Report:

The purpose of this annual workshop is to gather postgraduate students and early
career researchers for a day of exchange on the topic of Late Antiquity. To that end, a
theme is chosen every year, as a starting point for debate. This years theme,
conversions, invited papers from multiple perspectives, and we are happy to have
welcomed archaeologists, historians and early Christian specialists. Incidentally, there
has been quite a lot of academic workshops and conferences, as well as articles and
books, about the topic of conversion recently, such as a conference at Kings College
London (Representing self-transformation and conversion in Roman literature, 2930 June, 2015) or the forthcoming volume Conversion in Late Antiquity: Christianity,
Islam and beyond, edited by N. McLynn, A. Papaconstantinou and D. Schwarz (Averil
Camerons opening chapter is available to view on academia.edu). From the
traditional concept of conversion to/from a religion, to literary transformation,
imperial image management and topographical evolutions, our workshop has covered
the wide range of interpretations that the concept of conversion invites, and we have,
I believe, brought our own stone to the edifice.
Our contributors were split into three panels: Topographic Conversions;
Imperial Conversions; Christian Conversions, of which a short summary is
provided below. It was interesting to see so many interpretations of the theoretical
framework of conversions work alongside one another and find common ground in
the archaeological, textual, legal and artistic evidence presented. Cross-overs were
discovered in unexpected places, new evidence brought to light and contrasts
acknowledged. The day closed with a round table discussion about the current state of
Late Antique studies and issues of periodization and affiliation (specifically in relation
to Classical Studies). The discussion was friendly, animated and focused and I, for
one, thoroughly enjoyed the day.
Topographic Conversions:
The opening paper of this years workshop was ably presented by Maria
Kneafsey (Exeter) on the topic of burial boundaries of Late Antique Rome. After a
presentation of past and present scholarly arguments as to why intra-muros burials
occurred in that period, Maria made a case for a more pragmatic approach to the
question. Rather than the hand of the Church, or the impact of social trauma after the
sack of Rome, the aspect of spatial availability and changing relationship between
urban space and city walls was emphasised. Questions focused mainly on the role of
city walls (pragmatic defences, prestige projects, symbolic structures) and on the
specificity of Rome (comparisons with Ostia were put forward). Most interesting, for
me, was the mention of intra-muros burials inside public buildings, such as baths.

Following Maria, Silviu Anghel (Gottingen) moved the debate to Athens and
pagan philosophy. Silviu, through archaeological case studies, demonstrated that
many identified neoplatonic and pagan sites were in fact doubtful, and the re-use of
public statues and reliefs in private spaces was exceedingly rare. Having established
that the neoplatonic community of Athens was small, and often overemphasised by
modern scholarship, Silviu then argued that it was no less vocal (especially stubborn
Proculus) and that it had a policy of conversion of Athenian landmarks into places of
connection with the philosophical and pagan past of Athens, as attested by the
(fascinating) Vari cave and Sokrateion. This paper sparked a lively debate about the
place of pagan/Christian inter-relations within modern scholarship as well as about
archaeological identification of pagan sites.
The concluding paper in this panel was delivered by Ian McElroy (Glasgow)
on the conversion of temples in the Eastern Mediterranean. This theoretically sound
and inquisitive paper engaged with notions of expediency and Christian triumphalism,
like Marias analysis of intra-mural burials, and added a pinch of phenomenology to
the debate. Ian argued for a stronger place to be devoted to the symbolic role of ruins
and of the spoliation and construction process in conversion projects, for it enabled
the appropriation of space and associations from the temple to the church it was
converted into (what Ian termed the less tangible aspects of architectural
conversion). Finally, an interesting point was made in relation to the harbour site at
Side, and with the relationship between the temple, the church which was then
implanted on the site and the sea view (and view of the site from the sea). Questions
about the frequency and modalities of temple conversions in the Empire followed.
Imperial Conversions:
The first paper in this second session was delivered by Taylor FitzGerald
(Exeter). Taylor wove her argument around several interconnected questions: who
needed to defend whose imperial legitimacy, when and why. From panegyrics and
histories to coins, Taylor managed to make use of a varied set of evidence and
complex political narrative in a clear and comprehensive fashion. The image of
Maximian, from respected senior tetrarch to usurper to bad patriarch to
rehabilitation, was traced through the political upheavals of the early fourth-century.
Refreshingly, the figure of Constantine did not occupy the historiographical centrestage, but was demonstrated to have been but a part of a fast-changing political
context. The uncertainty created by such a fast pace, Taylor argued, could explain the
discrepancy of the treatment of Maximian between the works of Eusebius, Lactantius
and Constantinian coinage. Among the audience, coins seem to have gathered some
interest, with discussions on mints and imperial numismatic agency.
After Taylor, Joel Leslie (Glasgow) brought us a little forward in the fourth
century and charted the role Christianity in the construction of the role of the Emperor
from Constantines conversion to Theodosius Is cunctos populos. Most interestingly,
this paper brought a well deserved focus on the Valentinian dynasty and its oftforgotten role in the increasingly Christian self-representation of fourth-century
emperors. Were their policies Christian? Did they in fact ease off pressure off
pagans? Questions about sorcery legislation and trials (and their political or religious
nature) occupied much of the debate as well as the actual impact of Ambroses
advice on Theodosius I.
The closing paper of this panel was provided by Lea Niccolai (Scuola
Normale Superiore, Pisa) on the rhetorical motif of the barbarian in Julians dialogue

