From Goths to Varangians: Communication and Cultural Exchange Between the Baltic and the Black Sea

Dedicated to the memory of Via Guldager Bilde (Born 11 February 1961 tlO January 2013) Director of the Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for Black Sea Studies

FROM GOTHS TO VARANGIANS

BLACK SEA STUDIES

15 THE DANISH NATIONAL RESEARCH FOUNDATION'S CENTRE FOR BLACK SEA STUDIES

Comprising the proceedings of the 30th symposium organized by the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Southern Denmark, November 2009, in collaboration with the Varangian network.

FROM GOTHS TO VARANGIANS C

o m m u n ic a t io n a n d th e

B

C

ultu ral

a l t ic a n d t h e

B

E xchange lack

betw een

S ea

Edited by Line Bjerg, John H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS

FROM GOTHS TO VARANGIANS © Aarhus University Press and the authors 2013 Cover design by Jørgen Sparre Cover photos: reliquary cross and glass decorations from Gnezdovo Printed in Denmark by Narayana Press, Gylling ISBN 978 87 7934 537 9 AARHUS UNIVERSITY PRESS Langelandsgade 177 DK-8200 Aarhus N White Cross Mills Lancaster LAI 4XS England 70 Enterprise Drive Bristol, CT 06010 USA www.unipress.dk

The publication of this volume has been made possible by generous grants from Dronning Margrethes Arkæologiske Fond, Elisabeth Munksgaards Fond, Gieses Fond, Japetus Steenstrups Fond and Aarhus University's Research Foundation

Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for Black Sea Studies University of Aarhus DK-8000 Aarhus C www.pontos.dk

Contents

Line Bjerg, ]ohn H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk Introduction

7

Leo S. Klejn The Russian controversy over the Varangians

27

Johan Callmer At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

39

Helle Winge Horsnæs Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum: a study of gold imitations of Roman coins

87

Line Bjerg The Herulians are coming!

131

Fedir Androshchuk Byzantium and the Scandinavian world in the 9th-10th century: material evidence of contacts

147

Margarita Gleba Chasing gold threads: auratae vestes from Hellenistic rulers to Varangian guards

193

Natalia Eniosova & Tamara Puškina Finds of Byzantine origin from the early urban centre Gnezdovo in the light of the contacts between Rus' and Constantinople (10th early 11th centuries AD)

213

Volodymyr Kovalenko Scandinavians in the East of Europe: in search of glory or a new motherland?

257

6

Contents

Ole Crumlin-Pedersen (t) Viking warriors and the Byzantine Empire: was there a transfer of nautical technology?

295

Elena Melnikova Mental maps of the Old Russian chronicle-writer of the early twelfth century

317

John H. Lind Darkness in the East? Scandinavian scholars on the question of Eastern influence in Scandinavia during the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages

341

Ildar H. Garipzanov The journey of St Clement's cult from the Black Sea to the Baltic Region 369 Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact on Danish Romanesque church frescos. Queen Margareth Fredkulla and her nieces

381

Index

413

Introduction Line Bjerg, John H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

From Goths to Varangians - from the Baltic to the Black Sea Seen from the Baltic, the Black Sea region can appear a distant and exotic realm; yet in terms of geography the two seas are not that far apart. The dis­ tance from Gotland to Crimea is very nearly the same as that from Constanti­ nople to Sardinia, upon which the Byzantine capital often depended for grain. It should be no surprise, then, that for much of the Middle Ages archaeology and history trace close relations along the lands and rivers, which bridged the two great inland seas of Europe. In late Antiquity, archaeology demonstrates lively and far-flung exchange along the river Dniester, through current Poland to the Baltic. The earliest runic script emerged within this zone of interaction, examples being found from Moldavia to Scandinavia.1 Magnificent jewellery, like the East Roman gold filigree ornaments found in the Brangstrup hoard or the nearby Årslev Grave in Fyn, almost certainly travelled north from South-East Europe.2 So did numerous glass vessels found in graves in Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea area, along with coins and other imports.3 While some of these items were produced in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire, others were from the areas of the current Ukraine, Moldova and Romania, where Gothic tribes es­ tablished their kingdom in the second century AD.4 In later centuries Gothic princes claimed to have descended from Scandinavian dynasties in the north. Even if these claims are legendary, the myth of origin may have given Gothic aristocracy an incentive to maintain exchanges with princes in what they con­ sidered an ancient homeland, traversing much of what would be referred to from a Roman perspective as Barbaricum. By the 11th century the former Barbaricum had been transformed into a string of Christian kingdoms and principalities, whose parallel histories are as conspicuous as their differences. Through the Viking Age they had expe­ rienced powerful cultural and economic integration, thanks in part to the emergence of a new continental by-pass, the Dnieper route, or "The Road from Greeks to Varangians", as it is called in an early 12th-century Russian chronicle. Along this route a string of emporia emerged, from Birka in the Baltic to Staraja Ladoga and Rjurikovo Gorodišče in north-west Russia, via Gnezdovo to Kiev in the Ukraine. The archaeology of these centres is marked by evidence of close cultural encounters, including Islamic and Byzantine imports, and sometimes the use and manufacture of Scandinavian-style or-

8

Line Bjerg, John H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

naments.5 Their significance as nodes in a common commercial and cultural network is brought out by a shared system of exchange based on the use of Arabic coins and other forms of silver as bullion in a "weight-money" economy, and by merchant-warriors, whose furnished chamber graves can be found in Hedeby, Birka, Pskov, Sestovica, Gnezdovo or Kiev.6 Presumably these were the Rus' - travelling merchant-warriors from the north - of con­ temporary Byzantine and Arab written sources. Later, as the word Rus' came to refer to a fixed geographical area, travellers from the north became known as Varangians.7 They formed the stock of the Byzantine emperor's famous Varangian guard, and counted celebrities such as the later Norwegian king, Haraldr Hardrádi - who, after winning the Norwegian throne, launched a large mintage modeled on Byzantine designs.8 He and other travelers carried more than treasure back. Many Scandinavians must have made their first ac­ quaintance with Christianity while travelling in the East; and Scandinavian church art demonstrate a solid stylistic influence from Byzantium and Russia, as seen in 12th century frescoes in Danish and especially Gotland churches.9 From the legendary (if possibly real) migrations of the Goths in Antiquity to the Varangian guard at the imperial court of Byzantium in the late Viking Age, trans-cultural interaction complemented important historical develop­ ments. Why were the sort of contacts exemplified by Goths and Varangians brought into existence? If they were a ubiquitous feature of human societies, the question might not need asking. Yet at other times in history long-distance communication is less prominent. Between the Goths and Varangians lies a period of several centuries when interaction between the Baltic and the Black Sea, when not entirely absent, is much more difficult to trace.10 We may ask indeed why people in early societies, who were challenged to maintain their subsistence and to cope with local and regional conflicts in a non-state order, should invest time and resources in maintaining bonds with people, who were too distant to yield any meaningful support on a day-to-day basis. What made such links significant? This book is about aspects of the changing interactions from late Antiquity to the High Middle Ages, from Goths to Varangians, and from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Goths and Varangians frame an episode from c. 300-1200 when the East Mediterranean and the Near East was a power house of western Eurasia. From the decline of the Western Roman Empire to the crippling of Byzantium during the Fourth Crusade, the roads to the Black Sea were a focus of atten­ tion for societies in the north. The history and archaeology of these connections have been poorly ex­ posed and investigated in modern times. Problems of language and a polariza­ tion in the research traditions have combined with a troubled modern, politi­ cal history to form a dead angle in the historical culture of Europe, neglected variously as irrelevant, inconvenient or simply incomprehensible.

Introduction

9

Varangian Problems The papers presented in this volume are a selection of those presented during a series of four meetings organised 2007-2009 by the "Varangian Network", an interdisciplinary network for archaeological and historical research on rela­ tions between the Baltic and the Black Sea from late Antiquity to the medieval period. The primary aim of the network was to re-appraise the frequently overlooked eastern dimension in the historical culture of Scandinavia. The network was also intended as an invitation to medieval scholarship in East and Central Europe, as a counterbalance to the national interests which are sometimes encouraged by domestic research traditions and, in some countries even by political forces. The initiative of 2007-09 was by no means the first of its kind. Before the Rus­ sian revolution, relations were fruitfully maintained between Scandinavian and Russian scholars; this continued into the early Stalin period, possibly because the first, genuine high-profiled Marxist historian in the Soviet Union, Michail Pokrovskij (t 1932) was sympathetic to so called Normanist views, the belief that Scandinavian and other western influences were significant in early Rus­ sian history.11 This soon changed, and by the 1950s it had become impossible to maintain regular Russian-Scandinavian contact.12The dissemination of new knowledge was limited to the extent that leading Scandinavians scholars had little or no knowledge of contemporary Russian discoveries and fieldwork.13 After Stalin's death, and especially after Chruscev's secret speech at the 20th Party congress, the Communist Party loosened its grip on culture and scho­ larship. In this more relaxed atmosphere, the Danish Slavicist and professor Adolf Stender-Petersen thought the time ripe to found a kind of "Varangian Network", some forty years before our attempt. The idea was to arrange the "first international symposium on the theme 'the Eastern Connections of the Nordic Peoples in the Viking Period and the Early Middle Ages'". This still proved difficult, and it was only five years after the death of Stender-Petersen in 1963 that the symposium could finally be held in Aarhus, 7-11 October 1968. The proceedings from this symposium, published as Varangian Problems in 1970, comprise a stimulating range of papers by mainly Scandinavian and Soviet scholars. The resolution from the meeting optimistically declared that "a number of topics should be further examined, both in a continuation of the symposium and by the establishment of working groups in limited fields, with a membership representing the countries involved." Further, that the "participants welcomed the suggestion by professor Rybakov that the next meeting should be held in Denmark or the USSR".14 No second symposium materialised, however. The list of participants, printed at the back of the vol­ ume, reveals that no member of the Russian delegation had been able to attend the first one in person. Despite the moderately good international political climate in the late 1960s, the Russian contribution to this attempt at research collaboration was by letter only.

10

Line Bjerg, John H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

Nevertheless, there was an immediate attempt to continue this type of exchange. Thus the Norwegian Archaeological Review opened its pages for both Russian and Scandinavian archaeologists, and between 1969 and 1973 the journal published two articles by Soviet archaeologists and two by Scandi­ navians on problems relating to Scandinavian "Eastern connections". The debate opened with an article by the leader of the excavations at Gnezdovo, Daniil Avdusin, who downgraded the Scandinavian impact in this important site, a point of view all three ensuing articles reacted against. The most inter­ esting of these articles was written by four archaeologists from Leningrad, Leo Klejn and three of his pupils. This was one of the first indications to the outside world that a division among Soviet archaeologists on the question of the role of Scandinavians had arisen and that we could now talk about an anti-Normanist Moscow school and a Leningrad school that questioned that position.15 This attempt to continue relations petered out, and despite the persistent endeavour of a few scholars to organise more extensive communications16 the situation remained unchanged into the mid-1980s. Lack of communication and language skills contributed to this situation, but the main issue was a mutual distrust nurtured by the political establishment first of all but not exclusively in the Soviet Bloc. Thus East European researchers were encouraged to think that historical and archaeological scholarship in the West had not attained true scientific standards, and did not merit the considerable trouble it took to get acquainted with it.17 Western scholars, on the other hand, suspected their Eastern colleagues to be ideologically biased or at least ideologically controlled; the exceptions were those who, to a certain extent, accepted the Soviet view as expression of bona fide scholarship and attempted on that basis to find common ground to build upon.18 The knowledge that research, like every public activity, was subject to censorship in Soviet bloc countries, and that political repression was routinely enacted, made Western researchers reluctant to approach and assess the results published in Eastern books and journals, even when these were present in their research libraries. Eastern scholars helped this disbelief along by the common practice of quoting Marxist classics in the preface or conclusion to their works. Although they may have been aware that such quotations were a prerequisite for publication, few outsiders had the patience to notice the subtle lack of thematic coherence or the logical inconsistencies by which many researchers quietly stated their dissidence to these necessary "tribute payments".19 The advent of perestrojka and glasnosť after 1985 allowed a new climate of cooperation. New Varangian contacts were initiated, for example, at the "1st Soviet-Danish historians colloquium" organised by the Danish Society of Sciences in collaboration with the historical institutes of the Soviet Academy of Science in Copenhagen, 24-26 November, 1986. On this occasion, unlike 1968, a number of distinguished Soviet medieval historians and archaeolo­ gists were able to travel abroad. The organisation was still very much "Soviet

Introduction

11

style": participants were selected according to their status rather than schol­ arly interests, and with several last minute replacements. Altogether there was little common ground between the Danish and Soviet participants few of whom spoke any shared language. Even if the value of this form of scholarly exchange was low, the initia­ tion of connections paved the way for more, and before long young Danish archaeologists took part in the excavations in Staraja Ladoga, while publica­ tions brought out the first detailed first-hand reassessments by Scandinavian scholars of Russian archaeological materials to appear in the post-war period.20 The political transitions of 1989 in East Central Europe and 1991 in the former Soviet Union therefore raised great expectations among scholars in the East and West alike. A Lithuanian archaeologist fervently commented in the Antiquity: "The collapse of these rigid boundaries between the various states in Europe will lead to a greater interchange of scholars, ideas, publications, and fieldwork opportunities. ... The less central­ ised control of political life in Eastern Europe will lead to the appearance of numerous younger archaeologists in the forefront of archaeological research".21 A host of symposia and joint work programmes sprang from the excitement of these events across Europe.22 The form became freer, and organisers could choose themes and invite relevant scholars without having to take old-style hierarchies into consideration. In that mode archaeologists and historians of the universities in Aarhus and Copenhagen summoned colleagues, mostly ar­ chaeologists, for "The First Interbaltic Symposium on The Baltic Region: Social and Cultural Development from the Birth of Christ to A.D. 1200" in Sostrup Castle on Djursland (Jutland) on 19-22 august 1991.23 The participants included 24 scholars from Scandinavia, and two from each country of the former Soviet Bloc, bordering on the Baltic Sea, including the still Soviet Baltic republics. The symposium opened on the very morning of 19 August 1991 when members of the Soviet Union's government attempted a coup to take control of the country from President Mikhail Gorbachev. The members of the symposium managed to complete the dense scholarly programme, though much spare time was spent alongside radios, listening to BBC World Service. Perhaps these circum­ stances tempered the attitude of the hosts. Nothing further came of the project and no proceedings ever emerged from the three-day long meeting. The political upheavals that followed with the dissolution of the Soviet Union changed the structure of international collaboration within the Baltic re­ gion.24 Furthermore, the "opening" of Eastern Europe had the immediate effect that the economy and structures, which had afforded scholarship, collapsed. These were the years when a common form of international "exchange" was for former Soviet scholars to emigrate and establish careers abroad.25

22

Line Bjerg, John H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

□ (from Baltic Countries) S Institute of Archaeology □ Royal Library Я National Museum

Fig. 1. Bars on scholarly communication. The annual accession of books from the Soviet, then post-Soviet countries in three major archaeological research libraries in Copenhagen.

