The contribution of archaeology to the knowledge of the St Peter’s Monastery in Osor
Origins, architecture and topography
p. 135-158
Résumés
The archaeological research carried out on St Peter of Osor between 2006 and 2017 has made it possible to undertake a thorough examination of the origins of the monastery, its topography and the architecture of its abbey church. In contrast to the paucity of archival sources, the archaeological results give some credence to the accounts of the 18th c. of a monastery existing at the beginning of the 11th century, while opening up the possibility of a foundation in the last decades of the 10th century. This monastic urban foundation succeeded and expanded an earlier complex from the 800s, which consisted of a private church, perhaps associated with the family mausoleum of its founder, a tribunus from the Byzantine kastron of Osor. The small funerary building played a major role in the topography of the monastery in the year 1000, since the maintenance of the mausoleum for the monastic community of St Peter between the 10th(?) – 11th and the beginning of the 14th century determined the construction of a Romanesque cloister to the southeast of the abbey church.
Les recherches archéologiques menées sur Saint-Pierre d’Osor entre 2006 et 2017 ont permis d’engager une relecture en profondeur de l’origine du monastère, de sa topographie et de l’architecture de son église abbatiale. Contrastant avec l’indigence des sources d’archives, les résultats archéologiques donnent un certain crédit aux récits du XVIIIe s. faisant état d’un monastère existant au début du XIe s., tout en ouvrant la possibilité d’une fondation dès les dernières décennies du Xe s. Cette fondation monastique, urbaine, succède en l’amplifiant à un complexe antérieur des années 800 formé d’une église privée peut-être associée au mausolée familial de son fondateur, un tribun de la cité byzantine d’Osor. Le petit édifice funéraire a joué un rôle majeur dans la topographie du monastère de l’an Mil puisque le maintien du mausolée pour la communauté monastique de Saint-Pierre entre le Xe (?)-XIe siècle et le début du XIVe siècle a déterminé la construction d’un cloître roman au sud-est de l’église abbatiale.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Kvarner, Moyen Âge, archéologie, monastère, église, mausolée, tombe, sculpture
Keywords : Kvarner, Middle Ages, archaeology, monastery, church, mausoleum, funerary, sculpture
Dédicace
In memory of Lucio Petrinić, Osoran seaman and earthman
Texte intégral
1It is an established fact that Gaudentius was bishop of Osor before becoming a monk at Santa Maria di Portonovo near Ancona, and literary sources other than his vita testify to this, notably letters from his contemporary Peter Damian.1 But what about the monastery of St Peter in Osor, whose foundation is attributed to him by the Annales Camaldulenses and which is traditionally dated around the years 1018-1020, while the archives of the 11th and 12th centuries are silent on this subject? We now know that the historiography of the monastery is largely based on late sources that are difficult to verify.2 Without providing all the answers, the archaeological research carried out between 2006 and 2017 has enabled an in-depth re-reading of the origin of the monastery, its topography and the architecture of its abbey church.3
2After a preliminary summary article reporting on the first excavation campaigns between 2006 and 20134, and pending the publication of the final monography currently being prepared, this contribution proposes to present a new assessment of the main results, mainly around the questions of the origin of the monastery and its materiality in the 11th-12th century, i.e. before its first recorded mention in the written sources in 1212.5
Initial archaeological documentation from the 1950s
3Until the beginning of archaeological excavations in 2006, only the ruins of a small church testified to the location of the monastery to the north of the village of Osor (fig. 1). The church of St Peter was then a rectangular building (± 15.30 × 8.40 m), flanked by an almost completely ruined bell tower to the south and two apsidioles from an earlier state, which have emerged incongruously from the flat chevet wall since their partial reconstruction in the early 2000s (fig. 2).
Fig. 1. Map of Osor and location of St Peter’s Monastery (after M. Čaušević-Bully).

Fig. 2. View of the modern church on the site of the Romanesque abbey church; 2016 excavation campaign (photo M. Vuković).

4A dedication walled in the façade of the church indicates that it was completely rebuilt in 1625 by Augustin of Grado, bishop of Feltrina and commendatory abbot of Saint-Peter.6 This reduced church is the successor of an earlier building, recognised through a triple-apse and its south gutter wall uncovered during the first excavations conducted by A. Mohorovičić in the 1950s.7 At that time, the Croatian academician had already noted that the modern reconstruction had kept the north gutter wall of the earlier church in elevation – probably for reasons of economy – as well as a Romanesque annex adjoining it. The central apse discovered by A. Mohorovičić was still listed in the Austrian cadastre of the 19th century and recent excavations have shown that it served as a sacristy for the reduced church, which was entered through an opening in the flat chevet wall. This early archaeological research consisted exclusively of the superficial excavation of the eastern and southern parts of the apsidal church; this work made it possible to sketch out a simple, elongated basilica-type plan (fig. 3a). However, the division of the internal space between the three vessels of the nave, the liturgical installations and a possible funerary function were still unknown. Moreover, the plan itself remained incomplete in the absence of the façade and its potential variants: a simple screen façade, vestibule or nave. This last remark referred to the presence of numerous fragments of high-quality sculpture (with stylized plant and animal motifs), which were either reused in the village buildings, or deposited in the small archaeological museum of Osor (AZO8). Through a comparative approach, these elements, together with the plan of the chevet with three semi-circular apses, contributed to the dating of the building in the first half of the 11th century. Since the first study published by N. Jakšić9, most researchers agree that the sculptural fragments come from a frieze on the façade, such as can still be seen on the vestibule of the Pomposa Abbey, dated between 1026 and 1044.10 This last reference would be a testimony to the cultural transfers between the Italian Adriatic shore and the Kvarner archipelago through the monastic networks to which Gaudentius belonged.11 Thus, for some decades, and on the basis of the known architectural and sculptural elements, the church of St Peter in Osor has been considered as one of the outstanding monuments of the first Romanesque architecture in Croatia12 and would be the translation of the influences of the neighbouring Italian regions in the spirit of the great ecclesiastical reforms of the 11th century. However, beyond these general considerations, it is a building that was still awaiting study through the drawing up of a complete plan, the analysis of its elevations and its excavation. Moreover, the discovery by A. Mohorovičić of sculptures with interlacing motifs dated to the early Middle Ages on the southern side of the abbey church could suggest the existence of a building that predated the “official foundation” of the monastery in the early 11th century. And an initial archaeological analysis of the preserved elevations of the north gutter wall – due to its reuse in the late reconstruction – quickly allowed us to conclude that it presented several construction phases. In addition to the question of the architectural style of the abbey church and its origin, archaeological research was to focus more broadly on the question of the topography of the monastery and its insertion into the early medieval city.13 Here again, early findings by A. Mohorovičić on the southern flank of St Peter’s, then interpreted as Late Antique constructions, were to be reinterrogated on the occasion of a revision and continuation of the excavation in this sector (fig. 3b).
Fig. 3. Plan of St Peter’s Church according to A. Mohorovičić and photograph of the excavation of the southern building in 1953 (Mohorovičić 1953).

