The Residence from the Late Roman Period at Lod ‏– The Magnificent Mosaics Discovered during the 1996–2014 Israel Antiquities Authority Excavations

This paper is dedicated to the memory of the late Miriam Avissar
Among her many accomplishments, Miriam directed the first excavation season at Lod during which the spectacular mosaic was discovered.

Published: May 2026

Introduction

The State of Israel has over 30,000 recognized archaeological sites protected by the Antiquities Law. The Israel Antiquities Authority, the statutory organization responsible for safeguarding historical and cultural assets, implements a range of measures to maintain and conserve these sites for future generations. These measures include meticulous scrutiny of development plans and close inspection of infrastructure work that could harm ancient remains. Despite its importance, inspecting infrastructure work is often boring and unsatisfying for an archaeologist. Such was not the case during a routine inspection on Halutz Street in Lod: On an ordinary morning in 1996, the work suddenly became very rewarding with the discovery of ancient remains that have since become one of the most important and widely discussed finds in Israel, now known as the “Lod Mosaic.” The mosaic was temporarily removed to allow groundwork for the construction of a visitor center and was displayed in the most prominent museums in the world. It drew unprecedented interest from both researchers and the general public wherever it was exhibited and served as a cultural ambassador for Israel. With the completion of the Lod Mosaic Center, the mosaic returned to its original site and is now on public display (Gorzalczany 2015a; 2022).

Background

The city of Lod lies near the southern bank of the Ayalon Valley (Wadi el-Kabir) in a fertile region with easy access to water sources. This, combined with its proximity to the eastern branch of the ancient Via Maris, which linked Egypt to Syria and Mesopotamia, contributed to its prosperity in antiquity (Schwartz 2015: 4; 1991: 19–25; Fischer et al. 1996: 6–20).

Neolithic occupation is attested (Kaplan 1977; Blockman 1997; Gopher and Blockman 2004; Segal 2012), and the tell preserves Bronze and Iron Age strata (e.g., Yannai and Marder 2000; Golani 2012; 2013; Paz et al. 2005). Likely part of Benjamin in the Persian period (Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37), Lod became a major Second Temple religious center, flourishing until the Bar Kokhba Revolt (Schwartz 2015:28–30). In 199–200 CE, the Roman Emperor Septimius Severus granted the city the enviable status of colonia, naming it Colonia Lucia Septimia Severa Diospolis (Oppenheimer 1988). The city began minting its own coins at this time. During the Byzantine period, the Church of Saint George gained prominence; it was located near the present-day church, whose origins date back to the Crusader period.

During the Early Islamic period, the city declined in importance, replaced by the new district capital of Ramla, the brainchild of the governor of Jund Filastīn, who later became Caliph Sulāyman b. ʿAbd el-Malek. Nevertheless, remains associated with this period were discovered in various excavations in the city, including at the Lod mosaic site. Monuments dating to the Ottoman period still embellish the city, including Khan el-Ḥilu, which was excavated in the framework of a community initiative (Gadot et al. 2008). The Early Islamic period was also identified in the mosaic excavations.

 It is fitting to conclude this review by noting that our own excavations uncovered items that shed light on recent periods often overlooked in archaeological documentation, such as the British Mandate (Gorzalczany 2012). Considering the broad regional perspective of the archaeology of Lod, we note the publication of the map of Lod within the framework of the Archaeological Survey of Israel (Gophna and Beit Arieh 1997).

The Excavations

History of research at the site

The Nevé Yaraq neighborhood in Lod, where the Lod Mosaic was discovered, lies southeast of the tell. The neighborhood has been widely studied, and numerous archaeological remains have been found near the mosaic site. Late Roman-period remains were uncovered in nine excavations, Byzantine-period finds in 19, and Early Islamic-period remains in 14 (Gorzalczany et al. 2016, as well as information from the Israel Antiquities Authority databases). The evidence shows that, especially during the Late Roman period, the neighborhood was home to a concentration of extraordinary domestic structures. It was an area of wealthy houses belonging to the city’s upper class, including rulers, government officials, rich merchants, and the cultural elite. This is demonstrated by prestigious remains, including many mosaics and marble architectural elements discovered there over the years. These finds indicate a high standard of living marked by luxuries and other indulgences typical of the powerful class. Additional mosaics were found several meters away from the current excavations (e.g., Rosenberger and Shavit 1993; Yannai and Erlich 2015). The observation regarding the neighborhood’s affluence is supported by testimony from numerous residents who have noticed similar mosaics in the past, and by additional archaeological remains between the present-day houses that become apparent after some light cleaning. Taken together, these findings make clear that the mosaic excavated by the Israel Antiquities Authority was not an isolated find but part of an expansive and elaborate neighborhood.

