Armenians on the Via Francigena: Armenian and Latin Sources on the Origins of the Armenian Community of Orvieto (Urbs Vetus): Armenian and Latin Sources on the Origins of the Armenian Community of Orvieto (Urbs Vetus)

Abstract

The series Eurasiatica. Quaderni di Studi su Balcani, Anatolia, Iran, Caucaso e Asia Centrale was born to deal specifically with a wide area, composite but interrelated that, in addition to the traditional historical and cultural significance, is taking on an increasing political and economic value. The placement of this series within Edizioni Ca’ Foscari originates at the same time from a strong tradition of studies on the Balkans, Caucasus and Central Asia in our University, where the main languages of these regions are taught - Albanian, Bulgarian, modern Greek, Romanian, Serbian-Croatian, Russian, Persian, Turkish, Armenian and Georgian. The studies published in this series are intended to provide a tool for high scientific and multidisciplinary research in different fields (archaeology, art, anthropology, ethnology and ethnomusicology, linguistics, philology, folklore, religion, history, geopolitics).

Full text

Eurasiat ica 15
e-ISS N 2610-943 3 | ISSN 2610 -8879
ISBN [ebo ok] 978-88 -6969- 453-0 | ISBN [p rint] 978-8 8-6969 -454 -7
Peer revi ew | Open a ccess 11
Submitted 2020-03-10 | Accepted 2020-04 -14 | Published 2020-10-222020-10-22
© 2020 Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License
DOI 10.30687/978-88-6969-453-0/001
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale
Ricerche 2020
a cura di Carlo Frappi e Paolo S orbello
Edizioni
Ca’Foscari
Edizioni
Ca’Foscari
Armenians on the Via Francigena.
Armenian and Latin Sources
on the Origins of the Armenian
Community of Orvieto (Urbs
Vetus)
Stephanie Pambakian
Universi ty Saint Andrews , UK; Université de Ge nève, Suisse
Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Institu te of Historical Res earch, School of Adv anced Studies, Unive rsity of London
Abstract An Armenian religious community settled in Or vieto in the 13th century
and founded the church and hospice of Santo Spirito, where they provided hospital-
ity to pilgrims on the Via Francigena. Archaeological traces of their presence include
a traver tine gate with a trilingual inscription, reused in the church of San Domenico
(Orvieto), the remains of the church of Santo Spirito, and art pieces removed from the
latter. Contemp orary Latin d ocuments and an analy sis of the historic al context sugge st
that the Armenian presence was well-received by the lay and clerical authorities, and
even held as prestigious.
Keywords A rmenian Epigraphy. L atin Epigraphy. Via Fran cigena. 13th- century Umbr ia.
Monaster y of Santo Spirito. San D omenico in Orvieto. Armenian communities in It aly.
Summar y 1 Introduction. – 2 Two Inscr iptions from the Ar menian Monaster y of Santo
Spirito, Now on the Southern Gate of San Domenico in Or vieto. – 2.1 Inscription I. – 2.2
Inscript ion II. – 3 The Church of Santo S pirito at Tamburino. – 4 San Domen ico in Orvieto.
– 5 The Armenians and Orvieto. – 5.1 Latin Sources on the Armenian Community of
Orv ieto. – 5.2 The Arm enians and the Commune. – 5 .3 Orvie to as a Strategic Set tlement.
– 6 Conclusion.

Eurasiatica 15 12
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
1 Introduction1
Research on the origins of Armenian communities in late medieval
Italy has produced fruitful results, especially since the publication
of Msgr Zekiyan’s pioneering work on Le colonie armene del Medio
Evo in Italia (Zekiyan 1978; see also Zekiyan 1996). In addition to col-
lecting information on Armenian communities in the Italian peninsu-
la, most of which originated between the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, Zekiyan’s contribution highlights the broader importance
of undertaking such research, whose implications extend beyond the
connes of Armenian Studies. Italy, in Zekiyan’s words,
fu il ponte attraverso cui nel Medio Evo l’Armenia conservò i suoi
legami con l’Europa. (Zekiyan 1978, 804)
was the bridge by which Armenia preserved its links with Europe
through the Middle Ages.2
And an in-depth understanding of later Italian relations with the Near
East requires a knowledge of the rst phases of such interactions.
Moreover, exploring the little-known history of these colonies might
help historians of late medieval Italy gain a greater understanding of
Italy’s centrality within a Mediterranean context. This would also lead
to a more accurate picture of its cultural complexity and of the contri-
butions made by indigenous and non-indigenous communities to the
1 First of all, we would like to express our gratitude to Prof. Ferrari for inviting us to
present our ndings at ASI AC 2019, as the timely opportunit y has part icipated in bring-
ing this research together. We must express our gratitude to Marco Prosperini, a most
archaeologically-aware hotel porter, for informing coauthor Stephanie Pambakian of the
Armenian inscriptions at the gate of San Domenico upon her chancef ul visit to Orvieto.
Acquiring resea rch material was made ea sy by the availability, competence and enthu-
siasm of the people of this city. In particular, archivist Luca Giuliani provided Pamba-
kian with documents selected on the basis of meticulous yet u npubli shed research con-
ducted by architect Sabina Bordino, who also kindly accompanied Pam bakian to the re-
mains of the monastery at Tamburino. On a second visit, Ten. Col. Silvio Manglaviti and
the loca l militar y helped record necessary measurements of the door at San Domenico,
and ar chivist Rob erta Gall i, with an imp romptu team of a rchive perso nnel and users, was
of great assistance in the retrieval of the 1292 Cadastre. Pamba kian’s reading of the in-
scriptions was aided by Prof. Orengo’s rst observations (which he generously shared
with the authors before publication) and by the expert eye of Prof. Michael Stone, whom
we thank profusely. For their precious help in aiding communication at various stages, we
wou ld also like to thank An na Donatell i La nd an i, Aldo Lo Presti and Prof. Ann a Siri nian.
A rst electronic version of the present article was published online on October 22
of this year. It conta ined an error in the transcr iption of a nu meral (and consequently in
the dating) in Inscript ion II. We express our gratitude to Alessandro Rauch for notifyi ng
this discr epancy to us. If any mist ake is stil l to be found, it is our ow n.
2 Unless otherwise indicated all translations are by the Authors.
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 13
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
development of the arts, of theological thought, and of manufacturing.
3
In this perspective, the present paper focuses on the Armenian
community of Orvieto, based on archaeological evidence in Armeni-
an (Classical and Medieval), Latin and a local vernacular, and on ar-
chival material, which has not yet been the subject of detailed dis-
cussion.4 It moreover aims at underlining the importance of a close
dialogue between specialists from dierent elds, such as Armeni-
an and Medieval Studies, promoting interdisciplinary practice to al-
low mutual enrichment and to better gauge the wealth of material
and cultural exchanges across Mediterranean communities in the
late Middle Ages.
2 Two Inscriptions from the Armenian Monastery
of Santo Spirito, Now on the Southern Gate
of San Domenico in Orvieto
Two inscriptions occupy a prominent position on the entrance of the
Church of San Domenico in Orvieto [fi g. 1]: one extends over all three
horizontal stones of the architrave, and we shall refer to it as Inscrip-
tion I. Inscription II is a less regular epigraph on the top left stone of
the architrave, on which the lintel rests. This is not the original lo-
cation of this door, which used to be at the Armenian monastery of
Santo Spirito (of the Holy Spirit), at Tamburino, in the nearby coun-
tryside of Orvieto.
3
See for instance Rossetti 1989; Delouis, Mossakowska-Gauber t, Peters-Custot 2019,
to name on ly a few.
4 See Orengo 2018, 85-6 fn. 2 for an overview of the Orvietan epigraphic evidence
and a brief contextualizat ion.
Figure 1
San Dome nico in Orv ieto © Beweb
(https://www.beweb.c hiesacattolica.
it/edificidiculto/edificio/87296/
Chiesa+di+San+Domenico)