For years the number of new books published in the former Soviet Union diminished sharply, while the strain on budgets meant that the acquisition of foreign books largely ceased, even in major research libraries.26 When the rate of publications picked up, the costs of distribution meant that many new works saw very limited circulation.27 International distribution in particular, which had formerly been maintained through formal exchange agreements, almost ceased. Western libraries, on their part, often discontinued their subscriptions on periodicals from the new countries in the East in view of rise of costs. In this way the "opening" led to a virtual closure of an essential mechanism of scholarly communication. The effect can be illustrated by the accession of new literature in three major archaeological research libraries in Copenhagen (Fig. I).28 The steady flow of books from the Soviet countries, received through exchange agreements in the Royal Library and the library of the National Museum of Denmark, plunged after 1987. For some years the drop was matched by new ad hoc exchange cre­ ated at the Institute of Archaeology at Copenhagen University as a result of collaboration projects. From the mid-90s this interest also declined. Counting the rising contribution in all libraries of books from the Baltic countries after their independence in 1989, some new literature was still arriving; but the rest of the former Soviet Union had virtually disappeared behind the horizon. From the late 1990s onwards these problems were to some extent mitigated by the increasing availability of electronic resources.29 For those who could adjust, the new circumstances also offered new possibilities, in particular the number of international conferences and other relations increased.30 Joint

Introduction

13

projects and "fieldwork opportunities" did indeed flourish; both at individual and institutional levels.31 Substantial projects were organised by the Eurasien Abteilung of the Deutches Archäologische Institut, who initiated co-operation with, amongst others, the State Historical Museum Moscow and the Russian Academy of Sciences.32 Non-European collaborations included The Institute of Archaeology, University of Texas Austin, who partook in a project with the National Preserve of Tauric Chersonesos in Crimea from 1994 onwards. A par­ ticular stimulation was provided through the EU-sponsored Intas programme in 1993-2006, which supported more than twenty long-term collaborative re­ search programmes on archaeological and historical subjects in countries in the former Soviet bloc.33 The general public experienced changes at first hand in several major mu­ seum exhibitions. In 1992-93 The European Council exhibition From Viking to Crusader: the Scandinavians and Europe 800-1200 toured Berlin, Copenhagen, London and Paris with numerous objects borrowed from museums in the for­ mer Soviet bloc, and with texts contributed by Eastern scholars.34 A few year later an integrative research programme was provided for Eastern Central Europe by a European Council sponsored programme, which led to a series of conferences and colloquia and culminated with the exhibition Europas Mitte um 1000.35 These and other projects involved personal, long-term cooperation between Eastern and Western researchers. Unlike earlier initiatives such as the sympo­ sium of 1968, they were not momentary exchanges, but maintained relations, which were conducive to the exchange of ideas. As a result, international co­ operation in this field is characterised today by networks of strong personal relations, and by a high level of mutual trust and respect. In spite of this state of affairs, the result has not been an altogether happy integration. On some points, the frames of cooperation have deteriorated over the last ten years in a way which few would have imagined in 1989. New frontiers Two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Central European countries, which were until the end of the 1980s east of the Iron Curtain, have been fully assimilated with what was then "the west", now to itself simply "Europe". Just as boundaries have ceased to other citizens, scholars from Po­ land, the Czech Republic, Estonia, etc., now regularly travel to the same sym­ posia and workshops, or publish in the same international journals, as their colleagues from the United Kingdom, Germany, or Denmark, for example; and they may apply on equal terms, together or in competition, to the same research councils. These changes are truly seminal. When Truso, the Viking Age port-of-trade in eastern Poland, was first discovered in the 1980s, one might have expected the site eventually to be published in a badly printed, sparingly illustrated, and rarely obtainable book in Polish, which would have

14

Line Bjerg, John H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

failed to attract the awareness of any but the most debated scholars abroad. It would have seemed impossible to imagine the splendid volume with parallel texts in Polish and English, which recently appeared.36 Further east, however, the situation contrasts starkly. Eastern Europe is apparently less interesting to its western neighbours today than when the Soviet Union posed as a "Great Unknown".37 Far fewer people learn East European languages, and few are thus able to access primary historical and archaeological materials. The cooperative research programmes, which were initiated in the 1990s, have largely ceased, and new research funding comes reluctantly. In the 'East' the last decade has at least in some respects seen a turn away from internationalism, and a renewed political pressure for "national" history and archaeology.38 Characteristically, the trading settlement Staraja Ladoga, freely branded through the 1990s as a "Viking" site, was re-invented in a major exhibition on occasion of its alleged 1250 years jubilee in 2003 as the "First capital of the Rus'", Rus' being here understood as a more or less homoge­ neous Slavic polity.39 The concept of the "First Capital" may never have been intended as a scholarly idea, and has to some extent been renounced by its originators,40 yet it clearly denotes a historical culture, in which the quest for national origins increasingly take primacy. This change of attitude has very direct implications for research beyond Russia. Unlike Truso, new work on Staraja Ladoga continues to be printed mainly in Russian - and too often fails to attract the awareness of scholars abroad.41 In the Ukraine, after the fall of the Iron Curtain a number of collaborative projects were initiated between Western and Eastern researchers.42 But most were discontinued after a short period and by 2008 there were fewer ongo­ ing collaborative projects than there were in the 1990s.43 As in Russia, this is partly due to renewed nationalism in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the need of the new states to define a new national identity (though the difficulties presented by the barriers of language and different research traditions certainly add to the problem). The ancient past is instrumental in this process, as it offers countries such as the Ukraine a point on which to distinguish themselves from other post-Soviet states: a claim to a Mediter­ ranean heritage pointing back in time to the Classical period. A consequence of this is that the interpretation of the past becomes a current political topic, in which archaeology is used to justify current policymaking. With particular regard to the role of Scandinavians in early Rus', views have recently moved in two opposite directions. A turning point came in 2001 when President Putin gathered some of the most prominent Russian medieval­ ists in the Kremlin in order to discuss how the history of ancient Rus' could contribute to the formation of an ideology of the Russian state. As a result of the meeting, plans were made for a major interdisciplinary conference which according to presidential wishes was to be held in 2002 in Kaliningrad. The presidential administration was, however, dissatisfied with the initial pro­

Introduction

15

gramme. And in the meantime Putin seems to have held a further meeting with another group of historians, led by Andrej Sacharov, a participant in the 1986 Danish-Soviet historians' conference, and now promoted to director of the Institute of Russian History of the Academy of Sciences. He proved more than willing to supply the president with the wished-for patriotic solu­ tion. A first step was to go back to the ideas of a 19th-century anti-Normanist G.A. Gedeonov, according to whom the term Varangians was not derived from Old Norse "Væringjar" but from the West Slavic tribe Vagrians. In the Viking Age these Vagrians in reality lived on the south coast of the Baltic Sea in present-day Holstein. However, in order to meet the presidential wishes Sacharov relocated them to the region of Kaliningrad (renamed "Rjurikgrad" by sarcastic critics), making this disputed territory a genuine part of Ancient Rus'.44 In an article published after the conference in the official paper Rossijskaja Gazeta, Sacharov designated a prominent colleague as an 'enemy of the people' - consciously evoking the term used to justify executions in the 1930s. This and similar accusations, however, met a brave, public response from other Russian scholars. Although members of Sacharov's group have continued to propagate their view,45 they have failed to influence scholars at large. On the contrary, as Leo Klejn observe in this volume, the group of new anti-Normanists count few if any archaeologists. In fact, Russian Viking-age archaeology has moved in a quite different direction. Before the 1980s the term "Vikings" was seldom used in Russia and then only in general works on medieval history or works pertaining to Scandi­ navian activity in the west. If the presence of Scandinavians in early Russia was acknowledged, they were hardly ever called Vikings but Varangians, Normans or, more seldom, Rus' (in case the author dared openly to adhere to the Normanist school). This early reticence with regard to use the term "Viking" has now totally disappeared. The process was perhaps helped along by the "Leningrad school" of archaeologists, referred to above, who began to study Scandinavian activity in the East as part of overall Scandinavian activity in The Epoch o f the Vikings in Northern Europey the title of Gleb Lebedev's study from 1985.46 The sudden increase in the use of the term "Viking" that followed must, however, be seen as result of the period of glasnost' and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. This opened the floodgates of Western style market mechanisms on a large scale. It soon turned out that there was an enormous demand for almost everything from the West. That also applied to the book market and transla­ tions of fiction as well as non-fiction began to appear in substantial numbers. A number of major and minor classics of Western Viking-age scholarship soon began to appear in Russian translations: works by Holger Arbman, Gwyn Jones, Else Roesdahl, and Peter Sawyer, etc.47 As in the West it now seems as if anything with "Vikings" in the title will sell in Russia. The term "Viking" never occurs in early written sources in the East. In terms of historical connotations of pirates and sea warriors it is a highly prob-

16

Line Bjerg, John И. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

Lig. 1. Several generations of Scholars appreciate the late Antique cemetary Weklice in the company of W. Duczko (right). Photo: John Lind.

lematic label for Scandinavian activities in Eastern Europe, and it is avoided as far as possible in the present volume.48 Nevertheless, both Russian and EJkrainian Scholars - not least archaeologists - have started to label artefacts as "Viking" if they can be linked to Scandinavia, and people who are thought to be Scandinavians or of Scandinavian descent are now unreservedly called "Vikings". This tendency can be seen in some of the literature referred to in the present volume. This modern "Viking" invasion of Russia is even more striking when we include the tourist industry. In one of the main archaeo­ logical sites in Russia connected with Scandinavians, Rjurikovo Gorodišče, scholars, municipal authorities and the tourist industry now join forces to brand the site as a station "Along the Roads of the Vikings", as they have cho­ sen to rename the old "Road from Greeks to Varangians".49 On another site a colleague claims that "Vikings in the Novgorod land were not warring and conquering towns; they were forced to come to terms [with the local popula­ tion]. If we can show this to the Europeans, all of Scandinavia will come here as tourists".50 It seems that the use of the Viking brand is a necessity in order to get their plans to work on a sound financial basis. Thus Russia has joined the rest of the world in its use of the Viking brand for Scandinavians and Scandinavia. This has happened despite the presiden-

Introduction

17

Fig. 2. Varangians networking. Participants in the seminar in Elbląg 2008 are guided into the Viking Age harbour ofTruso and looking down at the excavation. Photo: Søren M. Sindbæk.

tial support to nationalistic circles who wish to rid early Russian history of Scandinavians. Even with that kind of support it will hardly be possible to fight the combined forces of the tourist industry and market mechanisms in rolling back this questionable "Viking conquest" of Russia.

The Varangian Network These developments show why it remains worthwhile for archaeologists and historians to challenge the current state of affairs and work towards integration (and integrity) in historical and archaeological research. The inspiration for the "Varangian Network" was a growing awareness of un­ realised research potential. Such potential had been seized for studies into the Classical period by the Danish National Research Foundation's Centre for Black Sea Studies, based at Aarhus University from 2002 to 2010. Co­ operation, with a focus on the high medieval period, had developed within the research project "Denmark and the Crusading Movement", based at the Centre for Medieval Studies of the University of Southern Denmark (and subsequently continued within the "Scandinavian Network for Crusade Studies"). Persuaded by these projects, and encouraged by their principal

18

Line Bjerg, John H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

investigators, the editors of this volume set out to organise a network fo­ cussed on the intervening periods.51 Since recent professional interest in this field in Denmark had been er­ ratic, what was called for was hardly another research centre, but a forum in which to gather and develop expertise. During 2007-2009 the Network hosted a series of four seminars, aided by grants from the Danish Research Council for Culture and Communication. The seminars aimed to create a survey of material and problems, and to contribute to exchange between disciplines and sub-fields of research. In addition to the network participants, each seminar had several invited speakers, including, in the course of the series, guests from Belarus, Estonia, Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, USA and the Nordic countries. Four different themes were selected, which outlined different approaches to integrate interdisciplinary perspectives on the study of cross-cultural com­ munications. The first seminar, "Sites of intersection - central places between the Baltic and the Black Sea", took place at the host institution of the network, the Danish Research Foundation's Centre for Black Sea Studies at Aarhus University, on 11 November 2007. The seminar examined cross-cultural dialogues from the point of view of individual sites, which acted as hubs in the communication across cultural boundaries. The second seminar occurred in Elbląg, Poland, on 20-21 June 2008, and was hosted by the Museum of Elbląg under the gen­ erous direction of Dr. M. Jagodziński. The setting allowed the participants to gain a first-hand acquaintance with the site Truso and the results of the investigations carried out by Jagodziński and colleagues in recent years (Fig. 2). The meeting was titled "Weak ties and close encounters - communication between the Baltic and the Black Sea", highlighting the means, modes and directions of interaction. The third seminar, "Transferable cosmologies - cultural exchange between the Baltic and the Black Sea", took place on 10-11 November 2008 at the Cen­ tre for Medieval Studies, University of South Denmark, Odense. The meeting entered into the centre's long-established series of annual November sympo­ siums. True to its title, "Varangian voyagers - actors, groups and networks between the Baltic and the Black Sea", the final seminar was hosted by the Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde, on 21 February 2009, in cordial co-operation with curators A. Sørensen and A. Englert. The papers printed in this volume are dedicated to the memory of Pia Guldager Bilde (t) 1961-2013 formerly director of The Danish Basic Research Foundation's Centre for Black Sea Studies. Who was a driving force and in­ spiration in bringing the Varangian Network together. The papers, mostly presented at the third seminar "Transferable cosmologies", go a long way to justify her efforts as well as those of many others who contributed to the project. The four seminars served to articulate a research environment, and to introduce a new generation of scholars to international colleagues. As the

Introduction

19

papers testify, the seminars were also a forum for the presentation of a con­ siderable amount of new discoveries and observations. In some cases, research in the East has a direct bearing on our view of the history and archaeology in the Baltic Sea countries. The cultural impact of Byzantium in Scandinavia in the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages appears limited if considered only in terms of the few objects of Byzantine origin found in Scandinavia; yet it must be assessed differently in light of the numerous Scandinavian and Byzantine finds, which occur together in Gnezdovo and other Russian sites, as presented here by N. Eniosova and T. Puškina, and F. Androščuk. The fortress in Šhestovitsa, the Ukraine, was certainly visited by Scandinavian warriors in the late 10th century, and it may not be unrea­ sonable to speculate, as V. Kovalenko does, that such visits bear links to the contemporary emergence of the Trelleborg fortresses in Denmark. Maritime culture in the Baltic Sea area can be gauged in a new perspective, in light of the c. 30 wrecks of the 7th-12th centuries AD recently excavated at the former harbour of Yenikapi, Istanbul, as discussed by O. Crumlin-Pedersen. Elsewhere a new frame of interpretation emerges when old sources are approached in a context which transcends their traditional interpretation. The merit of this approach is demonstrated by E. Melnikova's comparison of geo­ graphical "mental maps" in Russian and Old Norse sources; by U. Haastrup and J. Lind's consideration of Murals in Danish Romanesque churches in the context of their Byzantine and Russian parallels; and by I. Garipzanov, who shows how the historical significance of the dissimilation of the cult of St Clem­ ent in Scandinavia is only revealed when the process is assessed in relation to an intimate understanding of the saint's popularity in the early Russian church. Conversely, L. Bjerg argues that the distribution and composition of coin hoards in the late third century around the northern shores of the Black Sea needs to be explained with reference to migrant warriors from the Baltic Sea region. Still other aspects of history and culture only come into sight when phe­ nomena are considered on a continental scale. H. Horsnæs reveals how the use of imitations of Roman gold coins was a widespread phenomenon within Barbaricum during late Antiquity. The aureus and quinarius imitations were dispersed over long distances as a result of elite interaction on a peer level. The study of these interactions demands a frame of reference reaching from Scandinavia to the Ukraine. M. Gleba is able to demonstrate how the technol­ ogy of weaving Auratae vestes, gold-embroidered textiles, dispersed and diver­ sified in early medieval Europe only by compiling and comparing finds from across the continent. By contrast, evidence of long-distance contacts is found more rarely in North-east Europe in the 7th and 8th centuries. Nonetheless, I. Callmer demonstrates how changing cultural affiliations and communica­ tion patterns in the Russian watershed zone in this period are important for the emergence of Scandinavia's "Eastern contacts" in the following centuries. History and archaeology of the early Middle Ages in the lands between the

