Dipartimento di Filosofia, Storia e Beni culturali

Un’analisi del sito archeologico in sé, mettendo in evidenza alcune delle sue peculiarità dividendo questo piccolo lavoro in due parti: la prima analizza con un breve excursus il Neolitico, mettendo in risalto le principali innovazioni che lo hanno attraversato e la sua diffusione nel Nord Italia; e il Gruppo del Gabàn, facies neolitica trentina illustrando le sue caratteristiche e la sua diffusione in tutta l’area tridentina, aspetto questo che introduce il sito studiato. La seconda parte, invece, illustra il sito oggetto dello studio.

Un'analisi dei dati archeologici in sé, mettendo in evidenza alcune delle sue peculiarità, dividendo questo breve lavoro in due parti: la prima analizza con un rapido excursus la storia del popolo dei Longobardi in Italia, dando particolarmente luce ai principali avvenimenti partendo dalle origini fino alla loro decadenza; la seconda parte, invece, illustra la presenza dei Longobardi in Trentino Alto-Adige e l’analisi archeologica sul loro insediamento nei castra, con dubbi e problemi.

Prof. M.V. Escribano Paño recently showed how the definition of Christian identity partly descends
from the representation of orthodoxy as strongly opposed to heterodoxy which can be found in the
legislation of Theodosius I and his successors.
The constitutions against heterodoxy assume a non-normative purpose: through them, the imperial
authority seeks to create an irrational, immoral and pathological image of heretics which should
originate a strong social aversion against them and justify their marginalization and expulsion.
I will try to verify wether religious belonging can be considered a marginalizing factor in itself, and
what was the relationship between orthodox and heterodox individuals in a concrete urban context.
In order to do this, I will examine some passages from the sermons pronounced by Ambrose during
the “Basilicas Conflict” of 386 a.D. and the condition of the montenses in Rome. It will be shown
how bishops seem obliged to overlap geographical provenance and religious membership, in a way
which allows one to think that heterodoxy was not in itself a sufficient element to lead a whole
community to exclude some individuals.
Heretics and schismatics seem to have lived a “normal life”, indistinguishable from the rest of
orthodox masses: the representation offered by orthodox sources is not a realistic picture of social
exclusion linked to heterodoxy, but one of the causes of this marginalization.

In a series of Sermons by Maximus of Turin (18; 69; 72; 81-86), we find explicit references to barbaric invasions which more than once touched Piedmont. Even if Turin was not directly attacked, a strong sense of menace should have spread among the populace of the city.
Maximus reads the events in a theological light, considering barbarians as guided by the Devil. To gain God's protection against this kind of enemy, citizens are expected in a first time to win their own sins.
I suppose Maximus' perspective has a much more concrete and “civic” value: sins are generally described as a source of solitude, and in more specific terms as factors of civic break-up.
First of all, auaritia brings to social exclusion (the auarus leaves his own country to save his goods, but he finds himself alone and mendicus in a foreign land) and to the refusal of Roman identity (the auarus enriches himself trading with barbarians consciously without taking into account that such goods had been stolen from his own comprouinciales).
Concerning haeresia, I don't think that Maximus mainly considers the overlapping between heterodoxy and barbarity. Instead, he depicts doctrinal sin as a social sin, which concurs to divide the civic body: significantly, both heretics and auari are compared to foxes.
Maximus appears to consider the struggle against sins not only from a theological perspective but from a social one: in front of military danger and civic crisis, it doesn't matter to save the urbs – i.e. buildings and concrete urban spaces -, but the ciuitas – i.e. citizenship with its institutions and cultural features. Once shattered by sins, the civic body is not only military, but above all culturally weak. Ciuitas should be then re-defined to avoid to succumb to the enemy: this is why the bishop makes such efforts to create a new civic identity, based on the notions of Romanus, Christianus and Catholicus.

