oil jars.

Fig. 7. A frontal peacock with outspread tail.

140 The Mosaic PaveMenTs and LiTurgicaL FurniTure oF The church oF BishoP John aT KhirBeT Barqa–gan Yavneh

was originally smooth and polished, but at a later stage grooves were made in it. In parallel, a slot 4 cm wide and 2.5 cm deep was hewn in the upper margin of the back, apparently to hold a small of-fering table placed in the bema next to the chancel screen, as in the south and north apses of the Petra church (Kanellopoulos and Schick 2001: 194-196, Fig. 4; Waliszewski 2001: 261-262, Figs. on pp. 308-309). The fragments of the screen do not per-mit a definite identification of the complete motif. On an identical fragment discovered in Judea or Samaria (Habas 1994, II: 63-64, Fig. 99, No. 99), the Latin cross stands on a branch ending in an ivy leaf, with the beginning of another branch. The fragments may very well belong to a stephanostaurion composition (see below).

Several fragments of a pierced chancel screen panel were discovered (Fig. 14). The front is smooth and polished. On the fragments are carved a laurel wreath terminating in ovolo with eight of fourteen clusters surviving, the arm of a cross attached to an ivy leaf, an ivy branch, the arm of a cross in lace pattern, and the junction of the

stripes that make up the lace pattern. The back of the panel is roughly worked and the decoration is carelessly formed, looking like a drawing. Instead of the laurel wreath, the back bears a medallion formed by two concentric bands. The cross arm attached to an ivy leaf is lacking. The upper back margin is smooth, like that of the solid screen, and its top also has a slot to hold another offer-ing table. From the fragments, and on the basis of composition parallels – solid chancel screen panels from Massu‘ot Yitzhaq and the Gaza area (Yeivin 1955: 14, Pl. 11:5; Habas 1994, I: 61-62; III: 43-45, Figs. 63-64, Nos. 63-64), the chapel of the monastery of Kyra Maria at Beth Shean (Fitzgerald 1939: 3, Pl. III, Fig. 5; Habas 1994, I: 60; III: 39-40, Fig. 57, No. 57), the western church at Mampsis (Negev 1988: 107, Fig. 9; Habas 1994, I: 62; III: 42-43, Fig. 62, No. 62) and the northern church at Nessana (Colt 1962: 50, Pl. 19:5; Habas 1994, I: 62; III: 41-42, Fig. 60, No. 60) – we can reconstruct a mainly solid chancel screen with a pierced panel in the center, bearing the motif known as stephanostaurion. This

Fig. 8. A hen surrounded by chicks.

141Lihi Habas

Fig. 9. A frontal eagle with outspread wings.

Fig. 10. A pomegranate, a citron of the kibbad type and an apple with a knife.

Fig. 8. A hen surrounded by chicks.

142 The Mosaic PaveMenTs and LiTurgicaL FurniTure oF The church oF BishoP John aT KhirBeT Barqa–gan Yavneh

Fig. 11. A female griffon.

motif consists of a laurel wreath whose clusters end in ovolo at the top. Within the wreath is a Latin or Greek cross with lily flowers between its arms. The wreath is fastened at the bottom with two ribbons or ivy branches winding to the sides. Here they separate, one branch turning down to the corner and ending in an ivy leaf, while the other rises parallel to the wreath and ends with a Latin cross attached to its ivy leaf.

The stephanos (wreath) motif is composed of elements of deep symbolic Christian meaning, which here reach the peak of their development. The wreath and the ivy branches binding it sig-nify the victory over death granted to the faithful. The ivy leaves, connected with the resurrection of the pagan god Dionysos and the eternal nature of Endymion, derived, like other motifs, from pagan art and were adapted to Christian beliefs. In the Christian composition, the wreath contains a cross, symbol of Christ, and lily flowers, symbols of the Virgin, between its arms. There are crosses

on the ivy leaves, which are symbols of eternity. The stephanostaurion composition thus emphasizes and symbolizes the triumph of Christ over death and the redemption and salvation that he brings to Christian believers (Habas 2009b: 103-104).