20

Line Bjerg, /о/ш Н. Lind & Søren М. Sindbæk

Baltic and the Black Sea have been ill served by traditional narratives, whether they concern "Vikings in Russia", "The emergence of Rus'" or other. To gain proper sense, they must be researched from the point of view of a common ground - the sort to which this book is a contribution. Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

Stoklund 2006. Storgaard 1994. Näsman 1984; Hansen 1987; Arrhenius 1997: see also Horsnæs, this volume. Bierbrauer 1994. Duczko 2004; see also Eniosova &Puskina, this volume; Androščuk, this volume; Kovalenko, this volume. Steuer 2009; Hedenstierna-Jonson 2006; Michailov 2006; see also Kovalenko, this volume. Lind 2006. Kromann & Jensen 1985. Lind 2004; see also Haastrup & Lind, this volume. See Callmer, this volume. Arne 1917; Ravdonikas 1930; see also Svedin 2007. Arne 1953. Arbman 1955. Schmidt & Klindt-Jensen 1970, 213. Avdusin 1969; Blindheim & Kivikoski 1970; Callmer 1971; Klejn, Lebedev, Nazarenko & Bulkin 1973. See also Dejevsky 1977 and Leo Klejn's article in this volume. Herrmann (ed.) 1982. Sher 1999, 209f. That applies for instance to the Danish slavicists Adolf Stender-Petersen, who inspired the 1968 symposium, and Knud Rahbek Schmidt who in the end orga­ nized it. Klejn 1997, 187. Adamsen et al. 1988; Stalsberg 1988; Jansson 1989. Milisauskas 1990, 283f. E.g. Stalsberg 1994; Jansson (ed.) 1995. Network Newsletter No. 2, 22/3 1992. For other Scandinavian attempts at creating networks in the Baltic region, see Svedin 2007. Dolukhanov 1996; Kazański 1999. Dolukhanov 1993; Chernykh 1995,139. Editorial in Rossiiskaja Arkheologija 2000, 253. Data from Sindbæk 2001. E.g. www.archaeology.ru/lib;http://drevnyaya.ru/ Sher 1999, 216. E.g. Brisbane 1992; Randsborg 1994; Müller-Wille et al. 2001. See a.o. Archäologie in Eurasien, vol 1- published 1996-. Sindbæk 2001, 21. Roesdahl & Wilson (eds.) 1992.

Introduction 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

48 49

21

Wieczorek & Hinz 2001, xiv. Jagodziński et al. 2010. Struve 1955, 12; Bulkin, Klejn & Lebedev 1982, 272. See Klejn, this volume. Kirpičnikov & Sarab'janov (eds.) 2003; see in particular contribution by D.A. Mačinskii, 11-35. See Selin 2005. See contributions in Kirpičnikov & Sorokin (eds.) 2002; Kirpičnikov et al. (eds.) 2003; Nosov et al. (eds.) 2007. Guldager Bilde et al. 2008, 115. The current research climate in Ukraine is dis­ cussed by Pia Guldager Bilde in the introduction to the volume. See Anthony 1995 note 2 for a list of collaborative projects in Ukraine in the 1990s. Ivanov 2002; Čekin 2003. Fomin 2010. Lebedev 1985. Arbman 2003; Jones 2007; Roesdal' 2001; Sojer 2002; some of these translations also appear on the web: http://www.gumer.info/bibliotek_Buks/History/Roesdal/ index.php (accessed 27 September 2011). Lind 2011. http://www.expert.ru/articles/2010/07/14/v_proschloe/ (accessed 27 September 2011 ).

50 http://www.riarealty.ru/news/20090921/59965.html (accessed 27 September 2011). 51 We are grateful for the encouragement and support of Director of Centre for Black Sea Studies P. Guldager Bilde and Chairman of the Centre for Medieval Studies K. Villads Jensen.

Literature Adamsen, C , T.R. Jørgensen & A.L. Trolle 1988. Udgravningerne i Staraja Ladoga og Novgorod. Upubliceret rapport, Københavns Universitets Institut for Arkæologi og Etnologi. København. Anthony, D.W. 1995. Is there a Future for the Past? An Overview of Archeol­ ogy in Western Russia and Ukraine, Journal o f Archaeological Research, vol. 3, nr. 3, 177-204. Arne, T. 1914. La Suede et VOrient. Etudes archéologiques sur les relations de la Suede et de l'orient pendant Våge des Vikings. Archive ďétudes orientales 8. Uppsala. Arne, T. 1953. Die Warägerfrage und die Sowjetrussische Forschung, Acta Archaeologica 23 (1952), 138-147. Arbman, H. 1955. Svear i Österviking. Stockholm. Arbman, Ch. 2003. Vikingi. St. Petersburg. Arrhenius, В. 1997. Connections between Scandinavia and the East Roman Empire in the Migration period, in: D. Austin & L. Alcock (eds.), From the Baltic to the Black Sea, Studies in Medieval Archaeology. New York and London, 118-137.

22

Line Bjerg, John H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

Avdusin, D. 1969. Smolensk and the Varangians according to the archaeologi­ cal data, Norwegian Archaeological Review 2, 52-62. Bierbrauer, V. 1994. Archäologie und Geschichte der Goten vom 1.-7. Jahrhun­ dert. Versuch einer Bilanz, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 28, 51-171. Blindheim, C. & E. Kivikoski 1970. Comments on Daniil Avdusin (1969), Nor­ wegian Archaeological Review 3, 113-117. Brisbane, M.A. (ed.) 1992. The Archaeology o f Novgorod, Russia. Recent Results from the Town and its Hinterland. The Society for Medieval Archaeology Monographs series, No. 13. Lincoln. Bulkin, V.A., L.S. Klejn & G.S. Lebedev 1982. Attainments and Problems of Soviet Archaeology, World Archaeology 13.3, 272-295. Callmer, J. 1971. Comments on D. Avdusin (1969), Norwegian Archaeological Review 4, 65-68. Cekin, L. S. 2003. Rjurikgrad? Ein Kommentar zu Andrej Sacharov, Osteuropa. Zeitschrift für Gegenwartsfragen des Ostens 53. Jahrgang, 206-12. Chernykh, E.N. 1995. Postscript: Russian archaeology after the collaps of the USSR - infrastructural crisis and the resurgence of old end new national­ isms, in: PL. Kohl & C. Fawcett (eds.), Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of archaeology. Cambridge, 139-149. Dejevsky, N.J. 1977. The Varangians in Soviet Archaeology Today, Mediaeval Scandinavia 10, 7-34. Dolukhanov, P.M. 1993. Archaeology in the ex-USSR: post-perestroyka prob­ lems, Antiquity 67, 150-156. Dolukhanov, P.M. 1996. The early Slavs. Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus. London and New York. Duczko, W. 2004. Viking Rus: Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe. Leiden. Džons, G. 2007. Vikingi. Potomki Odina i Tora. Moscow. Fomin, V.V. (ed.) 2010. Izgnanie normannov iz russkoj istorii. Sbornik statej i monografij. Moscow. Gomolka-Fuchs, G. (ed.) 1999. Die Sintana de Mures-Cernjachov-Kultur. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Caputh von 20. bis 24. Oktober 1995. Kol­ loquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, bd. 2, Römisch-Germanische Kom­ mission, Eurasien Abteilung, Bonn. Guldager Bilde, P, B. Bøgh, S. Handberg, J. Munk Højte et al. 2008. Archaeol­ ogy in the Black Sea region in classical antiquity 1993-2007, Archaeological Reports vol. 54, London, 115-173. Hansen, U.L. 1987. Römischer Import im Norden. Warenaustausch zwischen dem Römischen Reich und dem freien Germanien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung Nordeuropas. Nordiske Fortidsminder Vol. 10. Copenhagen. Hedenstierna-Jonson, C. 2006. The Birka Warrior. The material culture o f a martial society. Stockholm. Herrmann, J. (ed.) 1982. Wikinger und Slawen. Zur Frühgeschichte der Ost­ seevölker. Berlin.

Introduction

23

Ivanov, S. 2002. Rjurik Michal Ivanyč, vserossijskij starosta. Gosudarstvo zachotelo, čtoby Kaliningrad stal "iskonno russkoj zemlej", tut že našlis' istoriki, gotovye vypolniť zakaz, Eženedďnyj žurnál', 22 Nov. 2002 (also internet http://supernew.ej.ru/044/tema/04/index.html (accessed 9 Oct. 2011 ). Jagodziński, M.F., M. Kasprzycka, Р. Urbańczyk, W. Duczko & U. Chybowska 2010. Truso: między Weonodlandem a Witlandem = between Weonodland and Witland. Elbląg. Jansson, 1.1987. Communications between Scandinavia and Eastern Europe in the Viking Age, in: K. Diiwel, H. Jahnkuhn, H. Siems & D. Timpe (eds.), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mittel- und Nordeuropa. Teil IV. Der Handel der Karolinger- und Wikinger­ zeit. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen. Göt­ tingen, 773-807. Jansson, I. (ed.) 1995. Archaeology East and West o f the Baltic. Papers from the Sec­ ond Estonian-Swedish Archaeological Symposium, Sigtuna May 1991. Theses and Papers in Archaeology, New Series A7. Stockholm. Kazański, M. 1999. Les Slaves. Ees origines (Ier-VIIe siede apres J.-C.). Paris. Kirpičnikov, A.N. & P.E. Sorokin 2002. Issledovaniya Staroladožskogo "Zemljanogo gorodišča" v 2000 g, in: C.V. Beleckij, O.I. Boguslavskij, A.N. Kirpičnikov & E.N. Nosov (eds.), Ladoga i ее sosedi v epochu srednevekov'ja. St. Petersburg, 151-158. Kirpičnikov, A.N. et al. (eds.) 2003. Ladoga i istoki rossiijskoj gosudarstvennosti i kul'tury. St. Petersburg. Kirpičnikov, A.N. & B.D. Sarab'janov (eds.) 2003. Staraja Ladoga. Drevnjaja stolica Rusi. Katalog vystavki. St. Petersburg. Klejn, L.S. 1997. Das Phänomen der sowjetischen Archäologie: Geschichte, Schulen, Protagonisten. Frankfurt am Main. Klejn, L.S., G.S. Lebedev, V.A. Nazarenko & V.A. Bulkin 1973. Comments on Daniil Avdusin (1969), Norwegian Archaeological Review 6,1-13. Kromann, A. & J.S. Jensen 1995. Fra Byzans til Svend Estridsens Lund: hvor­ dan kejser Michaels guldmønt blev kopieret i Norden, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1995, 54-61, Lebedev, G.S. 1985. Epocha vikingov v Severnoj Evropě. Leningrad. Lind, J.H. 2004. Varangians in Europe's Eastern and Northern Periphery: The Christianization of North- and Eastern Europe c. 950-1050 - A Plea for a Comparative Study, Ennen ja nyt 4. Lind, J.H. 2006. Problems of Ethnicity in the Interpretation of Written Sources on Early Rus', in: J. Nuorluoto (ed.), The Slavicization of the Russian North. Mechanisms and Chronology. Helsinki 2006, 246-258. Lind, J.H. 2011. "Vikings" and the Viking Age, in: N.Yu. Gvozdetskaja, I. G. Konovalova, E.A. Melnikova & A.V. Podossinov (eds.), Visy druzhby. Sborník statej v chest' Tat'jany Nikolaevny Jackson. Moscow, 201-222. Melnikova, E.A. (ed.) 1986. Slavjane i Skandinavy. Moscow.

24

Line Bjerg, /о/ш H. Lind & Søren M. Sindbæk

Michajlov, К.А. 2006. Drevnerusskie elitarnye pogrebenija X - nachala XI bb.: Po materialam zachoronenij pogrebalnych kamerach. Diss. Kand. 1st. Nauk, Unpublished thesis. St. Petersburg. Milisaukus, S. 1990. People's revolutions of 1989 and archaeology in Eastern Europe, Antiquity 64, 283-85. Müller-Wille, M., V.L. Janin, E.N. Nosov & E.A. Rybina 2001. Novgorod. Das mittelalterliche Zentrum und sein Umland im Norden Rußlands. Studien zur Siedlungsgeschichte und Archäologie der Ostseegebiete 1. Kiel. Nosov, N. (ed.) 2007. Severnaja Rus' i narody Baltiki. St. Peterburg. Näsman, U. 1984. Glas och handel i senromersk tid och folkvandringstid: en studie kring glas från Eketorp-II, Öland, Sverige. Uppsala. Randsborg, K. 1994. A Greek episode: the early hellenistic settlement on the Western Crimea, Acta Archaeologica 65,171-196. Ravdonikas, V. I. 1930a. Die Normannen der Wikingerzeit und des Ladogagebiet. Kungl. Vitterhets historie och antikvitets akademiens handlingar del 40.3. Stockholm. Roesdal, E. 2001. Mir vikingov. St. Petersburg. Schmidt, K. Rahbek & O. Klindt-Jensen 1970. Final resolution, in: K. Hannestad (red.), Varangian Problems. Scando-Slavica Supplementum I. Copen­ hagen, 213. Selin, A. 2005. Staraja Ladoga: A Medieval Russian Town in a Post-Soviet Context. http://adrianselin.narod.rU/art_e/3.htm (accessed 23/09/2011). Ser, J.A. 1999. O sostajanii archeologii v Rossii (prodolženie polemiki), Rossijskaja Archeologija 1999.1, 209-223. Sindbæk, S.M. 2001. Betydningen a f Østeuropas åbning for Europas arkæologiske kulturhistorie. Unpublished Prize thesis. Copenhagen University. Sojer, P. 2002. Epocha vikingov. St. Petersburg. Stalsberg, A. 1988. The Scandinavian viking Age finds in Rus, Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommision 69, 448-471. Stalsberg, A. 1994. The Russian-Norwegian Sword project, in: В. Ambrosiani & H. Clarke (eds.), The Twelfth Viking Congress, Birka Studies 3. Stock­ holm, 183-189. Steuer, H. 2009. Principles of trade and exchange: trade goods and merchants, in: A. Englert & A. Trakadas (eds.), Wulfstan's Voyage. The Baltic Sea region in the early Viking Age as seen from shipboard. Roskilde, 294-308. Stoklund, M. 2006. Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscrip­ tions, in: M. Stoklund, M.L. Nielsen, B. Holmberg & G. Fellows-Jensen (eds.), Runes and their Secrets. Studies in runology. Copenhagen, 355-383. Storgaard, B. 1994. The Arslev-Grave and connections between Funen and the continent at the end of the later Roman Iron Age, in: P.O. Nielsen, K. Randsborg & H. Thrane (eds.), The Archaeology o f Gudme and Lundeborg Papers Presented at a Conference at Svendborg, October 1991. Copenhagen, 160-168. Struve, K. 1955. Die Einzelgrabkultur in Schleswig-Holstein. Neumünster.

