Late Roman and Early Byzantine Syria-Palestine

The late Antique mosaic of Orpheus decorated a small room, approximately 18 m2 in area, connected with two even smaller ones, in 4 m2 and the other 2 m2 in area, belonging most likely to a small funerary chapel (or tomb) discovered in the ancient necropolis by the Damascene Gate in Jerusalem; it was discovered in 1901 by H. Vincent.
The author proposes a new interpretation of the iconographic program of the Orpheus myth used by wealthy Christians in a sepulchral context (see Olszewski M.T. «Orphée endeuillé de la mosaïque funéraire de Jérusalem», in Rey Mimoso-Ruiz, B. ed., Actes du colloque «Orphée entre Soleil et ombre», à l’Institut Catholique de Toulouse du 16 au 17 novembre 2007, Inter Lignes, numéros spécial – mars 2008, pp. 205-214, 226). He also proposes a new interpretation of the role Orpheus played in Roman funerary art, concentrating on the importance of the play on words and the visual and textual punning that was popular in ancient art and especially in funerary art. He rejects the popular interpretation of Orpheus as Christ in the Roman catacombs and proposes to interpret the image as that of Orpheus, bard of the departed souls, without any ahistorical connection with Christ. The program of the mosaic from Jerusalem is thus explained as a play on the words Orpheus-orphanos and Chiron (Chi-Rho) and Pan [Παν(τοκράτωρ)].The frequently used Christian funerary formula of resting in peace, Christ or the Lord corresponds
perfectly with the mood created around the mythical bard.
Orpheus’ universal role as singer and musician moving even the most stony of hearts, extolling the beloved departed, is absolutely justified in the context of a 6th-century Christian tomb. Orpheus is a popular and neutral figure, meaning that in effect it does not constitute a threat to Christian theology and can be tolerated by the educated Christians of Jerusalem.

More than 20 years after presenting his first interpretation of the mosaic from the House of Aion in a paper entitled “Uwagi na temat mozaiki z Domu Aiona w Nea Paphos (Cypr)” (Meander 9/10, 1987, p. 421-438, in Polish, and translated to English: « The Immortality of the Human Soul and the Dionysiac Mysteries in the 4th Century Allegory [in Connection with the Interpretation of the Mosaic from the “House of Aion” at Paphos in Cyprus]»), where he proposed reading the five mythological panels (1. Leda and Zeus; 2. Dionysus on Mount Nysa; 3. The Dionysian thiasos; 4. Apollo and Marsyas; 5. The Apotheosis of Cassiopeia) as an allegory of the destiny of the human soul and body, starting with conception and ending with the liberation of the soul and its apotheosis, the author now enhances his initial interpretation with numerous reflections concerning the historical context of this work of art, created in the years 320-360.
If, according to the author, the mosaic is a “Hymn” in honour of the pagan gods, Man (his soul) and his place in the (pagan) universe, then at the same time it polemicises with the Christian faith and its God, Jesus Christ.
The author puts forward numerous new solutions relating to the mosaic’s iconography and iconology. Analysis of the mosaic also leads him to propose a solution to the as-yet unanswered question regarding the absence of images of the crucified Christ in Christian art of the 3rd and 4th centuries, up until 420/430, when the first images of Christ on the cross appear.
CONTENTS:
Introduction
1. Research to-date (recap)
2. Description of mosaic (recap)
2.1. Composition of five mythological scenes
2.2. Brief iconographic description of mythological panels
2.3. Outline of individual iconographic elements and their respective roles
2.4. The pagan gods’ air of majesty and dignity as an expression of piety
3. A few words about the pagan reaction
4. An apology of pious human life according to pagan principles and a polemic on the Christian model of Man and his theological idol, Jesus Christ
4.1. Divine intervention in the act of human conception (allusion to/polemic on the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary)
4.2. The Epiphany of Dionysus (an allusion to the Epiphany of Christ – Theou Pais)
4.3. The procession and dissemination of Dionysian order (allusion to/polemic on Christ’s entry into Jerusalem)
4.4. The error of Marsyas (polemic on/allusion to the error of Jesus the Messiah): arrest, sentencing for arrogance and lack of piety (asebeia) and condemnation to a martyr’s death
4.5. The anabasis (or anagoge psyches) of a ‘beautiful soul’ (allusion to/polemic on the Ascension of Christ)
5. A few words on the mosaic programme prior to final conclusions
Final conclusions

