ISSN 0484-8942

REVUE ------------------------------------
--------------- NUMISMATIQUE

Dirigée par Secrétaires de la rédaction

Fr. Duyrat, C. Grandjean, C. Morrisson, V. Drost, J. Jambu, J. Olivier
M. Bompaire, A. Suspène

2020
(177e volume)

Revue soutenue par l’Institut National des Sciences Humaines et Sociales

du Centre national de la recherche scientifique

----------------------------------------------------
SOCIÉTÉ FRANÇAISE DE NUMISMATIQUE

Diffusion : Société d’édition « Les Belles Lettres »

2020
REVUE NUMISMATIQUE

COMITÉ DE PUBLICATION

Directeurs
Frédérique DUYRAT | Catherine GRANDJEAN | Cécile MORRISSON | Marc BOMPAIRE | Arnaud SUSPÈNE

Secrétaires de la rédaction
Articles Comptes rendus
Jérôme JAMBU (jerome.jambu@univ-lille.fr) | Vincent DROST Julien OLIVIER (julien.olivier@bnf.fr)

COMITÉ DE LECTURE

Michael ALRAM, Michel AMANDRY, Philip ATTWOOD, François BARATTE, Patrice BAUBEAU, Cécile BRESC,
François DE CALLATAŸ, Michel CHRISTOL, Yves COATIVY, Sylviane ESTIOT, Bruno FOUCRAY, Stefan HEIDEMANN,
Antony HOSTEIN, Marie-Christine MARCELLESI, Jens Christian MOESGAARD, Sylvia NIETO-PELLETIER, Olivier
PICARD, Séléné PSOMA, Andrea SACCOCCI, François THIERRY, Lucia TRAVAINI, Benedikt ZÄCH.

La Revue numismatique paraît annuellement. Elle est la propriété de la Société française de numismatique
qui en est l’éditeur et en assure le service à tous ses membres à jour de cotisation pour l’année concernée,
lors de sa parution. La cotisation a été fixée pour 2020 à 56 € pour les membres correspondants, à 65 € pour
les membres titulaires, les institutionnels et les membres résidant à l’étranger, à 30 € pour les étudiants.

Société Française de Numismatique

Reconnue d’utilité publique
Bibliothèque nationale de France, 58 rue de Richelieu, F-75002 PARIS
http://www.sfnumismatique.org | sfnum@hotmail.fr

La Revue numismatique est également diffusée par

Belles Lettres Diffusion Distribution
25 rue du Général Leclerc, F-94270 LE KREMLIN-BICÊTRE
Tél. : 01 45 15 19 89 | Fax : 01 45 15 19 80

Le champ couvert par la Revue numismatique (RN) comprend la numismatique et l’histoire monétaire et s’étend à l’archéologie,
l’histoire économique, l’histoire de l’art ainsi qu’à l’épigraphie, la sigillographie ou la glyptique dans leurs rapports avec
l’étude des monnaies, médailles et documents monétiformes de toutes civilisations.
La RN recherche des études de haut niveau et de première main, publication de documents nouveaux ou nouvelle interprétation
de documents connus. Des notes synthétiques faisant le point sur une question ou un débat y ont également leur place.
Les langues admises sont, outre le français, l’allemand, l’anglais, l’espagnol et l’italien.
Les manuscrits complets et conformes aux instructions aux auteurs (p. 465) doivent être remis au secrétaire principal de
rédaction au plus tard le 1er septembre de l’année qui précède la parution ; celui-ci les rend anonymes avant qu’ils ne soient
expertisés. Les manuscrits sont confiés par le comité de lecture, lors d’une première réunion (octobre) à plusieurs rappor-
teurs, dont au moins un de ses membres est titulaire, ledit comité se réservant le droit de faire appel à des spécialistes
extérieurs. Les expertises sont examinées et discutées par le comité de lecture lors d’une seconde réunion (novembre) et
les articles sont retenus en fonction de leur intérêt scientifique. Le comité de lecture peut conditionner la publication d’un
article à d’éventuelles reprises. Les secrétaires de rédaction annoncent aux auteurs les décisions du comité de lecture avant
le 31 décembre. Les articles sont définitivement validés lorsque le conseil de gestion de la RN se réunit en janvier, pour
adopter le budget du volume à paraître et ne peuvent dès lors plus faire l’objet d’une autre publication.
En cas de contestation d’une décision, les auteurs doivent la présenter au secrétaire principal de rédaction, qui la remettra
aux directeurs pour y répondre.
La RN ne rend compte que des ouvrages qui sont adressés au secrétariat avec la mention « Revue numismatique ». Les ouvrages
sont remis à des spécialistes proposés par les directeurs au comité de lecture. La publication rapide dans le bulletin ne doit pas
nuire au caractère informatif et critique des comptes rendus et il est possible de rendre compte simultanément et synthé-
tiquement de plusieurs ouvrages sous la forme de comptes rendus de synthèse.
La RN se réserve le droit de refuser toute publicité sans avoir à fournir de motif à sa décision.