Introduction

25

Svedin, M. 2007. Archaeology in the Shadow of Political Changes - Archaeo­ logical relations between Sweden and Eastern Europe 1846-2006, in: U. Fransson, M. Svedin, S. Bergerbrant & E Androshchuk (eds.), Cultural interaction between east and west. Archaeology, artefacts and human contacts in northern Europe, Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 44. Stockholm, 24-41. Wieczorek, A. & H.-M. Hinz 2001. Europas Mitte um 1000. 27. Europaratsaus­ stellung. Stuttgart.

The Russian controversy over the Varangians Leo S. Klejn

The present article does not present a general historiography of the contro­ versy over the Varangians in Russian historiography It concerns some par­ ticular events within that long - and still ongoing - debate, events in which I happened to have been an active participant. Yet this is not an autobiographic essay either, for the main issue is to trace the essence of the debate with par­ ticular focus on the confrontation that took place in 1965. Lastly, this is not purely a scholarly exercise, since the debate in question had both political and nationalistic overtones. Recently I issued a book in Russian: The Controversy over the Varangians.1 Devoted to history and archaeology, the book basically was written in 1960. Over a shorter period of time (some experts say 30 years, others even 7-10 years) archaeology doubles its data. Consequently the book should long have been out of date. Yet the publishers took the risk and the usual scholarly edi­ tion of 1000 copies was sold out in a couple of months. Why? The point is that the subject matter of the book concerns a specific Russian type of controversy that has lasted already more than two and a half centuries and still keeps its original edge: the controversy between Normanists and Anti-Normanists over the role and significance of the Scandinavian invasion of the territory of present-day Russia and even whether this invasion ever took place.2 From the beginning the debate had political overtones and this remains very much so until now. Such a controversy would be unthinkable in both Scandinavian and European scholarship. Scandinavians do not doubt that their ancestors have been active in East-Europe and have left their traces there. The French and English freely admit that parts of their countries were at one point seized by Scandinavians. In France the result of this was Nor­ mandy, in East England the Danelaw ("the country of Danish law"). Anyone who would dare to state that Scandinavians did not play a signifi­ cant role in the history of these countries would surely soon find themselves on the fringe of European scholarship. A scholar in Western Europe who would deny that the Oseberg ship belonged to Scandinavians would hardly keep his position in the discipline at all. In Russia analogous statements have ap­ peared to be possible and sometimes they even obtain authority and further careers. The debate first sparked off in the 18th century. In the summer of 1749

28

Leo S. Klejn

G.F. Müller, Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, German by origin and the first chancellor of the first Russian University (he had deserved his Russian scholarship well!), prepared a dissertation to the name day of Carina Elizabeth: "The origin of the name and the people of Russians". Developing the views of his late colleague G.S. Bayer, Müller wrote that the first Russian dynasty (the House of Rjurik) and a part of the upper strata of the Russian people descended from the Normans/Scandinavians. The name Rus' stemmed from the same source, as was clearly stated in the Chronicle. This provoked his German ill-wisher, I.D. Schumacher, the grey eminence of the Academy, who initiated an investigation into the harmful ideas in the dissertation, and the discussion continued until the spring of 1750. The main opponent of Müller was now M.V. Lomonosov, who accused Müller, together with his colleages, Bayer, and Schlözer, of malicious falsification of Russian history, allegedly caused by their German national arrogance. In later times these distinguished Russian historians were often condemned in our historiography as proponents of German nationalism. It was not taken into account that in their time Indo-European studies were not yet born. The linguistic families were still not clearly isolated and their kinship not estab­ lished. Hence, these scholars could hardly have perceived Scandinavians as fellow Germans. At the very most one could accuse them of a covert feeling of the priority of European civilisation over Russian aboriginal culture, but even if this feeling was real, it was a feeling that had been shared by Peter the Great. Furthermore it has now been shown that Bayer was in fact not the creator of the "Normanist theory".3 Against Müller's objective analysis of the Russian Chronicles, Lomonosov put together his own biased course book on Ancient Russian history, compiled on the basis of late Polish editions of the Russian Chronicles. Lomonosov saw in the Varangians of the Russian Chronicles not Scandinavian Vikings but Baltic (Žmuď) or West-Slavic newcomers who changed nothing in Rus'. His course book was printed in 1760. The debate continued in writing until a hundred years later, when, in 1867, another public debate was organised. While the first occurred in the confer­ ence hall of the Academy of Sciences (now the building of the Kunstkammer on the bank of the Neva), the second took place some two hundred metres away from there, in the Assembly hall of the Petersburg University. The Moscow professor M.P. Pogodin had made a bet with the Petersburg professor N.I. Kostomarov and promised to prove to him the Scandinavian origin of the Varangians and of the Rjurik dynasty. The debate at the University caused a storm of publicity. Tickets were sold for huge sums (the price of one ticket was higher than that of a short fur coat or a pood (16 kg) of sturgeon, but on the opening day tickets were resold for ten times more!). Of course neither contender was satisfied, and the debate continued in writing. In the second half of the 19th century (especially after the works of V. Thomsen) the centre of the discussion shifted first into linguistics (the origin

The Russian controversy over the Varangians

29

of the name Rus' and toponymy) and in the middle of the 20th century (after the works by T. Arne and H. Arbman) into archaeology. In 1963 a young student of the University of Moscow wrote a term paper on the Varangian issue; he naively wondered how it was that the evident Scandinavian origin of the first Russian kings was not recognized. He was immediately expelled from the University. Later he became a famous Russian dissident, was shut away in a repressive mental clinic, before he emigrated and wrote a book: Will the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984? His name is Andrej Amalrik. He was wrong by only five years. About that time, in 1960,1 wrote my book The Controversy over the Varan­ gians. I was then a postgraduate of the University of Leningrad. Despite a very favourable recommendation by the dean, professor V.V. Mavrodin (our University was then a little more liberal than that of Moscow), it appeared impossible to publish the book. Yet having become an assistant professor of the faculty, I started to use this manuscript in teaching the students and or­ ganised a Slavic-Varangian Seminar that was active for some 30 years. In the first years of our studies the activities of the Seminar caught the at­ tention of the Party Bureau of the faculty, and in order to nip such derangement in the bud they initiated a public dispute on the Varangian problem at the historical faculty in December 1965, almost hundred years after the previous debate. The departments had to present their debaters and I was selected from the department of archaeology. It was no secret that all this had been invented in order to make an exhibit of me. Although the event was hardly announced (a scrap of paper on the door), rumours spread rapidly, and at the day of the debate people came running from all the faculties. It appeared necessary to change the scene of the event into the greatest lecture-hall (amphitheatre) of the faculty. This was 200 m from the previous debate. My opponent was I.P. ŠaskoTskij from the Institute of History of the Acad­ emy of Sciences of the USSR. This was an intelligent and knowledgeable re­ searcher who, remaining loyal to the regime, obediently struggled against the "Normanist theory".4 Nevertheless, he rejected the Soviet cliches ("pseudo­ scholar theory", "bourgeois falsification of history") and considered the "Nor­ manist theory" as a theory in Western scholarship that should be discussed seriously and, of course, analysed critically. Already this was a step forward. We were lucky (I and my pupils) - in the debate we managed to defend our right to pursue objective studies in this field, and simultaneously we de­ fended the opportunity to do so for all our colleagues. Due to the nature of the debate I was forced not only to use conventional factual arguments, but also arguments that under normal conditions would hardly have been found convincing. However, the people who were against me (here I don't refer to Saskol'skij) were powerful and did not understand normal arguments. Instead, I used arguments which were understandable to them. I discussed the history of the two centuries long controversy and man­ aged to show that the political forces, which supported one or the other side,

30

Leo S. Klejn

changed position time and again. In the beginning Normanism suited the rul­ ing dynasty since it offered prestige for them; then Anti-Normanism became convenient to Russian nationalists; next Normanism became the banner of Revolutionaries (Marx was an avowed Normanist); then in the Stalin period Anti-Normanism started to be viewed as a patriotic position, while Norman­ ism was regarded as nearly equal to Fascism; but since that time a new turn had occurred, and Anti-Soviet circles in Europe had begun to support AntiNormanism... In short, the evaluation of ideas changed. So I advised my adversaries to be extremely careful in making political estimations in order not to be trapped. This worked. When I started to enumerate Anti-Normanist books and articles of Western authors, who were anti-Soviet in their orientation, the members of the Party Bureau sitting in the hall moved one after the other to the door in order to hold a consultation. Our operations were organised in advance between my pupils and myself. The coup de grace was entrusted to Gleb Lebedev - later author of a well-known book on the Vikings, then a graduate student. In his address he referred to the well-known Anti-Normanist quotation from Marx (often quoted in textbooks) that of course there were Norman newcomers in Rus' but their "chiefs soon commingled themselves with the Slavonians as shown by their marriages and their names". This quotation was taken from Marx' Secret Diplomatic History o f the Eigh­ teenth Century (1899, originally published as Revelations of the Diplomatic His­ tory o f the eighteenth century [1856-57]), which had then not been translated into Russian and not been included in the standard multi-volume collection of works by Marx and Engels. It was unwanted in the Soviet Union and inac­ cessible to ordinary people. Yet in the scholarly libraries we could find other editions of Marx. We had checked the original source in English, and found that in the Soviet version it was not cited in full. In the original there were a few words more before and after the famous phrase, namely5: "It may be objected that victors and vanquished amalgamated more quickly in Russia than in any other conquest of the northern barbarians, that the chiefs soon commingled themselves with the Slavonians — as shown by their marriages and their names. But then, it should be recollected that the Faithful Band, which formed at once their guard and their privy council, remained exclusively composed of Varangians..." The slight change entirely altered the sense of the argument. When Gleb pronounced these words, the audience came into agitation, and shouts were heard: "Falsification!", "Shame!". A number of our opponents went to the Pre­ sidium with the request to cancel their planned speeches. After the discussion I. P. Šaskol'skij and the Director of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR offered me and my pupils the opportunity to write a

The Russian controversy over the Varangians

31

survey of archaeological monuments left by Scandinavians on the territory of the USSR. This work appeared to be the first systematic compilation and assessment of this material. It was published in the series of the Institute.6 The manuscript from 1960 on the Controversy over the Varangians and my one-hour long speech in the public discussion of 1965, as well as this survey of 1970, constitutes the core of the book published in 2009; to which were added some later studies, an account of the seminar and several commentaries. A list of c. 400 works on the Norman themes published by members of my semi­ nar is also included.7 Among these are the books by the late G.S. Lebedev, in particular his The Viking period in North Europe and in Rus',8 and I.V. Dubov's discovery of numerous examples of Scandinavian graffiti on eastern coins.9 It should be mentioned that simultaneously with our activity in LeningradPetersburg a number of Moscow scholars also argued in favour of an objective treatment of the Norman problem. These were first and foremost V.T. Pašuto and his school.10 Why, however, did I decide to publish my book nearly half a century after the debate, considering the success we had had? The fact is that the situation has changed once again, as so often before. After the collapse of the Soviet regime (as predicted by Amalrik), the ideologies endorsed by the Soviet power seemed to be discredited for good, including Anti-Normanism. In 1995 a cel­ ebration was organised at the University in St Petersburg marking the jubilee of the debate in 1965. In an academic session with many papers we were able to declare openly that there was no Anti-Normanism, that this was a bogey­ man created by the nationalist imperial ideology of Russia, and supported by late-Soviet ideology (Stalin and post-Stalin). Although it appeared to be dead,11 Anti-Normanism had indeed survived, but as an ideology rather than as a scholarly position. At the beginning of the 3rd millennium Anti-Normanism arose once more. True, only among a small circle of scholars, but among these were powerful persons, like the director of the Institute of Russian history of the Russian Acad­ emy of Sciences, prof. A.N. Sacharov (not to be confused with the physicist and Nobel laureate A.D. Sacharov), and a group of devoted followers. In Soviet times Sacharov ruled the State Committee of Publishing, and executed func­ tions approaching censorship. Now he declared that Normanism was the main danger to Russian history, he ousted outstanding scholars who disagreed with his views from his institute and closed the whole section working on foreign sources of Russian history. When members of the Academy tried to remove him by voting, the governing body of the Academy kept him in place by decree. In this situation I decided that my book had a renewed significance. The part written in 1960 was kept unchanged. This text presented the same basic analysis, which also allowed us to vindicate our views in the debate in 1965. Firstly, I gathered all arguments and counter-arguments in the dispute - his­ torical, linguistic and archaeological - presented both by Normanists and AntiNormanists. These are facts and groups of facts, amounting to no less than 100.

32

Leo S. Klejn

New groups of facts, which had emerged since I960, were added in square brackets. As a result the debate could be easily surveyed. Secondly, I introduced a structure to the problem, by grouping the ar­ guments and counter-arguments around a few main questions, placed in a logical sequence. None of my predecessors had done this. Now every new argument finds its proper place in the system. One can immediately assess its significance for the whole problem. Thirdly, the logic of this structure is such that political biases, if even it is possible to introduce them, are not evenly distributed. They are concentrated in the last links of the logical chain. I presented it this way for the sake of selfdefence: we needed the possibility to conduct research quietly, impartially, and without disturbing demands. We wanted to study as many aspects of this theme as possible, and the concentration of political accents on the last links of the chain allowed us to free all the rest for objective research. We had only to separate the last links - and nearly the whole problem was free. The links of the logical chain are so distributed as to follow the clarifica­ tion of this problem in a discussion - from the point of view of using this theme to expose and analyse Normanism (while assuming that Normanism is true). The logical structure of the "Normanist theory" was presented as follows: 1. The Varangians of the Russian Chronicles are the Germanic Scandina­ vian (Normans/Vikings). 2. The founder of the first dynasty of Kievan state was the Varangian leader Rjurik, called in by East Slavs and their neighbours and having brought with him the whole tribe of the Varangians. 3. The tribe who arrived into the Eastern Europe was called Rus' and from this tribe the name was transferred onto the eastern Slavs. 4. The Scandinavians/Normans civilised the Slavs and made a large im­ pact on the entire Slavic culture, which is reflected in material culture, customs and language. 5. The Scandinavians/Normans created the first East-Slavic state or at least played an important role in its creation. 6. The cause of the important role which the Normans played in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, is their natural superiority over other peoples, in the first place over Slavs, who are incapable of independent creation. 7. The political inference to the present is this: the experience of the his­ tory teaches us that it is the natural privilege of the Germans to rule and the fate of the Slavs to obey. In my structure the arguments and counter-arguments of each side were dis­ tributed according to this scheme. The two last points give the whole scheme a malicious appearance and have a purely political content. Yet it is also these, which have no special arguments or even counter-arguments because in prac-

The Russian controversy over the Varangians

33

tice they were never advanced in scholarship. With difficulties one can find some statements that could be summoned here, but these are not inferences by scholars but declarations by marginal politicians. They do not form a theory or a scholarly trend. They were formulated mainly by Anti-Normanists in order to define an opponent against whom to fight. It is these links that my construction allowed to cut away Yet the problem is not only about political biases. There are also aspects, which are psychologically difficult for mass reception. So the Anti-Normanists could reckon with mass support of the people. Heated struggle has characterized all steps in this scheme. Gradually the Anti-Normanists yielded their position step by step. From the beginning the first step, over which the Anti-Normanists in the first two public debates had been struggling, was eliminated. Nearly all Anti-Normanists long ago admit­ ted that the Varangians had been Scandinavians: Swedish, Danish and Nor­ wegian Vikings - the same who attacked West-European cities and countries. Next came the urge to prove that there was no invitation of Varangians to rule and that this was a pure legend. Yet concurrences with the biography of Rorik of Jutland were found, and the name of Rjurik is certainly not a Slavic one. Fierce battles occurred on the third step over the name Rus', despite the inanity: what is in a name? A word, a sound, just a symbol! Eventually the resistance on this step was broken, too. The Scandinavian origin of the name was proven linguistically beyond doubt. The fourth step could offer some satisfaction to the Anti-Normanists: the influence of Scandinavians/Normans in Slavic culture is not very great; the Varangians quickly turned into Slavs, adopting their language and customs. However, the same situation occurred in the Scandinavian areas of England and France, where Scandinavians were quickly assimilated with French and English. Yet their military successes are not denied there, but considered to be beyond doubt. And even the question of Scandinavian participation in the creation of the Russian state is now discussed with less passion than formerly. Even in the Marxist scheme this form of state formation - by conquest - is admitted as a possibility. Today, however, Sacharov and his small number of ardent followers have returned to the first step of the scheme - to the positions of Lomonosov and Kostomarov. They have once again declared the Varangians to be western Slavs. By the standard of this restored Anti-Normanist point of view nearly all AntiNormanists of the last century would be held Normanists! In their (the modern Anti-Normanists') opinion all archaeological discoveries are non-existent or incorrectly interpreted. According to them the chamber graves, ship burials etc. have no relation to Scandinavians; oval brooches, they claim, were brought in through trade - for some reason Slavic women adopted this Scandinavian fashion for dresses fasted with brooches on the shoulders.