Sundials in Roman and Byzantine Mosaics (1st – 9th Century AD). A scientific monograph. The sundials on ancient mosaics have not been the subject of scientific studies so far. The author has gathered together  in this  publication  the sundials  already known (Torre Anunzaiata, Sarsina, Trier, Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Antioch and Brading; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9) and those which have  not  previously  been  identified.  Thanks  to  the author’s  new  identifcations,  the  catalogue  has  been enlarged  by  six  new  sundials (Grand,Tarsus, Antiochia – interpreted by H. Pamir; Figs.  3, 6,  8, and 10. Tayibat al-Imam, Jerusalem and Umm al-Rasas (Sebastis); Figs. 10, 11, 12) and three monumental gnomes-columns with multiple functions that were used as monumental sundials [Madaba (Jerusalem), Umm al-Rasas (Kastron Mefaa) and Rome (Jerusalem); Figs. 13–15]. In addition, recognizing fully John H. Humphrey’s  interpretations,  the  author  enriches  the catalogue  by  eight  ancient  mosaic  representations  of obelisks in  circuses (Lyon, Barcelona, Volubilis, Piazza Armerina - two mosaics, Girona, Carthage and Gafsa; Figs.  16–23).  They  performed the roles of monumental sundials. In this way, the catalogue includes  twenty-three  mosaics with  the representations of sundials. They come from the Western and Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire. The first mosaic is dated to the beginning of the 1st century AD and the last dates to the 9th century AD. The author, after  a  short  description  of each monument,  summarizes the issue discussing the role of sundials in Roman and Byzantine society, their complex signifcance and symbolic dificult linked with the progress of time on which nature and human life are dependent. See Pdf : https://www.academia.edu/22653583/

More than 20 years after presenting his first interpretation of the mosaic from the House of Aion in a paper entitled “Uwagi na temat mozaiki z Domu Aiona w Nea Paphos (Cypr)” (Meander 9/10, 1987, p. 421-438, in Polish, and translated to English: « The Immortality of the Human Soul and the Dionysiac Mysteries in the 4th Century Allegory [in Connection with the Interpretation of the Mosaic from the “House of Aion” at Paphos in Cyprus]»), where he proposed reading the five mythological panels (1. Leda and Zeus; 2. Dionysus on Mount Nysa; 3. The Dionysian thiasos; 4. Apollo and Marsyas; 5. The Apotheosis of Cassiopeia) as an allegory of the destiny of the human soul and body, starting with conception and ending with the liberation of the soul and its apotheosis, the author now enhances his initial interpretation with numerous reflections concerning the historical context of this work of art, created in the years 320-360.
If, according to the author, the mosaic is a “Hymn” in honour of the pagan gods, Man (his soul) and his place in the (pagan) universe, then at the same time it polemicises with the Christian faith and its God, Jesus Christ.
The author puts forward numerous new solutions relating to the mosaic’s iconography and iconology. Analysis of the mosaic also leads him to propose a solution to the as-yet unanswered question regarding the absence of images of the crucified Christ in Christian art of the 3rd and 4th centuries, up until 420/430, when the first images of Christ on the cross appear.
CONTENTS:
Introduction
1. Research to-date (recap)
2. Description of mosaic (recap)
2.1. Composition of five mythological scenes
2.2. Brief iconographic description of mythological panels
2.3. Outline of individual iconographic elements and their respective roles
2.4. The pagan gods’ air of majesty and dignity as an expression of piety
3. A few words about the pagan reaction
4. An apology of pious human life according to pagan principles and a polemic on the Christian model of Man and his theological idol, Jesus Christ
4.1. Divine intervention in the act of human conception (allusion to/polemic on the Annunciation to the Virgin Mary)
4.2. The Epiphany of Dionysus (an allusion to the Epiphany of Christ – Theou Pais)
4.3. The procession and dissemination of Dionysian order (allusion to/polemic on Christ’s entry into Jerusalem)
4.4. The error of Marsyas (polemic on/allusion to the error of Jesus the Messiah): arrest, sentencing for arrogance and lack of piety (asebeia) and condemnation to a martyr’s death
4.5. The anabasis (or anagoge psyches) of a ‘beautiful soul’ (allusion to/polemic on the Ascension of Christ)
5. A few words on the mosaic programme prior to final conclusions
Final conclusions
Key words: mythological mosaic, House of Aion, Nea Paphos, Late Antiquity, Roman art, allegorical narrative, allusive language of mythological pictures, wordplay (Marsyas-Messias), Jesus Christ, anti-Christian polemic, Dionysos, Cassiopeia, Apollon, Nereides, Abstract Personifications, Greek Mythology, ΚΥΠΡΟΣ