Texts from Italy concerning the Arian controversy of the IV century A.D., show that one of the arguments used by Nicene bishops to raise enmity against heretics was the overlap between heresy and Greek philosophy and rhetoric.
Although the clear intersecting points between Arianism and neoplatonic, stoic and aristotelic thought, Nicene bishops found the assimilation between heresy and sapientia graeca on different, more fundamental grounds.
Zeno from Verona, Ambrose, Rufinus among others show how Arians were criticized especially because of their dialectic approach to theology: Heretics are shown to prefer a rational analysis of God rather than the simple veneration of the divine. This attitude inevitably lead to doctrinal mistake, since human categories can't be used to solve Trinitarian and Christological issues.
In the Nicene representation, Arians also present the typical features of the sophist, using rhetoric and quibbles to deceive orthodox believers and gain them to heresy.
Maybe because of this subtlety, Arianism seems to have enjoyed particular favour in the aristocratic milieu: both Christian and Pagan senators still had a classical education, covering philosophy and rhetoric.
If the success of Arianism can be considered as the result of the union of Greek and Roman culture, it is also true that anti-Arian polemics re-awoke and re-stressed the opposition between romanitas and graecitas.

Heterodox communities are usually presented by modern scholars as socially excluded and marginalized from the urban communities they belong to.
This perception is well-founded on the image transmitted by ancient sources, mostly from the Nicene environment. The language used to indicate heresy in the theodosian constitutions belongs to the semantic field of contagion and pollution. Ambrose (among others) represents heresy as an evil coming from the “outside”, identified with barbarians, in clear opposition with an orthodox “inside”, corresponding to the urban population. Maximus of Turin doesn't seem to accept this superimposition, representing instead religious minorites as a hidden reality to unravel and contrast.
Internal-hidden, external-evident: both cases imply a sense of danger linked to heresy, and above all a sense of marginalization, wished or effective. This kind of representation makes it inevitable for modern scholars and readers to perceive religious minorities (especially heterodox ones) as separated from the rest of urban communities.
An attentive analysis of ancient texts and materials clears out that heretics and schismatics cannot be rightly considered as marginalized groups: members of these communities are to be found in senatorial or municipal aristocracy and among landowners, and the negative and somewhat scary representation proposed by Nicene sources appear to be more a mean to gain marginalization than a reliable picture of an effective situation.