34

Leo S. Klejn

There is no logic in the Anti-Normanist patriotic argument. Why are West­ ern Slavs better for Russia than Scandinavians? Indeed, a new holiday was recently declared in Russia - the "Day of National Unity" (4 November) - in celebration of the anniversary of the Russian national mobilisation against the Polish (Western Slavic!) inroad to Moscow in 1612. All this clamour has nothing to do with either scholarship or with reasonable patriotism. The point is that the Anti-Normanist movement is based on wounded national pride, diligently kindled by the daft propaganda of the ruling circles. The Soviet Empire has collapsed, and although the majority of its peoples had little rea­ son to love it - indeed the living standards were worse than in the West: the victors in the war were destitute in comparison with the defeated - the Rus­ sian people was assured that it was the best, the most happy and successful, the most spiritual and the most important one in the Empire, that everyone feared them and envied them. All this ended in ruin. The bleak reality re­ mained. The feeling of national humiliation gives rise to animosity towards foreigners and neighbours as well as to hopes of revenge. A similar situation existed in the German Weimar republic in the early 1930s. We know that this is a dangerous situation.12 This is the reason for the mass sympathy with Anti-Normanism. The mood in the internet blogs can be expressed in one phrase: I am ignorant as to details, but I do not like the Normanist theory. Sympathy for Anti-Normanism is kindled from above as well. Thus a Commission of the President has been formed in the struggle against falsifi­ cations of history, falsifications "to the prejudice of Russia". This means that falsifications which do not "prejudice" Russia can be left untouched.13 Of course, it is impossible to deny the capture of Moscow by Poles or Napoleon, although they are "to the prejudice of Russia", but it is quite another matter with regard to ancient and terse Chronicles and archaeological data. Therefore it is possible to declare "Normanism" to be a falsification of history. Sacharov is one of the three professional historians included in the Commission (the remaining 24 are generals, officials of the state administration and leaders of mass media). Thus, the task of exposing the scholarly foundations of Anti-Normanism retains its actuality. By no means do I wish for the Anti-Normanists such a regime that they tried to create for "Normanists" - 1 am not calling for a ban on Anti-Norman­ ism. The existence of a broad spectrum of opinions, including opposite points of view, as absurd as it may seem to be, is normal. Criticism of weak points in historical reconstructions, as realistic as they seem to be, is useful. Whatever the motives, Anti-Normanist studies have led to interesting discoveries. Thus the complexity in the use of the term "Varangian" in Rus' was observed.14 The original interest in Sweden in the old invasion of Normans to the East was shown,15 though exaggerated (alluding to the writing of Petreus, the court historiographer of Carl IX). It is an Anti-Normanist16 who drew attention to

The Russian controversy over the Varangians

35

traces of West-Slavic and even Celtic influence in the northern Rus' (though much older than the Vikings). Meanwhile archaeology continues to provide new evidence of Scandi­ navian presence in East-Slavic territories. Already, soon after the conclusion of my seminar, important discoveries were made. In the Ukraine, Iskorosten' emerged as another important centre of Scandinavian presence.17 Now Sestovitsa is known not only as a Scandinavian cemetery but also as a settle­ ment.18 On the whole, many more Scandinavian antiquities are now known in Ukraine,19 including chamber graves in Kiev.20 Also in Belarus' Scandinavian antiquities have now been mapped.21 The Novgorod area is rich in Scandina­ vian remnants.22 In Rjurikovo Gorodišče near Novgorod a dense concentra­ tion of Scandinavian finds have been unearthed by E.N. Nosov.23 In various places of Pskov chamber graves are discovered.24 In Staraja Ladoga finds are repeatedly made indicating that it was Rjurik's first capital.25 This is far from a complete survey. It is understandable why Sacharov's supporters do not include any archaeologists. Yet it is not impossible that archaeologists may finally join Sacharov. The temptation can prove too great, and scholarly careers are determined not only by facts26. Here, everything is just as with Carroll's Red Queen: you must run very fast in order to stay on the same place. Acknowledgements I wish to thank my colleagues Ju.M. Lesman and S.V. Beleckij for information about new archaeological evidence. Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Klejn 2009a. Recent surveys: Alpatov 1982; Danilevskij 1998; Chlevov 1999. Karpeev 1997. ŠaskoFskij 1965; 1978; 1983. Marx 1899 [1857]. Klejn e t a l 1970. Vse viov 2009. Two editions: Lebedev 1985; 2005. Dobrovolskij et al. 1991. E.g. Pašuto 1970; 1974. Klejn 1999. Klejn 2006. Klejn 2009b. Nikitin 2001, 76-95. Fomin 2005. Kuzmin 1974. Zvizdeckij et al. 2004; Zocenko & Zvizdeckij 2006. Kovalenko et al. 2003.

36 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Leo S. Klejn Zocenko 2004. Ivakin et al. 2003; Androščuk 2004. V ik in g i 2006; Dernovič 2006. Platonova 1998; 2002 а. о. Nosov 1990; 1998a; 1998b; 2000 a. o. Beleckij 1997. Kirpičnikov 1997; Kirpičnikov and Sarabjanov 2003. Recently Sakharov was not elected for the next term to be director, and his planned successor was not elected, but a scholar from outside, who first of all dismissed Sakharov's favourite figure V.V. Fomin from the Institute.

Bibliography Alpatov, M.A. 1982. Varjažskij vopros v russkoj dorevoljucionnoj istoriografii, Voprosy Istorii 5, 31-45. Androščuk, F. 2004. Skandinavskie drevnosti v social'noj topografii drevnego Kieva, Ruthenica III, Kiev. Beleckij, S.V. 1997. Vozniknovenie goroda Pskova (k probléme učastija varjagov v suďbach Rusi, Švédy i russkij Sever (к 210-letiju Akeksandra Leontjeviča Vitberga), Kirov, 139-152. Danilevskij, I.N. 1998. Drevnjaja Rus' głazami sovremennikov i potomkov (IX - XII vv.), Kurs lekcij. Moskva. Dernovič, S.D. 2006. Skandinavskie drevnosti epochi vikingov v Belarusi. Minsk. Dobrovolskij, I.G., I.W. Dubov & Ju.K. Kuz'menko. 1991. Graffiti na vostocnych monetach. Drevny aya Rus' i sopredel'nye strany. Leningrad, izd. LGU. Fomin, V.V. 2005. Varjagi i varjazskaya Rus'. К itogam diskussii po varjazskomu voprosu. Moskva. Ivakin G. & V. Kozjuba. 2003. Novi pochovannja X - XI st. Verchn'ogo Kiiva (z rozkopok Architekturno-archeologičnoi ekspedicii 1997 - 1999 rr.), Druzinni starožitnosti Tsentralno-Schidnoj Evropy VIII - I X st. Černigiv, 38-50. Karpeev, E.P. 1997. G.Z. Bajer i istoki normanskoj teorii, Pervye skandinavske čtenija. St Petersburg, Muzej antropologii I etnografii im. Petra Velikogo (Kunstkamera) RAN, 7-18. Chlevov, A.A. 1997. Normanskaja problema v otečestvennoj naukę. St Petersburg. Kirpičnikov, A.N. & V.N. Sarab'janov. 2003. Staraja ladoga - drevnjaja stolitsa Rusi. St Petersburg. Kirpičnikov, A.N. 1997. "Skazanie o prizvanii varjagov". Analiz i vozmožnosti istočnika, Pervye skandinavske čtenija. St Petersburg, Muzej antropologii I etnografii im. Petra Velikogo (Kunstkamera) RAN, 7- 25. Klejn, L.S. 1999. Normanism - antinormanism: konec diskussii, Stratum plus 5, 91-101. Klejn, L.S. 2006. Diagnoz, Zvezda 9, 142-157. Klejn, L.S. 2009a. Spor o varjagach: Istorija protivostojanija i argumenty storon, St Petersburg.

The Russian controversy over the Varangians

37

Klejn, L.S. 2009b. "Cto za Komissija, Cozdatel'..."?, Troitskij Variant 11 (30), 12 of June; 14. Klejn, L.S., G.S. Lebedev & V.A. Nazarenko. 1970. Normanskie drevnosti Kievskoj Rusi na sovremennom etape archeologičeskogo izučenija, in: N. E. Nosov & I.P. Saskol'skij (eds.), Istoričeskie svjazi Skandinávii i Rossii IX - XX vv. Leningrad, 226-252. Kovalenko, V., A. Mocja & Ju. Sytij. 2003. Archeologičeskie issledovanija Šestovickogo kompleksa v 1998 - 2002 gg., in: Družinni starožitnosti Cen­ tralno-Schidnoj Evropi VIII - IX st. Cernigiv, 51-83. Kuz'min, A.G. 1974. Ob etničeskoj prirode varjagov (k postanovke problemy), Voprosy Istorii, 11, 54- 83. Lebedev, G.S. 1985. Epocha vikingov v Severnoj Evropě i na Rusi. Leningrad. Marx, K. 1899. Secret Diplomatic History o f the Eighteenth Century, ed. by his daughter, Eleanor Marx Aveling, London. Mocja, O.P. et al. (eds.). 2004. Starodaunij Iskorosten': Slovjan'ski gradi VIII-X St. Kyiv. Nikitin, A.L. 2001. Osnovanija russkoj istorii: mifologemy I fakta. Moskva. Nosov, E.N. 1990. Novgorodskoe (Rjurikovo) gorodisce. Leningrad, Nauka. Nosov, E.N. 1998a. Pervye skandinavy v Severnoj Rusi, Vikingi i slavjane. St Petersburg, 56-82. Nosov, E.N. 1998b. The Varangian problem: Russian historical tradition vs. new archaeological evidence, A. Wesse (ed.) Studien zur Archäologie des Ostseeraums: Festschrift für M. Müller-Wille. Neumünster, 61-66. Nosov, E.N. 1999. Scandinavier in der nördlichen Rus' und die Entstehung von Novgorod. Archäologie in Deutschland, 4, 56-60. Nosov, E. 2000. Rjurikovo Gorodisce et Novgorod, in: M. Kazański, A. Nercessian & C. Zuckerman C. (eds.), Les centres proto-urbains russes entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient, 143-172. Pašuto, V.T. 1970. Russko-skandinavskie otnošenija i ich mesto v istorii rannesrednevekovoj Evropy, Skandinavskij Sborník 15. Tallinn, 51- 61. Pašuto, V.T. 1974. Letopisnaja tradicija o plemennych knjaženijach i varjažskij, Letopisi i chroniki, 1973. Moskva. ŠaskoLskij, I.P. 1965. Normanskaja teoria v sovremennoj buržuanoj пайке. Mosk­ va - Leningrad. Saskol'skij, I.P. 1978. Normanskaja problema v sovetskoj istoriografii, in: V.V. Mavrodin (ed.), Sovetskaja istoriografija Kievskoj Rusi, Leningrad, 152-165. Saskol'skij, I.P. 1983. Antinormanizm i ego sud'by, Genezis i razvitie feodalizma v Rossii, Problemy vseobscej i otečestvennoj istorii 7, Leningrad, 35-51. Vikingi 2002. = Vikingi na Uschodse, Katalog vystavy. Minsk. Vseviov, L.M. (comp.). 2009. Spisok pečatnych rabot učastnikov SlavjanoVarjažskogo seminara (sekcii "Problemnogo seminara" L.S. Klejna) po varjažskoj, in: Klejn 2009a, 310-342. Zocenko, V.M. 2004. Skandinavskie artefakti pivdenno-zachidn'oj Rusi, in: O. P. Mocja et al. (eds.). Kyiv, 87 - 105.

38

Leo S. Klejn

Zocenko, V.M. & B.A. Zvizdec'kij. 2006. Tipologija ta chronologija artefaktiv "skandinavs'kogo" tipu iz rozkopok strodavn'ogo Iskorostenja, Rus' na perechresti svitiv (mižnarodni vplivi na formuvannja Davn'orus'koi derzavi IX - XI stJ . Černigiv. Zvizdec'kij, B.A. & O.V. Petrauskas. 2004. Pol'guj V. I. Novi doslidžennja starodavn'ogo Iskorostenja, in: O.P. Mocja et al. (eds.), Kyiv, 51-86.