The excavation also uncovered a Latin cross made of silver-plated bronze (Fig. 15). The upright arm is 6.4 cm high and the horizontal arm is 5.2 cm wide; the cross is only 0.5 cm thick. The arms are wider and concave at the ends. There is a hole at the end of each of the four arms for nailing the cross to a support. Metal crosses were inlaid in architectural elements, furniture and ritual objects made of stone, marble, ivory and wood. Evidence for the use of metallic crosses is generally indirect, such as holes for nails arranged in the shape of a cross on liturgical furniture and ritual implements. In the Church of Priest Wa’il at Umm al-Rasas, a reliquary was discovered with holes on its lid to hold two crosses, with the left cross still in place (Piccirillo 1993b: 321, Figs. 18-19).

143Lihi Habas

Fig. 12. A triple border.

Fig. 13. A marble solid chancel screen decorated with crosses.

144 The Mosaic PaveMenTs and LiTurgicaL FurniTure oF The church oF BishoP John aT KhirBeT Barqa–gan Yavneh

Fig. 14. A marble pierced chancel screen decorated with a stephanostaurion composition.

Fig. 15. A Latin cross made of silver-plated bronze.

145Lihi Habas

concLusions

The chance, rare in our region, of pinpoint-ing the date of the mosaic floor of the church at Gan Yavneh, its stylistic uniformity in contrast with other church mosaics in the vicinity, and its iconographic program lacking human figures, together contribute to a better understanding of

the development of mosaics in the southern part of the Holy Land during the sixth century, when several local mosaic workshops were active and influenced one another in an organic and dynamic way. Moreover, the furnishings attest to a Christian community with the ability to provide its church with imported liturgical furniture made of marble and decorated with precious crosses.

BiBLiograPhY

Abel M. 1924. “Chronique: découvertes récentes à Beit-Djebrin,” RB 33: 583-604.

Aviam M. 1995. “Remains of Churches and Monasteries in Western Galilee,” Qadmoniot 109: 47-59 (Hebrew).

Avi-Yonah M. 1960. “The Ancient Synagogue of Ma‘on (Nirim),” Bulletin of the Rabinowitz Fund 3: 25-35.

Avi-Yonah M. 1972. “The Haditha Mosaic Pavement,” IEJ 22: 118-122.

Avi-Yonah M. 1975a. “Une école de mosaïque à Gaza au sixième siècle,” in La mosaïque gréco-romaine. IIe Colloque international pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique, Vienne, 30 août-4 septembre 1971, Paris, 377-383.

Avi-Yonah M. 1975b. “The Gaza School of Mosaicists in the Fifth-Sixth Centuries C.E.,” EI 12: 191-193 (Hebrew).

Bahat D. 1981. “A Synagogue at Beth-Shean,” in L.I. Levine (ed.), Ancient Synagogues Revealed, Jerusalem, 82-85.

Balty J. 1995. “La place des mosaïques de Jordanie au sein de la production orientale,” in Mosaïques antiques du Proche-Orient. Chronologie, Iconographie, Interprétation (Centre de Recherches d’Histoire Ancienne 140), Paris, 111-140.

Bagatti B. 1984. The Church from the Gentiles in Palestine. History and Archaeology (SBF. Minor 4), Jerusalem.

Baramki D.C. - Avi-Yonah M. 1934. “An Early Christian Church at Khirbat ‘Asida,” QDAP 3: 17-19.

Biebel F.M. 1938. “Mosaics,” in C.H. Kraeling (ed.), Gerasa, City of the Decapolis, New Haven CT, 297-351.

Cohen R. 1993. “A Byzantine Church and Its Mosaic Floors at Kissufim,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, 277-282.

Colt H.D. 1962. “Architectural Details,” in Id. (ed.), Excavations at Nessana, I, London, 48-50.