Eurasiatica 15 14
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Despite their exposure and visibility, these inscriptions have not been
studied until recently. Alessandro Orengo was, to our knowledge,
the rst Armenologist to notice them in Summer 2017 (pers. comm.),
and published a rst record of his nding shortly afterwards (Oren-
go 2018, 85-6 fn. 2). Independently of Orengo’s discovery, coauthor
Stephanie Pambakian came across this piece of epigraphic evidence
while visiting the city in Summer 2018.
2.1 Inscription I
Figure 2 (above, top) Insc ription I on t he architra ve of San Dome nico in Orvi eto, edited
Figure 3 (just ab ove) S tephanie Pam bakian, a dr awing of Inscr iption I fro m San Domeni co, 2018
Inscription I is carved over three blocks of travertine.5 The central
stone tapers in a T-shape, whilst both side stones grow thinner at the
centre, to accommodate the ‘wings’ of the central stone. We number
blocks 1 to 3 left to right. Given the position and interconnection of
the stones, we allow that measurements may have a certain degree
of inaccuracy.
Block 1. Travertine. Measures: H left 26 cm, at the gate opening the
at surface is 23 cm high; W top 83 cm, middle 90 cm, bottom 93 cm;
Th 25.5 cm. Wr iting surface.
6
Marg i ns: L 47.5 cm, top 2.5 cm, bott om
10 cm. Letter size: 3-3.5 cm.
5
Identication by Ten. Col. Silvio Manglaviti, who also kindly took the measure-
ments of the four inscribed stones with the assistance of Antonio Rossitto and San-
dro Zaccariello.
6
Measurements of margins and letters were taken by Stephanie Pambakian, with the
assis tance of Manglav iti and Zacca riello. Thi s and the footnot e above apply to al l blocks.
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 15
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Block 2. Travertine. Measures: H at surface 23 cm; W top 83.5 cm,
78.5 cm middle, bottom 67 cm; Th 25.5 cm. Writing surface. Margins:
top 2.5-3 cm, bottom 1.8-2.3 cm. Letter Size: 3-3.5 cm.
Figure 5 De tail of Block 2 , Inscript ion I on the arc hitrave of Sa n Domenico in O rvieto, e dited
Block 3. Travertine. Measures: H right 26 cm, at the gate opening
the at surface measures 22,5 cm; W top 81 cm, 84 cm middle, bot-
tom 91 cm; Th 25,5 cm. Writing surface. Margins: R 49 cm, top 18
cm, bottom 1-1.5 cm. Letter size: 3-3.5 cm.
Figure 6 De tail of Block 3 , Inscript ion I on the arc hitrave of Sa n Domenico in O rvieto
Figure 4 De tail of Block 1 , Inscript ion I on the arc hitrave of Sa n Domenico in O rvieto