Prépresse : Fabien TESSIER | Imprimerie CORLET

 Paul ARTHUR*

A Signet Ring of Basileios, Eparch of Constantinople,

from Porto Cesareo (LE), and the Photian Schism1

Summary - In 2014, I was able to secure a Byzantine gold ring for the Italian people. It was
found by a fisherman, off the coast at Porto Cesareo, Puglia, southern Italy. Study has
shown that it is a signet ring that belonged to Basileios, imperial protospatharios and
eparch of Constantinople during the period of the Photian schism (863-867). This paper
describes the ring and its discovery as well as suggesting how it may relate to Basileios
taking part in an embassy to the Papal court in Rome on behalf of the emperor Basil I.

Keywords - Photian schism, Gold ring, Protospatharios, Eparch, Italy.

Résumé - L’auteur a pu faire entrer l’objet présenté ici dans le patrimoine italien. Trouvé
par un pêcheur près de la côte à Porto Cesareo, en Pouille (Italie du Sud), cet anneau
sigillaire a appartenu à Basile, protospathaire impérial et éparque de Constantinople
pendant le schisme photien (863-867). L’article décrit cet anneau et les circonstances de
sa découverte avant de suggérer comment il peut avoir été lié à la participation de Basile
à une ambassade envoyée par l’empereur Basile Ier à Rome auprès de la cour pontificale.

Mots clés - Schisme photien, anneau en or, protospathaire, éparque, Italie médiévale.

The recent publication of objects confiscated by the Italian Carabinieri

presents a quite astounding discovery,2 although does not discuss its signifi-
cance. In April 2014 a local fisherman in Puglia (southern Italy) noticed the
glint of a small object lying less than two meters below the water, off the
coast of Porto Cesareo (Lecce). He proceeded to recover the object, which

* Department of Cultural Heritage, University of Salento, Italy.

Email: paul.arthur@unisalento.it.
1. I should like, first of all, to thank the then Superintendent of Archaeology, Luigi La Rocca,
who helped me to secure the ring for the Italian people in 2014, as it could easily have
become one of those many antiquities on the market, without a certifiable provenience.
He asked me not to publish it until court proceedings had been finally concluded. I am
also pleased that my friend Fabio Pagano was the first to have brought it to public atten-
tion. A preliminary interpretation of the inscriptions on the ring is due to the kindness of
Giuseppe Boffa and Mario Lombardo of the University of Salento. I should also particu-
larly like to thank Cécile Morrisson for first taking an interest in my discovery, as well as
Rita Auriemma, Jean-Claude Cheynet, Salvatore Cosentino and Jean-Marie Martin for
their further and very valuable observations and discussion.
2. Pagano 2016.