Several salvage excavations, whose extent and location were initially dictated by development needs, were conducted following the discovery of the mosaic. But this approach soon changed, and a conservation and education strategy was devised – in the form of proactively chosen excavation sites. The magnificent Lod Mosaic was revealed in the first such excavation, directed by Miriam Avissar. Extraordinarily well preserved, it was identified as part of a hall of a Late Roman-period residence (domus) (third–fourth centuries CE) (Avissar 1996, 1999; Ovadiah and Mucznik 1998; Talgam 2014:65–71) (Figs. 1, 2). Word of the discovery quickly spread throughout the city.

A large number of people wanted to get close and observe the discovery of this unique treasure. The Israel Antiquities Authority opened the site to the public for an entire weekend, and the response was enthusiastic. By the end of the first excavation season, it was clear to the excavators that, despite the importance and size of the discovery, most of the mosaic was still hidden and should be further exposed. Due to budget constraints and the uncertainty of plans, it was decided to backfill the site in order to safeguard the mosaic until a decision could be reached about its fate. Of course, preliminary conservation work was conducted before backfilling, along with full and precise documentation. In 2009, following a generous donation from Shelby White via the Leon Levy Foundation, it was decided to erect a visitor center where the mosaic could be permanently displayed. In that same year, the mosaic was re-exposed by Miriam Avissar and the author. When it became necessary to temporarily remove the mosaic from its find spot to keep it out of harm’s way during construction of the center, a decision was made: Since the mosaic had to be removed in any case, why not display it around the world? Hence, in 2009, it began to travel the world and was displayed as part of archaeological exhibitions at the most important museums in the world. These included the Louvre (Paris), the British Museum (London), the Hermitage Museum (St. Petersburg), the Field Museum (Chicago), the Columbus Museum (Ohio), the Altes Museum (Berlin), Waddesdon Manor (Aylesbury, England), the Fine Arts Museum (San Francisco), the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, the University of Pennsylvania, the Frost Art Museum (Miami), and the Fondazione Giorgio Cini Museum (Venice) (Fig. 3). This provided local visitors with the opportunity to observe the original mosaic and enjoy guided explanations.

In 2009, following the removal of the original mosaic (henceforth the “Northern Mosaic”) and its shipment abroad for exhibition, excavations, also conducted by Miriam Avissar and the author, were undertaken at the site for the first time to determine its size and nature. This information was needed in order to better plan the visitor center. During that season, which focused on the area south of the mosaic excavated in 1996, we uncovered an additional grand mosaic, similar in quality to the former one – which we named the “Southern Mosaic” (Fig. 4). The latter could not be fully uncovered because most of it lay beneath a modern road at the main entrance to the neighborhood. Only in 2014, after the road was diverted, could the Southern Mosaic be fully revealed (Gorzalczany et al. 2016).

By the end of the 2014 excavation season, the excavators were able to discern the complete plan of a magnificent structure: a Roman-style residence with several wings (Stratum VI), including a hall, residential quarters, and a peristyle (colonnaded) courtyard (Fig. 5). The eastern residential wing could not be fully excavated because the area lies beneath modern-day buildings.

It also became clear that the house, dated from the end of the third century to the beginning of the fourth century CE, was constructed directly on top of the remains of an earlier structure, a Roman-period house dating to the first century CE. This earlier structure also featured elaborate mosaics, albeit geometric in style, in contrast to the imagery typical of the above-mentioned mosaics (Talgam 2015a). This phase was exposed only to a very limited extent. When the Roman house went out of use, a large residence dating to the Byzantine period was constructed on the same spot. The fact that the outlines of the Byzantine structure maintained those of the original plan indicates continuity of use.