with the Christian Antiochenes in his Misopogon. The rhetorical conversion of this
motif and the to-and-fro between the two points of view was skilfully highlighted by
Lea with a very efficient use of textual analysis. The boorish Gauls were thus
converted by Julian from uncultured outsiders to models of philosophical simplicity,
and the Antiochenes self-presentation as paragons of Greekness to luxury-loving
anti-philosophers. Julians use of traditional ethnic stereotypes was further discussed
in audience questions, as was his childhood in Gaul and its impact on this treatise.
Christian Conversions:
Last but not least came the topic of Christian conversions. First on the stand
was Alex Petkas (Princeton), who analysed Synesius of Cyrenes Hymn 1. After
reminding the audience of the philosophical and rhetorical background of Synesius
(he studied in Alexandria, under Hypatia and had first attempted to pursue a rhetorical
career at the imperial court), Alex presented a macro-micro analysis of the Hymn,
looking at both overall structure, context of production and individual passages. He
identified autobiographical elements and concluded that the Hymn was written within
the context of Synesius baptism. In that sense, conversion was interpreted as a
change of course. The audience was interested in expanding Alexs template
analysis to further examples, as well as in the place of Trinitarian doctrinal statements
in baptismal contexts.
Following Alex came Nicholas Mataya (Swansea), with a presentation of the
conversion activities of a little known bishop, Severinus of Noricum. Severinus was
revealed to have been a connected (he received relics from Ambrose) and educated
Nicene bishop in a region with a heavy Arian, barbarian, population. His conversion
strategy, Nicholas ably demonstrated, was rather lass doctrinal than could be
expected. On the contrary, Severinus seems to have deliberately played down
doctrinal differences and emphasised Christian duties such as charity and solidarity. In
that sense, Severinus, the frontier bishop, differed greatly from other Nicene bishops,
and at times, Nicholas noted, even his biographer was unsure about his conversion
actions. The audience was eager to learn more about the barbarian, Arian, Rugian
population whom Severinus interacted with, and the question of the place of doctrine
in local ecclesiastical politics picked up from where it had left after Alex paper.
The last paper of our workshop was delivered by Robin Whelan (TORCH,
Brasenose, Oxford) in a very stimulating presentation of Homoian Christianity in
Ostrogothic Italy. Robin focused at first on the concept of lex gothica/gothicorum. He
demonstrated that the ethnic element taken for granted by modern scholarship was far
from established, especially when looking more closely at the contexts in which it
appeared. In contrast to Severinus of Noricums conversion strategy, it was shown that
the Homoian communities of Ostrogothic Italy were in fact very much concerned with
doctrine and with the construction of righteous Christian communities: tracts were
produced (including the very interesting Collectio Veronensis), church estates
confiscated, bought and sold, and the division between Homoian and Nicene
communities was of great concerns to the Arian side too. The concept of lex gothica
was of particular interest to me, especially in its connections (or not!) to the concepts
of lex romana or lex catholica. Other members of the audience also engaged with the
issue of the labelling of Arian/Homoian communities, a debate which carried on in the
roundtable, as well as with Catholic/Homoian relations at the Gothic courts.
Roundtable:

This part of the workshop was, in my opinion, the most successful. The
question of the inherently diachronic periodization of Late Antiquity (which the
Oxford Bibliographies entry recently described as a period of multiple
transformations: political, economic, social, religious, and cultural) was discussed
first, as it seemed at odds with the synchronic perspectives of many of the papers
presented, even when concerned with conversions. Issues with the negative aspect
of the term Late Antiquity were also pointed out as being at odds with current
scholarly practice, which looks increasingly rarely back to Classical times for
comparison (although popular perception still associates this historical period with the
notion of Dark Ages, and we might need, it was proposed, to find a more positive
term than Late Antiquity to counteract this perception effectively). It was then argued
that in spite of the newly gained scholarly acknowledgement of late antique studies as
a relevant field in itself, affiliation and job titles still lagged behind (although some
progress is being made in degree titles). Questions were asked and solutions debated
as to how to publicise ones research identity, in an increasingly difficult job market:
as a late antique scholar? A classicist? A medievalist? A theologian? Lastly, the limited
use of theory in late antique studies was flagged up as both the consequence of the
limited place devoted to this aspect of historical research in university courses, and
the cause of a lack of unity between late antique scholars. Could Late Antiquity, like
reception studies and gender scholars, gain from developing an academic identity
based on a shared, and original, theoretical basis? Or are we stronger for the variety of
approaches and evidence we are able to display?