1. A good text to consult is Schick, “The Fate of Christians in Palestine.”

2. See EMA, vol. 1, pt. 2, 483–84.

3. The location of the Nea cathedral and its complex are known and have been excavated, although they are minimally published. Nahman Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville, Camden, New York: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980); Meir Ben-Dov, In the Shadow of the Temple, trans. Ina Friedman (New York: Harper & Row, 1982). Reconstructions of the Nea have been drawn from the foundation remains, but we cannot reconstruct its ornamentation. The Nea was described by Procopius in general laudatory terms without the kind of specificity needed for this study. A tabula ansate containing an inscription in Greek was found, Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 242–45 with plates.

4. Jere L. Bacharach, “Administrative Complexes, Palaces, and Citadels: Changes in the Loci of Medieval Muslim Rule,” in The Ottoman City and Its Parts, ed. Irene A. Bierman, Rifa‘at A. Abou-El-Haj, and Donald Preziosi (New Rochelle: A. D. Caratzas, 1991), 111–28.

5. The walls of most churches that continued in use, for instance, were significantly altered in the Crusader period or later.

6. Berton De Vries, “Urbanization in the Basalt Region of North Jordan in Late Antiquity: The Case of Umm el-Jimal,” in Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan II, ed. Adnan Hadidi (Amman: Department of Antiquities Jordan, 1985), 249–56, where he points to this need for explanation; Robert A. Coughenour, “The Fifteen Churches of Umm el-Jimal,” in The Umm el-Jimal Excavations, ed. Berton De Vries (Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, forthcoming), where he postulates that the Ghassanids were the tribe most likely to be the sponsors of these churches and, in fact, to be the occupants in Umm al-Jimal in the sixth century. Umm al-Raṣṣās is another town with almost as many churches.

7. Many of these small mosques still exist. The most accessible overview is Geoffrey King, C. J. Lenzen, and Gary O. Rollefson, “Survey of Byzantine and Islamic Sites in Jordan Second Season Report,” Annual of the Department of Antiquities Jordan 27 (1983): 385–436. The mosque at Umm al-Walīd, which had a minaret, is the type of early mosque where the mihrab projected from the qibla wall (like the mosque at Khan al-Ẓahid, now vanished but published by Brunnow and von Domaszewski, one at Qasr Jabal Says, one east of Qasr Hallabat, and one, still unpublished, north of Hammām al-Sarakh).

8. Syro-Palestinian Aramaic (also variously called Christian Palestinian Aramaic and Christian Palestinian Syriac) is a form of Western Aramaic in Syriac type characters that appears to have served a Christian community—that is, the placement and content of inscriptions on Christian sectarian buildings plus the existence of a gospel lectionary and various parchment documents in that alphabet and language indicate its use by a Christian community. For an article discussing the various sites where inscriptions are found, and map of the sites, see A. Desreumaus, “The Birth of a New Aramaic Script in the Bilad al-Sham at the end of the Byzantine Period,” in The History of the Bilad al-Sham during the Umayyad Period, ed. M. Adnan Bakhit and Robert Schick, 4th International Conference of the History of Bilad al-Sham, 1987 (Amman: University of Jordan and Yarmouk University, 1989), 26–36.

9. Many texts catalogue the milestones along the Roman roads. One that offers interesting interpretations of the social practices is Benjamin Isaac and Israel Roll, Roman Roads in Judea I: The Legio-Scythopolis Road, BAR International Series 141 (BAR: Oxford, 1982).

10. The two, possibly three, milestones known from the Umayyad period are reviewed by G. Rex Smith, “Some Umayyad Inscriptions of Bilad al-Sham—Palaeographic Notes,” in The History of the Bilad al-Sham, ed. Bakhit and Schick, 185–94. A few have been found in Arabia.

11. Although somewhat outside the geographical area covered here, Abbasid rulers put writing on the gates of the capital, Baghdad. No communal structure directly sponsored by the Abbasids from the eighth through the tenth centuries is extant in the eastern Mediterranean. They did, however, maintain and repair earlier important structures like the Dome of the Rock. We include them here because they ruled a significant portion of the territory we are discussing.