"This paper proposes three new (and tentatively, another two) identifications of sundials in Middle Eastern mosaics of the 5th – 8th century. The author discusses a vignette from the Holy Martyrs’ Church at Tayibat al-Imâm, central Syria, a mosaic panel from the tomb of Georgia and Theodosia in Jerusalem, two
vignettes of Sebastis and Kastron Mefaa from the St. Stephan’s Church at Umm al-Rasas, and a vignette of Jerusalem from the St. George’s Church at Madaba. These mosaics date, respectively, to 442, to the reign of Justinian (527 –565), and to the Byzantine Umayyad era (718). According to the author, these are probably the latest representations of sundials known to date from the Late Antiquity. Until this study, only six representations of sundials on mosaics from the Roman period were known. This paper adds three new items and two hypothetical ones from Byzantine times. It also offers an interpretation of the function of the famous column in Jerusalem, shown on the map of Madaba and the mega-vignette of the Holy City.
Key words: Sundials, Sonnenhuhren, Meridiane, Cadrans solaires, Relojes de sol."

The sixth-century mint of Thessalonica offers one of the most interesting cases of localized circulation and Mediterranean-wide distribution. It has been repeatedly suggested that the main purpose of the moneta publica of Thessalonica was to meet the needs of the Macedonian metropolis and to supply the Danube frontier in northern Illyricum. The activity of the mint itself, seen through hoarding and casual loss, was closely connected to barbarian invasions and military activity in the Balkans. However, minting agenda at Thessalonica seems to have been a lot more complex. The evidence shows that Justinian’s irregular 16-nummia and its fractions traveled long distances to destinations from three different continents. Moreover, the adopting of mainstream denominations after 562 led to an even wider distribution of Thessalonica’s coinage, found in a variety of urban and rural contexts around the Mediterranean. What were the main channels of distribution? Can the circulation of Thessalonican coins be attributed exclusively to the army or should we consider additional explanations, such as the long-distance movement of people and goods in the Mediterranean world? These are some of the questions discussed in this paper along with the broader historical implications of monetary circulation in Late Antiquity.

This volume presents the numismatic results from nineteen seasons of fieldwork by the Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima (1971-1987 and 1993-1993). The expedition recovered just over 8,000 coins, of which about 2,700 were datable between 350 BC and AD 640. The volume provides a complete descriptive catalogue of the datable coins along with a separate section illustrated with color photographs of a spectacular hoard of 99 gold Byzantine solidi of Valens and Valentinian I discovered in 1993. The publication is volume 6 of the JECM (Joint Expedition to Caesarea Maritima) series.

The article focuses on the author's research on the chronographical background of the Zodiac Mosaic Calendar in Synagogue at Hammath-Tiberias. He researched to find the origin of mosaic decoration, the twelve zodiac sign, the four seasons, and Helios, which was found in synagogues in two parts of Palestine, Galilee and Judah. The chronograph of the mosaic art was extensively debated. The author further studied the history of Palestine Jews in the 4th century. Most of the work was done during the period of Hillel II.
The author concludes that the mosaic from the Stratum IIa synagogue with the Zodiac Calendar was executed in the time of Hillel II, who said to have died around 365 CE. He proposes the new date of the execution of the Zodiac Mosaic from Hammat-Tiberia (Stratum IIa) after the earthquake in 363, that is, in 364 or 365.

Horbat Be'er Shema', located in the Western Negev of southern Israel, is the Roman-Byzantine site of Berzamma/Birsama. An excavation carried out by the writers in 2006 revealed the presence of an industrial quarter with a winepress, warehouse, traces of pottery kilns and other structures, all of which were dated to the Late Byzantine period (5th-7th century CE). The excavation also revealed remains of the Early Islamic period and occupation in the 20th century.

