1 See Leibner, U., Settlement and history in Hellenistic, Roman, and Byzantine Galilee: an archaeological survey of the Eastern Galilee (Tübingen 2009) 151 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 The Septuagint gives the name as Ιακανα (LXX Josh 19:34), which is either an unusual transliteration of or refers to a different village altogether. For the identification of Biblical Huqqoq with the Arab village of Yakuk, see Lissovsky, N. and Na'aman, N., “A new look on the boundary system of the Twelve Tribes,” Ugarit-Forschungen 35 (2003) especially 293–97Google Scholar. The list of Asher's Levitical cities in 1 Chronicles 6 includes Huqoq ([MT, 6:60]; Ακακ [LXX 6:75]), but this may reflect an orthographic mistake made by the Chronicler since the same list in Joshua 21:31 has “Helkath and with its pasture lands” instead of Huqoq. See Williamson, H. G. M., 1 and 2 Chronicles (Grand Rapids, MI 1982) 76 Google Scholar; Japeth, S., I & II Chronicles: a commentary (Louisville, KY 1993) 145 Google Scholar; Lissovsky and Na‘aman ibid. 294.

3 Joshua's claim that Huqoq marked the W boundary of Naphtali is confusing, as Huqoq is located farther east than would be expected. However, Lissovsky and Na'aman (ibid. 293-97) believe there were gaps in the boundaries between ancient Israelite tribes that are not obvious from the Biblical text.

4 Some secondary scholarship claims, without supporting references, that the site was called Hucuca (a transliteration of its Hebrew name in Joshua 19:34) during the Early Roman period; see, e.g., Khalidi, W. (ed.), All that remains: the Palestinian villages occupied and depopulated by Israel in 1948 (Washington, DC 1992) 546 Google Scholar. Damati, E. (“Kefar Ekho-Huqoq: the unidentified fortress of Josephus,” Cathedra 39 [1986] 37–43 [Hebrew])Google Scholar suggested that Huqoq was Josephus’ ‘missing’ fortress of Caphareccho (καφαρεκχω) from the late 1st c. A.D. ( Jos., , BJ 2.573 Google Scholar; cf. Vit. 37), but this identification has been rejected by most scholars; see Leibner (supra n.1) 153.

5 Located on a hill overlooking the Sea of Galilee, Huqoq is 5.1 km west of Capernaum (the home town of Peter and base of Jesus’ Galilean ministry) and 4.5 km north of Migdal/Magdala (the home town of Mary Magdalene).

6 Lissovsky, N. (“Hukkok, Yakuk and Habakkuk's tomb: changes over time and space,” PEQ 140.2 [2008] 106–7)CrossRefGoogle Scholar suggests that a stone pavement and steps associated with the mediaeval “Tomb of Habakkuk” might date from the Roman period, but acknowledges that a road does not appear in Tsafrir, Y., Segni, L. Di and Green, J., Tabula Imperii Romani – maps and gazetteer. Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods (Jerusalem 1994) Map 4Google Scholar. For an attempt to trace the routes that Jesus traveled along the Sea of Galilee, see Pixner, B., Paths of the Messiah: sites of the Early Christian Church from Galilee to Jerusalem (San Francisco, CA 2010) 53–76 Google Scholar.

7 Lissovsky and Na‘aman (supra n.2) 204-95; Leibner (supra n.1) 153-54.

8 y. Sanhed. 3.10, 21d.

9 y. Pesah. 1.4, 27c.

10 y. Shev. 9.1, 38c. This story shows that mustard seed was classified by the Rabbis as a wild plant (and not a cultivated vegetable) for halakhic purposes; see Leibner (supra n.1) 153-54.

11 Lissovsky and Na‘aman (supra n.2) 295; Lissovsky (supra n.6) 105; Leibner (supra n.1) 153.

12 Ben-Zvi, I., “The Jewish settlement at Hukkok-Yakuk,” Bulletin of the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society 6 (1939) 30–33 Google Scholar [Hebrew]; Lissovsky (supra n.6).