Eurasiatica 15 16
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Inscription I. Transcriptions and Translation
1.+.QUESTA. ECL ̃A. AFATA + IST. EST. ECL
̃A. SC ̃I. SP ̃S . OSPITALE. FRA
2 FARE. FR ATE. PIETRU. ER. TU.
ERMINIOꝜ:. + ՇԻՆԵՑԱՒ ՏԱՃԱՐՍ
ԱՅՍ Յ
3 MINIO:. ԱՆՈՒՆ ԱՄԵՆԱՍ ̃Բ
ՀՈԳՈՅՆ ԱԶԳԻՍ ՀԱՅ
4 ՈՑ: ՁԵՌԱՄԲ ՊԵՏՐՈՍԻ:
ՆԱԽԱՍԱՐԿԱ
5 ՒԱԳԻ Ի ՅԻՇԱՏԱԿ ԻՒՐ ԵՒ
ԾՆՈՂԱՑ ԻՒՐՈՑ Ի Թ ̃Վ ՀԱՅՈՑ. Ի
Չ ̃ vacat Խ̃Ա:.
1 (crux) ques ta ec(c)l(esi)a a fata (crux)
ist(a) est ec(c)l(esi)a s(an)c(t)i sp(ir itu)s
ospitale fra-
2 fare frate pietru er- t(r)u(m)
erminio(rum) (crux) շինեցաւ
տաճարս այս յ-
3 minio անուն ամենաս(ուր)բ
հոգոյն ազգիս հայ-
4 ոց: ձեռամբ Պետրոսի:
նախասարկա-
5 ւագի ի յիշատակ իւր եւ ծնողաց
իւրոց ի թվ(ին) հայոց.ի չ խա:
In the transcription above, tildes represent signs over abbreviations
(either short horizontal lines or small crosses). Dots and other graph-
ic elements are represented as faithfully as possible. Tildes at line 5
do not indicate abbreviations but seem to indicate numerals. Abbre-
viations are spelt out in the normalised transcription, with integrat-
ed letters in brackets.
This inscription presents similar content in a form of Umbrian
vernacular, Latin and Armenian.7 The rst is written across the rst
three lines: “Questa ec(c)l(esi)a a fata/ fare frate Pietru er-/ minio”,
‘This church was commissioned by brother/friar8 Peter the Armeni-
an’. At line 1, the second Greek cross marks the beginning of the Lat-
in epigraphy (lines 1-2), which reads: Ist(a) est ec(c)l(esi)a s(an)c(t)i
sp(iritu)s ospitale fra-/t(r)u(m) erminio(rum)”, ‘This is the church of
the Holy Spirit, hospice of the Armenian brothers/friars’. At line 2, af-
ter parts of the vernacular and Latin epigraphs, another Greek cross
marks the start of the Armenian dedication, which is the most exten-
sive of the three and runs across lines 2-5: “շինեցաւ տաճարս այս
յ-/անուն ամենաս(ուր)բ հոգոյն ազգիս հայ-/ոց: ձեռամբ Պետրոսի:
նախասարկա-/ւագի ի յիշատակ իւր եւ ծնողաց իւրոց ի թվ(ին)
հայոց.ի չ խա” ši nec‘aw tača r s ays y-/a now n amen as(ow r)b hogoyn az-
gis hay-/oc‘: jeṙamb Petrosi: naxasarka-/ wagi i yišatak iwr ew cnołac‘
iwroc‘ i t‘v(in) hayoc‘ i Č‘XA. ‘This temple, dedicated to the Most Ho-
ly Spirit, was built, for our Armenian nation, by the hand of archdea-
con Petros, in memory of himself and his parents, in the year of the
7 In t he tra nscription, backsla sh is used to indicate the next line.
8 On why we have decided to highlight the ambiguity of the term by using a double
translation, see footnote 13.
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 17
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Armenia ns 741
9
(AD 1292-3)’. At line 5 եւ (ew) presents an incomplete
ե, missing the horizontal bar. Apart from this, all languages and both
scripts are engraved skilfully and homogeneously, in both letter size
and carving depth. No letters present ligatures. Our knowledge of
epigraphic practice for multilingual inscriptions in the local context
does not allow us to make speculations about the provenance or ed-
ucation of the cutter (or cutters).
2.2 Inscription II
Figure 7 (le) Detail o f Inscript ion II on the arc hitrave of Sa n Domenico in O rvieto
Figure 8 (right) Stepha nie Pambaki an, drawing of I nscripti on II, 2018
Single block. Travertine. The block is divided into a part with a at,
partly inscribed surface, and a phytomorphic decorative element to
the right. Measures: H 29 cm, W 44 cm; Th 25.5 cm. Writing surface.
Margins: L 0.8-2 cm, top 4.5 cm, bottom 7.5 cm. Letter Size: 1.8-2.5
cm with the exception of ւ, only 1.2 cm high.
Inscription II. Transcriptions and Translation
1 ԵՍ ՊԵՏՐՈՍ Վ
2 ՈՐ ՇԻՆԵՑԻ ԶԵ
3 ԿԵՂԵՑԻ ՍԲ ՀԱ
4 [Յ]ԵՐՈՒՆ: Ի ԹՎ:
5 ՀԱՅՈՑ ՉՂ_
6 ԿԱՏԱՐԵՑԻ
1 ես Պետրոս վ(արդապետ)
2 որ շինեցի զե-
3 կեղեցի ս(ուր)բ հա-
4 [յ]երուն. ի թվ.
5 հայոց չղ_
6 կատարեցի
9 This reading, transcription and a translation into Italian were rst published by
Orengo 2018, 85- 6 fn. 2.