This paper deals with some questions concerning the iconography, iconology and date of execution of the famous mosaic pavement from Sheikh Zoueide in Sinai, now exibited in the Ismailiya Museum. The author analyses both the mythological mosaic with the representation of various subjects, like Dionysiac procession, Nilotic theme, Hippolytos and Phaedra, and another geometric mosaic. The iconological study of all symbolic elements sheds light on the mentality of Nestor who lived in this house and of other inhabitants of the city.  The author sees the great influence of Egypt probably of Alexandria, in the mosaic's style. He also discusses stylistic problems and suggests a date of its execution in the first half of the 5th century.
On the iconological study of the mosaic see also: M.T. Olszewski, Mauvais œil et protection contre l'envie dans la mosaïque de Cheikh Zouède au Sinaï (IV-Ve siècle), published in: Paunier, D., Schmidt, Ch (ed. by), la Mosaïque gréco-romaine VIII. Actes du  VIIIe Colloque international de la mosaïque antique et médiévale, Lausanne 1997 (2001), pp. 276-301.
M.T.Olszewski, Two Late Antique synonymous mosaics from Sheikh Zuweid (Egypt) and Vinon (France) (translated) / Deux  mosaïques  synonimiques  de l’antiquité tardive: Cheikh  Zouède  (Egypte)  et  Vinon  (France) / Dwie późnoantyczne mozaiki synonimiczne z Szeikh Zued (Egipt) i Vinon (Francja) - (in Polish), Światowit IV-A, 2002, pp. 99-105.

In this essay I set out to offer a new interpretation of rural monasticism in Late Antiquity. The commonsensical understanding of the monk is of a holy man who played a key role in shaping the rural landscapes of Late Antique Levant. I want to suggest a distinction
between the holy man, usually presented as a living saint in hagiographic literature, and the monk, who was a product of rural society and an integral part of the human landscape
in the countryside. As a result, I offer a fresh look at monasticism as an organic component of the rural landscape and at the rural monk as a domestic villager rather
than a revered role model for society.

Sundials in Roman and Byzantine Mosaics (1st – 9th Century AD). A scientific monograph. The sundials on ancient mosaics have not been the subject of scientific studies so far. The author has gathered together  in this  publication  the sundials  already known (Torre Anunzaiata, Sarsina, Trier, Saint-Romain-en-Gal, Antiochia and Brading; Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9) and those which have  not  previously  been  identified.  Thanks  to  the author’s  new  identifcations,  the  catalogue  has  been enlarged  by  six  new  sundials (Grand,Tarsus, Antioch – interpreted by H. Pamir; Figs.  3, 6,  8, and 10. Tayibat al-Imam, Jerusalem and Umm al-Rasas (Sebastis); Figs. 10, 11, 12) and three monumental gnomes-columns with multiple functions that were used as monumental sundials [Madaba (Jerusalem), Umm al-Rasas (Kastron Mefaa) and Rome (Jerusalem); Figs. 13–15]. In addition, recognizing fully John H. Humphrey’s  interpretations,  the  author  enriches  the catalogue  by  eight  ancient  mosaic  representations  of obelisks in  circuses (Lyon, Barcelona, Volubilis, Piazza Armerina - two mosaics, Girona, Carthage and Gafsa; Figs.  16–23).  They  performed the roles of monumental sundials. In this way, the catalogue includes  twenty-three  mosaics with  the representations of sundials. They come from the Western and Eastern Provinces of the Roman Empire. The first mosaic is dated to the beginning of the 1st century AD and the last dates to the 9th century AD. The author, after  a  short  description  of each monument,  summarizes the issue discussing the role of sundials in Roman and Byzantine society, their complex signifcance and symbolic difficult linked with the progress of time on which nature and human life are dependent.

Beyond the devastation and tragedy of human lives precipitated by the conflict in Syria, priceless representations of ancient culture and history have likewise fallen victim to a seemingly never-ending maelstrom of destruction. Ancient monuments and art have either been destroyed, damaged, or lost as chaos persists in a region that has for thousands of years seen the footprint of a parade of civilizations. (...)
The scenes tell the story of the founding of Pella/Apamea and further development of this city on the Orontes river. Three main groups of scenes can be distinguished: (1) the foundation of Pella-on-the-Orontes by the legendary Archippos, (2) the (re)foundation of the city as Apamea-on-the-Orontes (earlier Pella-on-the-Orontes) by Seleucus I Nikator and the simultaneous financial generosity of his wife, Apama, for the development of the new Seleucid colony in 300 BC, and (3) the raising of the town fortifications around monumental public buildings and an illustration of the daily life of a joyous people living in the rich Apamean agglomeration and hinterland. Features of style date the panels to the 4th century AD.

In honor of eminent archaeologist and historian of ancient Jewish art, Rachel Hachlili, friends and colleagues offer contributions in this festschrift which span the world of ancient Judaism both in Palestine and the Diaspora. Hachlili's distinctive research interests: synagogues, burial sites, and Jewish iconography receive particular attention in the volume. Archaeologists and historians present new material evidence from Galilee, Jerusalem, and Transjordan, contributing to the honoree's fields of scholarly study. Fresh analyses of ancient Jewish art, essays on architecture, historical geography, and research history complete the volume and make it an enticing kaleidoscope of the vibrant field of scholarship that owes so much to Rachel.