13 Documents show that in the late 16th c. Yakuk had almost 400 inhabitants, who paid taxes on wheat, barley, olives, goats, beehives, and a grape or olive press. According to surveys and government records from 1845 to 1875, its population fluctuated from 150 to 200 villagers, who were housed in 20-30 stone dwellings and farmed lands allotted for cereals and orchards. In 1943, a Jewish kibbutz called Huqoq was established 2 km to the southeast of Yakuk. In May 1948, Israeli Palmach forces marched from Tiberias to Safed, resulting in the abandonment or evacuation of many villages along the way, including Yakuk; see Khalidi (supra n.4) 546-57. The IDF conducted military exercises in the abandoned village until it was bulldozed by order of the Israeli government in 1968.

14 See Guérin, V., Description géographique, historique et archéologique de la Palestine: Galilée (Paris 1880) 354–59Google Scholar; Conder, C. R. and Kitchener, H. H., The Survey of Western Palestine, vol. 1: Galilee (London 1881) 364-65 and 420 Google Scholar; Leibner (supra n.1) 151.

15 Leibner ibid.

16 The ossuaries were made of limestone, were roughly dressed with heavy chisel-marks, and had flat lids; see Aviam, M. and Syon, D., “Jewish ossilegium in Galilee,” in Rutgers, L. V. (ed.), What Athens has to do with Jerusalem. Festschrift Foerster (Leuven 2002) 168 and 176–77Google Scholar; Rahmani, L. Y., A catalogue of Jewish ossuaries in the collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem 1994) 116 no. 158, pl. 22Google Scholar.

17 Ravani, B. and Kahane, P., “Rock-cut tombs at Huqoq,” ̒Atiqot 3 (1961) 143 Google Scholar.

18 Daryn, G., The settlement at Huqoq in light of historical research and archaeological finds (unpublished high school thesis; Beth Yerah 1982)Google Scholar [Hebrew] (Magness is grateful to Daryn for providing a copy); Tepper, Y. and Shahar, Y., “Hiding complexes in the Galilee,” in Kloner, A. and Tepper, Y. (edd.), The hiding complexes in the Judean Shephelah (Tel Aviv 1987) 311–13 [Hebrew]Google Scholar; Tepper, Y., Daryn, G. and Tepper, Y., The Nahal ̒Amud district: chapters in its settlement process (Tel Aviv 2000) 25 and 84–85 [Hebrew]Google Scholar; Leibner (supra n.1) 151.

19 Daryn ibid. 23; Ilan, Z., Ancient synagogues in Israel (Tel Aviv 1991) 122 [Hebrew]Google Scholar; Leibner (supra n.1) 152. The lintel fragment carved with a menorah has disappeared from the site.

20 Leibner (ibid. 154-55) reports the dates and relative percentages of his pottery sample as: Hellenistic (only 2 jars), Early Roman (19%), Late Roman (43%), and Byzantine (c. 25%). Based on this survey, he concluded that the Jewish settlement at Huqoq began in the Late Hellenistic period, continued to grow in the Early Roman, reached its greatest extent in the Late Roman, and gradually declined through the Byzantine period. Leibner's claim (based on data from other sites) that the Jewish population of the Lower Eastern Galilee declined from the mid-4th c. has been challenged by Magness, J., “Did Galilee decline in the fifth century? The synagogue at Chorazin reconsidered,” in Zangenberg, J., Attridge, H. W. and Martin, D. B. (edd.), Religion, ethnicity, and identity in ancient Galilee (Tübingen 2007) 259–74Google Scholar; ead., “Did Galilee experience a settlement crisis in the mid-fourth century?” in Levine, L. I. and Schwartz, D. R. (edd.), Jewish identities in late antiquity: M. Stern memorial vol. (Tübingen 2009) 296–313 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Leibner (supra n.1) 151.

22 Lissovsky (supra n.6) 105; Leibner ibid. 155-58.

23 This suggestion was first made by A. Alt in 1931 following his visit to the site: Palästinajahrbuch 27 (1931) 40 n.2Google Scholar; see Tepper, Daryn and Tepper (supra n.18) 25 and 45.

24 For preliminary reports, see Magness, J. et al. in ESI (Hadashot Arkheologiyot) 124 (2012) at http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.asp?id=1959&mag_id=119 Google Scholar; ead., Kisilevitz, S., Grey, M., Spigel, C. and Coussens, B. in ESI 125 (2013) at http://www.hadashot-esi.org.il/report_detail_eng.aspx?id=3331&mag_id=120 Google Scholar; Magness, , “Samson in the synagogue,” BAR 39.1 (2013) 32-39 and 66–67 Google Scholar; ead., “New mosaics from the Huqoq synagogue,” BAR 39.5 (2013) 66–68 Google Scholar; Grey, M., “‘The redeemer to arise from the House of Dan’: Samson, apocalypticism, and Messianic hope in late antique Galilee,” JSJ 44.4 (2013) 553–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 S. Kisilevitz (IAA) is assistant director of the excavations. In 2011 (the late) D. Amit was a co-director but unfortunately unable to participate due to illness.