12. For Constantinople consult C. Mango, “The Byzantine Inscriptions of Constantinople: A Bibliographic Survey,” American Journal of Archaeology 55 (1951): 52–66; for Aqaba, Donald Whitcomb, “Evidence of the Umayyad Period from the Aqaba Excavations,” in History of the Bilad al-Sham, ed. Bakhit and Schick, 164–84.

13. Two scholarly works supply easy access to the sequencing of inscriptions of the Byzantine period: Parker, Romans and Saracens; and Mango, “The Byzantine Inscriptions of Constantinople.”

14. The most recent study of these forts in the eastern Mediterranean is Parker, Romans and Saracens, where he details the uses of these forts into the reign of Justinian. Of particular interest are chaps. 1–5, where Parker notes the care taken to update the inscriptions from Roman to Byzantine use.

15. Philip D. Curtin, Cross-Cultural Trade in World History (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), where he suggests that trade in kind prevailed over payment in coin.

16. The first solely epigraphic dinar or gold coin was minted in 696–97 C.E.; the first silver coin, or dirham, in 698–99. Many interpretations of the early coinage of Muslim rulers have been advanced over the years, but the most persuasive was detailed by George C. Miles, “Mihrab and ‘Anazah: A Study in Early Islamic Iconography,” in Archaeologica Orientalia in Memoriam Ernst Herzfeld, ed. George C. Miles (Locust Valley: J. J. Augustin, Inc., 1952), 33–49. More recent studies have analyzed the early changes in light of the specific historical changes within the empire. In particular, the studies of P. Grierson, “The Monetary Reforms of ‘Abd al-Mālik,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 3 (1960): 241–64; Michael Bates, “Islamic Numismatics,” Middle East Studies Association Bulletin 12, no. 2 (1978): 1–6; 12, no. 3 (1978): 2–18; 13, no. 1 (1979): 3–21; 13, no. 2 (1979): 1–9; and Michael L. Bates, “History, Geography and Numismatics in the First Century of Islamic Coinage,” Revue Suisse de Numismatique 65 (1986): 231–63, have suggested more historically specific studies of coins and mints and an understanding that coins are more than the depictions on their surface. Part of their meaning lies in their weight and the system of which that weight is a part. Emiko Terasaki, “The Lack of Animal and Human Figural Imagery in the Public Art of the Umayyad Period,” (Master’s thesis, UCLA, 1987), suggested understanding certain of the iconographic changes in the Umayyad period as related to intra-Muslim politics.

I want to thank especially Jere Bacharach and Michael Bates who, while not responsible for my interpretation, have patiently answered my questions and freely shared the insights of their numismatic research.

17. For the issue of weights of these reform coins, see Grierson, “Monetary Reforms,” 247–50.

18. Much has been written about ‘Abd al-Mālik’s putting writing on textiles (A. Grohmann, “Tiraz,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1st ed. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1913–36); Irene A. Bierman, “Art and Politics: The Impact of Fatimid Uses of Tiraz Fabrics,” [Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1980]), but these textiles had no official use that is traceable. If one looks carefully at the writing on the few textiles that do remain from the Umayyad or early Abbasid period one can understand why the ceremonial impact of the writing (its form and materiality) on these textiles could not be great. The aesthetic dimensions of the writing were undeveloped. In Abbasid practice, the Caliph and those surrounding him wore plain unpatterned black. See Hilāl ibn al-Muḥassin al-Ṣābi’, Rusūm dār al-khilāfah (Baghdad: Matba’at al-‘Ani, 1964), 73–84.

19. Eusebius even commented on the plainness of the outside of Byzantine structures. J. W. Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine (London: Oxford University Press, 1941), 108–10, quoting Eusebius.