The scenes tell the story of the founding of Pella/Apamea and further development of this city on the Orontes river. Three main groups of scenes can be distinguished: (1) the foundation of Pella-on-the-Orontes by the legendary Archippos, (2) the (re)foundation of the city as Apamea-on-the-Orontes (earlier Pella-on-the-Orontes) by Seleucus I Nikator and the simultaneous financial generosity of his wife, Apama, for the development of the new Seleucid colony in 300 BC, and (3) the raising of the town fortifications around monumental public buildings and an illustration of the daily life of a joyous people living in the rich Apamean agglomeration and hinterland. Features of style date the panels to the 4th century AD.

The mosaic from Sheikh Zuweid on the western coast of North Sinai, discovered in 1913, as well as the mosaic brought to light in 1919 at Vinon near Aix-en-Provence in southern France had to wait until the end of the 20th century for scholarly studies to focus again on their iconography, but also their iconological program. It is the reading of this program that one can truly call sensational. The mosaic from Sinai consists of three panels: Hippolytus and Phaedra, a Dionysian cortege and an inscription surrounded with motifs referring to the fauna and flora of a Nilotic landscape as well as to iconography of the seasons of Spring and Fall. The mosaic from Vinon also consists of three pictures: Dionysus offering Ikarios the grapevine, the Three Graces and a panel depicting a voracious goat defiling the gift of Dionysus. Inscriptions accompany both the mosaics, in Latin at Sheikh Zued and in Greek at Vinon.
Numerous apotropaic symbols and inscriptions are known, but never before has a mythological picture been interpreted as apotropaic. The latest research has shown that the owners of the respective estates had chosen mythological themes in order to protect them and their property from the Evil Eye and Hatred. Dionysian motifs are associated with the putative function of the rooms, where banquets with music and dancing must have been held, and wine must have flowed in abundance. The allusion to the abundance of the Nile was meant to ensure the prosperity and wealth of the house, in similarity to the Dionysian motifs as a matter of fact. Dionysus, Heracles and Venus were patrons of the houses. The interpretation of the two mosaics takes advantage of studies in the field of the history of mentality of the communities standing on the threshold of post-classical times. At the same time, it constitutes a huge step forward in the understanding of this category of finds. The two mosaics confirm what Artemidoros of Daldis (2nd century AD) had to say about the status of pictures: that they could be synonymous in meaning (see: M.T. Olszewski, Le statut de l'image selon Artémidore et l'art romain, in: Morlier, H. ed., IXe Colloque international pour l'étude de la mosaïque antique et médiévale, Roma 5.11.2001-10.11.2001, Collection de l'Ecole Française de Rome 352/2, Rome 2005, pp. 859-880).
See also: M.T. Olszewski, La mosaïque de style naïf de Cheikh Zouède au Sinaï, Archeologia (Warsaw) 53, 2002, pp. 45–61, pls III+VI; M.T. Olszewski, Mauvais œil et protection contre l'envie dans la mosaïque de Cheikh Zouède au Sinaï (IV-Ve siècle), in: Paunier, D., Schmidt, Ch (ed. by), la Mosaïque gréco-romaine VIII. Actes du  VIIIe Colloque international de la mosaïque antique et médiévale, Lausanne 1997 (2001), pp. 276-301.