26 The area supervisors in 2011-13 were: C. Spigel (ancient village); M. Grey (synagogue); B. Coussens (modern village); B. McCane (southern miqveh).

27 For miqva'ot adjacent to agricultural fields and installations, see Adler, Y., “Second Temple period ritual baths adjacent to agricultural installations,” JSJ 59 (2008) 62–72 Google Scholar.

28 D. Avshalom-Gorni, pers. comm.

29 Magness, , ESI 2012 Google Scholar (supra n.24).

30 See Corbo, V. C., Cafarnao I: Gli edifici della città (Jerusalem 1975)Google Scholar; Loffreda, S., Cafarnao V: Documentazione fotografica degli scavi (1968-2003) (Jerusalem 2005)Google Scholar, pianta generale in pocket.

31 For ARS Form 84, see J. W. Hayes, Late Roman pottery (= LRP) 132-33. For Cypriot Red Slip Form 1, see LRP 372-74 and LRP Suppl. 528. For Kefar Hananya Forms 1C-1E, see Adan-Bayewitz, D., Common pottery in Roman Galilee (Ramat-Gan 1993) 98–109 Google Scholar (his dates for Kefar Hananya Ware are cited here). For bilanceolate oil lamps with impressed decoration (a northern type), see Hadad, S., The oil lamps from the Hebrew University excavations at Bet Shean (Qedem Reports 4, 2002) 26–29 Google Scholar; Uzzieli, T. C., “The oil lamps,” in Hirschfeld, Y., The Roman baths of Hammat Gader, final report (Jerusalem 1997) 320–22Google Scholar (who dates them mainly to the late 4th-early 5th c.). There is also a possible example of ARS 61B, dated c. 400-450 (LRP 100-7).

32 For Late Roman “C” (Phocaean Red Slip Ware) Form 3 and motif 68, and Cypriot Red Slip Ware Form 2, see LRP 329-38, 365 and 373-76. As the deposits and collapse above the floors were not sealed, a small number of sherds of the Abbasid and Crusader-Mamluke periods were present here. Nevertheless, the units’ abandonment may be dated to the first half of the 6th c. as there are no other later finds. The paucity of Kefar Hananya Ware, represented by a few examples of Form 1E, indicates that these pieces are residual; see Magness, J., “The pottery from the village at Capernaum and the dating of Galilean synagogues,” Tel Aviv 39.2 (2012) 238–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 For previously-documented hiding tunnels at Huqoq, see Tepper and Shahar (supra n.18) 311-13 [Hebrew].

34 Because of the importance of a probable Crusader-Mamluke mosaic, this piece was left in situ while excavations in the rest of the square continued.

35 See Edelmann, H. (ed.), Caftor wa-pherach, by Estori, ha-Parhi (Berlin 1852) 46 (chapt 11)Google Scholar. The Hebrew phrase that Haparchi used to describe the floor as “very old” occurs once in the Hebrew Bible, in Lev 26:10 (I owe this information to J. Lam).

36 Daryn (supra n.18) 23 suggested that this was the approximate location of the synagogue mentioned by Haparchi. Although not built in the Crusader period, Meroth is a rare example of a synagogue that continued in use through the Middle Ages, as indicated by the discovery of a hoard containing 485 coins dating from the 2nd c. B.C. to the end of the 12th c. A.D.: see Ilan, Z., “Meroth,” in NEAEHL (1993) 1030 Google Scholar.

37 The latest pieces found below the Crusader-Mamluke floor are an amphora rim of the 12th-13th c. (see M. Avissar and E. Stern, Pottery of the Crusader, Ayyubid, and Mamluk periods in Israel [IAA Report 26, 2005] 108 no. 8); a fragment of a slip-painted bowl, a type that begins in the 12th c. and is most common in the Mamluke period (ibid. 19-21); two fragments of a green-glazed bowl of the 12th-13th c. (ibid. 13 no. 1), and a tiny fragment of a green glazed bowl made of mediumdark gray ware. We thank E. Stern for assistance with identifying the mediaeval pottery. None of the coins postdates the Late Roman period.