Corbo V. 1975. Cafarnao. I: Gli edifici della città (SBF. Maior 19/1), Jerusalem.

Dauphin C. 1976. “A New Method of Studying Early Byzantine Mo-saic Pavements (Coding and a Computed Cluster Analysis) with Special Reference to the Levant,” Levant 8: 113-149.

Donceel-Voûte P. 1988. Les pavements des églises byzantines de Syrie et du Liban. Décor, archéologie et liturgie, I-II, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique.

Eshel H. - Magness J. - Shenhav E. 2000. “Khirbet Yattir, 1995-1999: Preliminary Report,” IEJ 50: 153-168.

Farioli Campanati R. 1999. “Jerusalem and Bethlehem in the Iconography of Church Sanctuary Mosaics,” in Madaba Map, 173-177.

Fitzgerald G.M. 1939. A Sixth Century Monastery at Beth Shan (Scythopolis), Philadelphia.

Gazit D. - Lender Y. 1993. “The Church of St. Stephen at Horvat Be’er-shem‘a,” in Y. Tsafrir (ed.), Ancient Churches Revealed, Jerusalem, 273-276.

Gudovitch S. 1996. “A Byzantine Building at the Foot of Horbat Sokho,” ‛Atiqot 28: 17*-23* (Hebrew).

Habas L. 1994. The Relief Art of Chancel Screens in Churches and Synagogues in Palestine in the Byzantine Period: A Stylistic and Iconographic Study. I: Text. II: Catalogue of the Chancel Posts. III: Catalogue of the Chancel Screens (MA Diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem) (Hebrew).

Habas L. 2005. The Byzantine Churches of Provincia Arabia: Architectural Structure and their Relationship with the Compositional Scheme and Iconographic Program of Mosaic Pavements. I: Text. II: Tables, Illustra-tions, Bibliography and English Abstract (Ph.D. Diss., The Hebrew University, Jerusalem) (Hebrew).

Habas L. 2009a. “Camel Caravans and Trade in Exotic Ani-mals in the Mosaics of the Desert Margin,” in L. Di Segni - Y. Hirschfeld - J. Patrich - R. Talgam (ed.), Man Near a Roman Arch: Studies presented to Prof. Yoram Tsafrir, Jerusalem, 54-73.

Habas L. 2009b. “The Art of Imported Marble Chancel Screens and its Influence on Local Production in the Churches of the Provinces of Palaestina and Arabia: A Case Study,” in H. Oniz (ed.), SOMA 2008, Proceedings of the XII Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, Famagusta, North Cyprus, 5-8 March 2008 (BAR Int Ser 1909), Oxford, 100-108.

Hachlili R. 1987. “On the Mosaicists of the ‘School of Gaza’,” EI 19: 46-58 (Hebrew).

Hachlili R. 2009. Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues, and Trends, Leiden - Boston MA.

Kanellopoulos C. - Schick R. 2001. “Marble Furnishings of the Apses and the Bema, Phase V,” in Petra Church, 193-213.

Kitzinger E. 1951. “Mosaic Pavements in the Greek East and the Question of a ‘Renaissance’ under Justinian,” in Actes du VIe Congrès International d’Études Byzantines, Paris, 27 juillet – 2 août 1948, II, Paris, 209-223.

Lux U. 1967. “Eine altchristliche Kirche in Mad̄eba,” ZDPV 83: 165-182.

Lux U. 1968. “Die Apostel-Kirche in Mad̄eba,” ZDPV 84: 106-129.Magen Y. - Talgam R. 1990. “The Monastery of Martyrius at

Ma’ale Adummim (Khirbet el-Murassas) and its Mosa-ics,” in CAHL, 91-152.

Narkiss B. 1979. “The Armenian Treasures of Jerusalem: Ch. 1: Mosaic Pavements,” in Id. (ed.), Armenian Art Treasures of Jerusalem, Jerusalem - New Rochelle NY, 20-28.

Fig. 14. A marble pierced chancel screen decorated with a stephanostaurion composition.

146 The Mosaic PaveMenTs and LiTurgicaL FurniTure oF The church oF BishoP John aT KhirBeT Barqa–gan Yavneh

Negev A. 1988. The Architecture of Mampsis, Final Report. II: The Late Roman and Byzantine Periods (Qedem 27), Jerusalem.

Ovadiah A. 1969. “Excavations in the Area of the Ancient Syna-gogue at Gaza (Preliminary Report),” IEJ 19: 193-198.

Ovadiah A. 1975. “Les mosaïstes de Gaza dans l’antiquité chré-tienne,” RB 82: 552-557.

Ovadiah R. - Ovadiah A. 1987. Hellenistic, Roman and Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements in Israel (BA 6), Roma.

Piccirillo M. 1993a. The Mosaics of Jordan (ACOR Publications 1), Amman.

Piccirillo M. 1993b. “La chiesa del prete Wa’il a Umm al-Rasas – Kastron Mefaa in Giordania,” in F. Manns - E. Alliata (ed.), Early Christianity in Context. Monuments and Documents (SBF. Maior 38), Jerusalem, 313-334.

Piccirillo M. 1994. “La chiesa del Profeta Elia a Madaba: Nuove scoperte,” LA 44: 381-404.

Piccirillo M. 1998. “The Mosaics,” in Mount Nebo, 265-371.Piccirillo M. - al-Qudah Z. 2003. “L’eremitaggio nel Wadi

Rajib sulla montagna di Ajlum in Giordania,” in One Land, 309-316.

Renan M.E. 1871. Mission de Phénicie, Paris.Saller S.J. - Bagatti B. 1949. The Town of Nebo (Khirbet el-Mekhayyat).

With a Brief Survey of Other Ancient Christian Monuments in Transjordan (SBF. Maior 7), Jerusalem.

Schick B. - Bliss F.J. 1894. “Discovery of a Beautiful Mosaic Pave-ment with Armenian Inscription, North of Jerusalem,” PEFQSt 26: 257-261.

Sukenik E.L. 1932. The ancient synagogue of Beth Alpha, Jerusalem.Talgam R. 1998. “Mosaics in Israel in the Light of Recent

Discoveries,” Qadmoniot 116: 74-89 (Hebrew).Toynbee J.M.C. 1973. Animals in Roman Life and Art (Aspects of

Greek and Roman Life), Ithaca NY - London.Trendall A.D. 1957. The Shellal Mosaic and other classical antiquities in

the Australian War Memorial, Canberra, Canberra.Trilling J. 1989. “The Soul of the Empire: Style and Meaning

in the Mosaic Pavement of the Byzantine Imperial Palace in Constantinople,” DOP 43: 27-72.

Vincent L.-H. 1908. “Chronique: mosaïques byzantines,” RB 17: 406-410.

Vincent L.-H. - Benoit P. 1961. “Un sanctuaire dans la région de Jéricho, la synagogue de Na’arah,” RB 68: 161-177.

Waliszewski T. 1994. “La mosaïque de Deir el-‘Asfur retrouvée: Le motif des ‘rinceaux habités’ en Judée et dans la Shé-phéla,” RB 101: 562-579.

Waliszewski T. 2001. “Mosaics,” in Petra Church, 219-270.Wisskirchen R. 2005/6. “Der Adler auf dem Paradiesesberg,”

JbAC 48/49: 154-163. Yeivin S. 1955. Archaeological Activities in Israel (1948-1955),

Jerusalem.Zaqzuq A. - Piccirillo M. 1999. “The Mosaic Floor of the Church

of the Holy Martyrs at Tayibat al-Imam – Hamah, in Central Syria,” LA 49: 443-464.

Zori N. 1966. “The House of Kyrios Leontis at Beth Shean,” IEJ 16: 123-134.