It was only during the Early Islamic period (Strata III–II) that the plan of the area change significantly: the elaborate mosaics were deliberately covered with a thick layer of earthen fill, and high-quality flooring – made of large, thick limestone tiles – was laid over them (Fig. 6). During the Umayyad period (Stratum III), the area was apparently converted into a courtyard or alleyway, a hypothesis supported by the discovery of a deep cistern whose capstone was clearly associated with the tile flooring (Fig. 7). The cistern somewhat damaged the Roman-period mosaic, but only along its white margins, sparing the central images. Poorly preserved remains dating to the Abbasid (Stratum II) and Ottoman (Stratum I) periods were also discovered. By the end of the excavations, we were able to define the stratigraphic sequence at the site as follows:

Stratum 0: British Mandate period (a few finds, military gear, and a unit tag).

Stratum I: late Ottoman period (a few installations and cesspits).

Stratum II: Abbasid period (second half of the eighth and early ninth centuries CE).

Stratum III: Umayyad period (seventh–eighth centuries CE).

Stratum IV: late Byzantine period (late sixth and early seventh centuries CE).

Stratum V: Byzantine period (fifth–sixth centuries CE).

Stratum VI: Late Roman period (third–fourth centuries CE).

Stratum VII Middle Roman period (second–third centuries CE).

Stratum VIII: Early Roman period (first–second centuries CE).

The following discussion focuses on the remains associated with Stratum VI, which yielded the most significant finds at the site.

The Roman domus

By the end of the excavations, nearly the entire outline of a magnificent Roman residence with prestigious features was uncovered, located in an affluent residential area (Gorzalczany 2015a, 2015b). In addition to the mosaics, large quantities of pottery, coins, stone tools, and metal items were discovered. Many colorful fresco fragments indicate sophisticated decoration and design. Furnishings and valuables indicate a high standard of living. A frieze fragment found in secondary use, integrated into one of the walls, suggests that the earlier phases of the residence were also characterized by great wealth. This theory is underscored by the discovery of a geometric-style mosaic dated to Stratum VIII (first–second centuries CE), which, although only partly uncovered, may indicate generational wealth (Fig. 8).

The house’s plan includes several wings: a northern wing with a luxurious hall (triclinium) (Fig. 5:1), a southern wing with a peristyle courtyard (Fig. 5:6), and an eastern wing that served as a residential quarter (Fig. 5:5). An elaborate mosaic floor was discovered in the courtyard, along with robber trenches along the line of the stylobate, where one column base was found; the courtyard was surrounded by four colonnades, at least three of which were paved with white mosaics (Fig. 5:7). The eastern wing comprised residential premises set with splendid, high-quality, colorful geometric mosaics. The northern and southern wings were separated (Fig. 5:4) by a corridor set with a white mosaic within a thin black frame, oriented east to west. This corridor led east to the residential section, which was probably accessed by a staircase with two or three steps.

                The longitudinal axis (42 m) of the complex, oriented north–south, is not straight; it exhibits several slight deviations of small angles. This supports our assumption that the wings were not constructed as part of a unified plan, but rather the southern part was a later addition. In any case, the structure was probably used over a long period, and at a certain stage, once the house reached its maximum size, the wings functioned together. The construction in phases is also confirmed by the stylistic analysis of the mosaic linking the various sections of the northern carpet. According to Rina Talgam (2015b: 67–68; Fig. 50), one can detect several inaccuracies in the setting of the white tesserae (mosaic tiles) which surround an illustration of an amphora featuring branches with winged animals emerging from it. The inaccuracies indicate later work or repair, and the possibility that an existing wall was removed at some point to allow the merger of two rooms into one large hall.

                It is not always possible to determine the positions of the building’s walls due to poor preservation and extensive stone theft. In many cases, reconstruction relies on robber trenches, which indicate the locations of walls before their stones were taken for reuse. In the current excavations, the northern boundary of the luxurious central hall excavated in 1996 was defined by a 0.8 m-thick wall. Most of the length of the eastern boundary wall, 0.6 m wide, was uncovered. This wall overlaid an earlier phase, which we dated to the Early Roman period. The main feature of this phase is a geometric mosaic floor. We note that a mosaic of a similar style was previously discovered nearby (Yannai and Erlich 2015: 215–217). Two parallel walls, the first delimiting the central mosaic and the second forming the western boundary of the structure, together created a long corridor or perhaps a series of long rooms that delimit the central hall to the west. The corridor is 2 m wide.

                The room’s southern wall separates it from the entrance hall (3.5×11 m) that leads to the eastern wing. This entrance hall, whose longitudinal axis is oriented east–west, is set with white mosaics within poorly preserved black rectangular frames.