38 Because the mosaic depicting Samson carrying the gate of Gaza did not extend into the baulks, and because the bedding was unstable, this piece was removed for conservation.

39 See Amit, D., “Mosaic inscription from the synagogue mosaic at Horvat Huqoq,” BAR 39.1 (2013), available at www.biblicalarchaeology.org/huqoqmosaics Google Scholar

40 The pottery report is based on identifications made by D. Schindler; the coins were read by N. Elkins.

41 For Cypriot Red Slip Ware Form 1, see LRP 372-74 and LRP Suppl. 528. For Kefar Hananya Forms 1E and 4E, see Adan-Bayewitz (supra n.30) 103-9 and 132-35. The chalky buff color and fine detail of the bow-shaped oil lamp in pl. 1.17 indicate that it is a Judean (Beit Nattif) product, rather than a northern imitation of this type, although the dots encircling a sunken discus are unusual (this type generally does not have a sunken discus, and, when it does, the discus is encircled by dots framed by a tongue pattern). For oil lamps with a bow-shaped nozzle of the Beit Nattif type and northern imitations, see Y. Israeli and Avida, U., Oil-lamps from Eretz Israel: the Warschaw Collection (Jerusalem 1988) 116-27 and 132–33Google Scholar; Magness, J., “The oil lamps from the south cemetery,” in Avni, G., Dahari, U. and Kloner, A. (edd.), The necropolis of Bet Guvrin-Eleutheropolis (IAA Report 36, 2008) 130 Google Scholar; Hadad 2002 (supra n.30) 30-35 (Type 17); Rosenthal, R. and Sivan, R., Ancient lamps in the Schloessinger Collection (Qedem 8, 1978) 104–8Google Scholar. For bilanceolate oil lamps with impressed decoration, see Hadad ibid. 26-29; Uzzieli (supra n.30) 320-22 (who dates them mainly to the late 4th-early 5th c.).

42 I am grateful to O. Cohen, the mosaic conservator, who assisted with measurements and provided invaluable assistance with other aspects of the technical documentation.

43 Judges 16:3 (all translations are from the NRSV [London 1989]).

44 There are further areas of destruction within the extant sections. The mosaic appears to continue beneath the W and N baulks.

45 The mosaic appears to continue beneath the S and W baulks.

46 Croom, A., Roman clothing and fashion (Stroud 2010) 33-38 and 51–53 Google Scholar; Sumner, G., Roman military clothing, vol. 2: AD 200-400 (Oxford 2003) 41 Google Scholar; according to him, the commonest color combination in painting and mosaic is a white tunic with a yellow-brown cloak, followed by a white tunic with a red cloak. We may compare a figure in military dress (a cloak and a short tunica with orbiculi near the knees and on the shoulder) in the ‘Cubiculum of the Sheep’ in the 4th-c. Catacomb of Callixtus ( Wilpert, G., Roma sotteranea: le pitture delle catacombe romane [Rome 1903] 506, pl. 237)Google Scholar.

47 For the rôle played by Samson in Galilee, see Grey (supra n.24); J. Magness, “Samson in the synagogue” (supra n.24).

48 Leibner, U., “Excavations at Khirbet Wadi Hamam (Lower Galilee): the synagogue and the settlement,” JRA 23 (2010) 220–37Google Scholar; id. and S. Miller, “A figural mosaic in the synagogue at Khirbet Wadi Hamam,” JRA 23 (2010) 252-56.

49 Ibid. 239.

50 Ibid. 256.

51 His size led Leibner and Miller (ibid. 252-56) initially to consider the possibility that the scene represented the battle between David and Goliath. Due to the number of figures depicted (not found in accounts of the battle between David and Goliath) and the fact that the giant is shown as winning, they set this theory aside in favor of Samson smiting the Philistines, which is now confirmed by the mosaic at Huqoq.

52 Ibid. 256.

53 Leibner (supra n.48) 234.

54 Leibner and Miller (supra n.48) 261.

55 J. Magness in Tel Aviv 2012 (supra n.32) 113.

56 The section on the reception of Samson, including bibliographical references, is based on Grey (supra n.24).

57 Reiner, E. and Amit, D., “Samson follows the sun to Galilee,” Ha’aretz (Oct. 6, 2012)Google Scholar, claim that there existed a local tradition which viewed Samson's exploits as occurring in Galilee, but the evidence for this claim is tenuous.