RN 2020, p. 225-234 | 225

PAUL ARTHUR

transpired to be a solid gold ring, with a figure, decoration and inscriptions

(figures 1-2). Shortly afterwards, the discovery came to my attention and,
through my involvement, it was acquired by the Italian State in May 2014 and
is now in the custody of the Superintendence of Archaeology, Fine Arts and
Landscape in Taranto.
The gold ring is quite clearly a Byzantine official signet ring that belonged
to a certain Basilios, and was used to seal and authenticate documents, as well
as providing validation and divine protection to its owner. It weighs 53,37 g.
The head of the ring measures 21 mm by 17 mm and 21 mm across the band.

Figure 1 - The face of the signet ring of Basileios: the real view (left) and the reversed view (right)
(© Laboratory for Medieval Archaeology, University of Salento).

Figure 2 - Side views of the signet ring of Basileios

(© Laboratory for Medieval Archaeology, University of Salento).

226 | RN 2020, p. 225-234

 A SIGNET RING OF BASILEIOS, EPARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

Cast in one piece, the bezel was subsequently engraved with an image of Christ
encircled by an inscription, and the band with rinceau decoration and mono-
grams in Greek. For Byzantine scholarship, the ring is of quite exceptional
interest and this paper describes it and discusses its likely significance for
Byzantine history, especially as regards its owner and its provenience.
Porto Cesareo, an area of small harbours, lies on the western, Ionian, coast of
the Salento peninsula, in southern Puglia, some 25 km north of the Byzantine
port-town of Gallipoli and some 26 kms to the south-west of Lecce (figures 3-4).
Although the site of Porto Cesareo has often been regarded of relatively little
historical significance, its coastal geomorphology was of sufficient capacity
as to have hosted the foundation of the small harbour and settlement site of
Cesarea Augusta under the Swebian Emperor Frederick II during the first half of
the 13th century.3 Earlier finds, of classical date, suggest that it may also have
been of a certain importance under the Romans and that it might further be
identified with the site of Senum, listed as an oppidum by Pliny the Elder.4
So, who was Basil (henceforth, Basileios), and what was his signet ring doing
in the waters off the coast of the small harbour area of Porto Cesareo?
On the two sides of the ring, amongst foliate decoration, are the two cruci-
form monograms standing for “Κύριε” and “Βοήθει”, within circular pearl
borders, that represent the standard Byzantine invocation “Lord, help me”,
whilst the inscription on the face of the ring, in retrograde so that it could be
impressed on official documents, reads “BCILEIRC ΠΘΡSEΠ-
ΡΧΠΟΛEΣ”, that may be read as “Basileios, prōtospatharios kai eparkhos
poleōs” or “Basileios, imperial protospatharios and eparch of the City” (thus
of Constantinople).
The ring is quite similar to an example held in the Bibliothèque Nationale
de France (BnF), which has been attributed by Jean-Claude Cheynet and Cécile
Morrisson to emperor Basil I, when he was still parakoimōmenos to emperor
Michael III, and is dated to around 865-866.5 Although the BnF example has an
inlaid emerald engraved with the bust of Christ Pantocrator, the gold-work
is so similar to that of the Porto Cesareo ring as to suggest that they were
both made in the same imperial atelier in Constantinople. The Porto Cesareo
ring has also various similarities to two other gold rings present in the BnF
catalogue.6 All three BnF examples have niello highlighting the gold decora-
tion. It is therefore quite possible that the Porto Cesareo ring was similarly
fashioned, with the remains of the niello having perhaps been destroyed not
only by many years underwater, but also by the cleaning of the object with
bathroom detergent by the fisherman who discovered it.

3. Martin 1995.
4. Nat. Hist. III, 16, 99-105; De Mitri 2010, pp. 165-166.
5. Cheynet, Morrisson 1992 (Numéro d’inventaire: Schlumberger 126).
6. Cheynet 1992.

RN 2020, p. 225-234 | 227

PAUL ARTHUR

Figure 3 - The Salento peninsula

(© Paul Arthur).