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo Johan Callmer

Introduction The connections of northern and north-western Europe towards the south and the south-east crossed over from the basin of the Baltic to that of the Pontic and the Caspian. To make their way hence, travellers had to follow distinct and consistent routes across the watershed zones. There is much to suggest that major rivers were of crucial importance in leading travellers in the right direction. The relief and topography of continental Europe also contributed to this preference for routes on and along major rivers, since many rivers actu­ ally flow north-south or south-north. This by no means indicates that water routes were the only routes used to cross the continent, and indeed everything points to very flexible approaches to transportation by long-distance travellers. It is likely that summer travel was preferred even when boats were difficult to procure or not at all available. Beasts of burden could be fed on the grass on the ground en route, and camping was relatively easy in the open. Winter transport provided an elegant solution with sledges on the ice of frozen riv­ ers and bogs, but the supply of fodder for animals had to be well organised and the relationship with local populations had to be close and positive. Most realistic is probably a combination of land and water transport and summer and winter travel.1 In early Medieval Russia, travel connected with the collection of tributes was undertaken predominantly in winter, whereas long-distance travel was accomplished in summer. This pattern is already suggested by Ibn Fadlan and especially by Constantine Porphyrogenitus in his well-known De administrando. In my opinion, the central importance of the major rivers for the traveller was that of orientation. Whatever method of travel one had chosen, the rivers guided one on to the crucial watershed zones, where one had to start following another artery. Important transitional zones of relevance to these connections between north and south are only found in certain parts of the watershed areas. Other parts are more unlikely and some even impos­ sible whether the cause were high mountains, vast moorlands or large and uninhabited forests. This state of affairs is, in my opinion, the result of the limited availability of comprehensible routes and of the distribution of settled land. It was difficult to travel long distances without the support and coop-

40

Johan Callmer

Fig. 1. Important transitional zones between the Baltic basin and the Pontic and Caspian Basins in the early Medieval period.

eration of the local population, as already suggested, even if this often posed problems of security and of trust for the two sides involved; in addition to the logistic problems already mentioned. Functioning transitional zones in the early medieval period can be found at the Moravian Gate, in the present day

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

41

border lands between Poland and Ukraine between Zamość and Chełm, in the Minsk region in central Byelorussia and in the present-day borderlands of Byelorussia and Russia between the towns of Vitebsk and Smolensk (Fig. 1). Further east there are other significant zones between the Baltic basin and the Caspian basin but we shall concentrate here on the zone between the Western Dvina and the upper Dnepr. The historically well known route 'Trom the Varangians to the Greek" is ample reason for interest in this transitional zone between the north and the south. This route played a very significant role for the development of early Rus'. Its importance for the Christianisation of Rus' and for cultural devel­ opment of Pre-Mongol Rus' cannot be overestimated. But how it began to function and how important it was in its earlier stages is little known. This problem has been discussed especially by E. Šmidt, G. Lebedev, G. Lebedev, V. Bulkin & V. Nazarenko and L. Alekseev.2 Recently a comprehensive survey of the early archaeological finds from the watershed zone was published by I. Eremeev.3 Some time towards the end of the 9th century an important entrepot came into existence on the northern shore of the Dnepr, slightly to the west of present day Smolensk. The place is known under the name of Gnezdovo and much has been written about it, although still too little has been published.4 Here I will dwell on the prehistory of Gnezdovo, or more accurately, the phe­ nomena related to long-distance travel and exchange in this transitional zone, which actually antedate Gnezdovo itself as a large, permanent cosmopolitan settlement. There are also other archaeological questions motivating a closer look at the prehistory and early history of the watershed zone. These problems touch upon the important question of the earliest presence of the Slavs in the central and northern parts of the East European wood­ land zone. I will here briefly comment on the cultural orientation of the local population of this area, population continuity and immigration, the question of demographic changes and the path to early statehood. The important task of contemporary research is to concentrate on the interrelationship between these variables. In my opinion, there have been great problems even consi­ dering two of these variables together so far. The watershed zone The landscape of this area between the big rivers has, in the northern half rather a lively relief energy as a result of numerous terminal moraines. This means that the landscape is mainly hummocky with numerous small and middle-sized lakes and peat bogs. Consequently the geology is varied, in­ cluding sections with very poor sands and others with not too bad soils.5The limit of the ice sheet almost reached down to the present river valley of the Dnepr, and thus the major part of the land between the big rivers is drained toward the north. With the single exception of the Berezina (not the Berezina Napoleon crossed on the retreat in 1812 with fatal losses, but a much smaller

42

Johan Callmer

river) all the northern tributaries of the Dnepr in the watershed zone are small and short. The landscape to the south along the Dnepr and to the south of the big river is less dramatic and sometimes has a plain character. The natural woodland here is mixed with varying proportions of deciduous and conifer­ ous trees.6 Coniferous woodland gradually becomes dominating towards the north-east and in areas with poor soils. Mediocre to poor podsol soils prevail in the northern and intermediate parts as already stated, whereas towards the south the soils are slightly better. This is of course seen in a macro per­ spective. Good soils for agriculture can only be developed by working and manuring the fields over time, even if they are podsols. In particular, wide sections to the south-east of Smolensk have good soils. The woodland fauna was once rich with a wide range of mammals, birds and fish. There is much to indicate that still in modern time (17th century) beaver was rather com­ mon in the northern parts of the watershed zone, with their dense network of small rivers, wetlands and lakes. In the early medieval period wide and virtually uninhabited, or only very sparingly settled, woodland stretched out for almost a hundred kilometres towards the northeast. This was the Okovskij les of the Primary chronicle where the Dvina, the Dnepr and the Volga have their sources.7 As some young Russian archaeologists have pointed out in recent years, the climate factor should not be neglected.8 For these parts of Eastern Europe it is important to note that we have considerable shifts of temperature and precipitation.9After a cold, but not very wet, 5th century temperatures begin to rise, and reached a very high level (almost between 0.5 and 1 degree above the average) in the 7th century. Precipitation initially drops to its lowest in the 1st millennium in the middle of the 6th century, only to increase steadily to very high levels in the first half of the 8th century. From rather normal levels c. AD 800, both temperature and precipitation go down, but not radically, to­ wards the middle of the century. In the second half of the 9th century there is a return to very high levels at the end of the 9th and in the first half of the 10th century. The high levels of precipitation (in the first half of the 8th century and in the late 9th century) may have influenced river transport significantly. The drier and colder first half of the 9th century is, however, less marked and has perhaps only influenced the water levels of smaller arteries. The flat profile of large tracts of land has rendered these changes less crucial. For the 8th to 10th centuries, the period most relevant in relation to the processes treated in this paper, climate is not without interest, but is hardly the decisive factor. The Dnepr-Dvina cultural complex We shall begin with a look at the later prehistory of the watershed zone. In the late Bronze Age (c. 600 BC) a number of rather similar cultural complexes are formed in the middle belt of the East-European woodland zone. Furthest to the west was the cultural complex of the stroke-decorated pottery in pres-

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

Fig. 2. The Dnepr-Dvina watershed z o n e .

c u lt u r a l c o m p le x

(7 th

C e n tu ry

43

ВС t o AD 400-450) is l o c a t e d in t h e

ent day Lithuania, parts of Latvia and adjoining areas.10 Further to the east, and with its centre exactly in the watershed zone between the Dnepr and the Dvina, the Dnepr-Dvina cultural complex was formed (Fig. 2).11 To the north-east and east there was the D'jakovo cultural complex in an enormous area stretching as far as east of Moscow.12 To the south of these three were another three cultural complexes with a certain similarity in many aspects of the material culture: from west to east they are called the Milograd, the Juchnov and the Upper Oka cultures.13 The three northern cultural complexes are, however, more closely related between themselves. The people who produced the Dnepr-Dvina material culture based their existence on animal husbandry (all common domestic animals were known) and agriculture (wheat, barley, millet and beans). Fishing and hunting played a varying but sometimes con­ siderable role. Both open settlement sites and hillforts are known. These hillforts are often small (600-1000 m2) and situated on small hills or spurs of land jutting out into river valleys or lakes. A few hillforts were possibly refuges, and some had a religious function as sanctuaries. The majority, however, were inhabited for centuries. The number of hillforts is large. In the present Smolensk region

44

Johan Callmer

(Smolenskaja oblast') more than 180 hillforts are known today - making them one of the most common archaeological monuments in the region. These, and other figures below concerning archaeological monuments in the Smolensk region, have been collected from the archaeological map of Russia published by Ju. Krasnov.14 The large number of hillforts notwithstanding, their often very simple fortification walls and palisades testify to unstable political or­ ganisation. The open sites are less well known than the hillforts. Houses were always built with standing post constructions. Graves are as yet unknown, which of course does not mean that there were no burials. The pottery appears with simple, straight or only slightly s-curved pro­ files. When decorated, the pottery features finger impressions and pits. In the beginning, bone and antler artefacts play an important role in the technol­ ogy of these cultures (arrow heads, harpoons, picks, net sticks, awls, needles, handles etc.). During the 2nd or 1st centuries BC iron technology is introduced, and iron is produced locally. Bronze was worked (including casting) at many sites. During the 2nd to 4th centuries AD we find some evidence of cultural transfers from the south in the southern fringes of the Dnepr-Dvina cultural complex (from the Zarubincy cultural complex). We consequently find some burnished wares and in two cases quadrangular houses with horizontal tim­ ber. In the east, cultural exchange with the related D'jakovo tradition was lively. Influences and imports from the Roman world are remarkably few in the Dnepr-Dvina cultural complex. There is, in my opinion, little to indicate the existence of a proper functioning long-distance trade route crossing the watershed; Roman imports reached the Baltic lands along other routes, via Poland and East Prussia or via Southern Scandinavia. The Tusemlja cultural complex In the 5th century AD there are some changes in the settlement pattern, and the material culture is also somewhat transformed. This new phase is called the Tusemlja cultural complex (Fig. 3).15 There are numerous settlements. Our statistics from the Smolensk region (c.f. above) list 88 sites, and considering the much shorter duration of this phase than the preceding (c. 350 years i.e. to the end of the 7th century) we can hardly speak about a diminution of the population. Rather we could, with a certain reservation, consider an increase. The number of inhabited hillforts is strongly reduced but we still have hillfort sanctuaries similar to those of the Dnepr-Dvina phase. Twenty-five sites in­ cluding several hillforts are occupied in both phases. The considerable increase in open settlements and the corresponding decrease in hillforts could indicate the formation of larger social units equalling minor regions. The principles of the construction of houses remain unchanged. The major difference is the appearance of graves in the archaeological record. We are here concerned with cremations deposited in pits. The arte­ facts accompanying the dead are more or less completely destroyed by the

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

45

intense heat of the cremation, and consequently yield very little information on the important classification criterion: dress traditions. The cemeteries are found close to the settlements. Pottery now appears with slightly s-shaped profiles only (Fig. 4). An addition among the very few pottery forms is low bowls with the said profile. Artefacts apart from pottery are found sparingly at the settlement sites. Jewellery seems to show correspondences both towards the south (i.e. Slav cultural milieu) and towards the north-west (i.e. Balt cul­ tural milieu). During the Tusemlja phase it remains difficult to trace regular long-distance routes across the watershed between the Dvina and the Dnepr. However, a small number of finds with a Balt background are found in Slav milieu to the south of the Tusemlja territory. There are also finds of cowries (Cyprea moneta) in eastern Latvia,16 which derive from the south, thus most likely crossing the watershed. These finds in general can be dated to the 8th century and later, and since the final phase of Tušemlja is somewhere towards the end of the 7th century or the beginning of the 8th, the unambiguous con­ nection with Tusemlja is difficult to ascertain. The question of trade through

46

Johan Callmer

Fig. 4. Ceramic forms typical of the Tušemlja cultural complex.

Tusemlja territory can also be raised against the background of the inflow of silver to eastern Latvia and Lithuania already before AD 700, as evidenced by the finds of silver deposits with silver torques.17 In general it is well motivated to look upon the Tusemlja cultural complex as a continuation of cultural tra­ ditions founded in the Dnepr-Dvina cultural complex. Many specialists, i.a. E. Smidt and V. Sedov,18 share this view of the development in the watershed zone. The question o f Early Slav presence in the watershed zone in the 5th and 6th centuries AD Although the question of continuity seems to be settled, the watershed zone has an intrinsic potential for diverging views on the development of culture in Eastern Europe. Recently, two Russian archaeologists, N. Lopatin and A.

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

47

Furas'ev, have paid special attention to a small group of settlement finds in the watershed area.19 They have pointed out that in the early Tusemlja ma­ terial culture (5th to early 6th centuries) there is some evidence of southern influences. These influences derive from the Kiev culture,20 a distant cousin of the more widely distributed Černjachov-Sintana de Mure§ culture. In my opinion, N. Lopatin and A. Furas'ev overstate the significance of these influ­ ences. They argue that the sites with southern influences form a distinct tradi­ tion, rapidly creating a completely new culture further north dominated by Slav groups. They are here concerned with the so-called Long Barrow (dlinnye kurgany) culture; according to recent field research this complex encompasses the major part of the Baltic drainage of north-western Russia, in fact from eastern Estonia to well into the northern fringes of the Caspian basin as early as the 5th century AD.21 With their analysis, N. Lopatin and A. Furas'ev want to indicate this new scenario for the Slav colonisation in the Baltic drainage. Time and space does not allow for a detailed examination of the evidence. The argument is based on a number of narrow definitions of pottery forms, the majority of which are difficult to ascertain in a shard material. A few years ago, E. Nosov, who is very familiar with similar ceramic material from north-western Russia, issued a warning against this minute treatment of the hand-made pottery of the period.22 In another connection, N. Lopatin rightly concludes that the majority of the northern Long Barrow pottery forms are specific to this cultural complex.23 Other aspects of the very early Slav cul­ ture cannot be identified with features of the Long Barrow culture (northern variant; on the northern and southern variants, see below the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type). The question of the Slav colonisation of the Baltic drainage, however, is closely connected with the watershed zone. If the Slavs did reach the north from the south, which many scholars find most likely, they must have used the watershed for their northward expansion. I think that V.V. Sedov, who dedicated his long scholarly life to the archaeology of the Eastern Slavs, saw the problem that way, and seeing little evidence for the early Slavization of the watershed zone consequently developed a theory of a colonisation of north­ western Russia from the west. He envisaged a migration of Slav groups from the lower Vistula through the Balt lands towards the east.24 Today it must be concluded that this idea cannot be maintained for lack of hard evidence. The archaeological arguments for continuity between the Dnepr-Dvina and the Tusemlja cultural complexes are, as has already been pointed out, very strong. There is no other direct connection between the Dnepr-Dvina cultural complexes and the major language groups of Eastern Europe except that of the onomastic geography of lakes and rivers. For a long time, linguists have maintained that Balt groups settled the upper Dnepr drainage in the prehis­ toric period, and that the Slavs were found further south.25 The question of the date and the character of Slav colonisation of the forest zone shall now be left aside in order to return to the development of material

48

Johan Callmer

culture in the watershed zone. The discussion of the colonisation will, how­ ever, be continued below. The Long Barrow culture o f the Smolensk type The next cultural phase in the watershed zone is named the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type.26 It is closely related to similar complexes in the Polock and Vitebsk regions to the west and in the Toropec region further to the north-east (Fig. 5).27 There are also cemeteries and settlements on the up­ permost Volga.28 The Long Barrow settlement consists of clusters of settlement sites along major and middle-sized rivers and lakes. The two biggest rivers seem to be without settlement or only very sparingly settled. Downstream the mouth of the Katynka there is only one site on the Dnepr. Along the Western Dvina there are only very few sites below the confluence of the Toropa in the far north-east. Between these clusters there are very wide tracts of unin­ habited woodland and moors. The beginning of this phase could be dated to the first half or the middle of the 8th century. The number of monuments is definitely smaller than that of the Tušemlja cultural complex,29 while the number of sites (including a few hillforts) equals only a third of the preceding phase. The number of cemeteries is, however, more considerable with more than 40 alone in the watershed zone proper. Considering a period of c. 250 years for the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type this could indicate a more or less unchanged demography. There are a number of new cultural elements in this phase but there are also important indications of continuity. As much as 35% of the settlement sites reveal continuity from the Tušemlja phase. This is a much higher figure than for the continuity from Dnepr-Dvina to Tušemlja (22%). Observations at a few Tušemlja sites show that they burned down before they were resettled. It is, in my opinion, very unlikely that these indications could prove discontinuity. The territory of the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type is not com­ pletely identical with that of the preceding Tušemlja complex. Long Barrow territory is somewhat smaller, but the core areas are the same and reduction is mostly evident in the periphery of the old Tušemlja territory. The relation­ ship between the Long Barrow culture of the Polock type immediately to the north-west of the Smolensk Long Barrow culture is vague. Some scholars maintain that the differences are considerable, whereas others treat them as one cultural complex.30 The settlement sites are located similarly to those of the Tušemlja cultural complex. Possibly the size of the open settlements is smaller, but only few excavations of any substantial size have been conducted. Hillforts are little used in this phase, except perhaps as sanctuaries. The hillforts at Rokot, Novoselki, Gorodok na Careviče, Staroe Sjalo, Usvjaty and perhaps Gorodok na Lovati (see below) are exceptions to this rule (see below). Settlement sites rarely exceed one hectare in size and the cemeteries mostly indicate groups