5Also, without going into detail for the present contribution, it should be noted that this upper part of the town was occupied by a Liburnian necropolis for cremation and then burial between the Final Bronze Age (10th century BC)14 and the beginning of the Iron Age (7th-6th century BC).15 After a long hiatus, the Saint-Peter sector was settled from the 3rd-4th centuries AD by a simple settlement. The excavation has identified several construction phases subsequent to the masonry habitat of Late Antiquity, characterised by different orientations and dry-stone architecture, but which remain difficult to date with precision in the absence of reliable marker materials (6th-7th centuries?). In any case, it is on the site of this residential area, probably abandoned at the time, that the first church recognised by the excavation was built.
A religious and funerary complex between the end of the 8th-9th century and the 10th century: church and mausoleum
A first church with a cruciform plan
6The archaeological study of the elevations of the north gutter wall, combined with the sedimentary excavation, has revealed a first building that predates the triple-apse church uncovered in the 1950s. Disturbed by numerous medieval and modern burial pits, as well as by various excavations, the remains of the first church are not easily recognisable: only the cross-referencing of a planimetric reading of the masonry fragments with the stratigraphic analysis and the characterisation of the mortars, as well as of the construction method, makes it possible to propose the plan of a cruciform church of approximately 18.40 m in length by 12.15 m in width (restituted external dimensions) (fig. 4).
Fig. 4. Phased plan and proposed 3D reconstruction of the church and mausoleum: end of 8th -9th century phase (M. Le Brech, L. Fiocchi, after S. Bully and M. Čaušević-Bully).

7Its northeast – southwest orientation is possibly the result of its insertion into an urban grid inherited from Late Antiquity (street?) and of constraints linked to the presence of earlier masonries. The church consists of a short nave bordered by a deep vestibule to the south-west, a small transept with unequal arms and a quadrangular choir the size of the nave. The archaeological study of the building has shown that the north gutter wall of the Romanesque church encases the elevations of the north wall of the transept of the first church (fig. 5).
Fig. 5. Phasing of the north gutter wall of the church (D. Vuillermoz, L. Fiocchi, M. Le Brech, after S. Bully and M. Čaušević-Bully).

8It is likely that a marble transenna replaced in a bay in the north wall of the Romanesque church belonged to this first phase. It is also possible that the oculi of the transenna were sealed with alabaster plaques, two small fragments of which were found at its foot. Along with the elevation of the northern arm of the transept, the most demonstrative remains of this first phase are those of the western – levelled – façade of the vestibule, partly intersected by the façade of the modern church. In addition to the stratigraphic data, the obvious similarity of the mortar of the façade of the vestibule with that of the elevation of the northern arm of the transept assures us that it is the same construction.16 The western wall of the first church, with an opening 2.35 m wide, is bordered by a mortar floor preserved in a few square meters, providing a stratigraphic relationship with the scarcely existing masonry of an internal façade, situated 4.80 m to the east. This ‘ghost wall’ marked the partition of space between the vestibule and the nave. The travertine marble pedestals of a large opening, which were replaced in the portal of the late church, may have come from one of the doors of this first church – before being certainly used in the Romanesque church. It is to this first phase that we associate – in stratigraphy and by the similarity of the mortars – the construction of a rectangular basin – for collecting rainwater? – placed in the corner between the choir and the southern arm of the transept.
9Archaeometric analyses – both OSL-SG17 and radiocarbon18 – have made it possible to reconsider a first proposal for dating the church to the 6th-7th century, placing its construction between the end of the 8th and the first half of the 9th century.
Early medieval sculpture
10This dating corresponds to the discovery of early medieval sculpted blocks belonging to the liturgical furniture of the first church.19 The fragmentary state of these blocks does not allow us to propose a restitution of the liturgical installations20 or of the architectural sculpture of this first phase21, nevertheless, certain motifs and types of size allow us to correlate some of the blocks and to define three sets of stone furniture. The group to which the greatest number of fragments could be attached is distinguished by the absence of “real” interlace, by a very accentuated flat cut, as well as by the twisted rope motif, which is characteristic of sculpture from the end of the 8th century in Istria and in the cities of the Dalmatian coast.
11The second set consists of two blocks: a fragment of a chancel slab and a second one from the semicircular tympanum of a chancel enclosure pergola (fig. 6). These two blocks clearly belong to the same set, characterised by a very fine cut, as well as by the use of the same three-strand braid pattern with a central circular knob22 and a decoration of hooks. This is an Early Medieval set, most probably dating from the beginning of the 9th century. This chronological accuracy is provided by the partially preserved decoration of the chancel screen with a cross motif flanked by a grooved petal flower, which was part of a larger composition quite common at the time – the upper arm of the cross is usually flanked on either side by a grooved petal flower while palmettes are present under the side arms. This motif often appears under an arch23, or alone, as on our screen. The third group of blocks that allow a precise chronology is characterised by the use of a motif of beads and pirouettes associated with a three-stranded braid whose central eye is hollowed out by a drill bit. Quite rare in the Croatian corpus, the bead and pirouette motif is often associated with northern Italian workshops and is generally dated to the late 8th-early 9th century.
Fig. 6. Fragments of a pergola and chancel plate from St Peter’s Church, early 9th century (photo I. Marić).