La descrizione della repressione operata da Damaso contro i luciferiani nei primi anni '80 del IV secolo, così come proposta nel cosiddetto Libellus precum, risulta illuminante riguardo all'applicazione e alle conseguenze della costituzione teodosiana Cunctos populos (Cod. Theod. XVI, 1, 2).
Nel contesto delle pervicaci opposizioni che Damaso dovette affrontare a Roma per tutta la durata del suo episcopato, l'editto sembra essere diventato lo strumento privilegiato dal vescovo per abbattere un dissenso altrimenti inestirpabile.
In una prima fase dell'episcopato Damaso dovette invocare contro ursiniani e luciferiani l'intervento dell'autorità imperiale segnalando la pericolosità delle assemblee dei gruppi dissidenti per il mantenimento dell'ordine pubblico, non potendo i funzionari civili intervenire in questioni dottrinali e disciplinari. I provvedimenti previsti contro gli eretici, consistenti in sostanza nell'esclusione dalla comunione con il resto dell'episcopato, risultavano infatti necessariamente inefficaci nel caso di gruppi scismatici.
L'emanazione della Cunctos populos segnò un deciso cambio di passo nella repressione damasiana e l'inizio di una forte evoluzione della percezione del ruolo dell'autorità civile in ambito religioso, da parte sia di imperatori e funzionari, sia di membri del clero.
Tra il 381 e il 382, infatti, ursiniani e luciferiani vengono per la prima volta tacciati di eresia: dietro queste nuove accuse sta una precisa interpretazione della costituzione Cunctos populos che considera Damaso come il depositario della fede nicena, e il suo giudizio dirimente riguardo all'ortodossia dei singoli. Di fronte a un'accusa di eresia pronunciata dal vescovo di Roma, un funzionario avrebbe dovuto, insomma, procedere all'executio della pena, tralasciando la fase della cognitio.
Il proscioglimento di Efesio dall'accusa di eresia da parte del prefetto di Roma Basso (Libellus precum, 84), mostra però l'esistenza di un'interpretazione alternativa della lex. Nel momento in cui l'eresia diventa crimen,  il funzionario giusdicente acquisisce il diritto e il dovere di pronunciarsi in materia di fede. Si crea così un conflitto di competenze tra autorità civili ed ecclesiastiche, per cui il parere di Damaso non necessariamente è considerato insindacabile a priori: fondamentale per stabilire l'ortodossia di un individuo diventa la conformità del Credo da questi professato con quello niceno. Riconoscendo tale conformità nel caso di Efesio, Basso non poteva che far cadere le accuse ai suoi danni.
Nel Libellus precum si auspica di fatto che gli imperatori ricalchino l'atteggiamento del prefetto, indicato implicitamente come naturale e necessaria conseguenza della costituzione Cunctos populos. I luciferiani evidenziano il pericolo (già concretizzatosi) che la lex possa essere utilizzata da eretici contro i “veri” ortodossi, e invitano gli Augusti ad assumere il ruolo di organo disinteressato che proceda, in maniera del tutto autonoma dalle autorità religiose, al confronto tra le diverse professioni di fede, per valutarne l'aderenza all'ortodossia nicena.
È nel contesto di un'interpretazione alternativa a quella damasiana (e forse anche a quella teodosiana) della Cunctos populos - diffusa, sembrerebbe, prevalentemente in ambito non niceno - che deve essere inserita la convocazione del concilio costantinopolitano “di tutte le eresie” del 383, ma soprattutto in questo senso deve essere interpretata l'altrimenti sorprendente richiesta di un intervento del Senato presentata da Palladio di Ratiaria all'indomani della sua condanna al concilio di Aquileia del 381.

"The book summons the papers presented during the first two series of the Rodopis Postgraduate Seminars "Ricerche a Confronto", held in Bologna and Trento in 2011. The chosen formula is that of an open dialogue among young researchers and senior scholars, trying to keep alive the leading aim of the seminars: the meeting of people dealing with similar subjects, the discovery of different points of view on the same issues. Therefore, each paper is followed by two brief responses by two discussants, the one chosen by the author, the other by Rodopis' members.
We hope readers will enjoy finding out the newest research products and being able to build their own opinions on different subjects observed from different perspectives."

It is often assumed that the councils of Constantinople and Aquileia of AD 381, together with the promulgation of the first anti-heretical norms by Theodosius, sign the end of the Arian crisis. From that moment onwards, Arian communities seem to disappear in the Roman Empire, coming again to light only thanks to the crossing of Roman boundaries by barbarian populations who had embraced a non-nicene form of Christianity. Taking for granted, after the promulgation of theodosian anti-heretical legislation, the sincerely Nicene character of Roman Christianity, evidences of Arian presence found in the late Roman empire, have been habitually (and too often automatically) linked in some way to the presence of barbarian groups or individuals
.
The aim of this paper is to put into question the Roman-Nicene/barbarian-Arian overlaps, usually assumed by modern historiography. Calling attention to surviving evidences of the persistence of Roman non-nicene communities in the Western Empire, with special consideration accorded to the extant Arian writings, I will try to point out how the “end of the Arian crisis” is not to be confused with the “end of Roman Arianism”, and how not all the evidence for subsistent non-nicene groups can be brought back to barbarian presence.
Once the persistence of Roman heterodox communities revealed, the theodosian anti-heretical legislation will be reconsidered, trying to find out the conditions and the means with which it was applied, questioning its theoretical aims and effective consequences.