20. This practice is in contrast with how groups within U.S. society often use the presence of specific alphabets today where writing on the outside of structures is a sign of the socio-religious nature of the communal functions taking place in the interior. A building near UCLA displays a sign that reads Malinow and Silverman Funeral Home above an image of a flame in which Hebrew writing appears. What confirms or re-marks for the viewer the group-specific or sectarian adherence of the funeral services performed within the building is the presence of Hebrew letters in the sign. To those who can identify the letters they see as Hebrew letters (and many within the society can do that—maybe most people who would pass by at this location), the mere presence of those letters conveys sufficient meaning to indicate that this is a Jewish funeral home because writing in Hebrew letters is used mainly by this group. We wager that most people who pass by this sign cannot read the content of the message in Hebrew, yet the main message of this sign has been conveyed—Jewish funeral home.

21. These inscriptions, their history and bibliography, were detailed in EMA, vols. 1 and 2.

22. For Achtamar see Sirarpie Der Nersessian, Armenian Art (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977), 80–81. For the Three Door Mosque, see EMA 2: 325–26.

23. The tenth-century Byzantine Book of Ceremonies, which contains prescriptions and descriptions of ceremonies, has been preserved. J. J. Reiske, Corpus Scriptorum Historicum Byzantinorum, 2 vols. (Bonn: 1829–30). See also A. Toynbee, Constantine Porphryogennetos and His World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973). Secondary analysis of Byzantine ceremonial is extensive; see particularly Averil Cameron, “The Construction of Court Ritual: The Byzantine Book of Ceremonies,” in Rituals of Royalty: Power and Ceremonial in Traditional Societies, ed. David Cannadine and Simon Price (Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 106–36; C. Mango and I. Sevcenko, “A New Manuscript of the De Cerimoniis,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 14 (1960): 247–49; R. L. Nelson, “Symbols in Context,” Studies in Church History 13 (1976): 97–119; and P. Magdalino and R. Nelson, “The Emperor in Byzantine Art of the Twelfth Century,” Byzantinische Forschungen 8 (1982): 123–83. Also, Sabine MacCormack, Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981).

During the many centuries in which extensive ceremonial was developed and used, writing did not play a systematic and extensive role in the display. I am almost tempted to suggest that oral utterances dominated. Abbasid ceremonial is detailed in Hilāl ibn al-Muḥassin, Rusūm dār al-khilāfah. One edited edition (from the Baghdad ms.) has been published, ed. Mikhā’il ‘Awad (Cairo: al-Aini Press, 1964). An English translation with notes (of the Cairo ms.) has been published by Elie A. Salem, Rusūm dār al-khilāfah, The Rules and Regulations of the ‘Abbasid Court (Beirut: American University Press, 1977). Al-Ma’mūn wore green when he entered Baghdad in 819/204, but restored black as the color following suggestions of his advisors. Al-Ṣābi’, Rusūm dār al-khilāfah, 73. Umayyad ceremonial—such as it was—can only be viewed through an aggregate of accounts, all of which suggest that no formal ceremonial existed in the sense meant here. Also see Oleg Grabar, “Notes sur les cérémonies Umayyades,” in Studies in Memory of Gaston Wiet, ed. Myriam Rosen-Ayalon (Jerusalem: Institute of Asian and African Studies, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1977), 51–60. Fatimid ceremonial is detailed by Paula Sanders, Ritual, Politics, and the City in Fatimid Cairo (New York: SUNY Press, 1994).

24. Hugh G. E. White, The Monasteries of the Wadi ‘N Natrun, Metropolitan Museum Expedition, 8 vols. (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1933), vol. 8.

25. These floors are usually published in distinct categories: Jewish Art, Armenian Art, or Christian Art. Only one article, by Avi-Yonah, brings them all together: Michael Avi-Yonah, “Une école de mosaïque à Gaza au sixième siècle,” La mosaïque greco-romaine II, IIe Colloque International pour l’étude de la mosaïque antique, Vienna, 1971 (Paris: A. & J. Picard, 1975), 377–83, and republished in Art in Ancient Palestine, collected papers (Jerusalem: Magnes Press—Hebrew University, 1981), 389–395. Avi-Yonah argues that a school of mosaicists existed in the area of Palestine because of the formal and technical similarities in these mosaics. He does not take up the issue of the presence of writing in these mosaics, and in fact, the plate he uses of the floor in the Armenian Church is so cropped as to eliminate the writing.