58 See m. Sotah 1:8; t. Sotah 1:8; b. Sotah 10b; b. Sanh. 105a; Gen. Rab. 67:13, 85:6; Num. Rab. 9:24. For more on the Rabbis’ negative views of Samson, see Marks, R. G., “Dangerous hero: Rabbinic attitudes toward legendary warriors,” Hebrew Union College Annual 54 (1983) 181–94Google Scholar. Fogel, S., in ‘Samson’s shoulders were sixty cubits’: three issues about Samson’s image in the eyes of the Rabbis (M.A. thesis, Ben-Gurion University 2009) [Hebrew]Google Scholar, also considers Rabbinic traditions of Samson's superhuman strength and the Rabbinic perception of Samson as a failed messiah.

59 Grey (supra n.24) 560-66; cf. Reiner, E., “From Joshua to Jesus: the transformation of a Biblical story to a local myth,” Zion 61 (1996) 281–317 [Hebrew]Google Scholar, and Irshai, O., “The earthquake in the valley of Arbel: a Galilean apocalyptic tradition, its historical context and liturgical commemorative setting,” Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature and Folklore 25 (2012) 1–26 [Hebrew]Google Scholar.

60 These views are reflected in the Sefer Zerubbabel, an apocalyptic text probably composed in the early 7th c. but containing traditions that could date as early as the 3rd; see Himmelfarb, M., “Sefer Zerubbabel,” in Stern, D. and Mirsky, M. J. (edd.), Rabbinic fantasies: imaginative narratives from Classical Hebrew literature (Philadelphia, PA 1990) 67–90 Google Scholar, and Reeves, J. C., Trajectories in Near Eastern apocalyptic: a postrabbinic Jewish apocalypse reader (Atlanta, GA 2005) 51–66 Google Scholar.

61 Grey (supra n.24) 567-81.

62 Hel. Syn. Pr. 6.1-2, 7 (Apos. Con. 7.37.1–5). The ‘Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers’ is a collection of 3rdc. A.D. Jewish prayers from Palestine that were written in Hebrew or Aramaic but compiled in Syria in the 4th c. and preserved in Greek in the Christian Apostolic Constitutions; see Fiensy, D. A. and Darnell, D., “Hellenistic synagogal prayers,” in Charlesworth, J. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vol. 2 (New York) 671–97Google Scholar; Fiensy, D. A., Prayers alleged to be Jewish: an examination of the Constitutiones Apostolorum (Chico, CA 1985)Google Scholar.

63 Syren, R., The blessings in the Targums: a study on the Targumic interpretations of Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33 (Abo 1986) 76-77, 81 and 113–15Google Scholar.

64 See Tg. Neof. Gen 49:16-18 and Tg. Ps.-J. Gen 49:16-18.

65 Tg. Ps.-J. Deut 34:1-3.

66 Grey (supra n.24) 581-86.

67 For example, Clement of Alexandria (Paedagogus III 9, 68, 3) saw Samson as a negative type of Joseph; whereas Joseph fled from temptations and remained chaste, Samson succumbed to the lusts of the flesh. Hippolytus (Fragmenta XXXIX) criticized Samson’s sinful fornications, while Ambrose (Epist. LXII 8-34) saw the Samson story as a warning against marrying unbelievers: see Gass, E. and Zissu, B., “Sel’a ‘Etam and Samson traditions, from the Biblical to the Byzantine periods,” in Segni, L. Di et al. (edd.), Man near a Roman arch: studies presented to Professor Yoram Tsafrir (Jerusalem) 25*–32* Google Scholar.

68 See Gass and Zissu ibid. 29*-30*; Magness, “Samson in the synagogue” (supra n.24) 39; Crenshaw, J., Samson: a secret betrayed, a vow ignored (Atlanta, GA 1978) 138–41Google Scholar; Krouse, F., Milton's Samson and the Christian tradition (Princeton, NJ 1949) 34–35 Google Scholar.

69 See Hill, C., “Antichrist from the tribe of Dan,” JTS 46 (1995) 99–117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 Examples include Hippolytus, Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 14-15; Origen, Comm. on John 6.12; Ambrose, , Patriarchs 7.32 Google Scholar; and Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius.