La célèbre mosaïque de Cheikh Zouède, situé au nord-ouest du Sinaï, ainsi que celle de Vinon dans la Gaule Narbonaise ont été découvertes dans les années dix du XXe siècle. Depuis leurs mises à jour jusqu’à la fin du siècle dernier, elles devaient attendre deux réexamens scientifiques qui ont apportés une analyse iconographique plus complète ainsi que deux nouvelles lectures iconologiques que l’on peut sans doute considerer comme sensationelles !
La mosaïque de Cheikh Zouède est composée de trois tableaux superposés. Deux panneaux représentent des scenes mythologiques: procession dionysiaque et Hippolyte et Phèdre. La troisième image comporte une inscription de bienvenue bordée au-dessus et au-dessous d’animaux et de plantes; une allusion aux scènes nilotiques et à la symbolique printanière et automnale.
La mosaïque de Vinon est également composée de trois tableaux qui sont cependant juxtaposés. Ils représentent, au centre, les trois Grâces et deux scènes à caractère dionysiaques. Celle de gauche représente le don de la vigne (grappes de raisins) par Dionysos à Icarios et celle de droite, le sacrilège de la vigne par un bouc. Les deux mosaïques sont accompagnées par des inscriptions en grec et latin. Elles sont datées à la première moitié du Ve siècle.
On connais plusieurs inscriptions, images et symboles de caractère apothropaïque. C’est pourtant la première fois que des images mythologiques ont dévoilées aux chercheurs leurs sens prophylactique et apotropaïque. Les propriétaires de ces deux résidences ornées de belles mosaïques ont choisis ces thèmes mythologiques pour protéger et écarter le Mauvais Œil et l’Envie. Les sujets dionysiaques dans les salles à manger évoquent probablement des fêtes joyeuses arrosées de vin où la danse et la musique constituaient des éléments essentiels. Par contre, l’abondance nilotique évoquait sans doute le bonheur et l’opulence des dons de la Nature sur les tables de la maison; cette signification concernait certainement aussi les scènes dionysiaques. Les maisons ont été protégées par Dionysos, Héraclès et Vénus.
Pour interpréter ces deux œuvres, les auteurs ont utilisé des recherches sur “l’histoire de la mentalité” des sociétés administrées par les Romains. La lecture de ces deux mosaïques confirme ce que l’on vient de découvrir en étudiant le célèbre texte d’Artémidore de Daldis (IIe siècle) sur les images synonimiques (cf. M.T. Olszewski, Le statut de l'image selon Artémidore et l'art romain, in: Morlier, H. ed., IXe Colloque international pour l'étude de la mosaïque antique et médiévale, Roma 5.11.2001-10.11.2001, Collection de l'Ecole Française de Rome 352/2, Rome 2005, pp. 859-880).
Voir M.T. Olszewski, La mosaïque de style naïf de Cheikh Zouède au Sinaï, Archeologia (Warsaw) 53, 2002, pp. 45–61, pls III+VI; M.T. Olszewski, Mauvais œil et protection contre l'envie dans la mosaïque de Cheikh Zouède au Sinaï (IV-Ve siècle), in: Paunier, D., Schmidt, Ch (ed. by), la Mosaïque gréco-romaine VIII. Actes du  VIIIe Colloque international de la mosaïque antique et médiévale, Lausanne 1997 (2001), pp. 276-301.

"Sommaire:
1. LES PÈRES DE L'ÉGLISE
2. RÉPERTOIRE FIGURÉ DU DÉCOR
3. EXPLICATION DES IMAGES AUX CATÉCHUMÈNES
4. LES SYMBOLIQUES DU PRINTEMPS
5. A L'IMAGE DE LA PERFECTION DIVINE
6. MÉTHODE D'INTERPRÉTATION PAR ANALOGIE
7. CYRILLE DE JÉRUSALEM
8. LES ANALOGIES DE L'ÉVÈQUE CYRILLE
9. ÉGLISE DES SAINTS-APÔTRES À MADABA
10. PREMIÈRE ÉGLISE DÉCOUVERTE À PETRA
11. BASILIQUE DE DOUMETIOS À NIKOPOLIS
12. BASILIQUE DE CHRISTOPOLITISSA À PAPHOS
13. ÉGLISE DE QABR HIRAM
14. ÉGLISE DE PHOTIOS À HOUARTÉ
15. ÉGLISE DE MICHAËLION À HOUARTÉ
16. ÉGLISE DE MIRATA
cf. M.T. Olszewski, L'image et sa fonction dans la mosaïque byzantine des premières basiliques en Orient: l'iconographie chrétienne expliquée par Cyrille de Jérusalem (314-387) / The image and its function in the byzantine mosaics ... : the christian iconography explained by Cyril of Jerusalem (314-387), Cahiers Archéologiques 43, 1995, pp. 9-34. "

This article will discuss four graffiti from the Byzantine period that were incised during the construction of water systems. Two were incised into the plaster of water reservoirs that were adjacent to or part of Byzantine churches in the western Upper Galilee. The other two were found in the Judean Foothills – one on the doorpost of a Jewish ritual bath (mikveh) from the Second Temple period that was repurposed as a cistern in the Byzantine era; the other, carved into the wall of a deep well dug near a church or monastery. These graffiti include various Christian symbols. The symbolic and meaning of those graffiti will be discussed below. They evidently represent the inner feelings and beliefs of their Byzantine-period builders. RÉSUMÉ Cet article traitera de quatre graffitis de la période byzantine qui ont été gravés lors de la construction de systèmes d'eau. Deux d'entre eux ont été gravés dans le plâtre de réservoirs d'eau adjacents ou faisant partie d'églises byzantines dans l'ouest de la haute Galilée. Les deux autres ont été trouvés dans les contreforts de la Judée, un sur le montant de porte d'un bain rituel juif (mikveh) de la période

