BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Sabre//Sabre VObject 4.5.7//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/Zurich X-LIC-LOCATION:Europe/Zurich TZURL:http://tzurl.org/zoneinfo/Europe/Zurich BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0200 TZNAME:CEST DTSTART:19810329T020000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=3;BYDAY=-1SU END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0200 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:CET DTSTART:19961027T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=10;BYDAY=-1SU END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:news378@daw.philhist.unibas.ch DTSTAMP;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20220829T140508 DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20181106T181500 SUMMARY:Justinianic Plague for Historians DESCRIPTION:We have come a long way in researching what we call the ‘Plag ue of Justinian’ or the ‘Justinianic Plague’ or ‘The Early Medieva l Plague’ – the conventional (and perhaps misleading) name for the fir st pandemic of plague\, usually taken to start with its outbreak in Pelusi um in 541\, returning in some 18 waves\, with its final one ending its cyc le in 750. From Valentin Seibel\, who produced the first study of this phe nomenon in 1857\, to scientific studies of ancient DNA (both that of human s and of microorganisms) that were published a few months ago\, research o n the plague has gone through three major phases\, in my mind\, named afte r the body of material that was principally responsible for driving it for ward: the narrative\, the documentary\, and the paleo-scientific or labora tory phase. In this paper I will review these different phases and discuss their results as well as their relevance for the study of late antique hi story. I will also point to the limitations of the data that we have accum ulated and critically examine the challenges that historians face when hav ing to deal with information produced by disciplines that have a limited u nderstanding of the nuances of work in the humanities. X-ALT-DESC:

We have come a long way in researching what we call the ‘Pl ague of Justinian’ or the ‘Justinianic Plague’ or ‘The Early Medie val Plague’ – the conventional (and perhaps misleading) name for the f irst pandemic of plague\, usually taken to start with its outbreak in Pelu sium in 541\, returning in some 18 waves\, with its final one ending its c ycle in 750. From Valentin Seibel\, who produced the first study of this p henomenon in 1857\, to scientific studies of ancient DNA (both that of hum ans and of microorganisms) that were published a few months ago\, research on the plague has gone through three major phases\, in my mind\, named af ter the body of material that was principally responsible for driving it f orward: the narrative\, the documentary\, and the paleo-scientific or labo ratory phase. In this paper I will review these different phases and discu ss their results as well as their relevance for the study of late antique history. I will also point to the limitations of the data that we have acc umulated and critically examine the challenges that historians face when h aving to deal with information produced by disciplines that have a limited understanding of the nuances of work in the humanities.

DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20181106T200000 END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR