The new IHR Seminar schedule is here

Shee, you guys just aren’t interested in peasants and agriculture, are you? Oh well, there are other sorts of content, as you can see from this here seminar schedule. I copy and paste freely below, but it’s already on the web too. Looks like a good program, papers from all over rather than the somewhat late and English flavour we’d been developing. I seem to be better to grips with teaching planning this semester (knowing you’ll be teaching helps, who’d-a thunk) so I hope to make it to a few and, of course, report.

EARLIER MIDDLE AGES SEMINAR

Institute of Historical Research

Ecclesiastical History Room. Wednesdays, 5.30

Spring, 2010

  • 20 January: Katherine Harvey (King’s College London): ‘The piety of King John’
  • 27 January: Jonathan Conant (San Diego, California): ‘Staying Roman: conquest and identity in Africa and the Mediterranean, 439−700’
  • 3 February: Mayke De Jong (University of Utrecht): ‘The penitential state − a year later’
  • 10 February: Simon Draper (University of Gloucestershire): ‘The landscape of place-names in early medieval Gloucestershire and Wiltshire’
  • 17 February: Sylvie Joye (University of Reims): ‘Abduction and elopement in early medieval Europe’
  • 24 February: Peter Sarris (Trinity College, Cambridge): ‘Aristocrats, peasants and the state in Byzantium, 600−1100’
  • 3 March: To be confirmed.
  • 10 March: Roy Flechner (Trinity College, Cambridge): ‘What can canon law tell us about the Gregorian mission to Kent?’
  • 17 March: Andrea Augenti (University of Ravenna): ‘Ravenna: founding a capital, imagining a community’
About these ads

4 responses to “The new IHR Seminar schedule is here

  1. “Shee, you guys just aren’t interested in peasants and agriculture, are you?”

    You obviously just elucidated the material so well, that we were left with nothing to add!

  2. No, I am very interested! I just don’t feel qualified to make a constructive comment. More like: “yeah… why didn’t I think of that?” which seems a little redundant.

    • Well, the obvious answer to that is, “because you didn’t run across Peter Reynolds proving it was odd”, so I shouldn’t worry too much about that; I only did so because I inter-library-loaned the relevant volume for a completely different purpose. Without that it’s hard to be more than uncomfortable about the data…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s