A church of private foundation
12Amongst the blocks decorated with hooks preserved in the Osor Museum and which can be compared with those discovered in the excavation, there is one that is of particular interest as it contains some letters of a Latin inscription. It is only very recently that it has been possible to link this block with an inscription that was thought to have disappeared24, published in its near-entirety in 1889 in the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum25, but without the indication – which is nonetheless decisive – that the two inscribed lines were surmounted by a decoration of flows, identical to the fragments of group 2 (fig. 7). The note states that the inscription was formerly found "near St Peter’s". The text, as transcribed in the CIL, is as follows: DE DONIS DI ET SCI PAVLS S[...] MARIVS TRIBVNOS CON / CONIOGEN SVAM VV [...]II SVIS VOTOM SVOM SOLVET; we propose a critical reading: (cross?) De donis D(e)i et s(an)c(t)i Paul(i), s[(an)c(t)i Petri ?], Marius tribunos con[...] conio[g]en suam v(i)v(us) [fecit(?) cu]m suis. Votom suom solvet.26 According to a model commonly encountered at that time27, the inscription must have been developed on the architrave of a chancel barrier, fragments of which were found in the excavation. This dedication, a lapidary translation of the evergetism of a tribune of the kastron of Opsara, Marius, and his wife, argues in our opinion for a church of private status, dedicated to the Apostles Paul and maybe Peter (?).28 The dedication also suggests a funerary function29, if not of the church – in which the excavation revealed no graves contemporary with this phase – then of the complex it forms with a mausoleum discovered nearby, as we shall see.
Fig. 7. Fragment of the architrave of an epigraphic chancel discovered in St Peter’s in the 19th century and the inscription (CIL III suppl. 2, 10146).

A T-plane church in a second phase?
13In a second phase, the quadrangular choir would be replaced by a massive semicircular apse30, framed by a semicircular apse to the north and another semicircular apse inscribed in the flat chevet to the south, both grafted onto the transept arms (fig. 8).
Fig. 8. Phased plan of the church and mausoleum: 10th century phase (M. Le Brech, L. Fiocchi, after S. Bully and M. Čaušević-Bully).

14These transformations, marked in particular by the amplification of the chevet, can be dated between the 9th and 10th centuries by the typology of the plan and radiocarbon dating. Indeed, on the northern and southern sides of the nave, a succession of levels of earthen floors showing traces of thermal impacts from the hearth, cut by the foundation walls of the Romanesque church, has been dated by radiocarbon dating between the middle of the 9th century and the 10th century; these floors could indicate the presence of porticoes on each side of the nave of the pre-Romanesque church.31 It is perhaps in this new phase – or later – that the nave is slightly lengthened at the expense of the vestibule by the construction of a new internal façade.32
15If in its first phase the cruciform church is an unicum for this period33, in its second phase, we are certainly in the presence of a so-called T-plan church with a triple-apse chevet. This is similar to a number of Carolingian Istrian buildings (such as Saint Thomas of Rovinj) or those of northern Italy, and which, moreover, sometimes have a privileged funerary function by housing the founder’s tomb, like a mausoleum.34
16And it is precisely during this same phase (or the previous one), that a mausoleum or funerary oratory was built perpendicular to the church, a few meters away from the southwestern corner of the vestibule.
A family or monastic mausoleum?
17The mausoleum is a singular construction, which refers to models from Antiquity, and for which we know of no comparisons to date for the medieval period.35 It is a small rectangular building measuring 7.55 × 3.30 m (internal dimensions, i.e. approximately 25 m2), which was accessed through an opening in the northern façade, more or less in line with the façade of the early church. The space is almost entirely occupied by nine masonry tombs belonging to two phases (fig. 9). The arrangement of the tombs might suggest the presence of an altar in a central position in the southeast quarter of the small monument. The first phase consists of three regular formae aligned along the eastern gutter wall. The formae are contemporary with each other and most probably with the mausoleum. They take the form of carefully constructed quadrangular chambers, consisting of two superimposed parts; the inner walls of the chambers are partially covered with a buttered plaster. Thus constructed tombs were sealed by wide, thick slabs (most of which have disappeared) resting on a specially constructed masonry projection along the inner faces of the perimeter walls, and on a low masonry wall on the other side. A small slope in the lower part of the head panel forms a cephalic cushion. The marking of the graves within the monument was identifiable through their stone cover slabs which contrasted with a mortar floor at the same level.
Fig. 9. Early Medieval mausoleum filled with formae and masonry tombs, excavation campaign 2014 (photo M. Vuković).

18The first individuals buried in two of the formae are radiocarbon dated to between the last quarter of the 9th and the end of the 10th century36, while the first individual buried in the third forma is dated to between the third quarter of the 10th and the middle of the 11th century.37 The very nature of these tombs does not allow us to rule out the hypothesis that the mausoleum predates the dates given by burials that could have taken place in masonry chambers that were carefully cleaned. The anthropological study clearly shows that the first individuals identified are men, of all ages.38 On the other hand, five of the seven masonry tombs, built in a second phase, were originally occupied almost exclusively by women (nine in number) between the end of the 9th century and the first half of the 11th century39: these dates – and therefore the status of the buried persons – are however ambiguous since they already cover the first decades of the existence of the monastery of St Peter.
19Was the mausoleum originally reserved for the familia and descendants of the tribune Marius? Or to an early monastic community that predated the supposed date of the “official foundation” by the bishop of Osor?40 In this case, how can we explain the presence of women’s graves, if not to conceive that the mausoleum, a space for privileged burials, housed “great laymen”, the founder’s relatives, or even nuns from the nearby female monastery of St Mary of the Angels41 (cf. fig. 1), whose foundation is attributed to the parents of Gaudentius according to Riceputti42 – like the male monastery of St Peter’s according to the same author. On the other hand, we will see that from the 11th century onwards the mausoleum was exclusively reserved for the monastic, male community of St Peter.
The abbey church from the 11th century and the monastery
The reconstruction of the church in the Romanesque period
20It is now known that the Romanesque church partially discovered by A. Mohorovičić was not built from scratch, but was the result of a new phase of expansion of the T-shaped church. The basilica, measuring 26.30 × 12.20 m (ext. dim.), consisted of a three-vessel nave, subdivided into five spans, completed by the partly reconstructed triple-apse chevet covered with a barrel vault. The picketing of the modern plasterwork of the north gutter wall, partially preserved in elevation in the reduced church of the early 17th century, revealed two small round-headed bays whose arches are formed by a decorative alternation of limestone blocs and brick. The north wall also has a mushroom-shaped opening with a tympanum highlighted by a brick archivolt. The new central apse of the 11th century chevet follows a polygonal layout on the outside, semi-circular on the inside, while the southern apse is rebuilt according to a semi-circular plan on the outside in place of the flat chevet (fig. 10). The large arches separating the aisles from the central nave rested on quadrangular masonry blocks connected by a longitudinal stylobate. However, the state of preservation of the foundations makes it impossible to determine the nature of the nave’s supports: quadrangular masonry piers or columns. The remains of a masonry foundation in the north aisle, between the 4th and the 5th span, indicate the location of a choir barrier, possibly contemporary with the construction of the north sacristy in the 12th century.43 The south aisle was flanked by a powerful belfry at the level of the 3rd and the 4th span; its foundation is occupied by two Romanesque masonry tombs covering a slab-box tomb from the previous phase.44
Fig. 10. Phased plan of the church, the mausoleum and the north-west corner of the cloister: 11th century phase (M. Le Brech, L. Fiocchi, after S. Bully and M. Čaušević-Bully).