La conversione dei Goti al cristianesimo di matrice subordinazionita nell'ultimo quarto del IV secolo d.C. è stata generalmente interpretata in stretta connessione con l'attraversamento del Danubio da parte di alcune tribù gotiche nel 376, regolato da un accordo stipulato tra Valente e la tribù guidata da Fritigern. In questa occasione, avrebbe giocato un ruolo di primo piano proprio l'appartenenza religiosa dei barbari: secondo alcuni, i seguaci di Fritigern si erano convertiti al cristianesimo, nella forma praticata dal sovrano, già negli anni precedenti, e in virtù di questo sarebbero stati accolti dall'imperatore; secondo altri, pur essendo già da tempo iniziato il processo di evangelizzazione dei Goti oltre Danubio, fu solo a seguito dell'accordo del 376 che Fritigern si impegnò a promuovere la conversione dei suoi seguaci, in segno di fedeltà e lealtà nei confronti dell'impero.
Di fatto, come si mostrerà, nessuna delle due ipotesi spiega concretamente come e perché si verificò la cristianizzazione di massa dei Goti, né perché essi mantennero, fino al III concilio di Toledo del 589, un credo trinitario diverso da quello niceno, l'unico formalmente accettato nell'impero. Per dare ragione di quella che è apparsa come una contraddizione storica cui porre rimedio, sono state evocate dinamiche identitarie per cui l'elemento religioso sarebbe diventato una “strategy of distinction”, un elemento irriducibile che impedisse l'altrimenti inarrestabile processo di assimilazione della popolazione barbarica a quella romana.
Dimostrando come in epoca teodosiana, nonostante i proclami della legislazione e le prese di posizione ufficiali, le forme di cristianesimo non-niceno rimanessero ampiamente diffuse, e risultassero particolarmente radicate nelle aree danubiane, dove i Goti furono stanziati a seguito del trattato del 381, si proporrà una diversa interpretazione del fenomeno di cristianizzazione, da intendersi non come il frutto di una contrapposizione identitaria, ma come il risultato del processo di assimilazione tra Goti e popolazione autoctona.

Coexistence of Goths and Romans in the late IV and early V century has often attracted scholars' attention, being variously reconstructed in most of its stages and characters. However, a particular aspect, though recognised as crucial, has not been usually questioned. According to our sources, the Goths embraced and retained the Arian Creed, stigmatised as heresy by Theodosius in his anti-heretical legislation and by the Councils of Constantinople and Aquileia. In a seemingly compactly Nicene Empire, the religious factor is supposed to have represented one of the main obstacles to the full assimilation of barbarians and Romans. Although the Gothic conversion has been differently explained, it is usually placed under the reign of the Arian Valens, while it is assumed that the Goths retained the Arian Creed in order to mark and preserve their own identity in a Roman context.

This assumption I'd like to put into question, demonstrating first how a conversion to Arianism remained possible under Theodosius, considering then whether or not devotion to a specific form of Christianity could function as a marker of identity in the context of Gothic-Roman relationship. I will show that while the deliberate choice of a specific Christian Creed cannot be considered the product of Valens' Gothic policy, it makes perfect sense when linked to the settlement of Vallia's Goths in Gaul. Choosing specific symbols as markers of identity became then functional to create a compact political entity, correspondent to the newly acquired territorial one.

I will try to show that the adoption of Arianism among these symbols became a particularly productive way to assure social control without referring to Roman structures and therefore to strengthen Visigothic autonomy. The retention of Arianism doesn't reveal Gothic ancestral hostility against the Romans: it is instead the result of political considerations leading to the imposition of the Creed from the top, oriented to gain loyal subjects to the Visigothic kingdom.

Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference held in Trento (Italy) on 19th and 20th March, 2013.
Papers deal with cultural "invisibility" in different contexts, from antiquity to present times, with different approaches going from sociology to philology and archaeology, opening various methodological perspectives to analyse both the reasons why some groups or individuals have been erased from historiographical narratives and to reconstruct those situations and contexts which are not clearly detectable on the ground and in written sources.
The conference was attended by young scholars from Italy, USA, UK, France, Spain, Sweden, Belgium. All papers are in English.