Eurasiatica 15 18
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
This inscription is written in the Armenian script and it is in Clas-
sical Armenian, with one term in a medieval form.10 Here is a nor-
malised transcription and translation:11 “ես Պետրոս վ(արդապետ)/
որ շինեցի զե-/կեղեցի ս(ուր)բ հա-/ [յ]երուն. ի թվ.(ին)/ հայոց չղ_/
կատարեցի” Es Petros v(ardapet)/ or šinec‘i ze-/ kełec‘ i s(owr)b ha-
/ [y]erown. i t‘v(in)/ հayoc‘ č‘ł_/ katarec‘i. ‘I, Petros vardapet,12 who
built [this] church, holy to the Armenians in the year of the Armeni-
ans 79_ (=134_), completed [it]’.
The size of the letters is quite irregular (see above) and they ap-
pear misaligned and not homogeneously carved. Peculiarities: Line
1, we read Վ as an abbreviation of vardapet. Line 3, letters Ս and
Բ are joint and are the abbreviation of սուրբ (sowrb) as in line 3 of
Inscription I, ամենաս(ուր)բ, amenas(owr)b, ‘most holy’. Lines 3-4
հա[յ]երուն, ha[y]erown is taken as a medieval form for հայոց, հayoc‘
(Stone, pers. comm.), ‘of the Armenians’. Curiously, on the very next
line we nd the correct, Classical form “հայոց” հayoc‘. Since this is
part of the expression ի թվ(ին) հայոց, i t‘v(in) հayoc‘, ‘in the year
of the Armenians’, we might assume that it was a standard, tradition-
al phrase that would not be altered by vernacular forms. However,
it may be observed that the medieval form of the oblique plural at
lines 3-4 (հա[յ]երուն, ha[y]erown) represents a parallel to the Um-
brian vernacular of Inscription I, contiguous to the Latin epigraph.
At Line 5, the underscore indicates a letter or symbol that we have
not been able to read clearly, in the place where a numeral indicating
units would be expected. This unreadable character is not the only as-
pect of the inscription’s date to pose a problem, as we discuss below.
Inscription II. Date and Proposed Emendation
Inscription I informs us that a certain frate Pietru, or “Պետրոս
նախասարկաւագ”, Petros naxasarkawag,13 ‘ar chdeacon Peter’ d -
icates this church in the year of the Armenians 741, correspond-
ing to AD 1292-3, which is at slight discordance with the Latin doc-
uments analysed below, but conrms in any case a foundation date
in the last quarter of the 13th century. The second inscription would
seem to have been engraved later, by a less skilled carver, carrying
the personal dedication of “Պետրոս վարդապետ”, ‘Petros vardapet’,
10
We do not deem one medieval term suicient to consider this epigraphic group
quadrilingual.
11 The rst partial transcription and translation in Orengo 2018, 85- 6 fn. 2.
12 Vardapet վարդապետ, lit. ‘doctor, master’ in Classical Armenian, was later used
to indicate members of cler gy. It translates ‘priest’ in Modern Ar menian.
13 Found in the Gen. Sing. in the epigraph.
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 19
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
this time not just mentioning the ‘building’ of the church (շինեցաւ,
šinec‘aw Inscr. I Line 2), but adding ‘I completed’ (կատարեցի,
katarec‘i), suggesting it was engraved at the end of works. One would
then expect a date shortly after 741 = AD 1292-3, still in a realis-
tic life-span of Peter, holding as true that he commissioned both in-
scriptions. However, we are faced with the Armenian date of 79_,
that would correspond to a year between 1341 and 1350, which might
seem too late. It is certainly possible to assume that the construc-
tion works took a while, and that Peter was very young when the
rst stone was laid, or that he was gifted with unusual longevity, but
we would like to explore another scenario. It seems sensible to sug-
gest that this was a mistake, perhaps caused by an assonance be-
tween two letters. This potential discrepancy has also been noted by
Orengo, and the solution proposed below was rst advanced by him.
Lines 4-5 read “ի թվ(ին)/ հայոց չղ_” i t‘v(in) հayoc‘ č‘ł_, ‘in the year
of the Armenians 79_’, using the Armenian numerals indicating չ, č’
= 700 + ղ, ł = 90 + unreadable unit. We second Orengo’s suggestion
that the character indicating the tens should be emended into a խ, x
= 40, supposing that the misspelling was caused by the two charac-
ters’ similar sound. One may as well explore other possibilities, but
ղ, ł reads clearly and unambiguously, making speculations about a
graphic confusion with other letters unlikely, in our opinion. This
emendation would bring the previous (seemingly unlikely) date of
79_ (AD 1341-1350) precisely 50 years back, to the 740s = AD 1291-
1300. Providing conclusive evidence on this hypothesis is not possi-
ble, but we believe it is worthy of consideration. Let us now turn to
the question of the unit. It seems that the cutter has engraved a let-
ter or symbol in the shape of a small vertical line joined perpendicu-
larly with a longer horizontal line, resembling letter ւ in its bolorgir
form. The case that this may be read as a ւ is not to be made, since it
does not represent a numeral between 1 and 9 (ա-թ) and is not in a
majuscule form. One may propose that this small engraving is an un-
nished letter, or the voluntary abbreviation of one (for example the
tail of an Ա ‘A, 1’, or the upper part of an Ե ‘E, 5’ presuming the cut-
ter wanted to join it to the previous numeral, as in a monograph), but
we are not familiar with examples of such practice in date writing.
The hypothesis that it may signify zero is to be excluded for two rea-
sons: the rst is that Armenians did not positively write ‘nought’ and
had no corresponding symbol for it. Secondly, as mentioned above,
inscription I reads the date 741 in the Armenian count, (AD 1292-3),
and its content suggest that it was cut before inscription II, which
must therefore date to a time between 741 and 749 (AD 1292-1301).

Eurasiatica 15 20
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Figure 9 A vi ew of Tamburino fr om Orvie to. The Arme nian monast ery of Sant o Spirito in th e red circle
Figure 10 A vie w of Santo Spir ito from S- W
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 21
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Figure 11 The a pse of Santo S pirito from t he East
Figure 12 A vi ew of Santo Spi rito from th e satellite. © G oogle

Eurasiatica 15 22
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Figure 13 The front door
Figure 14 Annunciation, detache d fresco fro m Orviet o, church of San to Spirito at Tambu rino.
Early 1 5th centur y. Museo dell’ Opera del D uomo, Orv ieto
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 23
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
3 The Church of Santo Spirito at Tamburino
As mentioned above, the inscribed portal is not set in its original con-
text today. In the 1930 s, when the Church of San Domenico in Or-
vieto underwent a partial demolition, the gate of the Holy Spirit at
Tamburino was reused to open a new door on the south façade. The
works at San Domenico and the gate’s new context shall be explored
below, but we shall rst try to present what remains of the church
of the Holy Spirit at Tamburino. Figure 9 shows a view of Tamburi-
no from Via Volsina, on the S-W edge of Orvieto, looking to the S-E
[fig . 9]. The road running straight, cutting the picture in a diagonal
is the old way through the village of Petroio, mentioned in the docu-
ments below (see § 5), which is now called Tamburino. The red circle
indicates the location of the old Armenian monastery, which might
seem lik e any old countr yside farm. People in the area, howev er, iden-
tify it without hesitation, and when the vegetation around it is not im-
penetrably thick, one may see the bellcote [fi g. 10], and the outside of
a round apse [f ig. 1 1]. Both elements may also be seen in gure 12, a
bird’s-eye view of the old church. Finally, a close look at the façade
clearly reveals the removal of a gate, bigger than the door that replac-
es it. Some pieces of travertine stone may still be seen to the sides of
the patch in the wall [fig . 12]. This appears to be private property, and
we have not been able to gain access to these buildings.
Two pieces of art were removed from the old monastery of the Ar-
menians, and are now kept at the Museo dell’Opera del Duomo of
Orvieto.14 One is an Annunciation in perfect conditions (Perali 1919,
111; Lo Presti 2011, 212), and currently visible as part of the perma-
nent exhibition on the ground oor of the Museum [fig. 14], measur-
ing 195 × 116 cm (Garzelli 1972, 16-17). Garzelli ascribes this work
to an anonymous Umbrian master.15 Perali also mentions a second
piece, which he describes as a “greatly damaged, although excellent
work” (Perali 1919, 111) representing the Virgin child with seraphim
between Saint Anne and Joachim. Perhaps due to its damaged condi-
tion, this piece is not currently exposed, and one may presume it is
held in the Museum store.
4 San Domenico in Orvieto
Our gate with the two inscriptions is currently located on the south
façade of San Domenico, and it has been there since 1934 (Paolet-
14 We would like to thank the Museum personnel for their ki ndness and avai labi lity.
15 Garzel li dates it to the last quarter of the 14th centu ry, but the Museum’s curators
date it to the beginning of the 15th.