A partitioned vestibule
21The nave is preceded by a contemporary vestibule, of the same width as the church and the depth of one span (i.e. about 3.20 m on average). It has a single entrance, 2.40 m wide, on the outer façade, in line with the inner portal of the same size (fig. 11). The opening is framed by two small advanced masonries of about 0.20 m×0.40 m, which have their counterparts on either side of the inner portal. These could be either a system of inner laths or pilasters for the diaphragm arches supporting the roof structure. These small projecting masonry bands delimit a quadripartition of the vestibule space, which partly refers to a funerary function, as early as the 11th-12th centuries.45
Fig. 11. Romanesque vestibule being excavated (photo S. Bully).

22The first space thus defined is the axial ‘central nave’ of the vestibule, which groups together four tombs in a privileged position, including three masonry tombs under a paved floor (A, fig. 11); they house both men and women.46
23A new pair of lesena to the north forms, together with the masonry bands of the portal, a second, narrower ‘nave’ of only 0.80 m in length (B, fig. 11). This ‘nave’ also accommodates a masonry tomb, but the base of the funerary chamber walls is at almost the same elevation as the slabs, clearly indicating that the cover of this tomb therefore formed a step into a new space in the northern third of the vestibule. This new space, measuring ± 2.20 m×3.20 m and defined again by a pair of lesena, preserves the traces of a floor preparation. It was accessed by a fairly high step, about 30 cm high, above the tomb, or by a double step at the level of the pair of lesena. This subdivision within the vestibule, marked architecturally by the lesena and the difference in floor levels, is also reflected in the different use of the space in the northern third (C, fig. 11). Unlike the rest of the vestibule, this one does not contain any graves, but a singular structure, formed by a large globular ceramic pot – about 40 cm in diameter and as high – buried in the ground (fig. 12). The stratigraphy clearly indicates that the installation of the pottery was contemporary with the construction of the vestibule. The pot’s mouth was roughly at ground level, possibly involving a system of sealing with a board or slab. The question of whether or not it was sealed, as well as the nature of this sealing, and consequently its visibility in the vestibule, leads to another: that of the purpose of this device. To date, we do not have an answer, particularly in the absence of comparisons: among the various hypotheses, we are working on those of a container for a deposit of foundations, relics, offerings or even a sort of urn for the abbot’s elections.47 It should also be noted that while there are no tombs at all in the northern third of the vestibule, its outer corner is lined with a group of four new Romanesque masonry tombs (2 in the façade and 2 along the gutter wall); in contrast, the southwestern corner of the vestibule is lined only with later graves in earthen pits and/or in coffins. In our view, this distribution of graves would indicate quite clearly an attractiveness of the northern third of the vestibule. Excavation of one of the masonry tombs to the north yielded four gold Byzantine coins.48 Because of their stratigraphic position in the tomb and frequent hoarding, they can only provide a terminus post quem. Nevertheless, these two coins are contemporary with the earliest decades of the monastery and constitute one of the few material testimonies of Byzantium’s presence at Osor for this period. In contrast, the southern third of the vestibule (D, fig. 11) is devoid of early graves: the only burials encountered are those of infants, from the 16th-early 17th centuries, arranged around the foundation of a probable, later baptismal font.
Fig. 12. Ceramics discovered in the northern third of the Romanesque vestibule – after the floor excavation (photo S. Bully).

The sculpted decoration on the façade of the vestibule
24Like the abbey church of Pomposa49, the numerous sculpted blocks scattered around the village of Osor, preserved in the AZO Museum or discovered during excavations50, are associated with the façade decoration of the vestibule and its portal. This sculpture, of a rare quality of execution, adorned the portal and was divided into horizontal friezes combining figurative decorations with geometric decorations. The portal had marble pedestals salvaged from an earlier building (probably from the previous church), an ornate lintel and a carved arch whose diameter exceeded the width of the door. The lintel consisted of eight scrolls drawn by a rather plastic scroll, filled with various animal or plant motifs (fig. 13). The arch, 34 cm thick, bears a scroll whose triple-stranded stem forms circular scrolls in which plant and animal motifs are placed alternately. The key of the bow was underlined by a representation of the Manus Dei.
Fig. 13. Restitution of the Romanesque portal of the vestibule of St Peter’s (drawing P. Vedovetto, after M. Jurković).

25The horizontal friezes are decorated with scrolls which enclose circular fields; the stem, fat and very fleshy, ends in a V-shaped profile at the top, in high relief. The scrolls are occupied by hunting scenes: a rider on horseback galloping; a hunting scene in which an animal, probably a lion or a dog, jumps on a boar and bites it in the throat; a dog in full run; a running quadruped; a stag with branched antlers; a rider striking an animal with his spear under his horse’s legs; a lion. In the open spaces between the circles and the entablature border, leafy branches ending in scrolls with characteristics similar to those of the arch of the portal are insinuated. These fine branches are interlaced with the main scroll. In several places, a pine cone appears, in the same style as on the portal arch.
26The sculpture of St Peter’s in Osor can be compared with other stylistically and chronologically similar ensembles (Pomposa, Torcello, Venice, Ravenna), but is distinguished by a rare artistic quality. In the façade of a house near St Peter’s, an inscribed and sculpted block, with stylistic and technical characteristics identical to the blocks discovered during the excavation, perhaps bears the name of the master sculptor of Osor: MENGAVSVS ME FECIT.51
Architecture from the first half of the 11th century
27Whatever the date we choose for the execution of this decoration – in the same years as that of Pomposa (in 1026) or later – it is certain that we are in the presence of a work from the first half of the 11th century52, contemporary with the construction of the abbey church of Saint Peter or participating in the embellishment of its vestibule in a second phase. As far as Saint Peter is concerned, its architectural style, as well as the way it was built – with small, flattened blocs – and the types of openings, leave no doubt that it was built fairly early in the 11th century. In support of this dating, two radiocarbon analyses were carried out on charcoal belonging to the last occupied floors of the porticoes (?) of the T-shaped church, intersected by the north and south gutter walls, and which indicate ranges between 891-1016 and 966-1045.53 Perhaps in connection with the construction of the church, a metal workshop was set up on its side: its activity was dated by radiocarbon between 1013 and 1055 with a peak in probability around 1030.54
The funerary geography of the monastery
28During the first decades of the 11th century and until the beginning of the 14th century, the Early Medieval mausoleum continued to receive a large number of burials; the masonry tombs were raised in order to increase their capacity (fig. 14). In all, 105 individuals (in primary position) were buried in the ten tombs of the mausoleum. With the exception of the nine women mentioned above, they were all men, middle-aged or older: the type of recruitment leaves no doubt about the monastic nature of the burials.
Fig. 14. Monastic mausoleum between the 11th and 14th c. (photo S. Bully).