More recent studies that treat “inhabited vine” depictions and which offer interesting hypotheses contradicting (in part) traditional notions about presentational formats and traditional notions of center and periphery are: Claudine Dauphin, “New Method of Studying Early Byzantine Mosaic Pavements (coding and a computed cluster analysis) with Special Reference to the Levant,” Levant 8 (1976): 113–49, esp. 120–23, 130–31; and Claudine Dauphin, “Development of the Inhabited Scroll, Architectural Sculpture and Mosaic Art from Late Imperial Times to the Seventh Century A.D.,” Levant 19 (1987): 183–212.

26. Some of these formal features are present in other mosaics, although they are often smaller in format. The mosaic of one of the synagogues displays in addition a menorah flanked by two lions.

27. See A. Grabar, “Un thème de l’iconographie Chrétienne: L’oiseau dans le cage,” Cahiers Archéologiques 16 (1966): 9–16; A. Grabar, “Recherches sur les sources juives de l’art Paléochrétien,” Cahiers Archéologiques 12, no. 5 (1962): 124, 125, and fig. 8; O. Hjort, “L’oiseau dans le cage: Exemples mediévaux à Rome,” Cahiers Archéologiques 18 (1968): 21–31; Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, Ancient Jewish Art (Seacaucus, N.J.: Chartwell Books, n.d.): 117–18.

28. The standard work on coins of this period has been John Walker, A Catalogue of Muḥammadan Coins in the British Museum, vol.1, Arab-Sassanian Coins (London: British Museum, 1941), and vol. 2, Arab-Byzantine and Post Reform Coins (London: British Museum, 1965). Recent understandings of early coinage—and thus new categorizations—have been put forward especially in the following works: Michael G. Morony, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), esp. 38–51; Bates, “History, Geography and Numismatics,” 231–63. The coins specifically mentioned here are discussed especially on pp. 243–54.

29. EMA 1:69.

30. Ettinghausen, “Arabic Epigraphy,” 297–311.

31. For a cogent syntactic exposition of these issues, Umberto Eco, “Function and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture,” in Signs, Symbols and Architecture, ed. Geoffrey Broadbent, Richard Bunt, and Charles Jenks (Chichester and New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1980), 11–70.

32. Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine, esp. chap. 4; EMA, vols. 1 and 2; Grabar, “Umayyad Dome of the Rock.”

33. Alexander Van Milligen, Byzantine Churches in Constantinople, Their History and Architecture (London: MacMillan, 1912), 94–101. The mosaic section completed during the reign of Justinian is detailed on pp. 94–95.

34. Van Milligen, Byzantine Churches, 62–74. The mosaic program is no longer extant, but the writing exists.

35. Charles Diehl, M. Tourneau, and H. Saladin, Les monuments Chrétiens de Salonique (Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1918), 136–43; and Charles Diehl, “Les mosaïques de Sainte-Sophie de Salonique,” in Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres mnuments and mémoires (Paris: Fondation Piot, 1909), 39–60.

36. EMA, vol. 1, chaps. 4 and 5.

37. EMA, vol. 1, chaps. 7 and 8 (buildings); Margaret van Berchem, EMA, vol. 1, chap. 10 (mosaics).

38. MAE, vol. 1, chap. 4.

39. See details in van Berchem, EMA, vol. 1.

40. C. Mango, Byzantine Architecture (New York: Abrams, 1976), 98, fig. 106.

41. Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine, 116–45.

42. Ibid., 116.

43. Myriam Rosen-Ayalon in a salvage expedition in Ramla found a mosaic floor depicting an arch with writing in Arabic. She evaluated the remains of the structure as a house. How the specific area where the mosaic was found functioned in the use pattern of the whole structure is unclear. “The First Mosaic Discovered in Ramla,” Israel Expedition Journal 26 (1976): 104–11.

44. This unique bronze polycandelon is shown in Frowald Huettenmeister and Gottfried Reeg, Die Antiken Synagogen in Israel, 2 vols. (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1977), 1:256–58; and in Steven Fine, “Synagogue and Sanctity: The Late Antique Palestinian Synagogue as a ‘Holy Place’” (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1993), 146.