The Northern Mosaic (the Hall)

This mosaic was accurately and comprehensively described previously (see further details in Avissar 1996, 1999; Talgam 2015a). Measuring 9×17 m (153 sq m), this is the largest Roman mosaic ever discovered in Israel. Judging by the many fresco fragments found in the fill covering the mosaic, the walls of the surrounding structure were adorned in a similarly lavish style. The mosaic carpet is divided into three panels, two of which feature rectangular outlines and are situated at the northern and southern ends of a central square panel. The northern rectangle depicts nine hexagons and two half-hexagons arranged in two rows enclosed by a guilloche (braid pattern) frame. This decoration delimits the hexagons as well, which depict animal or hunter/hunted battle scenes, as well as images of marine animals, a peacock, a chicken surrounded by chicks, and a fish-filled basket.

                The central panel (Fig. 9) depicts a 12-sided polygon containing an octagon surrounded by squares and equilateral triangles whose vertices point in opposite directions. The triangles are arranged in threesomes around the octagon and are separated by squares situated in all four directions. Each group of three triangles includes a depiction of a fish in the central triangle and depictions of birds in the outer triangles. Two of the squares that separate the triangles feature hunting or animal battle scenes. The third square depicts a harnessed dog chasing a grape-eating rabbit. The fourth depicts a pair of leopards or panthers climbing up both sides of a krater.

The central panel constitutes the main motif of the mosaic. It depicts a pair of animals, a lion and a lioness, each seated atop a rock or steep cliff, facing each other. A river or lake lies between the rocks, where a mythological marine monster – the Ketos (κῆτος) – is visible. Five animals of African origin are at the foot of the cliff, arranged clockwise – an elephant, buffalo, leopard, rhinoceros, and giraffe. The elephant’s body bears a pattern of horizontal and vertical lines that form rhombuses. This may be an image of fabric or armor covering the elephant’s body, or it may represent the wrinkles of the pachyderm’s skin. A similar depiction appears in a mosaic from the Villa Romana del Casale in Piazza Armerina, Sicily. In any case, it is evident that the representations are not entirely realistic, as indicated by the disproportionate size of the giraffe and its neck, the placement of the rhinoceros’s horns on its face, and the way in which the elephant bends its hind leg. Each corner of this medallion depicts a pair of dolphins facing each other, separated by Neptune’s trident.

                The southern panel depicts a completely different scene featuring solely marine motifs. Various marine animals, swimming in opposing directions, are depicted on the panel. The identified species include a whale and numerous fish such as bream, mullets, sea bass, barracuda, and snapper, as well as clams and snails. All the animals are depicted swimming around two navis oneraria sailboats, which were the core of the Mediterranean trade fleet during the Roman period (Ericsson 1984; Casson 1971: 157–200, illustrations 154, 156). These mosaics attracted much attention from ancient shipping specialists for their accurate and detailed portrayal of fleets of ships, prompting lively discussions (Avissar 2001; Haddad and Avissar 2003; Friedman 2004). The meaning and messages conveyed by this scene were also extensively debated (Gorzalczany and Rosen 2019; Gorzalczany et al. 2020).

                The southern carpet is divided into two panels as well. The northern one depicts nine different birds standing on tree branches, arranged in two rows, and facing different directions. Several of the depictions were damaged by a pipe that was installed at a later stage in a ditch, severing the mosaic. The northwestern image was almost completely destroyed. The entire panel is surrounded by a double frame. The outer frame consists of red rhombuses with a white dot in their center, whereas the inner frame is fashioned as a colorful guilloche. The southern panel depicts a guilloche of varying colors, creating hexagonal medallions or stars with slightly concave ribs. Each of the medallions features one type of animal: fish, birds, leopards, or lions.

The Southern Mosaic (the Peristyle Courtyard) The main discovery of the 2014 excavation season was a nearly square peristyle courtyard (Figs. 5:6; 10; 11) unearthed south of the entrance hall, measuring 11 m x 13 m (143 sq m).