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

49

Fig. 5. The distribution of the Long Barrow cultural complex. The northern variant extends from eastern Estonia to the periphery of the Caspian Basin. The Smolensk and the very simi­ lar Polock variants are found in the watershed zone and to the west of it.

consisting of a few families living together. There are however some excep­ tions to this rule with larger settlements and cemeteries with more than a hundred graves. House building seems to continue the principles from the earlier two stages. The cemeteries are situated close to the settlements, often in a low position in the landscape and generally close to water (Fig. 6).31 The cemeteries often comprise between 20 and 40 barrows. As the name of this phase suggests, the Long Barrow grave is an important innovation. The cemeteries, however, feature elongated, round and square barrows with­ out a clear tendency to change in the composition. There are also cemeteries

50

Johan Callmer Fig. 6. The location of the barrow cemetery at Curkovka Smolensk rajon, Smolensk oblast' is typical of the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk variant.

exclusively composed of round or square barrows. This of course makes the name of the culture misleading. The long barrows are formed through addi­ tions to original round barrows thus containing several graves (Fig. 7). The graves are cremations in various positions in the barrows. Pottery vessels or birch bark pots were frequently used for urns. Early cremations are deposited in pits similar to those of the Tušemlja graves. Often the urns are turned up­ side down. Only in a later phase (presumably the 9th century) do cremation layers dominate. The grave form is certainly closely connected with groups living further to the north. In the north these barrows are erected already in the 5th century. Barrow cemeteries predating the 8th century are also known further west, in the Vitebsk region, where the material culture in the 8th and 9th centuries is very similar to that of the watershed zone. Non-ceramic arte­ facts are more frequent than in the Tušemlja phase. The find material, especially from the female graves, shows a close resem­ blance to, or even identity with, Latgallian dress accessories.32 We are here

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

51

Fig. 7. A long barrow of the Smolensk varian t excavated by E. Smidt at Curkovka, Smolensk rajon, Smolensk oblast'.

primarily concerned with neck rings, arm rings, pendants, chains, chain-spac­ ers, annulets and wreaths (Fig. 8). The latter, in the shape of the traditional Balt vainaga , the classical symbol of the married Balt woman,33 is of special interest since it is absent in Slav tradition (but was taken up by some Finnic groups). The only marked difference from Latgallian dress is presumably the lack of dress pins. Pins, however, play a comparatively modest role among the Latgallians, whereas they are much more common further west. The trapezoidal pendants so typical of the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type (Fig. 8) and of Latgallian female dress are also known from Slav cultural milieu where, however, they are dated to the 7th century or earlier. In their earlier history these pendants are spread over wide parts of Europe.34 Only in this late phase are they restricted to Balt tribes and to the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type. The annulets have been hailed as exclusively Slav dress elements. This is an exaggeration since various annulets are also known from Finno-Ugrian and Balt groups. The most common annulets (with scvthe-shaped terminals and with an out-turned spiral) are characteristic of the Long Barrow complex (Fig. 8). Pottery is still mainly plain but the shapes are lower. Some of them have parallels among the Latgallian pottery, but in general they form an independent canon (Fig. 9). Special studies by V. Enukov show consistent differences from unambiguously Slav pottery.35 Social differentiation is difficult to study in the archaeological material. It s however possible to grasp a certain variation of richness in female dress,

52

Johan Callmer

5 cm

Fig. 8. Small finds from cemeteries and settlements of the Smolensk variant of the Long Barrow cultural complex.

and there are also indications of prestige elements on the masculine side (not seldom items imported from the steppe zone). We can also maintain a pattern of relatively rich and poor settlements. It is likely that the dominant groups

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

53

Fig. 9. Ceramic forms of the Smolensk variant of the Long Barrow cultural complex.

in society also played a more active role in the social and economic process which started when the long-distance trade connections reached the watershed zone and when political influence reached out from the north. In the course of the 9th century, dominant groups cooperated intimately with representa­ tives from the north. It is likely that the low level centres mentioned below often were in the hands of the local "big m en" and their families. Sometimes they came under strong cultural influence from outside. Notwithstanding its dating mainly to the 10th century, the cemetery of Novoselki with local grave custom combined with an exotic material culture may provide us with a model (see below). The obvious indications of cultural change, most striking in the new grave rites and dress customs (but presumably also in other aspects), carry a strong

Fig. W. Artefacts from Long Barrow contexts imported from the Saltovo-Majaki culture.

message of intensive communication between the inhabitants of the watershed zone and their northern and western neighbours. There are also numerous imports from the south-east, from the Saltovo-Majaki culture. First, we must mention numerous beads of glass and to a much smaller extent of cornelian belonging to the vast inflow of Oriental beads from the Caliphate.36 The vast majority certainly came via Khazar territory. Finger rings, metal buttons and bells also derive from the Saltovo-Majaki culture, i.e. the material culture of large parts of the Khazar domination (Fig. 10).37 The buttons could also mean that clothes of the steppe types arrived in the watershed zone. Several finds are connected with high status male burials. There are buckles and fittings for belts.36 Horse equipment and arrow heads also have their correspondences in the same direction (Fig. 11).34 Dirhams are found in two graves (although pos­ sibly later than the 9th century).40 The expansion of trade in Eastern Europe from the second half of the 8th century certainly also involved the watershed zone (cf. below). The latest possible dating of the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type reaches into the middle of the 10th century and no further. In fact in the Smo­ lensk region a 10th century date may be called into question except in very few cases. The next settlement phase in the watershed area is that of sites with handmade Slav pottery (regularly also yielding some wheel-thrown ware). This pottery is given a standard date of 9th to 10th centuries, but in fact there is little to suggest 9th century dates. The number of sites of this type and date, according to the archaeological survey (mentioned above), is 58, compared with 37 for the Long Barrow phase. Whereas the indications of continuity have been strong between the preceding phases we are now confronted with a radi-

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

55

cally changed situation. Only in the case of a single hillfort could continuity be likely. Later Early Russian Slav settlements, especially from the turn of the 11th century, frequently used earlier locations. With few exceptions, however, the article here is concentrated on hillforts of the Dnepr-Dvina cultural com­ plex. It is also relevant to point to a settlement shift to the south of the Dnepr in the 9th century (possibly the second half). Settlements and cemeteries on the left side of the Dnepr are later than the majority of sites and graves in the central watershed zone. Late traits are cremation layers instead of pits in the barrows and decorated pottery sometimes featuring prototypes from Slav cultural milieu in the Desna valley (Romny-Borševo pottery) (Fig. 9). Many scholars working with the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type have had difficulty giving plausible explanations for the strong evidence of cultural change from Tusemlja to Long Barrow material culture. The pre­ dominant explanations for this change are cultural transfer and immigration from outside into the watershed zone. The introduction of the barrow graves and especiallv the idea of elongating barrows to form the long barrows are certainly influenced from the north, but this hardly requires a strong inflow of population from the north. Through these years, E. Smidt has consistently interpreted the emergence of the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type as the result of the complete replacement of the Tusemlja population by Balt immigrants from the west. The weak chronology of the early phases of the Long Barrow cultural complex of the Smolensk type makes it possible that the introduction was not such a rapid process, but rather slower with a suc­ cessive acceptance of new cultural elements. Changes in dress, most obvious in female dress, is most likely a phenomenon linked to social stress, as it is so well described by F. Barth.41 The motivation of the population in the Watershed zone to display Balt dress items was certainly increased by interaction with populations to the south, i.e. Slav groups. This is another argument against

Fig. 11. A snuffle of Saltovo-Majaki origin found in barrow no. 2 at Drokovo, Demidov rajon, Smolensk oblast' exca­ vated by V. Sizov in the late 19th century.

56

Johan Callmer

the common interpretation of the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type as relating to Slavs. A late dating for the dominance of Slav culture in this area was also supported by prominent Soviet-Russian scholars like M. Artamonov and I. Ljapuškin.42 Similar views were also expressed by I. Belocerkovskaja and by the research team of V. Bulkin, I. Dubov and G. Lebedev.43 A full characterisation of the 10th century developments in the watershed zone will not be presented here, since it is very well known that around AD 900 Gnezdovo was already established and had developed into an important entrepot. Evidence o f the long-distance trade networks o f the 9th century in the watershed zone: dirhams and Scandinavian imports Since it is presumed that northern imports may be related to routes of com­ munication, the network of potential routes crossing the watershed should be mentioned. As stated in the introduction, travel both by land and by water should be considered. The importance of the rivers was as means of orienta­ tion and as vital parts of mental maps (Fig. 12). To enter the watershed zone from the north there are two possibilities. The first route follows the Dvina upstream past Vitebsk. The second has entered the Il'men'-basin either through the Volchov or through the Luga (with a short crossing from the uppermost Luga over to Il'men') and has followed the Lovať upstream. From the upper Lovat' there is a short crossing or portage (volok) to Lakes Uzmen' and Usvjat and further along the Usvjača river which flows into the Dvina. The Kun'ja, a tributary of the upper Lovať, provides another possibility to cross over to the Usvjača. The crucial crossing of the watershed from the Dvina side to the Dnepr may be conducted according to two alternatives. One can either choose the Kasplja, a considerable artery flowing into the Dvina quite close to the Usvjača estuary, or pick the Lučesa further to the west. Having chosen the Kasplja one can either follow the river up past Lake Kasplja and cross over to the Katynka River or leave the Kasplja turning into the Rutaveč' to follow it due south to Lake Bol'saja Rutaveč'. From this point there is a very short crossing over to the Berezina. Should one choose the Lučesa, one could either follow the river to its sources or cross over directly to the Dnepr. The second alternative on the Lučesa trail is to leave earlier by the small Deva River and by a short crossing reach the Oršica. This river leads on to the Dnepr. Turning to the archaeological material directly related to long distance trade networks it will be divided into chronological phases. This is important when looking for a dynamic historical development. Below, the material has been divided into three chronological groups, each covering c. a third of a century. The main period concerned here is the 9th century AD. Some reflec­ tions on possible 8th century evidence will be included in the treatment of the first third.

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

57

Fig. 12. Detailed map over the watershed zone with centres, cemeteries, find spots of dir­ ham hoards and crossings between the watersheds. Centers are marked with squares, dirham depots with triangles turned upside down, sopka type burials with pyramidal triangles and Long Barrow cemeteries by circles.

58

Johan Callmer

The first third o f the 9th century The question of finds from the 8th century is not our main concern here, but the possibility of contact already at this time should not be entirely excluded, as has been mentioned with reference to the inflow of silver and cowries into eastern Latvia already in the 8th century (c.f. above). The Saltovo-Majaki im­ ports may also be partly relevant. Since it is difficult to date classical SaltovoMajaki material any later than the middle of the 9th century a considerable proportion of the imports to the Long Barrow groups must fall in this first third of the century. For lack of space, a detailed discussion of the SaltovoMajaki material in the watershed zone will not be presented here, but its significance will be briefly touched upon in the conclusion. For the present, we are concerned with the 9th century and must first consider the finds of dirhams and Scandinavian artefacts in the watershed zone. The first third of the 9th century contributes a highly relevant but complex find. In 1961 the well-known Leningrad archaeologist, G. Korzuchina, was working in the Toropec region.44 She was interested in the early medieval history of the region and documented barrow cemeteries in the vicinity of the Old Russian centre. The cemetery Toropec 2 was situated c. 1300 m from Lake Toropec and more than 2000 m from the hillfort centre of the Old Rus­ sian town. With a majority of circular barrows, but with a number of more or less oval graves and one rectangular one, this cemetery definitely had earlier traits than the barrow cemetery Toropec 1 at the lake with exclusively cir­ cular tumuli. Korzuchina chose barrow 23 for excavation in the central part of the cemetery. It was built of sand, 6.45 x 8.30 across and 1.13 m high and featured no ditches. The burial was a cremation layer on the old surface 1.25 X 2.00 m with cremated bones of two individuals: one c. 20-30 years old, the other a child of c. 2 years. There were many fragments of burnt bronze, silver and glass (Fig. 13). The find material includes the remains of a vainaga crest with bronze spirals and two mounts of sheet bronze. There were also several trapezoid pendants, often accompanying the vainagas. There were a pair of tweezers, two bronze beads, and fragments of glass beads, most likely segment beads and a small ceramic vessel. Accordingly, this grave could be classified as a typical cremation grave of the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type. It remains, however, to consider one additional find in the grave: an equal armed fibula of the early Ljönes-series. The variant can be identified as the Grimsta type.45At present 11 specimens are known of this type. They have, in general, an eastern distribution and are mainly found in Sweden, Finland and Latvia. There is however an additional find from Hedeby. The early Ljönesseries belongs to the very beginning of the 9th century and, together with the oval brooches, is one of the earliest examples of serially produced standard types. The Scandinavian fibula is obviously an exotic element in the local cultural milieu. There is an additional find of an equal armed fibula of the early Ljönes-series from the hillfort at Maskaviči to the west Polock to indicate

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

59

Fig. 13. Finds from barrow no. 23 of cemetery no. 2 at Toropec, Toropec rajon, Tver' oblast', excavated by G. Korzu china in 1964.

that these early finds of Scandinavian brooches are perhaps not so unique in these parts of Eastern Europe.46 As I. Eremeev points out, the tweezers in the Toropec find are definitely early.47 Later excavations of some barrows in this cemetery have yielded further cremation graves but none with such exotic finds as barrow 23. There is also a number of early finds of dirhams to indicate early long distance trade activities towards the south-east. The majority of the early dirham finds seem to point to a more easterly route from the ITmen'-basin towards the south-east to the Oka and on to the headwaters of the Don to reach Khazar territory there.48 However, an additional, more westerly route across the watershed could be indicated by finds of dirhams to the east of the Dnepr (with one exception). This route was most probably aiming at the sources of the Severskij Donee River. A number of dirham hoards indicate the direction of the trade route. The single hoard found to the west of the Dnepr comes from the gubernija of Minsk, which means that it could come from a place only 30 km west of the big river.49 Most impressive is the find of c. 2000 dirhams at Mohilev (terminus post quern AD 814-815) on the Dnepr.50 Some scholars give Orša, or the neighbourhood of Orša, as the location of this find but it remains uncertain where it was actually found.51 We can point