Eurasiatica 15 24
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
ti 1958, 45). The church was founded in 1233 by Dominican friars,
where St Dominic of Caleruega himself had allegedly laid a small
oratory. Its dedication, in 1264, was carried out while St Thomas
Aquinas resided there, and it was completed in 1280 (Paoletti 1958,
40), shortly before the Armenians settled down on the Petroio way,
just outside Orvieto. San Domenico was heavily damaged by a re
in 1311, and what remained of its original gothic structure was lat-
er modied in a great renovation work in the 17th century, when its
size was reduced considerably (Paoletti 1958, 40-1). The church was
reduced even further when, in 1934, a decision was made to build
an Academy of Physical Education for Women. It is at this time that
a new door is opened on the south wall, and made into the main en-
trance to the church. This happened on 25 June 1934, and Paoletti
reports that where the new opening was made was “later inserted
the splayed, ogival door that belonged to the 13th-century church of
the Holy Spirit of the Armenians” (Paoletti 1958, 45). She adds that
the door was made 40 cm higher, so that it would t better in its new
position. Paoletti however makes no mention of the Virgin and child
wall-painting in the tympanum [fig. 15], right above the architrave.
Despite clear signs that its central part of the plaster was tted in
(or perhaps ret), the consistency of all the components and the red
pigments seems to indicate that the tympanum was originally con-
Figure 15 V irgin and Chi ld, fresco, o n the tympa num of the chur ch of San Dome nico, unknown d ate, Orvi eto
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 25
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
ceived and executed as a whole. No evidence is known to us that it is
contemporary with the door or with one of the inscriptions, or that
it might have already been in place at the time of activity of the Ar-
menian hospice.
5 The Armenians and Orvieto
5.1 Latin Sources on the Armenian Community of Orvieto
The investigation of the trilingual epigraph analysed above is en-
riched by a comparison with the available Latin sources on the rst
medieval Armenian settlement in Orvieto, which consist of three
parchment documents preserved in the Episcopal Archive of Orvi-
eto. The oldest of these sources is known to the Orvietan scientic
community at least from the late 19th century, when it was partial-
ly transcribed by the Sienese scholar Piccolomini-Adami in his Gui-
da storico-artistica della città di Orvieto (Piccolomini-Adami 1883,
280). This document is in fact the founding act of the Church of the
Holy Spirit of the Armenians (Santo Spirito degli Armeni), dated 10
February 1280. In it, the bishop of Orvieto, Francesco Monaldeschi,
consents to the desire of brother (frater) Peter of Armenia to found
a church located
iuxta viam qua itur ad Monteasconem in contrata vinearum mon-
asterii Sancti Laurentii. (Archivio Vescovile di Orvieto, henceforth
AVO, Codice A, c. 217r)
next to the road through which one goes to Monteascone, in the
district of the vineyards of the monastery of San Lorenzo.
In exchange for the support of the prelate, who according to the
document was also charged with laying the foundation stone for the
Church of Santo Spirito, Peter committed himself to delivering an an-
nual tribute of two pounds of wax to the bishop and his successors,
on the occasion of the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary
of the fteenth of August. Members of the clergy of the Church of
Sant’Andrea in Orvieto and of the monastery of the Monte di Orvie-
to, two local religious institutions, also participated as witnesses to
the foundation deed.
The second document from the Episcopal Archive that deals with
the Church of Santo Spirito degli Armeni dates to 3 January 1288,
and is testimony of the payment of the two pounds of wax that had
been set as an annual tribute to the bishop of Orvieto, who was still
Francesco Monaldeschi (AVO, Codice C, c. 97r). It is worth noting
that, in this source, another member of the Armenian monastery re-

Eurasiatica 15 26
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
siding near Santo Spirito is mentioned, namely brother Simon, ad-
ministrator of the locus, or convent, of the Armenians.16 This indi-
cation should probably not be taken as evidence that Peter was no
longer alive at this date (which would contradict the information pro-
vided by the inscriptions, see section 2 above). Rather, he might have
withdrawn to a role of spiritual direction, leaving the more practi-
cal functions in the life of the religious community to other brothers,
such as Simon. Even richer, and not mentioned so far in any work con-
cerning the Armenian communities of late medieval Italy, is a source
written just one year later, and dated 11 January 1289 (AVO, Codice
C, c. 113r). This document indicates that in this period of time the
Armenian community of Santo Spirito had abandoned its rst seat,
whose location had been described in the founding document dis-
cussed above. It further explains that the reason for this relocation
16
It is worth noting briey that the vocabulary used by the Latin sources for the birth
of the Armenian community of Orv ieto (locus, frater) seems to assimilate t he Armeni-
an clergy to the Franciscan Order, probably on account of the itinerant and pauperis-
tic nature of bot h religious gr oups in the 13th centu ry. The inscriptions a lso speak of a
frate Pietru and of the fratres Erminii. On the relevance of the word locus to dene the
rst Franciscan settlements, characterised by an impermanent nature and established
with the help of local bishops and lay elites, see Pellegrini 1977, in particular page 565.
Figure 16 “Ma ppa ricost ruttiva d el territo rio del Pleb erium Petr oriii
et Petra mata seu San cti Petr i in vetere nel 1 278” (Satolli 20 03)
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 27
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
lies in the fact that the road that had previously passed next to the
rst Armenian church, in the area of Petroio, had been moved a few
kilometres south, and that with the construction of this “strata nova
de Petrorio” (new road of Petroio), the decision was taken to build a
new church for the Armenian community beside the new thorough-
fare (AVO, Codice C, c. 113r; gure 16 shows a modern reconstruc-
tive map of this area) [fig. 16]. This indication is conrmed by a doc-
ument dated February 1286, published in the Codice Diplomatico of
the commune of Orvieto, which records the decision of the munici-
pal government to create a special commission (balía) to be entrust-
ed with the construction of the new road of Petroio (Fiumi 1884, 336,
doc. DXII, 20 February 1286). It is very likely that the road was com-
pleted during the year 1288, which would explain the relocation of
the Armenian community within this time frame. In this same doc-
ument we nd the decision of the bishop of Orvieto to assign the as-
sets abandoned by the Armenian friars to a group of sorores, or lay
women devoted to religious life, led by Gemma di Bartolomeo Maga-
lotti: these assets consisted of a house provided with a front yard, a
vegetable garden and two portions of vineyard (rasules vinearum), in
addition to the religious building (AVO, Codice C, c. 113r). This de-
scription leads us to think that the community of Armenians of San-
to Spirito had managed, in a rather short period of time, to obtain a
moderate level of stability and prosperity.
It appears evident that the dates indicated by the inscriptions
for the foundation of Santo Spirito (1292-3 and possibly 1292-1301,
if our hypothesis is correct) do not coincide with those provided by
the archival sources. The dates of 1280 for the rst foundation and
of late 1288 for its relocation match with the information available
for the construction of the new road of Petroio, and there is no rea-
son to discard them. In order to explain this discrepancy, therefore,
one must hypothesize that the dates of 1292-3 and 1292-1301 refer to
further stages of completion of the Church and the hospitale of San-
to Spirito, which the Armenian community celebrated by having the
inscriptions carved.
5.2 The Armenians and the Commune
The documents described above allow us to contextualize more pre-
cisely the Tamburino epigraphs and the Armenian presence in Orvi-
eto in dierent ways. First, it should be noted that the upper eche-
lons of the Orvietan clergy seem to have oered their support to the
constitution of the new community. In the 1280s Orvieto was one of
the main places of residence of the papal court, which was often ac-
companied by a garrison provided by the Angevin kings of Sicily.
The latter’s presence was opposed by the Popolo, a composite group