29During this same period, a monastic cemetery developed in contact with the mausoleum, the church and its bell-tower. The masonry tombs, identical in typology to those discovered in the vestibule and the mausoleum55, also included numerous burials. One of the earliest burials, in a tomb leaning against the eastern wall of the mausoleum, is dated to between the second half of the 10th century and the first third of the 11th century.56 Where sex determination was possible, the anthropological study shows that the individuals buried in the masonry tombs are male, although there is one exception, with one tomb occupied by 9 female burials (and 3 undetermined).57 In this case, one wonders once again if it could not be a tomb reserved for nuns of the monastery of Saint Mary of the Angels58 within the cemetery of the monks of Saint-Peter.
30A cemetery also developed behind the chevet of the abbey church from the beginning of the 11th century according to radiocarbon dates obtained from two burials in masonry tombs.59 The cemetery was densely occupied at least until the end of the Middle Ages, with burials mainly in open graves or in coffins. However, unlike the burial sector to the south of the church, the type of recruitment and the multiple overlaps of burials indicate that this was a space reserved for laymen.
First elements of the topography of the monastery
31The topography of the monastery was significantly completed by GPR geophysical surveys and test pits which revealed the location of the cloister at the site of the car park to the south-east of the Abbey (fig. 15). The archaeological test pits uncovered the northwest corner of the galleries and the beginnings of the south and west wings (fig. 16). The north and west galleries are just under 2 m wide; their walls are preserved in one single elevation range – 0.77 m wide, covering a foundation that protrudes widely on each side – the poor preservation of the elevations does not allow to suggest the rhythm of a probable arcature resting on a wall. The first data from the results of the test pits, cross-referenced with the geophysical maps, make it possible to reconstruct a cloister (galleries and courtyard) measuring ± 18 m in length (east-west) by 13.25 m in width (internal dimensions), with narrow galleries 2 m wide, bordered by wings of (multi-storey?) buildings, approximately 5 m wide.
Fig. 15. Geophysical map revealing the cloister to the south-east of the church (from the excavation team and UMR Sisyphe, 2011).

Fig. 16. North-west corner of the cloister discovered during the survey (photo S. Bully).

32The northwestern corner of the galleries leads to the west wing of the cloister, a short section of which was excavated, revealing the proximity of kitchens and a probable chapter house. The location of a kitchen in the sector is given by the discovery of a charcoal layer and the remains of oyster consumption from the emptying of a fireplace. This occupation layer in the cloister is dated by C14 to the years 1190-1279.60 This potential kitchen is the continuation of a first room in contact with the church, which is identified as the chapter house because of its location.61 This building, which was partly “uncovered” during the early excavations of A. Mohorovičić in 1953 before being resealed, was then dated to Late Antiquity. The presumed chapter is presented as a large rectangular room with an interior width of 5.45 m, with a small apse to the south in a second state (dim: 1.35 m at the chord, prof. 0.70 m, w. 0.55 m) that reduces its length to 8.75 m (fig. 17). The excavation uncovered a beautifully constructed masonry tomb at the foot of the south gutter wall of the church (fig. 18a). The grave was occupied by an elderly male; his dignity was marked by a gold and garnet abbatial or episcopal ring slipped onto one of his fingers (fig. 18b). Radiocarbon analysis of the burial places it between the years 895 and 1030 with peak probabilities between 1000 and 1030.62 This result raises the question of the dating of the chapter house and cloister, which we would be inclined to place in the first third of the 11th century.63 In this perspective, one should not overlook the existence of a monolithic well, preserved in the lapidarium of the Osor presbytery, which has a sculpted decoration very close to that of the 11th century of St Peter’s church. The well is thought to have come from the episcopal group, but we suggest that its original location is in the cloister of the monastery, in connection with a cistern along the south gallery (refectory?).
Fig. 17. Chapter-hall with its apse in the western wing of the cloister (photo S. Bully).

Fig. 18. Privileged tomb of an abbot – with his ring – discovered in the chapter hall (S. Bully and D. Doračić, AMZ, 2012).

33The east wing of the cloister was extended to the north by a long building consisting of a ground floor and a first floor (49.60 m long and 5.40 m high). Its eastern wall – the only one preserved in elevation – was integrated into the layout of the Venetian city wall of the early 15th century (fig. 19; cf. fig. 2). The monastery building was built in two phases, which are difficult to date as they stand, but the first phase was probably built in the 11th-12th centuries. This large monastic building must have had residential and domestic functions (guest house, abbot’s lodge?) while forming part of the monastery’s eastern boundary; moreover, most of the boundary between the conventual space and the urban space is still largely unknown.
Fig. 19 – External view of the Venetian wall against the eastern monastic building (photo S. Bully); internal and external phasing (after A. Berger and B. Bregu).

Conclusion
34The combination of archaeological, bioarchaeological, archaeometric, architectural and topographical data, as well as the contextualisation of the sculpture, lends some credence to the traditional account of the origins of St Peter’s monastery, as reported in the Camaldolese Annals and by the Jesuit Riceputti in the 18th century.64 The reconstruction of the abbey church of St Peter, accompanied by the development of a discriminating funerary geography and, in all likelihood, a cloister quarter, may be dated between the end of the 10th and the first third of the 11th century. This relatively Early dating raises the question of whether St Peter’s was founded by the bishop St Gaudentius, or by his own parents, as Riceputti already suggested65, or even earlier in the 10th century – concomitantly with the phase of reconstruction of the chevet of the primitive church? At this point, S. Gioanni’s questions about the silence of the archival sources before the beginning of the 13th century are all the more vivid.
35In any case, this urban monastic foundation occupies and amplifies an earlier complex from the 800s consisting of a church that is described as private, perhaps associated with the family mausoleum of its founder, a tribune from the Byzantine city of Osor. The small funerary building played a major role in the topography of the monastery in the Middle Ages, since the maintenance of the mausoleum for the monastic community of St Peter (and perhaps the women’s community of St Mary of the Angels) between the 10th (?)-11th century and the beginning of the 14th century, determined the construction of the Romanesque cloister not on the south side of the abbey, according to the canonical plan, but to the southeast of its chevet (fig. 20).
Fig. 20. Proposed 3D and plan reconstruction of the monastery of St Peter in the 11th -12th c. (M. Le Brech, L. Fiocchi, after S. Bully and M. Čaušević-Bully; 3D M. Le Brech, after S. Bully).