Figure 4 - Porto Cesareo and the site of discovery of the signet ring of Basileios
(© Google Earth, with modifications by Paul Arthur).

228 | RN 2020, p. 225-234

 A SIGNET RING OF BASILEIOS, EPARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

If the Porto Cesareo ring is to be dated to around the same time as the BnF
ring mentioning the parakoimōmenos Basil, then it should belong to around
the mid 9th century. Indeed, there is only one known person to whom the title
of “eparch of the City” would, thus, appear to relate. He would be Basilios 124
or Basileios (PBE I, Basilios 124), a patrikios and eparch of Constantinople (i.e.
the Polis) from, at least, 862 and 866. As Βασιλείῳ πατρικίῳ καὶ ἐπάρχῳ πόλεως,
he was the addressee of a letter from the patriarch Photios (PBE I, Photios 1),
written between April 862 and April 866.7 In the letter, Photios censures him
for his unfairness and cruelty, stating “that while he is in office men better
qualified have to endure his yoke and, if what they say about him is true, he
should mend his ways”. All this may have been Byzantine infighting, as
Photios himself was ardently criticised as a heretic during the Fourth Council
of Constantinople in 869.8
The importance of the gold ring is paramount, as its discovery at Porto
Cesareo in southern Puglia may add a significant detail to the historical episode
that is known as the Photian schism (863-867), which was a defining moment
in the power relationship between the Emperor of Byzantium and the Roman
Church,9 as well as being an important episode in the history of the patriarchate.
It revolved largely around the question of the Byzantine Emperor being able
to nominate the patriarch without the prior approval of the pope, although it
involved also various other political and theological issues.10
Briefly put, Photios was a layman, but a great orthodox scholar, favoured
by emperor Michael III. He was thus nominated patriarch in 858, angering the
supporters of the deposed patriarch Ignatios, an anti-iconoclast monk and son of
the emperor Michael I, who contested the canonical right of the appointment
of Photios. Supporters of Ignatios, who regarded his deposition illegitimate,
turned to pope Nicholas I (858-867) for support. Michael III thereupon invited
the papal legates of pope Nicholas I to Constantinople in the winter of 860-861
so as to both gain his approval of Photios and to pronounce upon the ortho-
dox doctrines of images. The council, instead, became a sort of trial against
Ignatios, who was subsequently condemned, whilst the pope was irritated
that his request for the restitution of the papal patrimony in southern Italy or
his jurisdiction over western Illyricum were not even subjected to discussion.
Because of conflicting territorial interests between the pope and the emperor,
pope Nicholas I, during the Lateran Council of 863, wanted to confirm papal
primacy and invalidated both the council of 861 and Photios’ nomination to
the patriarchate. Emperor Michael III was not about to accept papal primacy,