The Pandektes of Antiochos of Mar Saba is one of a large dossier of writings that were provoked by the Persian conquest of Jerusalem and surrounding events in the first third of the seventh century. It is often cited by historians for its few but valuable details about contemporary historical events, and occasionally used by patrologists to unearth new patristic citations. But the work’s purpose and its Sitz-im-Leben in a monastic culture of intensive reading and conversation has been largely neglected.
The work consists of a series of ethical discourses, prefaced by a letter to an abbot Eustathios and concluded by a lengthy penitential prayer. Eustathios directed a monastery named Attalinê, in Ankyra of Galatia, where Antiochos had begun his monastic life before moving to Mar Saba. Due to the Persian invasion, the monks of Attalinê had been forced to leave behind their monastery, library included. Eustathios requested of Antiochos a digest of the Scriptures, as an edifying vade mecum for the homeless monks.
Each of the 130 chapters deals with a particular virtue or vice, addressing it primarily through patristic quotations, followed by a collection of supporting scriptural texts. It is not exactly a florilegium, given Antiochos’ active role in paraphrasing and adapting his texts. The patristic sources include both pre-Nicene Fathers—Ignatios of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Hermas of Rome, Irenaios of Lyons, the pseudo-Clementine Epistles to Virgins—and post-Nicene ascetical authors, including Evagrios of Pontos, Diadochos of Photikê and John of Karpathos. The selection must reflect to some degree the availability of books in the monasteries in the environs of Jerusalem. It thus provides us with evidence for how authors at the end of late antiquity drew on the developing patristic canon and interpreted it for their own didactic purposes.
Antiochos primarily speaks to the monastic readership for which the work was requested, but he also sought to make it useful to a wider audience. At certain points he hints at oral delivery; perhaps Antiochos tried the discourses out on locals before sending off the polished form to the distant Galatians. Furthermore, in the course of the work, Antiochos provides evidence for the ubiquity of interactions between monks and laypeople, including frequent conversations on spiritual topics, and seeks to advise monks on how such visits should be conducted in order to edify laypeople while preserving monastic detachment.
With its traces of both written citations and spoken teachings, the Pandektes offers an important window into both the literate and oral culture of Palestinian monasticism in the early seventh century. It also shows how the two were organically interwoven and mutually influential, and how the fruits of such interaction might be collected in a book that was sent far away, in a monastic and literary network extending to Galatia. As such, it is an important test case for reading circles and cultures in the early Byzantine period.