The mosaic at the center of the courtyard depicts several rectangular frames (the outer one measures 8 x 9 m, 72 sq m) containing three columns and three rows of irregular octagonal medallions with images from the animal kingdom, including hunting scenes and scenes of animals fighting, likely in the context of games or amusement for the masses. This hypothesis is supported by wreaths and flags depicted on one of the medallions, which lend the scene a festive atmosphere. A harnessed cheetah leaping on its prey appears on one of the medallions (Gorzalczany and Rosen 2018: 88–89; Fig. 2), indicating that trained and skilled animals were used in hunting (Fig. 12). A similar motif is known from the Sicilian Piazza Armerina, where a female leopard, whose full udders indicate that she has recently given birth, is presented by a trainer and wears a harness similar to the one depicted at Lod. A scene with two leashed leopards resembles the one depicted on the Kibbutz Erez mosaic, where a man holds the animals on leashes at an event interpreted as a procession in honor of the god Dionysus. A male and female leopard with full udders, breastfeeding a cub while walking, is also depicted at Kibbutz Erez (Talgam 2014: 376; Fig. 465; Rahmani 1973: 263; 1975).

Two of the medallions depict a trio of fish, and two others depict arrangements of winged animals facing fruit baskets or amphoras situated in the center of the composition. (The medallion rows and columns are 3.8–4.0 m long, and the diameter of each medallion is ca. 1.2 m.) The arrangement of the medallions, with the figures facing the frames, enables one to view them from every spot in the courtyard.

                The courtyard, which sloped slightly to the southeast to facilitate rainwater drainage, was surrounded by roofed colonnades that were separated from the courtyard itself by columns. The presence of these columns is presumed and indicated by a column base that remained in situ in the courtyard’s western section, above a trench dug to rob the stones of the stylobate, which has not survived. The courtyard was damaged by the quarrying of a later cistern dated to the Umayyad period. The cistern’s capstone, to which a plastered installation (a water trough or cesspit) was attached, was discovered in close association with a contemporaneous massive pavement that was placed above a fill that covered the mosaic. Fortunately, the cistern damaged only the mosaic’s perimeter frame without harming the images. We cannot determine whether there was a colonnade on the eastern side of the courtyard, since the installation of an additional Byzantine-period cistern damaged the mosaic. Nonetheless, we can verify the existence of this colonnade with a high degree of certainty based on symmetry and a comparison to the plans of other known sites.

                The northeastern section of the mosaic collapsed into an earlier cistern. This allowed the retrieval of pottery sherds from beneath the Southern Mosaic, enabling its dating to the third or early fourth century CE.

                Additional mosaics were discovered in the residence’s east wing, which contained at least two rooms with high-quality mosaics. The rooms (then tentatively identified as residential chambers or bedrooms – cubicula) were also in use during the later Byzantine period, after several floors were raised and their plans altered. Small-scale excavations carried out in 2018, as part of the final construction of the visitor center, revealed that one of these rooms was a triclinium smaller than the main hall, perhaps for the daily use of the inhabitants of the house (Gorzalczany 2018). This room was also paved with an excellent-quality mosaic, bearing clear stylistic parallels to a mosaic uncovered on the southwestern slope of Mount Zion in Jerusalem (Avner 1994). It was identified as such by marks on the floor indicating where the kline, the piece of furniture on which diners reclined, was to be placed. It was customary to place three of them, which gave the room its name (tri [three] kline = triclinium). The fourth side of the room, which may have faced the entrance to the space, was normally left free to allow servants to serve food and drink to the guests. The existence of a second dining room should not surprise us; a mansion with these characteristics may well have had a number of triclinia. Moreover, this mosaic has stylistic analogues with examples found in the western part of the empire, e.g., in the Balkans (Mano-Zissi 1965: 289 Fig. 4), France (Lancha 1983: 383, Fig. 2), Britain (Morgan 1886: 139; Smith 1975: 279–280 pls. 120–121; Neal 1981: 87 Fig. 66), Germany (Hellenkemper-Salies 1983: 339 Figs. 3, 4), Italy (Maioli 1983: 465, 470–471) and Spain (Corpus España I: 32 n. 9 Fig. 12; Corpus España III: 46 n. 23 Fig. 89).

Several Comments about the Mosaic Setting Technique

The excellent state of preservation in which the mosaic was discovered, its expert relocation and full documentation, as well as its preparation for many overseas journeys, brought together many specialists from varied disciplines. As a result, the study of the mosaic became, on the one hand, a complex, multidisciplinary operation, while, on the other, allowing an intensive and detailed study of the mosaic. Specialists in archaeology, art, conservation, restoration, ceramics, numismatics, glass, frescoes, history, epigraphy, photography, museology, and many other disciplines joined forces to achieve the best possible results. Although interdisciplinary research is common in archaeology, the collaboration among the various parties in this case was truly unique.