7. Photius, Ep. 13: Laourdas, Westerink 1983-1985, I 65 - PmbZ 955.

8. Tanner 1990.
9. See, for instance, Cosentino 2008, pp. 312-317.
10. Chrysos 2018.

RN 2020, p. 225-234 | 229

PAUL ARTHUR

particularly after the khan Boris of Bulgaria campaigned to Rome for an auto-
cephalous archbishopric for the Bulgarian church. In August-September 867
a synod in Constantinople, presided over by emperor Michael III, excommu-
nicated pope Nicholas, who died a couple of months later, to be replaced by
Hadrian II. However, the emperor was assassinated in the same year and
replaced by emperor Basil I (867-886), a supporter of Ignatius, Photios’ prede-
cessor to the patriarchate. Basil I reinstated Ignatios as patriarch, a move that
was ratified by the Fourth Council of Constantinople and the papal legates of
Hadrian II in 869, which condemned Photios as a heretic.
Although, after the end of his position as eparch of Constantinople in 866,
Basileios appears to disappear from the historical sources, he was probably
part of an embassy to the Papal court in Rome on behalf of the emperor Basil
and his decision to reinstate Ignatios as patriarch. The historian Jules Gay,11
basing his data both on the Liber Pontificalis and on a letter in the Conciliorum
Collectio regia maxima, wrote that emperor Basil I sent two metropolitans, rep-
resenting both Ignatios and Photios, to pope Nicholas in Rome.12 They were
accompanied by the emperor’s own ambassador, the spatharios Euthymios, as
well as by the spatharios Basil, so as to settle the dispute.13 The Basil mentioned
in the letter may quite likely have been the ex-eparch, as it is not improbable that
the writers of the Liber Pontificalis, more accustomed to Roman official titles,
did not perceive the difference between a spatharios and a protospatharios.
The embassy had not reached Rome by February 868, and when it arrived in
early summer it discovered that Nicholas had died and that on December 14th
867 he had been replaced by Hadrian II, who confirmed his approval of Ignatios
to the patriarchy.14
The gold signet ring may thus suggest that Basileios, after relinquishing
his role as eparch of Constantinople, travelled to Rome as part of a mission to
request the pope’s approval of Ignatios to the Greek patriarchate. Upon con-
cluding his mission, he would most likely have returned to Constantinople
taking one of two routes. The traditional overland route in Roman times had
been the via Appia to Brundisium (Brindisi) and, from there, by ship to Dyrrhachium
(Durazzo, Albania) and hence, along the via Egnatia to Constantinople. However,
during the 6th and 7th centuries both the via Appia and the via Egnatia had been
largely cut by the Lombard and Slav invasions respectively and Brundisium
had very much become defunct as a port, in favour of the more southerly site of
Otranto already by the time of Justinian’s Gothic war.15 If Basileios had indeed
decided to travel overland, he would have needed to cross Lombard territory.

11. Gay 1904, pp. 82-83.

12. Lib. Pontif. II, 177; Hardouin 1714-5, vol. V, p. 790.
13. The episode and its dating is contextualised by Dvornik 1948, esp. pp. 138-141.
14. Lib. Pont. II, 172, no. 80.
15. Brown 1991; Martin 1994, p. 140; von Falkenhausen 2007.

230 | RN 2020, p. 225-234

 A SIGNET RING OF BASILEIOS, EPARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

To reach Otranto, he would also have had to skirt Saracen-held Taranto, to

reach Lombard-held Oria. From inland Oria he could either have continued
overland to Lecce (by then probably a small and insignificant Byzantine
stronghold) and thence to Otranto, or he could have headed to the closest
Byzantine harbour to Taranto, which was quite possibly Porto Cesareo, so
as to take a small ship to Otranto. From there, Basileios could have intended
to sail to a port sited along the Adriatic coast of Albania or Greece as, in these
years, overland travel from there to Constantinople had become relatively
secure.16 Had Basileios, instead, decided to take the maritime route from
Rome, he would presumably have largely followed in the ‘footsteps’ of pope
Constantine (708-715) over a century and a half earlier (figure 5). Remaining in
Byzantine territory, pope Constantine took a ship from Portus (Ostia) to Naples
and, from there to Sicily. From Sicily he proceeded to Reggio, to Croton, on

3000 m
2000 m
1500 m Rome
1000 m Adriactic Sea
500 m
200 m
100 m
0m Bari

Naples

Tarento Oria
philo-Byzantine Duchy of Naples
Porto Cesareo Otranto

the east

Tyrrhenian Sea
Croton

Ionan Sea
Reggio

Arab
territories
Mediterranean Sea

Saracen-occupied towns
0 100 200 km
Byzantine territories

Figure 5 - A hypothetical map of Italy in the 860s

(© Paul Arthur, Fabien Tessier).

