254 CHAPTER NINEhall, so that the first thing to come into view were benches where fellow
congregants sat) usually were paved in stone, not mosaic, but may have had
frescoes on their walls.^33
Other synagogues were entered at the rear of the hall .It is not clear whether
in such synagogues wooden benches, or perhaps straw mats, were set on the
mosaic pavement of the nave facing front, or whether people sat only along
the walls or in the aisles.^34 A priori, the latter option seems more plausible, if
only because it would restrict wear to the relatively inexpensive and easily
repaired geometric aisle mosaics .Sepphoris may be a special case because it
had only a single narrow aisle, which may not have been able to accommodate
all the congregation; some may therefore have had to sit (or stand?) in the
nave .However, the rather crude repairs to the nave mosaic are concentrated
in the area in front of the bema, where liturgical activity was naturally concen-
trated; there is no evidence of wear elsewhere, as far as I can tell .This seems
to imply that the nave was not much used by the congregation for seating or
standing, unless it was protected by a carpet or mats (but even so, the mosaic
would have become worn) .In any case, one certainly saw, upon entering, first
of all the narthex mosaic, then, if the nave was clear, a sweep of images leading
up to the officiant, who stood before the ark at the front of the hall .This
sweep of images is, as suggested above, an important stabilizing element in
the interpretation of the pavements because it is an inescapable sensory reality,
visible to every congregant, regardless of status, as long as the pavement was
in place.^35
In many such synagogues the nave floor featured a design that had three
fixed elements: the zodiac circle toward the center of the nave and, at the
front, a scene containing a Torah shrine, flanked bymenorot,lulavim,etrogim,
and incense shovels, with additional elements in some places (e.g., Daniel in
the lions’ den at Susiyah and Na’aran) .The third shared scene, of lions or
other large animals protectively flanking an inscribed wreath, appears in differ-
ent places in the pavements .At Hammat Tiberias and Bet Alfa, the animals
are closest to the narthex, but at the latter, where they are a lion and a bull,
they rather oddly have their backs to the entrant, and additional lions, if that
is what they are, guard the ark, while at Sepphoris, the lions guard not the
entrance but only the ark, and they hold bull’s heads in their paws, a motif
used also in the lintel frieze of the synagogue of Horvat Ammudim .Such
animals are often designated “heraldic” in the scholarship but may be more
accurately regarded as apotropaic or protective .It may be relevant to mention
(^33) On the likelihood that Galilean-type synagogues (as well as others) were decorated with
frescoes, see Hachlili,Ancient Jewish Art, p .224; add to Hachlili’s list the Meroth synagogue: Z.
Ilan and I .Damati,Meroth: The Ancient Jewish Village(Tel Aviv: Society for the Protection of
Nature, 1987), p .49 (pl .); and Levine,Ancient Synagogue, pp .336–40.
(^34) Levine, “From Community Center,” pp .45–47, is inconclusive.
(^35) I owe this point to Natalie Kampen.