Eurasiatica 15 28
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
of merchants and artisans who had taken control of the municipal
government and fought to preserve its independence from external
powers (Waley 1952, 55-9). The bishops of the city had traditionally
been allies of the municipality against papal claims to hegemony over
the city, which was situated on the expansion axis of the Popes. At
the time when the Armenian community was founded, however, the
aristocratic family Monaldeschi, of which the aforementioned bish-
op Francesco was possibly a member17 had succeeded in reaching a
position of supremacy in the urban landscape. This was made pos-
sible thanks to an alliance with the papacy and the Angevin monar-
chy, the staunchest ally of the Bishops of Rome and a hegemonic pow
-
er in Italy after its conquest of the Kingdom of Sicily in the 1260s.
Bishop Francesco Monaldeschi, a loyal agent of the papacy, was try-
ing to consolidate his position of power within the city, particularly
through an ambitious program of foundation and restoration of reli-
gious institutions, reected in the ourishing of spiritual initiatives
which characterized late medieval Orvieto, and within which we may
set the foundation of the Church of Santo Spirito (Riccetti 1996, 199
.).18 The support of part of the clergy closer to the municipal gov-
ernment, in addition, can be guessed from the participation of the
clergy of Sant’Andrea at the foundation of the church of the Armeni-
ans. This institution represented, in this period, the centre of local
civic religiosity, on account of the decline experienced by the local
cathedral up to its restoration by the same Monaldeschi (Foote 2004,
85, 214 fn. 18; Lansing 1998, 27-8). The sites where the Armenians
set up both their original and their second religious institutions cer-
tainly helped them to establish their presence within Orvietan soci-
ety. Although the monastery of Santo Spirito was in theory located
beyond the waterways indicating the boundaries of the tenuta civi-
tatis, the city’s suburbia, at the end of the century the incorporation
of the territories of San Lorenzo in vineis and of Petroio into the ur-
ban fabric was well underway (Carpentier 1986, 51-3). The cadastre
of 1292 includes the only landed property described as “in vocabu-
lum Sancti Spiriti”, i.e. ‘in the proximity of the monastery’, in its vol-
ume reserved to urban properties, which meant that the only propri-
etors in the area were endowed with the status of Orvietan citizens
(Archivio di Stato di Orvieto, Catasto I, f. 17v: “Heredes Petri Blan-
ci [...] habent vineam in vocabulum Sancti Spiriti usque ecclesiam
Sancti Spiriti, viam et Angelutium Jacobi”). All these arguments lead
us to assume that the initiative to establish an Armenian communi-
ty enjoyed a transversal support from the citizenry of Orvieto, some-
thing which enabled brother Peter and his companions to develop
17 See however, D’Acunto 2011 and Salonius 2017 for doubts about this genealogy.
18 On the spiritual fervour of Orvieto in this period see Frank 2002, 296.
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 29
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
connections within local society, and to collect donations even from
supporters of non-Armenian origin. This is suggested by a list com-
piled in 1350 and registered in the minutes of the council of Orvieto,
of churches which received an annual donation from the city, among
which the monastery of Santo Spirito is to be found (Piccolomini-Ada-
mi 1883, 184; Carpentier 1986, 53). All these elements may have con-
tributed to creating consensus in favour of the new religious founda-
tion in various sectors of the Orvietan clergy and society, who were
in conict in other respects. The Armenian presence could in fact
both have contributed to the role of Orvieto as an “important cultur-
al crossroad”, as Carol Lansing (1998, 6) dened it, and to oer vi-
carious legitimacy to the elites as supporters of such initiatives as
assisting pilgrims on their way to Rome (Lansing 1998).19
5.3 Orvieto as a Strategic Settlement
Having analysed the Italian and local context, the next question is
why a group of Armenian religious would desire to settle and open
a hospice in the Umbrian countryside. In fact, Orvieto was a very
attractive destination for this community. Although the documents
available do not provide us with precise information in this regard,
it is reasonable to suppose that they, like many members of the East-
ern clergy who settled in Italy during this period, were refugees ee-
ing from the wars fought between Mongols and Mamluks in the ter-
ritories of Greater and Lesser Armenia. As a striking coincidence, a
Mamluk military campaign against the Mongols and their Armenian
allies broke out in 1280, the year brother Peter and his companions
arrived in Orvieto (Irwin 1986, 34; Mutaan 1988, 452). It is not clear
whether this particular group of Armenian refugees/pilgrims came
from Greater or Lesser Armenia. Recent studies on the colophons of
Armenian manuscripts from medieval Rome have shown that most
of the Armenians mentioned in these sources as members of Italian
communities came from the region of Greater Armenia, which was
the most aected by the destruction brought on by warfare in this pe-
riod (Sirinian 2016, 2018). The Kingdom of Cilicia (an Armenian and
Christian kingdom situated in Lesser Armenia, on the coasts of the
Eastern Mediterranean), played however a crucial diplomatic role in
fostering relationships with the Papacy. The Kingdom of Cilicia had
been advocating since its foundation for the rapprochement of the Ar-
menian and the Catholic Churches, which had favoured the resump-
tion of pilgrimages from the East to Rome (Zekiyan 1978, 847); it has
19 For similar cases of elite support concerning other Armenian communities in Ita-
ly see also Sirinian 2018.