Abstract: Le village de Shahba, devenu la colonie romaine de Philippopolis, est situé à quatre-vingt dix kilomètres au sud de Damas et à vingt kilomètres au nord de Suweida’ en Syrie du Sud. Sa notoriété et son développement sont dus à l’empereur Philippe l’Arabe qui a transformé la petite bourgade où sa famille s’était installée, en une petite, mais riche cité de 244 à 249 lors de son règne.
La mosaïque polychrome qu’on pourrait appeller mosaïque de la « Fête Nocturne Pannychis » - à cause de sa représentation personnifiée - a été quelque peu oubliée par la littérature scientifique. On trouve cependant quelques brèves descriptions dans les travaux de J. Balty, de J.-Ch. Balty, de H. Hatoum, de L. Abad Casal, de H. Sichterman et d’A. Kossatz-Deismann. À ma connaissance, elle n’a été publiée que par petits fragments. Seul J.-Ch. Balty, dans un article du LIMC consacré à la personnification abstraite d’Euphrasia, propose une rapide interprétation de la mosaïque en expliquant le sens des mots « pannychis » et « euphrasia ».
La mosaïque de Pannychis n’est plus malheureusement en place, on peut néanmoins supposer, vu le thème représenté, qu’elle devait probablement orner une salle à manger (triclinium ou œcus).
Cette mosaïque rectangulaire, abritée au musee de Shahba, est composée d’une large bordure géométrique, de six petits panneaux représentant des personnifications inscrites sur les cotés courts du tapis, et d’un grand tableau central avec une effigie des trois Grâces (Charites) mis en valeur dans une belle bordure géométrique de ruban torsadé. Les tableaux angulaires représentent les Quatre Saisons. En commençant par l’angle gauche dans la rangée inférieure et en suivant le mouvement contraire à celui des aiguilles d’une montre, les Saisons sont placées en ordre suivant : Theros (l’Été), Methoporon (l’Automne), Heimon[e] (l’Hiver) et Ear (le Printemps). Entre l’Été et l’Automne, l’artiste a placé le buste de la personnification féminine de Pannychis – de la Fête Nocturne. Entre les personnifications du Printemps et de l’Hiver, le portrait en trois quart de la personnification féminine d’Euphrasia – (la Gaîté, la Joie dans un festin, la Réjouissance) a été placée.
Quel sens se cache derrière toutes ces images et à quelle idée elles font allusions ? Si le tableau central est le plus grand, il n’est que complémentaire par rapport aux panneaux latéraux. La clé du programme de la mosaïque est la personnification de Pannychis – de la Fête Nocturne. La personnification de la Gaîté – Euphrasia fait son pendant.
Que sait-on de ces faites nocturnes que les citoyens romains hellénisés en Orient célébraient en se réunissant en grand nombre ? Une source inestimable dans la recherche sur l’histoire des mentalités grecques sous la domination romaine est l’auteur grec d’Éphèse connu sous le nom d’Artémidore de Daldis, spécialiste de l’oniromancie. Il est célèbre grâce à son manuel d’interprétation des rêves (Onirocriticon) rédigé probablement à Éphèse à la fin du IIe siècle. Artémidore parle des Fêtes nocturnes vues dans les rêves. La fête nocturne est célébrée très joyeusement par ses participants. C’est une fête bruyante avec danse et musique. C’est l’occasion pour tout le monde de se rassembler et de faire de nouvelles connaissances. De plus, cette fête permet aux jeunes de dépasser certaines interdictions et d’exprimer leurs sentiments. Les nouveaux couples formés durant cette fête nocturne peuvent confirmer leur engagement par un mariage. Artémidore effectue des rapprochement entre la Fête nocturne et la réunion de personnes, le mariage, la gaîté, la bonne humeur, l’abondance et l’acquisition des biens (pour les pauvres). Le Pannychis et l’Euphrasia sont présents ensemble dans le texte d’Artémidore comme sur la mosaïque de Philippopolis. Sa description met l’accent sur des éléments caractérisant la Fête Nocturne : la joie, la bonne humeur et l’abondance (de la table et des boissons) que les fêtes offrent aux participants. La signification des Charites est complémentaire de celle qui est évoquée par les personnifications de Pannychis et d’Euphrasia. Le tableau de la mosaïque de Philippopolis fait sans doute allusion aux fêtes nocturnes que le propriétaire envisageait d’organiser, et sans aucun doute organisait dans sa demeure.
La mosaïque de la Fête Nocturne de Philippopolis qui ornait probablement un triclinium rappelle ce qu’on rencontre dans d’autres salles à manger chez les riches propriétaires. La théorie du caractère allusif à la vie de l’aristocratie de l’époque romaine (et de ses nouveaux riches) dans la décoration interne des maisons et des villa a de plus en plus de partisans parmi les chercheurs. La mosaïque de Philippopolis ressemble à la décoration des salles à manger qui évoquent la fête, les festins, la boisson, la bonne nourriture, la musique et la danse, tout les ingrédients d’un banquet réussi.

Cet article est consacré à l’analyse morphologique et chronologique des amphores dites « LRA 4 » présentes en Méditerranée et sur les côtes de la mer Noire. Cette étude se fonde sur plusieurs contextes archéologiques datés du iie au viie siècle et localisés en Méditerranée et sur le littoral nord de la mer Noire.

The iconography of the Communion of the Apostles, a theme well established in Byzantine art after Iconoclasm, first appears in a securely dated context in the silver patens from Riha and Stuma. These silver plates were produced in Constantinople sometime between 575 and 578. The iconography with the twofold depiction of Christ is usually explained as a reflection of the liturgical practice of the Eucharist, namely, as a reflection of the two actors in the Eucharistic rite, the priest and a deacon distributing bread and wine. I argue instead that during the early Byzantine period the twofold depiction of Christ is an expression of the two natures of Christ directed against the Miaphysites. I propose that the exceptional appearance of the scene in the two early Byzantine silver patens from church treasures from northern Syria is likely to be explained by its Christological significance with regard to Chalcedonian Eucharistic doctrine during the persecution of the Miaphysites in the 570s.