                Laying a mosaic floor was a complex undertaking in antiquity, carried out by a team of workers, each with a defined role. The pictor imaginarius was the team leader and was also responsible for creating the patterns. He determined the amounts of materials and formulated the budget. The role of the calcis coctor was to prepare the lime and plaster; these materials were laid down by the pavimentarius so that the pictor musaerius and his assistant, the tesselarius, could position the stones, which had been cut to the correct size beforehand by the lapidarius, and create the various designs. A price ceiling (edictum de pretiis rerum venalium), issued by Emperor Diocletianus (284–305 CE) in an attempt to overcome the deep economic crisis that befell the empire (Leake 1826), provides information about the wages paid to the various professionals: In the third century CE, most workers earned 50 denarii for each working day, except for the pictor musaerius, who earned 60 denarii, and the pictor imaginarius, who earned an increased salary of 150 denarii. A study of the mosaic’s raw materials reveals an extraordinary range of hues, created using glass tesserae (Fig. 13), documenting colors ranging from yellow and green to light and dark blue. The use of “gold-glass” is remarkable. This technique involves producing gold-glass by inserting a very thin sheet of gold between two layers of glass—a thick lower layer and a thinner upper layer. The tesserae were then cut into cubes for use in mosaics. This method gave them a luminous and distinctive appearance (Talgam 2015b: 68). This technique was popular during the Byzantine period for crafting wall mosaics, since the delicate raw materials produce magnificent – albeit vulnerable – mosaics. An elegant table decorated with a mosaic incorporating gold-glass tesserae was discovered during excavations at a Byzantine villa in Caesarea (Porat et al. 2006: 125–127; Porat et al. 2005–2006: 185–186; Figs. 5–7, Gorin-Rosen 2015).

The conservation and relocation of the northern mosaic afforded us a rare glimpse into the modus operandi of the artists who created it (compare to Ben Khader 2003: 503–506). Remarkably, footprints left by the workmen were discovered imprinted into the plaster that was laid as a foundation for the floor. When creating the mosaic, the stones had to be set on the plaster while it was still fresh (Fig. 14). Deep sandal imprints, as well as smaller footprints left by bare feet, were also found. It is possible that the small footprints were left by a child who accompanied his father to work, or perhaps by a young apprentice. It is also possible that the apprentice was the artist’s son. In addition, an imprint of a fist had been embedded into the fresh plaster. We get the impression that one of the workmen, whose role was probably to set the mosaic tiles, the pictor musaerius, supported himself with one fisted hand while using the other to set the tiles. Such prints, discovered after the mosaic was removed, are rarely preserved. Due to their importance, the impressions were conserved and removed, and they are on display in a permanent exhibition at the visitor center.

An additional important discovery was made while relocating the northern mosaic – the presence of lines and etchings on the plaster. Drawings made with various pigments were also noticed on the plaster in the area of the marine scene. These were initially observed in gaps formed by missing stones and later in additional spots. This technique, known as sinopia (Fig. 15), served as a preparatory sketch that artists used as a base for setting the tiles and for creating precise and complex designs. Sinopia is a dark brown pigment produced from hematite, a naturally occurring iron oxide mineral. Over the years, the term came to mean any schematic illustration that serves as a base for works of art such as frescoes and mosaics. In the Greek and Roman art world, it was customary to prepare such sketches in a single color, usually brown or black.

The Lod mosaic demonstrates significant investment and meticulous planning in the sinopia. A sinopia in so many hues has never been previously discovered (Piovesan et al. 2012a: 203). The sinopia colors at Lod include red, yellow, green, and black. Lab analyses of the sinopia discovered beneath the northern mosaic’s marine scene, conducted with specialists from the University of Padua in Italy, revealed five pigments: red ochre, yellow ochre, green earth, carbon black, and cinnabar (Piovesan et al. 2012a; 2014).