71 Budde, L., “Die frühchristlichen Mosaiken von Misis-Mopsuhestia in Kilikien,” Pantheon 18 (1960) 116–26Google Scholar; id., Antike Mosaiken in Kilikien I. Frühchristliche Mosaiken in Misis/Mopsuhestia (Recklinghausen 1969); and Buschhausen, H., “Die Deutung des Archemosaiks in der Justinianischen Kirche von Mopsuestia,” Jb. Öst. Byz. 21 (1972) 57–72 Google Scholar, both concluding it is a church; Kitzinger, E., “Observations on the Samson floor at Mopsuestia,” DOP 27 (1973) 133–44Google Scholar, gave no clear answer; Stichel, R., “Die Inschriften des Samson-Mosaiks in Mopsuestia und ihre Beziehung zum Biblischen Text,” ByzZ 71 (1978) 50–61 Google Scholar, and Avi-Yonah, M. (“The mosaics of Mopsuestia — church or synagogue?” in Levine, L. I. [ed.], Ancient synagogues revealed [Jerusalem 1981] 186–90)Google Scholar, both favored a synagogue.

72 Ferrua, A., Le pitture della nuova catacomba di Via Latina (Vatican City 1960)Google Scholar and id. (transl. I. Inglis), The unknown catacomb (New Lanark 1991); Tronzo, W., The Via Latina catacomb (University Park, PA 1986)Google Scholar.

73 Ferrua ibid. (1991) 83-84.

74 Contra Leibner and Miller (supra n.48) 256.

75 Ferrua 1991 (supra n.72) 124-27. Tronzo (supra n.72) 17, assigns Cubiculum L to the fourth phase (A.D. 350-370).

76 Ferrua 1991 (supra n.72) 107; Tronzo (supra n.72) 33 places Cubiculum F in the third phase, which he dates to c.340, while discussing the differences in style between Cubicula B, L and F.

77 Stillwell, R., Antioch-on-the-Orontes III (Princeton, NJ 1941) 126 and 137–38, pl. 17Google Scholar.

78 Amit (supra n.39) reconstructed and translated the inscription as Hebrew.

79 Personifications of the Seasons appear in synagogues with mosaics depicting a Helios/zodiac cycle, in which the zodiac wheel is inscribed in a square panel with the Seasons in corner spandrels. Synagogues decorated with this motif include Hammath Tiberias, Beth Alpha, Sepphoris, Huseifa, Na’aran and Khirbet Susiya. However, the Huqoq figures bear no resemblance to the Seasons in those synagogues, from which they also differ in arrangement (no association with a Helios/zodiac cycle) and through lacking the relevant attributes.

80 Victories and, later, angels were commonly depicted on each side of a wreath or medallion. Portrait-medallion sarcophagi became popular in the 3rd c. For examples and discussions of Jewish adaptations of this type, see Rutgers, L. V., The Jews in late ancient Rome: evidence of cultural interaction in the Roman diaspora (Leiden 2000) 77–81 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, whereas pairs of Victories typically are identical to each other, the Huqoq figures were distinguished by their hairstyles.

81 Prosperous Jewish and Christian women were active members and contributors to their religious communities in the E Mediterranean region, as indicated by inscriptions in synagogues and churches of the Byzantine era. For example, the prominent rôle played by women in funding the 4th-c. synagogue at Apamea (Syria) is unparalleled both for the number of inscriptions in which women are named (half of the 20) and the specificity with which their donations are noted (the precise numbers of feet of mosaic are given). For fuller discussions, see Noy, D. and Sorek, S., “‘Peace and mercy upon all your blessed people’: Jews and Christians at Apamea in late antiquity,” Jewish Culture and History 6.2 (2003) 18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Britt, K., “ Fama et memoria: portraits of female patrons in mosaic pavements of churches in Byzantine Palestine and Arabia,” Medieval Feminist Forum 44.2 (2008) 119–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar. However, whereas male and female donor portraits are not uncommon in floor mosaics of Byzantine churches in Palestine, to date no donor portraits — of men or women — are attested in ancient synagogues.

82 I am grateful to G. Stiebel for observations on the garments worn by the figures in this panel.

83 The head bears a strong resemblance to a 5th-c. male portrait sculpture from Ephesos: Kitzinger, E., Byzantine art in the making (Cambridge, MA 1977) fig. 149Google Scholar.