36The complexity and density of the remains discovered in the church and its surroundings have prevented the excavation of the already recognised monastic buildings – in particular the cloister: this would certainly be a major challenge for the continuation of research on Saint-Peter of Osor.
Bibliographie
Primary sources
CDCDS, I = Codex diplomaticus regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, Vol. I (743-1100), redegit M. Kostrenčić, collegerunt et digesserunt J. Stipišić and M. Šamšalović, Zagreb, 1967.
CIL III, Suppl. 2 = Corpus inscriptionum latinarum (CIL), III, Suppl, Inscriptionum Orientis et Illyrici Latinarum supplementum, ed. by Th. Mommsen, O. Hirschfeld, A. Domaszewski, Berlin, 1902.
DAI = Constantine Porphyrogenitus De Administrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, transl. R.J.H. Jenkins, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D. C. 1967.
Secondary sources
Basić – Jurković 2011 = I. Basić, M. Jurković, Prilog opusu splitske klesarske radionice kasnog VIII. stoljeća, Starohrvatska prosvjeta 38, Split, 2011, p. 149-185.
Blečić Kavur – Kavur 2013 = M. Blečić Kavur, B. Kavur, The amphora from Osor, in Hortus Artium Medievalium, 19, 2013, p. 351-356.
Blečić Kavur 2021 = M. Blečić Kavur, Kvarner in the Early Iron Age of the northern Adriatic, in Arheološki vestnik, 72, 2021, p. 533-550.
Bully 2013 = S. Bully, Un dispositif funéraire spécifique: les formae. État de la question et nouvelles découvertes, in Hortus Artium Medievalium, 20/2, 2014, p. 480-488.
Bully 2015 = S. Bully, M. Jurković, M. Čaušević-Bully, I. Marić, Benedktinska opatija Sv. Petra u Osoru – arheološka istraživanja 2006-2013 [The Benedictine Monastery of St Peter in Osor – Archaeological studies 2006-2013], Istraživanja na otocima [The island research projects], Izdanja HAD-a 30, Zagreb, 2015, p. 103-127.
Bully et al. 2011 = S. Bully, M. Jurković, M. Čaušević-Bully, I. Marić, Le monastère Saint Pierre d’Osor (île de Cres): cinquième campagne d’études archéologiques, in Hortus Artium Medievalium, 17, 2011, p. 261-274.
Čaušević-Bully 2013 = M. Čaušević-Bully, Le nord de l'Adriatique entre l'Antiquité et l'Antiquité tardive. Urbanisation, dynamique de peuplement et construction territoriale d'un espace insulaire et côtier entre le Ier et le VIe siècle : le Kvarner et ses marges (la Liburnie septentrionale) ; cotutelle entre l’université de Zagreb et l’université Paris-Est, 2013.
Ćus-Rukonić 1991 = J. Ćus-Rukonić, Predromanička, protoromanička i ranoromanička skulptura na otocima Cresu i Lošinju, Cres, 1991.
Dugorepec 2018 = L. Dugorepec, Tipovi ukopa na otocima Krku i Cresu od 4. do 11. stoljeća, Magistarski rad, Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Filozofski fakultet, Zagreb, 2018.
Jakšić 1982 = N. Jakšić, Ulomci skulpture 11. stoljeća iz Osora, in Arheološka istraživanja na otocima Cresu i Lošinju, Izdanja HAD-a 7, Zagreb, 1982, p. 187-191.
Jakšić 2020 = N. Jakšić, The Eleventh-Century Façade Decoration of St Mary’s Abbey Church in Zadar, in P. Vežić, I. Josipović (eds), Abbatissa ingenuitate precipua. The Proceedings of the Scientific Colloquium “The 950th anniversary of the Benedictine Monastery of St Maru in Zadar (1066-2016)”, Zadar, 2020, p. 133-142.
Jurković 2000 = M. Jurković, L’architecture du premier âge roman en Croatie, in Hortus Artium medievalium, 6, 2000, p. 83-92.
Jurković 2013 = M. Jurković, Le portail de Saint-Pierre d’Osor, in C. Blondeau, B. Boissavit-Camus, V. Boucherat, P. Volti (eds), Ars Auro Gemmisque Prior. Mélanges en hommage à Jean-Pierre Caillet, Zagreb-Motun, 2013, p. 267-275.
Jurković 2016 = M. Jurković, Quando il monumento diventa documento. Una bottega lapicida del Quarnero in A. Chavarria Arnau, M. Jurković (eds), Alla ricerca di un passato complesso. Contributi in onore di Gian-Pietro Brogiolo per il suo settantesimo compleanno, Zagreb, 2016, p. 231-242.
Jurković 2018 = M. Jurković, Forms as Signs of Representation of Power: Carolingian Transmission of Longobard Architectural Models. The Case of Istria, in G. Archetti (ed.), Teodolinda. I longobardi all’alba dell’Europa, Milan-Spoleto, 2018, p. 545-572.
Jurković – Marić 2012 = M. Jurković, I. Marić, Le « premier art roman » en Istrie et en Dalmatie, in E. Vergnolle, S. Bully (dir.), Le « premier art roman » cent après. La construction entre Saône et Pô autour de l’an Mil. Études comparatives, Actes du colloque international de Baume-les-Messieurs et Saint-Claude du 17 au 21 juin 2009, Besançon, 2012, p. 147-173.
Maraković – Jurković 2002 = N. Maraković, M. Jurković, “Signatures” in the Stones. The Legacy of Early Medieval Elites on the Territory of Modern Croatia, in Hortus Artium Medievalium, 8, 2002, p. 359-374.
Marazzi et al. 2021 = F. Marazzi, F.A. Frisetti, N. Abate, R. Lasaponara, L. Di Cosmo, D. Ferraiuolo, ‘Claustrum interius et exterius preparavit’. Nuovi dati e nuove ipotesi sull’impianto architettonico di san Vincenzo al Volturno fra IX e XI secolo alla luce di recenti indagini diagnostiche e archeologiche (2013-2019), in Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana, XCVII/1, 2021, p. 169-222.
Marušić 2012 = M. Marušić, Jedan zaboravljeni osorski spomenik: Sveta Marija od Anđela, Magistarski rad, Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Filozofski fakultet, Zagreb, 2012.
Marasović 2009 = T. Marasović, Dalmatia praeromanica. Ranosrednjovjekovno graditeljstvo u Dalmaciji, vol. 2, Zagreb, 2009.
Marić et al. 2014 = I. Marić, S. Bully, M. Jurković, M. Čaušević-Bully, Le monastère Saint-Pierre d’Osor (île de Cres) : huitième campagne d’études archéologiques, in Hortus Artium Medievalium, 20/2, 2014, p. 463-479.
Miladinov 2008 = M. Miladinov, Margins of solitude. Eremitism in Central Europe between East and West, Zagreb, 2008.
Milošević 2000 = A. Milošević (ed.), Hrvati i Karolinzi – Katalog, Split, 2000.
Mohorovičić 1953 = A. Mohorovičić, Pregled i analiza novootkrivenih objekata historijske arhitekture na području grada Osora, in Bulletin Instituta za likovne umjetnosti JAZU, 1-2, 1953, p. 10-14.
Prigent 2008 = V. Prigent, Notes sur l’évolution de l’administration byzantine en Adriatique (VIIIe-IXe siècle), in MEFRM, 120/2, 2008, p. 393-417.
Urbanova 2018 = P. Urbanova, Datation du mortier provenant de la première phase du Mur 101 par luminescence optiquement stimulée, méthode dite single grain, in S. Bully, M. Čaušević-Bully, I. Marić, M. Jurković (eds), The Monastery of St Peter in Osor (Island of Cres, Croatia) and Island Monasticism in the Kvarner Archipelago, Campaign 2018, Rapport d’activité de la Mission archéologique franco-croate, 2018, p. 38-41.
Notes de bas de page
1 Miladinov 2008, p. 152.
2 See article by S. Gioanni in this volume.
3 The Franco-Croatian collaboration on the monastery of St. Peter of Osor is based on a collaboration initiated since 2006 between the UMR 6298 ARTEHIS of the CNRS (Dijon) and the International Centre for Research on Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages of Zagreb-Motovun (IRCLAMA)/University of Zagreb; a partnership has been established with the French School of Rome since 2012 and with the University of Franche-Comté/UMR 6249 Chrono Environnement since 2015. The St. Peter's mission in Osor was led by S. Bully, M. Jurković, M. Čaušević-Bully and I. Marić. Funding for the mission was provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Croatian Ministries of Culture and Research, the École française de Rome and the Caritas veritatis Foundation.
4 Bully et al. 2015, p. 103-127. For annual progress reports, see the excavation reports published online between 2007 and 2011 in the Bulletin du Centre d'études médiévales d'Auxerre, https://journals.openedition.org/cem, in the Chroniques des activités archéologiques de l'École française de Rome between 2014 and 2017, https://journals.openedition.org/cefr, and in the journal Hortus artium medievalium between 2007 and 2018.
5 See n. 2.
6 HANC D. PETRO ADDICTAM ECCLESIAM / VETVSTATE PENITVS COLLAPSAM / AVGVSTINVS GRADONICVS EPISC. FELTRENSIS / ABBAS COMMENDATARIVS / A SOLO RESTITVIT / ANNO A CHRISTI ORTV MDCXXV. On the question of the commendation of the monastery in the middle of the XVe century, see in this volume the articles by Mgr. F. Velčić and S. Gioanni.
7 Mohorovičić 1953, p. 10-14.
8 We would like to thank Jasminka Ćus-Rukonić, then Director of the Cres-Osor Museums, for her cooperation.
9 Jakšić 1982, p. 187; in a recent article, the same author deepens his study by summoning other Croatian and Italian monuments: Jakšić 2020, p. 133-142.
10 On this last point, see the contribution of S. Riccioni in this volume.
11 Jakšić 2020, p. 141-142.
12 Jurković 2000, p. 84; Jurković – Marić 2012, p. 147-173.
13 It will be recalled that according to the writings of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Byzantine Kastron of Osor still retained its municipal structures in the middle of the 10th century (DAI, 29 (1967, p.124), which is confirmed by the mention of a Prior [Iohannes] in a famous deed drawn up in 1018 (CDCDS, I, 40 (a. 1018), p. 57-58; cf. article by S. Gioanni in this volume).
14 Blečić Kavur – Kavur 2013, p. 351-356; Blečić Kavur 2021.
15 Marić et al. 2014, p. 463-479.
16 This mortar is characterised by its compactness, its orange colour and by a filler of sand grains.
17 The peak probability obtained by OSL-SG dating is 841 ±73 (BDX 19663) (Urbanova 2018, p. 38-41).
18 Of particular note is the dating of 676-869 (95 % probability) given by a charcoal sample taken from the mortar (us 1.1028) lining the bottom of the altar pit associated with this state (Lyon-9179/SacA-28813) as well as the dating of 680-874 (95 % probability) of a contemporary layer of the east wall of the north transept (us 1.1146/wall 1.147) (Lyon-16129/SacA-56266).
19 It should be remembered that these pieces, like almost all the blocks in our catalogue, are fragmentary and quite damaged, which makes it difficult to identify precisely the device to which they belonged and does not facilitate their interpretation or a more precise dating.
20 As has often been the case for many sites on the Croatian coast (see Milošević 2000).
21 About twenty very small blocks (flakes) decorated with double and triple strands belonging to the transenna were found during the excavations.
22 It is interesting to note that the circular knob this time associated with another motif is one of the hallmarks of a recently identified Early Medieval Kvarner sculptor's workshop active at the same time: Jurković 2016, p. 231-242.
23 There are many known and published examples, see e.g. Milošević 2000; Basić – Jurković 2011, p. 149-185; more locally, see the chancel screen preserved in the Osor Bishopric Museum, Ćus-Rukonić 1991, p. 16.
24 Bully et al. 2011, p. 261-262.
25 CIL III, suppl. 2, 10146. Only one of the three (?) inscribed fragments is preserved in the reserves of the Osor Museum: Ćus-Rukonić 1991, p. 25-34; Marasović 2009, p. 101 and 106 (the published transcription of the inscription fragment is as follows: NIS DIET. SCIVMVL... FMSV ).
26 Čaušević-Bully 2013, p. 618.
27 See in particular: Maraković – Jurković 2002, p. 359-374.
28 Beyond what this dedication tells us about the church itself, the mention of a tribune is undoubtedly one of the signs that Osor remained – by the will of its councillors – in the 'Byzantine area' after the fall of the Exarchate of Ravenna in 751: Prigent 2008, p. 393-417.
29 Thanking Pascale Chevalier for this comment on the dedication.