Eurasiatica 15 30
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
to be noted, however, that these pilgrimages had never completely
ceased over the course of the Early Middle Ages, as proven among
other indications by the cult of the 11th-century Armenian pilgrim
Davino in the city of Lucca.20 Armenian pilgrims normally disem-
barked in Ancona (where there was another Armenian church ded-
icated to the Holy Spirit: see Zekiyan 1978, 862) and went through
Umbria on their way to Rome. The foundation of new Armenian com-
munities in the Umbrian region is attested in this period also in Pe-
rugia (from 1273; Traina 1996, 98) and Gubbio (from 1318; Sezione
di Archivio di Stato di Gubbio, Fondo Pesci, b. 4, doc. 97).21 The posi-
tion of Orvieto was, moreover, particularly strategic: the most impor-
tant of the various itineraries of the Via Francigena – a set of roads
used by northern European and northern Italian pilgrims to reach
Rome – passed right through Monteascone, the locality in the Orvi-
etan territor y on the road to which the Armenian locus had been es-
tablished. This itinerary of the Via Francigena was the most popular
in the 13th century, and followed the tracks of the ancient Roman Via
Cassia antiqua (Schmiedt 1974, 585; Stopani 2019). Another ancient
Roman road that became especially popular among pilgrims at the
time was the Via Flaminia, as it allowed a detour to Assisi and other
places connected to the ourishing cult of St Francis (Stopani 1991,
19; 1998, 141-2). Armenian foundations in Italy were mostly set up as
hospices made available by the Armenian clergy to their fellow coun-
trymen travelling to Rome (Orengo 2018, § 3): the inscription of the
Tamburino itself denes Santo Spirito as a hospitale, or a place ded-
icated to hospitality. Along the same road that connected Orvieto to
Monteascone, on which Peter the Armenian had asked to build his
own church, there was also a hospital of the Teutonic Order, likewise
dedicated to assisting pilgrims (Borchardt 2016, 120). The decision
to build the church of Santo Spirito in that precise spot, and then to
move it on account of the works to build a new road of Petroio, shows
a high degree of planning and awareness of their specic vocation
towards charitable hospitality of pilgrims on the part of Peter and
his confreres. The rebuilding of the monastery on the new road and
the Armenians’ long-lasting presence in Orvieto alongside other re-
ligious communities is to be taken as evidence of the desirability of
such positioning on the way to Rome.
20 See Orengo 2018, § 12. More generally on A rmenian-It alian contacts in the Early
Middle Ages see Zek iyan 2000, 95 .
21 We thank Alberto Luongo for this reference, not list ed to our k nowledge i n any
publication dea ling w ith Armenian communities in Italy.
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 31
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
6 Conclusion
This article has presented new sources on the Armenian presence in
medieval Italy, including a rare instance of a trilingual inscription.
Some aspects of them remain unclear, such as the reading of the
date provided in Inscription II, and will hopefully be complemented
by future studies. The artworks from Santo Spirito described in this
contribution also deserve the attention of specialists of Armenian
and Italian art, in order to uncover whether they bear the traces of
the importation of foreign iconographical models. The Latin sources
available for the Armenian community of Orvieto oer useful infor-
mation about the contexts in which these groups of pilgrims might
choose to settle and about the material conditions of their presence
in communal Italy. The documents described here may possibly not
be exhaustive, and the rich archives of Orvieto might well preserve
more sources available for this topic. This case study ultimately of-
fers an example of a small Armenian community, perfectly integrat-
ed in the religious and social landscape of an Italian commune. We
have tried to substantiate some hypotheses about this successful in-
tegration in the course of this article; however, an in-depth study of
ecclesiastical, social and political reactions to the presence of sim-
ilar communities in Italy has yet to come. The fact that they shared
the same faith as the locals, but not their prevalently Latin rite, could
have resulted in ambiguous attitudes towards them.22 Papal support
for reunication projects with the Eastern Church can explain why
religious elites could support the establishment of Oriental commu-
nities; however, it does not shed much light on the reactions of lay
governments and lower segments of the population to their presence.
We hope that this contribution will encourage new interdisciplinary
research bringing together specialists of both medieval Armenia and
Italy, in order to clarify the circumstances under which Oriental com-
munities were either welcomed or discriminated against.
22 See for instance Quaranta 2004, 638 -9, who describes a southern Italian case of
persecution of Armenian clergymen as heretics in 1312.

Eurasiatica 15 32
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Bibliography
Primary sources
Archivio di Stato di Orvieto, Catasto I, 1292.
Archivio Vescovile di Or vieto, Codice A, c. 217r, February 10, 1280.
Archivio Vescovile di Or vieto, Codice C, c. 97r, January 3, 1288.
Archivio Vescovile di Or vieto, Codice C, c. 113r, January 11, 1289.
Sezione dell’Archivio di Stato di Gubbio, Fondo Pesci, b. 4, doc. 97, June 18,
1318.
Secondary sources
Borchardt, K. (2016). “The Military-Religious Orders in the Crusaders’ West”.
Boas, A .J. (ed.), The Crusader World. New York; Oxford: Routledge, 111-27.
Carpen tier, É. (1986). Orvieto à la f in du XIIIe siècle. Ville et camp agne dans le ca-
dastre de 1292. Par is: Éditions du CNRS.
D’Acunto, N. (2011). “Monaldeschi, Francesco”. Dizionario Biografico de-
gli Italiani. http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/francesco-
monaldeschi_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/.
Delouis, O.; Mossakowska-Gaubert, M.; Peters- Custot, A. (2019). Les mobilités
monastiques en Orient et en Occident de l’Antiquité Tardive au Moyen Âge,
IVe-XVe siècle. Rome: École française de Rome.
Fiumi, L. (1884). Codice diplomatico della città di Orvieto. Documenti e regesti
dal secolo 11. al 15. e la Car ta del popolo, codice statuta rio del Comune di Or-
vieto. Firenze: G.P. Vieusseux.
Foote, D. (2004). Lordship, Reform, Development of Civil Society in Medieval It-
aly. The Bishopric of Orvieto, 1100 -1250. Notre Dame (IN): University of No-
tre Dame Pres s.
Frank, T. (2002). Bruderschaen im spätmittelalterlichen Kirchenstaat. Viterbo,
Orvieto, As sisi. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Garzelli, A . (1972). Museo di Orvieto. Museo dell’Opera del Duomo. Bologna: Ca l-
derini.
Irwin, R . (1986). The Middle East in the Mid dle Ages. The Early Mamlu k Sultanate,
1250-1382. Carbondale (IL): Southern Illinois University Press.
Lo Presti, A . (2011). Chiese di Orvieto. Orvieto: Intermedia Edizioni.
Lansing , C. (1998). Power and Purity. Cathar H eresy in Medieval Italy. New York;
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mutafian, C. (1988). La Cilicie au carrefour des empires, vol. 1. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres.
Orengo, A . (2018). “Gli Armeni in Italia, e d in particolare in Toscana , nel Medio-
evo ed oltre”. Mélange s de l’École française de Rome. Moyen  ge, 130(1), 85-
94. https://doi.org/10.4000/mefrm.4005.
Paoletti, M.R. (1958). “Demolizione e restauro nella chiesa di San Domenico
in Orvieto (1934-1939)”. Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Artistico Orvietano,
14, 40 -50.
Pellegrini, L . (1977). “Gli insediamenti d egli ordini mendicanti e la loro tipolo -
gia. Considerazioni metodologiche e piste di ricerca”. Mélanges de l’École
française de Rome. Moyen Âge, Temps Modernes, 89(2), 563-73. h t t p s ://
doi.org/10.3 406/mefr.1977.5210.
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena

Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena
Eurasiatica 15 33
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Perali, P. (1919). Orvieto. Note stori che di tipografie e d’arte d alle origini al 1800.
Orvieto Etrusca. Orvieto: M. Masili. Reprinted in 1979. Roma: Multigrafica
Editrice.
Piccolomini- Adami, T. (1886). Guida storico- artistica della cit tà di Orvieto e suoi
contorni, precedu ta da cenni storici, cronologi ci e dalla topografia della ci ttà.
Siena: All’insegna di S. Bernardino.
Quaranta, F. (2004). “L’inquisizione e gli italo-greci”. Praedicatores Inquisito-
res. Vol. 1, The Dominicans and the Mediaeval Inquisition. Acts of the 1st In-
ternational Seminar on the Dominicans and the Inquisition. Roma: Istituto
Storico Domenicano, 62 5-42.
Riccetti , L. (1996). Le origini dell’O pera, Lorenzo Maitani e l’architettu ra del Duo-
mo di Orvieto. In margine al disagio di una storiografia. [s.l.]: Leo S. Olschki
Editore.
Rossetti, G. (1989). Dentro la città. Stranieri e realtà urbane nell’Europa dei se -
coli XII-XVI. Napoli: Liguori editore.
Salonius, P. (2017). “Il vescovo, il cardinale e la cattedrale. L’immagine e il po-
tere a Or vieto”. Andreani, L.; Parav icini Bagliani, A. (a cura di), Cri sto e il po-
tere, dal Medio evo all’Età moderna. Teologia, antrop ologia e politica. Firen-
ze: Edizioni del Galluzzo, 323 -40.
Satolli, F. (2003). La presunta chiesa di San Pietro ‘in vetera’ presso Orvieto. Ri-
sultati delle campagne di scavo 2001-2003 [Tesi di Laurea]. Siena: Universi-
tà degli Studi di Siena.
Schmiedt, G. (1974). “Città scomparse e città di nuova formazione in Italia in
relazione al sistema di comunicazione”. Topografia urbana e vita cittadina
nell’Alto Medioevo i n Occidente (Settiman a di studio del Centro Italiano di Stu
-
di sull’Alto Medioevo, 21 , 26 aprile-1° maggio 1973). Spoleto: Centro di Studi
Italiani sull’Alto Medioevo, 503 -608.
Sirinian, A . (2016). “I colofoni dei manoscr itti armeni copia ti a Roma (secoli XIII-
XIV). Traduzione italiana con note di commento”. Nea Rhome. Rivista di ri-
cerche bizantinistiche, 13, 305-38.
Sirinian, A. (2018). “Interazioni armeno-latine nelle epigrafi e nei manoscrit-
ti armeni p rodotti a Roma nei se coli XIII-XIV”. Mélanges de l’ Éco le française
de Rome. Moyen Âge, 130(1), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.4000/me-
fr m.4 017.
Stopani, R. (19 91). Le vie di p ellegrinaggio nel Medio Evo. Gli it inerari per Roma,
Gerusalemme, Compostella. Firenze: Le Lettere.
Stopani, R. (1998). La Via Francigena. Storia di una strada medievale. Firen-
ze: Le Lettere.
Stopani, R. (2019). Vie Romee. Dall’altomedievale Via Francigena alla plurali-
tà di percorsi romipeti del Basso Medioevo. Firenze: Centro di studi romei.
Traina, G. (1996). “Materiali sulla presenza armena nella Perugia medievale”.
Zekiyan, B .L. (ed.), Ad limina Italiae. A r druns Italioy. In viaggio per l’Ita lia con
monaci e mercanti a rmeni. Padua: Editoriale Progr amma, 97-127.
Waley, D.P. (1952). Mediaeval Orvieto. The Political History of an Italian City-
State, 1157-1334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zekiyan, B.L. (1978). “Le colonie armene del Medio Evo in Italia e le relazioni
culturali italo-armene. (Materiale per la storia degli Armeni in Italia)”. Ie-
ni, G.; Zekiyan, B.L. (eds), Atti del Primo Simposio Internazionale di Arte Ar-
mena (Bergamo, 28-30 giugno 1975). San Lazzaro (VE): Tipo-litografia ar-
mena, 803-946.

Eurasiatica 15 34
Armenia, Caucaso e Asia Centrale. Ricerche 2020, 11-34
Zekiyan, B .L. (ed.) (1996). Ad limina Itali ae. Ar druns Italioy. In viaggio p er l’Italia
con monaci e mercanti armeni. Padova: Editoriale Progr amma.
Zekiyan, B .L. (2000). L’A rmenia e gli armeni. Polis lace rata e patria spirituale: la
sfida di una so pravvivenza. Milano: Guerini e associati.
Stephanie Pambakian, Lidia Zanetti Domingues
Armen ians on the Via Fran cigena