16. Cf. Curta 2011, pp. 156, 164, n. 70.

RN 2020, p. 225-234 | 231

PAUL ARTHUR

Figure 6 - The Porto Cesareo Byzantine shipwreck

(© courtesy of Rita Auriemma).

the Ionian Sea, and then directly across the sea to Gallipoli, which lies about
30 kms south of Porto Cesareo, and, circumnavigating the Salento peninsula,
to Otranto, before departing for the Aegean and Constantinople.17 Although
Naples was independent from Byzantium in 868, when Basileios was presum-
ably travelling home, it remained largely a philo-Byzantine city-state.18
Whatever the case, the ring was lost in the waters of Porto Cesareo where,
one might speculate, Basileios lost not only his ring but perhaps also his life,
whether through strife or stormy weather, which last was a constant danger
of sea travel.19 Basileios does not appear to be attested any later in the sources.
Underwater archaeology in 2014 directed by Rita Auriemma has led to the
excavation of the remains of what may have been a medium-sized cargo
wreck, off the coast of Porto Cesareo (figure 6). Wooden remains of the wreck
have yielded a C14 date between 770 and 1020.20 One may well speculate if the

17. Zanini 1998, pp. 94-95; McCormick 2001, pp. 503-504.

18. Arthur 2002.
19. Dvornik 1948, pp. 139-140: curiously, on the way to Rome “the ship that carried Photius’
delegates was wrecked and Peter, bishop of Sardes, drowned (…) according to Nicetas, in
the Dalmatian Bay”.
20. Auriemma 2012.

232 | RN 2020, p. 225-234

 A SIGNET RING OF BASILEIOS, EPARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE

wreck was linked to the gold signet ring, which find-spot is only approxima-
tely indicated by its discoverer. Although we shall probably never know if the
two were linked, these were interesting times, as not long after the embassy
to Rome emperor Basil I was to launch the Byzantine conquest of Italian terri-
tory that had been lost to the Lombards in the later 6th and early 7th century.
What worried the Empire appears not so much to have been the long-estab-
lished Lombard presence, but the ever-increasing Arab expansion in Sicily
and the Italian peninsula. After consolidating power in parts of the Balkans and
along the Dalmatian coast, the Byzantine conquest of southern Italy began
with the retaking of the major town of Bari that, in the 860s, like Taranto, was
in Arab hands. The Carolingian emperor Louis II freed Bari from the Arabs in 871.
Only after the death of Louis II in 875 and the creation of a power-vacuum in
Italy, did Basil I order Gregory, Byzantine commander of Otranto and Imperial
protospatharius, to retake Bari in December 876, after which it became capital
of what was soon to become the Theme of Langobardia.21 Emperor Basil I sent
further forces, under the command of the future emperor Nicephorus Phokas,
to southern Italy in 883, to soon extend Byzantine domination over a large
part of the south.
Other Byzantine finds from the waters around Porto Cesareo include some
coarse ware ceramics and an Otranto type amphora, datable to the later 9th or
10th centuries, which may suggest a continuing use of the harbour areas.22
Altogether, the various discoveries suggest that Porto Cesareo may have been
of a certain strategic importance even before the foundation of the later
medieval settlement of Caesarea Marittima by emperor Frederick II in the
13th century. Future archaeological research may resolve the matter.

Bibliography

Arthur 2002: P. Arthur, Naples from Roman Town to City-State: an archaeological perspective,
(The British School at Rome monograph series, 12), London, 2002.
Auriemma 2004: R. Auriemma, Salentum a salo. Porti, approdi, merci e scambi lungo la costa
adriatica del Salento, 2 vols., Lecce, 2004.
Auriemma 2012: R. Auriemma, Nuovi dati dalla costa Adriatica e Ionica del Salento,
Histria Antiqua, 21, 2012, pp. 539-556.
Brown 1992: T.S. Brown, Otranto in medieval history, in Excavations at Otranto, Volume I:
The Excavation, D. Michaelides, D. Wilkinson (eds.), Galatina, 1992, pp. 25-39.
Chrysos 2018: E. Chrysos, New perceptions of imperium and sacerdotium in the letters
of Pope Nicholas to Emperor Michael III, in Constantinople réelle et imaginaire.
Hommage à Gilbert Dagron, Travaux et Mémoires, 22, Paris, pp. 313-339.

21. See von Falkenhausen 1978, pp. 20-25, for a discussion of the Byzantine conquest.
22. Auriemma 2004, vol. II, p. 174.

RN 2020, p. 225-234 | 233

PAUL ARTHUR

Cheynet 1992: J.-C. Cheynet, Bague d’Aetios and Bague de Théodore, in Durand 1992,
pp. 309-310, nos. 220-221.
Cheynet, Morrisson 1992: J.-C. Cheynet, C. Morrisson, Bague de Basile le Parakoimomène,
in Durand 1992, p. 309, no. 219.
Cosentino 2008: S. Cosentino, Storia dell’Italia bizantina (vi-xi secolo) da Giustiniano ai
Normanni, Bologna, 2008.
Curta 2011: F. Curta, The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, c. 500 to 1050. The Early Middle Ages,
Edinburgh, 2011.
De Mitri 2010: C. De Mitri, Inanissima pars Italiae. Dinamiche insediative nella penisola
salentina in età romana, (BAR S2161), Oxford, 2010.
Durand 1992: J. Durand (éd.), Byzance - L’art byzantin dans les collections publiques françaises,
Exposition au Musée du Louvre du 3 novembre 1992 au 1er février 1993, Paris, 1992.
Dvornik 1948: F. Dvornik, The Photian Schism. History and Legend, Cambridge, 1948.
Gay 1904: J. Gay, L’Italie méridionale et l’empire Byzantin, Paris, 1904.
Hardouin 1714-1715: J. Hardouin, Conciliorum collectio regia maxima = Acta conciliorum et
epistolae decretales, ac constitutiones summorum pontificum, vol. V, Paris, 1714-1715.
Laourdas, Westerink 1983-1985: B. Laourdas, L. G. Westerink (eds.), Photii patriarchae
Constantinopolitani Epistulae et amphilochia, 3 vols., Leipzig, 1983-1985.
Lib. Pontif.: L. Duchesne (éd.), Le Liber Pontificalis, Paris, 1886-1957.
Martin 1993: J.-M. Martin, La Pouille du vie au xiie siècle, (CollEFR 179), Rome, 1993.
Martin 1995: J.-M. Martin, Les villes neuves en Pouille au xiiie siècle, Journal des savants,
1995, pp. 121-143.
McCormick 2001: M. McCormick, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and
Commerce, A.D. 300–900, Cambridge, 2001.
PBE : J. R. Martindale (ed.), Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire, 2001.
Pagano 2016: F. Pagano, “Operazione il sigillo ritrovato”, L’Arma per l’Arte e la Legalità,
in Storie di recuperi e di beni culturali: operazioni del Comando Carabinieri per la Tutela del
Patrimonio Culturale, Exhibition catalogue for the Gallerie Nazionali di Arte Antica
di Roma - Palazzo Barberini, Rome 14 July - 30 October 2016, Roma, 2016, pp. 93-95.
Tanner 1990: N. P. Tanner (ed.), Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, 2 vols., Georgetown,
1990.
von Falkenhausen, 1978: V. von Falkenhausen, La dominazione bizantina nell’Italia Meri-
dionale dal IX all’XI secolo, Bari, 1978.
von Falkenhausen, 2007: V. von Falkenhausen, Tra Occidente e Oriente: Otranto in epoca
bizantina, in H. Houben (ed.), Otranto nel Medioevo tra Bisanzio e l’Occidente, Galatina,
2007, pp. 13-60.
Zanini 1998: E. Zanini, Le Italie Bizantine. Territorio, insediamenti ed economia nella provincia
bizantina d’Italia (VI-VII secolo), Bari, 1998.

234 | RN 2020, p. 225-234