45. Charles Diehl, Constantinople (Paris: H. Laurens, 1924), 242–342.

46. Al-Maqrīzī, Al-Khitat, 1:507, where he quotes al-Fākihī and lists the latter’s record of inscriptions he had seen in Mecca on parts of various fragments of old Ka‘ba coverings; more generalized material can be found in R. B. Serjeant, “Material for a History of Islamic Textiles up to the Mongol Conquest,” Ars Islamica 9 (1942): 54–92; 10 (1943): 71–104; 11–12 (1946): 98–145; 13–14 (1948): 75–117; 15–16 (1951): 29–86.

47. Meyer Schapiro, “Style,” Anthropology Today (1969): 279–303; and Lechtman, “Style in Technology,” 3–20.

48. An exception can be found in the orthography of the word “Allah” where the dagger alif of the word ilāhun is written above, which in certain Kufic scripts fashioned in stone and stucco is represented as an ornamental graph in the center. For further details, see Bierman, “Art of the Public Text,” esp. 285.

49. See especially Joseph Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet, An Introduction to West Semitic Epigraphy and Paleography (Jerusalem and Leiden: Magnes Press, Hebrew University and E. J. Brill, 1982), where he shows that this use of a single formal alphabet was not peculiar to the centuries studied here as the “community” stage, but that such practice was common for an extended period in the eastern Mediterranean before the centuries under discussion here.

50. In the instance of the groups issuing coins, this formal association included the coins and sometimes official seals.

51. These terms for the script in which the Hebrew language was written are taken from Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet, 162–70, who distinguishes the Aramaic-based medieval formal script from older Hebrew letters for Hebrew language. By the Middle Ages the use of the old Hebrew alphabet for the Hebrew language had stopped.

52. The studies of manuscript writing styles and officially sponsored writing scripts are quite copious for writing in Greek. Many of the works, like those detailed above for Arabic, are compendiums, but some are synthetic and take up issues of the relationships of styles to the political situation mainly between the Eastern and Latin Churches. Most notable of these studies is Stanley Morison, Politics and Script (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972).

53. Cristel Kessler, “‘Abd al-Mālik’s Inscription in the Dome of the Rock: A Reconsideration,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1970): 1–14, esp. 10, and n. 16.

54. Ibid., 13. Here she notes that the inscriptions on the Umayyad milestones had similar characteristics.

55. Not all writing in this period followed a linear format. In fact the formats for displaying writing are most inventive when the writing is not officially sponsored. For example, on what are known as “incantation bowls,” writing sometimes spirals inward from the rim, sometimes outward from the center, sometimes in radiating patterns. I want to thank Michael Morony for sharing his continuing research on these bowls.

56. All of the topics of Morison, Politics and Script, the collection of the Lyell Lectures Morison delivered in 1957, concern authority and script style, but chaps. 1–3 are where he suggests theological and historical implications for the styles of Latin and Greek writing.

57. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet, 165–70.

58. These kinds of changes in officially sponsored writing seem in tandem with changes in the manuscript hand in which the communal text was written. Yet, as we mentioned above, the evidence is far too inconclusive to expand these general observations. We do not possess, for example, communal texts from each sectarian group that represent the same date, place, and sponsorship as the officially sponsored writing in the sectarian space. With the discovery of the Qur’ān manuscripts in Sana‘a we are seeing a greater range of writing styles and qualities than previously. These pages are beginning to be published: Kuwait National Museum, Masahif Sana‘ (Kuwait, 1985); Hans-Caspar Graf von Bothmer, “Meisterwerke islamischer Buchkunst: Koranische Kalligraphie und Illumination im Handschriftenfund aus der Grosse Moschee in Sanaa,” Jemen, 3000 Jahre Kunst und Kultur des glücklichen Arabien, 177–83. I wish to thank Ursala Drebholz and Marilyn Jenkins for sharing their knowledge and slides of these pages.

59. Crowfoot, Early Churches in Palestine, 118, quoting the codex of Theodosius. Such laws began to be promulgated as early as the fifth century.