All of the above-mentioned pigments are relatively inexpensive and easy to produce, except cinnabar (κινναβαρι). Its presence among the Lod pigments may be explained by the extraordinary quality of the Lod sinopia, which is itself a work of art. It is thus reasonable to assume that the artist who painted it was a unique and renowned expert whose services were costly. It should therefore not surprise us that he used very expensive, high-quality materials. If the use of multiple shades in sinopia drawings was exceptional and uncommon in the Roman and Byzantine worlds, we must seek an explanation for its occurrence in Lod. Perhaps, given the expected complexity of the mosaic patterns and the strict demands of the client, the artists were required to undertake non-standard preliminary steps, devoting extra consideration and investment to planning and preparations, in order to achieve the desired results (Piovesan et al. 2012a: 207–208).

                Additional laboratory tests demonstrated that the sinopia was prepared using the fresco technique and applied while the thin upper plaster layer (sovranucleus) was still damp (Piovesan et al. 2012b; compared to Piovesan et al. 2012b: Fig. 4).

Summary

The Lod mosaic is an extraordinary discovery (Fig. 16) due to its rare state of preservation, the high level of craftsmanship required for its construction, and the beauty and diversity of the artistic motifs depicted on it. It was located within a compound of upscale residences, in a lavish residence dated to the Late Roman period, the end of the third–early fourth centuries CE. The finds indicate that a fine residence was constructed at the site during the Early Roman period, later superseded by a Byzantine-period residence that retained the layout of the earlier structure. A fundamental change in plan occurred during the Early Islamic period, when the entire area was covered with massive fill and a courtyard or alleyway was built on top of it. Additional activity, indicated by installations and cesspits, was dated to the Ottoman period. Finally, finds representing twentieth-century CE British military activities were also discovered at the site. 

                As mentioned above, the period represented with the greatest intensity at the site is the Late Roman period, when the city reached its peak in terms of wealth and grandeur. The mosaic at Nevé Yaraq is evidence of the existence of an upscale domestic quarter, characterized by a well-developed artistic style and significant economic capabilities. This is the largest mosaic of this period ever discovered in Israel.

The motifs depicted do not indicate the ethnic or religious affiliation of the residence’s inhabitants. The lack of inscriptions, on the one hand, and the presence of motifs without clear ethnic affiliation, on the other, make it impossible for us to determine whether the residents of the house were Jews, Christians, or pagans, although the attribution to Christians is less likely for chronological reasons. In any case, this was almost certainly not a formal, governmental, or religious structure. It stands to reason that it was the home of a wealthy merchant or of a resident who was part of the city’s cultural, political, and economic elite. The building did not stand alone in the area but was part of a wealthy neighborhood. A stylistic analysis (see Talgam 2014: 65–71, especially 70; 2015b) demonstrates that the artistic inspiration came partly from North African mosaics (the region of Africa Proconsularis) and partly from the western regions of the empire (Avner 1994). The clients were certainly aware of fashion trends in the empire. Talgam (2014: 69–70) argues that the presence of distinct African motifs at Lod (such as the fish-filled basket [compare to Ben Khader 2003: Fig. 352] or a thin layer of earth beneath the animal figures) does not indicate the presence of African artists at the site, although there are certainly hints of direct ties and an intimate acquaintance between the residents of the Land of Israel and Africa Proconsularis (see Dunbabin 1978: 196-233). We note that researchers have pointed out stylistic similarities between the Lod mosaic and the Piazza Armerina mosaics, which contain similar North African-style motifs (e.g., Ghedini 1991).

                Beyond the artistic aspect, the mosaic excavation significantly advanced our understanding of the technological processes involved in laying mosaic floors. The discovery of footprints on the plaster, especially the uncovering of multicolored sinopia traces that preceded the laying of the tiles, has offered valuable insights into the fields of architecture and art.

                Without doubt, the discovery of the mosaic has an added value that greatly exceeds its scientific and artistic importance of the mosaic itself (Gorzalczany and Shoeff 2022). The discovery of such a monument in a modern neighborhood, and the difficult decision by the Israel Antiquities Authority to leave it at the site and display it at the visitor center erected for that purpose, reflect an approach in which it is clear that the cultural heritage of a state, and on a smaller scale, of a community or neighborhood, belongs first and foremost to the people. Keeping the mosaic in the Nevé Yaraq neighborhood and developing it at its findspot can significantly contribute to the local community, create jobs, promote a sense of identity among residents and their past, and foster a sense of belonging and emotional bond to the city’s magnificent past.

Bibliography