30 In addition to the masonry repairs that can be seen on the inner wall, the width of the semicircular foundation of 1.45 m, which is difficult to understand for an elevation of the polygonal apse of only 0.70 m, is one of the arguments for seeing it as an earlier apse and not just a foundation.
31 Radiocarbon dates obtained on charcoal collected from the rubbish layers: to the south, us. 4.1075 (Lyon-9181/SacA28815), 95.4 % probability between 783 and 991; to the north, us. 1088/soil 1.155, (Lyon-16125/SacA-56262), 83.0 % probability between 857-986; soil 1.162, (Lyon-16127/SacA-56264), 95.4 % probability between 664-770.
32 Radiocarbon dating of a charcoal sample from the new inner facade gives a range of 897-1024 (Lyon-16130/SacA-56267) with 95.4 % probability.
33 Unlike the Late Antique period, such as the famous mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna.
34 Jurković 2018, p. 545-572.
35 On this mausoleum in Formae: Bully 2014, p. 480-488.
36 Forma 4.167, ind. 299 (Beta-371853): 95 % probability between 880 and 990, 68 % probability between 890-980; forma 4.266, ind. 330 (Lyon-18197/SacA-61926), 92.3 % probability between 887-997.
37 Forma 4.264, ind. 369 (Lyon-16122/SacA-56259), 91.9 % probability between 962-1041.
38 Anthropological study carried out by Anaïs Delliste in the framework of the ISITE-UBFC IATEKA programme led by M. Čaušević-Bully, in collaboration with Tonka Kružić and Lucija Dugoperec.
39 T. 4.337, ind. 397 (Lyon-16128/SacA-56265), 90.2 % probability between 951-1033; T. 4.212, ind. 309 (Lyon-18196/SacA-61925), 87.8 % probability between 960-1047; T. 4.305, ind. 374 (Lyon-18199/SacA-61928), 95.4 % probability between 895-1030; T. 4.322, ind. 381 (Lyon-18200/SacA-61929), 90.2 % probability between 895-1033.
40 DNA tests are being carried out to determine any possible family ties.
41 A ruined Early medieval church about 150 m south of St Peter's is said to belong to this women's monastery: Marusić 2012.
42 Quoted in Miladinov 2008, p. 150-151; on the writings of the Jesuit scholar Filippo Riceputi, see the article by S. Gioanni in this volume.
43 The barrier may have consisted of alternating quadrangular and octagonal columns, which were found in fairly large numbers during the excavation.
44 A slab tomb (T. 4.161/ind. 191) discovered to the south of the church, under the Romanesque campanile, is dated by C14 between the years 779 and 1013 (Lyon-10390/SacA-34137).
45 It should be noted that the other tombs found in the rest of the church cannot be dated before the 13th century.
46 Some of the burials were accompanied by glass vials or small ceramic pots from the 13th-14th centuries, but the presence of rings and rosary medals for others dates them from the second half of the 16th centurye, implying that the vestibule of the Romanesque church was still in use and that therefore the reduced church would have been built in 1625 as the inscription indicates.
47 This last hypothesis is suggested by the interpretation of a discovery with some similarities to the monastery of San Vincenzo al Volturno: Marazzi et al. 2021, p. 207-217.
48 Two solidi of the Byzantine emperor Roman III Argyre (1028-1034) and two of the emperor John II Comnenus (1118-1122 and 1120-1137); see article by V. Prigent in this same publication.
49 On the Pomposa sculpture, see the article by S. Riccioni in this same publication.
50 Jurković 2013, p. 267-275.
51 And the analogy with the decoration of Pomposa could be accentuated by the discovery of some fragments of Islamic glazed ceramics that would be reminiscent of the baccini of its vestibule or its campanile.
52 Jakšić 1982, p. 187.
53 Us 4.1073, Lyon-9180/SacA-28814) and Us 1.1084 (Lyon-16124/SacA-56261).
54 Us 6.1047, Lyon-16131/SacA-56268).
55 On a synthesis of the typology of graves: Dugorepec 2018.
56 T. 4.169/ind. 242, Lyon-16120/SacA-56257).
57 Tomb 4.232.
58 See n. 41.
59 Masonry tomb 3.116 (ind. 56) and vault 3.108 (ind.58) (Poz-28642 and Poz-28643).
60 Us 4.1174, Lyon-16121/SacA-56258).
61 However, there are no internal features (such as benches) to support this proposal.
62 Masonic tomb 4.251/ind. 203, Lyon-18192/SacA-61921).
63 An OSL-SG analysis of the cloister mortars carried out as part of the ANR Monacorale programme should make it possible to make progress on the question of dating the cloister (samples taken in August 2022; results pending).
64 See the article by S. Gioanni in this book and Miladinov, 2008, p. 150-151.
65 Ibid., p. 150,
Auteurs
CNRS-UMR ARTEHIS-University of Bourgogne – sebastien.bully@u-bourgogne.fr
University of Franche-Comté-UMR Chrono-environnement – morana.causevic-bully@univ-fcomte.fr
University of Zagreb-IRCLAMA – mjurkovic@ffzg.hr
IRCLAMA – ivamarich@hotmail.com
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Le Thermalisme en Toscane à la fin du Moyen Âge
Les bains siennois de la fin du XIIIe siècle au début du XVIe siècle
Didier Boisseuil
2002
Rome et la Révolution française
La théologie politique et la politique du Saint-Siège devant la Révolution française (1789-1799)
Gérard Pelletier
2004
Sainte-Marie-Majeure
Une basilique de Rome dans l’histoire de la ville et de son église (Ve-XIIIe siècle)
Victor Saxer
2001
Offices et papauté (XIVe-XVIIe siècle)
Charges, hommes, destins
Armand Jamme et Olivier Poncet (dir.)
2005
La politique au naturel
Comportement des hommes politiques et représentations publiques en France et en Italie du XIXe au XXIe siècle
Fabrice D’Almeida
2007
La Réforme en France et en Italie
Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes
Philip Benedict, Silvana Seidel Menchi et Alain Tallon (dir.)
2007
Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à la fin du Moyen Âge
Jacques Chiffoleau, Claude Gauvard et Andrea Zorzi (dir.)
2007
Souverain et pontife
Recherches prosopographiques sur la Curie Romaine à l’âge de la Restauration (1814-1846)
Philippe Bountry
2002