60. Muḥammad ibn Bahadur Zarkashī, I’lām al-sājid bi-aḥkām al-masājid (Cairo: n.p., 1384H), was against the writing on the qibla, and adornment in general, 335–38; Yūsuf ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥadī, Thimār al-masājid fī dhikr al-masājid, ed. As‘ad Talas (Beirut: n.p., 1943), 166, 170.

61. EMA, vols. 1 and 2.

62. Some recent papers by Oleg Grabar and Sheila Blair are suggesting an alteration of this date, but the precise date is not germane for this argument.

63. Of this latter building program substantial Umayyad material remains only in the Great Mosque in Damascus, and of that extensive mosaic work less than 15 percent of the original is extant.

64. This conversation is reported in Alī ibn ‘Abd Allah al-Samhudi, Khulāṣat al-wafā’ bi-akhbār al-muṣtafa (al-Qāhira: 1392H), 370.

65. The arguments of where the workmen who completed the mosaics came from are most accessible in van Berchem (EMA, vol. 1) whose work relied heavily on al-Balādhurī (Futūḥ al-Buldān), al-Ya‘qūbī (Tarīkh), and al-Ṭabarī (al-Tarīkh). Wide expanses of mosaics represented al-Walīd’s command of money and resources, including the skills of the best workmen whether they were Copt or Syrian or possibly from within Byzantine territory.

66. The text through which these kinds of details are most readily available is Chiat, Handbook of Synagogue Architecture, where the synagogues in the ten cities of the coastal region are detailed on pp. 149–94. Detailed bibliographies are included.

67. ’Isfiya is southeast of Haifa. Chiat, Handbook of Synagogue Architecture, 158–61; M. Avi-Yonah and M. Makhouly, “A Sixth-Century Synagogue at ’Isfiya,” Quarterly Department of Antiquities Palestine III (1933): 118–31; Rachel Hachlili, “The Zodiac in Ancient Jewish Art: Representations and Signification,” Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 228 (December 1977): 61–77.

68. Chiat, Handbook of Synagogue Architecture, 153–58; M. Avi-Yonah, “The Ancient Synagogue at Caesarea: Preliminary Report,” Bulletin Rabinowitz 3 (1960): 44–48; and especially Schwabe, “Synagogue of Caesarea,” 433–49.

69. See note 67 above.

70. Similar patterns in the display of officially sponsored writing are found in the synagogues in other areas, e.g., the Galilee, where Samaritan is often present. Chiat, Handbook of Synagogue Architecture, 19–148.

71. For a discussion of the role of Greek among Christian communities see Schick, “The Fate of Christians in Palestine,” 15–16, 698–702.

72. These types of issues are taken up by modern linguistic studies usually in the framework of oral-written diglossia, but these same studies provide data for understanding the link between performance in writing and class structure. A synthetic work that takes up these issues in particular is Goody, The Interface, esp. chap. 11. More specific studies that inform these questions are Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record; and Scribner and Cole, The Psychology of Literacy.

73. See chap. 1 and relevant notes for further explication of the role of Greek.

74. Naveh, Early History of the Alphabet, 112–24.

75. Oleg Grabar, “Pictures on Commentaries: The Illustrations of the Maqamat of al-Ḥariri,” in Studies in the Art and Literature of the Near East in Honor of Richard Ettinghausen, ed. Peter J. Chelkowski (Salt Lake City: Middle East Center, University of Utah, 1974), 85–104.

76. Chiat, Handbook of Synagogue Architecture, 176.

77. White, Monasteries 3:187, plates 58, 59.

78. Max van Berchem, CIA, part 2, Syrie du Sud; vol. 2, Jerusalem: Haram, 224–28, 248–51.

79. Chiat, Handbook of Synagogue Architecture, 185.

80. RCEA, vol. 1, no. 87.

81. Van Milligan, Byzantine Churches, 73–74.

82. Grabar, “Umayyad Dome of the Rock,” 76–77.

83. White, Monasteries, 194. This inscription is partially damaged so that the name of the second person who died is no longer extant.

84. Peter R. L. Brown, “Art and Society in Late Antiquity,” in The Age of Spirituality, ed. Kurt Weitzmann (Metropolitan Museum of Art and Princeton University Press, 1980), 17–28.