60

Johan Callmer

to further hoards at Litvinoviči (Kosljaki) on the Sož (terminus post quem AD 823-824)52 and Jarylovici between the Sož and the Desna (terminus post quem AD 820-821).53 Further on towards the south-east are the hoards from Novyj Mlin (Paristovka) on the Sejm (terminus post quem AD 795-796)34 and Nižnjaja Syrovátka on the Psel (terminus post quem AD 812-813).55 With the hoard from Zavališino on the upper Oskol (terminus post quem AD 809-810) we are more or less on Khazar territory.56 In the watershed zone itself there are several small and only partly studied finds of dirhams. In this category we find the hoards of Nabatovo on the Toropa River, not far from Toropec, with only two coins (AD 801 and 815-816),57 Glazunovo close to the Usvjača River with four coins (AD 749-750, 782-783, 822-823, late 8th century/early 9th century)58 and two coin finds from Vitebsk on the Zapadnaja Dvina at the Lučesa estuary (AD 786/809, 823-824 and 807, 808).59 Whether these finds really belong to the first third of the 9th century remains uncertain. Another rich grave find, in many respects parallel to the Toropec find, must also be dated approximately on the border between the first and the second third of the 9th century. This find also comes from the eastern section of the watershed zone. Near the village of Šiškino (1.8 km from the village) on the bank of the Carevič River (a tributary of the Vop' River, in its turn a tributary of the Dnepr) a cemetery of 12 barrows, at a place called "Gorodok", was partly excavated by V. Sizov in the late 19th century.60 There were at that time both long barrows and circular barrows. Among the five barrows exca­ vated by V. Sizov, a long-barrow with a cremation grave is of utmost inter­ est (excavated in 1881). The grave was located at one end of the barrow and the remains of the cremation were deposited in a pit, (c. 0.5 m deep), which had been covered by burnt planks and stones. Unfortunately the cremated bones have not been studied. The find material consists of burnt fragments of silver, bronze, iron, antler and glass (Fig. 14). The knife seems to be of a Scandinavian type.61 The silver fragments cannot be attributed to a defined artefact. The antler finds, however, definitely belong to the connecting plates of a comb. The type is rather rare in Scandinavia, where combs with broad, flat plates decorated with distal double lines/grooves dominate already at the end of the 8th century. Typical of the combs of this Scandinavian type are large fields with rather fine criss-cross lines bounded by vertical pairs of lines. So far, combs of this type are best known from Eastern Scandinavia (mostly Eastern Middle Sweden).62 They date from the late 8th and the early 9th centuries. The beads are of considerable interest with a number of types well known from the Saltovo-Majaki culture and thus probably ultimately deriving from the Caliphate.63 There are several rather large dark blue beads with blue eyes edged white.64Another type of interest is a millefiori bead with blue-white-yellow-red ribbons and eyes in the same colours.65 There are also big double segment beads. The whole assemblage can be dated with reason­ able confidence to the first quarter of the 9th century.66 A bronze chain with

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

61

Fig. 14. Finds from barrow no. 1 of the cemetery at Gorodok near Siski no, Jarcevo rajon, Smolensk oblast', excavated by V. Sizov in 1888.

double links fits nicely with this dating. As in the case of the Toropec grave, however, the most impressive find in the grave was two fragments of a large equal armed brooch of distinctly Scandinavian type. The fragments represent the two terminals with heads shown en-face with symmetrical, long trailing crests. The style, as well as the size (which can be estimated to between 15 and 20 cm) place this specimen among the early equal armed brooches of the Viking period. There are, however, until now no finds of exact parallels to this brooch.67 This is no big surprise because there are several very short series of brooches and unique pieces among the early big equal armed brooches. The fact that only the terminals are preserved could indicate that at the crema­ tion the brooch had its normal "Scandinavian" function as a dress pin carried horizontally at the bosom. In the heat of the cremation the centrepiece of the brooch would melt and the ends fall to the ground where the heat is less in­ tense. From Scandinavian cremation graves there are some parallel finds of one or two intact terminals. This could give a hint that the dress of the deceased woman was also of Scandinavian cut. This does not mean that the woman herself was Scandinavian, or even that she followed Scandinavian cultural

62

Johan Callmer

norms in their totality. An Arabic dirham may also have been found in the grave, but the information is incomplete. Close by the cemetery at Gorodok there is a hillfort, and a settlement may be suspected (cf. below). The second third o f the 9th century From the second third of the 9th century there are numerous hoards in the watershed zone and in the surrounding lands. One of the earliest big hoards is that from Kislye. The hoard was recovered in 1967 on the bank of the small River Zerespeja, a tributary of the Kasplja.68 The find was made in a settle­ ment with cultural layers of the Tusemlja cultural complex and the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type. Later excavations by E. Smidt (224 m2) yielded, amongst other things, a large number of pottery sherds, knives, a bronze pendant and a spindle whorl. The excavation revealed traces of postbuilt houses, furnaces and storage pits. The hoard may thus derive from a house. It was found in a ceramic vessel typical of the Long Barrow culture. The hoard, which is not yet published completely, is huge, containing 674 dirhams. The latest coin is dated AD 837-838. Highly interesting is the high number of dirhams from presumed Khazar mints (111 dirhams). The hoard is also well known because it contained a Scandinavian coin among the many dirhams, of the so-called Hedeby type of the early 9th century (the "stag and ship" motif) (Fig. 15).69 The big hoard from Dobrino on the bank of the small Vorchita river (a tributary of the Lučesa, which is a tributary of the Western Dvina) has a ter­ minus post quem of 841-842.70 The hoard comprised more than five hundred coins and a silver neck ring. This neck ring is a variant of the Glazov type (or Permian) neck rings so typical of the 9th century. However, the typical Glazov rings have a hook at one end, whereas the Dobrino neck ring has both ter­ minals in the shape of a facetted quadrangular button. A similar silver neck ring has been found at Broungs, Bunge parish, Northern Gotland (Sweden) together with a typical Glazov neck ring.71 Rather far to the west, beyond Polock, there are two hoard finds with very close termini post quem at Achremcy (AD 852-853)72 and Porec'e (AD 853-854).73 Just to the south of the watershed area proper, at the state farm of Sobolevo close to the village of Baevo on the Mereja River, a southern tributary of the Dnepr, an enormous hoard of more than two thousand coins with a terminus post quem of AD 856-857 was found.74 The find locality is very close to the present border between Byelorussia and Russia. From the village of Lučesa on the river with the same name (a tributary of the Western Dvina) another hoard with a terminus post quem of AD 862-863 has been recorded.75 These hoards may in fact belong to a distinct group of rather big hoards deposited in the 860s and 870s. The structure of these hoards, with very few late coins, may suggest that some hoards with termini post quem in the AD 850s or even 840s in reality belong to this group. (They should then rather be viewed with

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

63

Fig. Ij . Л Scandinavian coin from the hoard ofKish/c. Smolensk rajon, Smolensk oblast' (ter­ minus post qncm ÅD S37-S).

the finds from the last quarter of the 9th century). It is most likely that these hoards belong to a rather short period of deposition connected with radical change in the political and economical structure in Eastern Europe in the second half of the 9th century. An additional hoard from Suchodrevo on the small Suchodrevka River, a tributary of the Lučesa, may in fact belong to this group of finds from the middle third of the 9th century. The hoard, which is lost today, comprised dirhams, finger rings with gemstones and silver neck rings.7hThe single neck ring depicted by A. Sementovskij is of Balt type with a saddle-shaped terminal (Fig. 16)."" The finger rings, according to the descrip­ tion, cannot be anything but the typical Saltovo-Majaki rings with gemstones of glass or cornelian. Since these finger rings rarely occur in later contexts than the second half of the 9th century, we find it most likely that this hoard also belongs to the second third of the 9th century or only slightly later. There are hardly any hoard finds from the forest zone of Eastern Europe with termini post qnem later than the very beginning of the 870s. Only on the upper Oka do we find a small group of slightly later hoards. There are several finds of Scandinavian artefacts dating to this second third of the 9th century or slightly later. We shall begin with three finds of massive armlets of Scandinavian type. These armlets, with the broadest and thickest part forming the centre of the ring and with tapering ends, begin to be produced in Scandinavia sometime around 800 or slightly later."4" They succeed armlets with a thin centrepiece and thickening ends, very typical of the second half of the 8th century. With time the breadth and thickness is

64

Johan Callnicr

Fig. 16. Two silver neck-rings of Balt type from the hoard found at Suchodrevo in the western, Byelorussian part of the water­ shed zone (now lost).

increased and, in addition to the transversal wavy patterns taken over from earlier armlets, new patterns of decoration are introduced. A recent find of an armlet of the 9th century comes from the intriguing site of Vitebsk. The topographical situation close to the mouth of the Lučesa flowing into the Dvina is important. It seems likely, in the light of numerous

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

65

Fig. 1/. Firnis from the Lower Castle at Vitebsk (Byelorussia) on the Western Dvina.

excavations, that there is settlement continuity in the present town centre already from the 5th century (Tusemlja cultural complex)/4 We have already mentioned some early dirham finds from Vitebsk. The armlet was found in an early layer in the Lower Castle together with characteristic finds of cut beads. The excavator dates the layer to the 10th century, but both the beads and the armlet indicate an earlier dateV The armlet has a division into two ornamental fields with a central tripartite ribbon and lateral bipartite ribbons (Fig. 17). The ornamentation features s-shaped, broad grooves. From the same excavation there is a comb with broad connecting plates and lateral double

66

Johan Callmer

linear grooves. The type is typical Scandinavian and belongs to the middle of the 9th century (Fig. 17).S1 Russian archaeologists date these combs slightly later with reference to the stratigraphy at Staraja Ladoga."2 Scandinavian combination-dating supports the earlier dating preferred here. A similar armlet was found in the northern periphery of the watershed zone at Erochino, at a place called Krasnyj Ručej, close to the sources of the Western Dvina.81The find context is highly interesting. The armlet was found in a pit of uncertain function very close to a big barrow of the sopka type. It is worth noting that this find locality is at the southern periphery of sopka territory. The sopka barrows are mainly distributed in the Il'men' basin, and belong to a material culture complex different from the Long Barrow complex of the Smolensk type. The black humus of the pit at Krasnyj Ručej was filled with burnt stones, calcinated animal bones, a little hand-made pottery, a knife of Scandinavian type and three pieces of female dress accessories (Fig. 18). First there was a band shaped annulet with scythe-shaped terminals (a typi­ cal Long Barrow type well known from most 9th century barrow cemeteries in the region mentioned above). The second item was a fragmentary neck

F/y. 18. Artefacts found at Krasnyj Ručej, Erochino, Andrcapol rajon, Tver' oblast.

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

67

ring with saddle-shaped terminal.44 Neck rings of this type are introduced in the 8th century and they continue into the 10th, but the majority probably belong to the 9th century. They are well known from both Long Barrow terri­ tory and the Latgallian lands. There are also Estonian and Finnish finds. The third object is an armlet of the same general type as the armlet from Vitebsk. In this case the transversal division into fields is very similar but there is also a central ribbon resulting in four long fields of ornamentation. These fields have a zigzag pattern with sharp angles. A third find of a Scandinavian armlet comes from the locality of Usvjaty II at the open water linking Lakes Usvjat and Uzmen'.85 The site was obviously the place of what is today an almost completely destroyed barrow cemetery. Excavations of a Stone Age site revealed two hearth-like constructions repre­ senting the last traces of the barrow cemetery. Among burnt bones and some shards of hand-made pottery a fragmentary armlet was found in construction 2. This armlet has a similar division into fields as the Erochino find (Fig. 19). In this case the fields are plain, without ornamentation. A close parallel was found in a grave at Birka. Rows of triangular stamps follow the edges of the transversal ribbons on the armlet from Usvjaty. All three Russian specimens mentioned here above are in fact fragmentary. The armlet from Vitebsk lacks one terminal, the armlet from Erochino has one terminal broken and the Usvjaty specimen lacks both terminals. This trait has parallels in Scandinavian cremations where terminals have often been broken off. This most probably has some connection with the burial rite, where objects (mostly weapons) are made useless. From this period, there is also the find of an equal armed brooch from Klimenki, Rudnja raj, Smolensk oblasť (Fig. 19). A. Abramov acquired this brooch on his journev in the countryside around Smolensk in 1905.86 There is no guarantee that the brooch comes from this village, but the site is interest­ ing with the mouth of the Rutaveč into the Kasplja close by. The brooch be­ longs to the later Ljönes series. The type is the Trotteslöv type, which means that it belongs to the rather early equal armed brooches of the later series.87 There is a perforation and a bronze ring set in the hole. This is typical of East Scandinavian dress customs.88 The ring normally carries a metal chain or cord

Fig. 19. Armlet found at Usvjat}/, Usvjaty rajon, Pskov oblast'.

68

Johan Callmer

with a pin or some small implement hanging. The brooch is fragmentary but the fracture seems to be rather new. It is likely that the brooch comes from a grave context but a settlement background cannot be excluded. The brooch is Scandinavian, as already stated, but the question of its final cultural context must remain open. With reference to the grave finds with Scandinavian female jewellery already described above, it is most likely that it also comes from a find milieu dominated by the Long Barrow cultural complex. Another equal armed fibula of the later Ljönes series was excavated in 1901 by S. Sergeev in barrow 85 at Gnezdovo.89 This is of course interesting in connection with possible early dating at Gnezdovo itself (c.f. below). The last third o f the 9th century As stated above, the hoards from Dobrino, Sobolevo and Lučesa may indeed have been deposited only in the beginning of this last third of the 9th cen­ tury. A huge dirham hoard found 40-50 km from Vitebsk may also fall in this group of hoards. The exact location of the find is not yet identified (but could probably be established) in the former Vitebsk gubernija. In the far north-east a very late dirham hoard was recovered in 1960 at Toropec. A considerable part of the hoard was lost, but as many as 73 coins ended up in the museum.90 The terminus post quern is AD 867-868. The find spot on a low sandy hill on the west side of Lake Zelikov'e also yielded finds from a 10th century high status grave with Scandinavian artefacts. Taken together, the archaeological evidence from Toropec suggests the existence of local Long Barrow groups in the area in contact with the Rus' network already in the earliest part of the 9th century. A low-level centre with some continuity may have been established on Lake Zelikov'e in the middle of the century if not earlier. The last third of the 9th century is close to the foundation of Gnezdovo as an entrepot, but it is necessary first to consider some artefact finds from the watershed zone. Of great interest is the find from Rokot of a lower guard of a sword of type E (according to the typology of Petersen 1919). The find comes from a hillfort on the Klee River, a tributary of Lake Kasplja, the source of the river with the same name (in its turn a tributary of the Dvina) (Fig. 20). The hillfort has cultural layers of considerable depth. It seems to be founded in the Dnepr-Dvina phase. Later material includes pottery of the Long Barrow culture and wheel thrown Old Russian pottery (11th century and later).91 Kirpičnikov has dated the Russian finds of type E swords to the 10th cen­ tury.92 In Northern Europe all finds seem to belong to the later part of the 9th century or the very beginning of the 10th.93 It has so far not been possible to explain why there should be this discrepancy between the dating of finds in Russian and Scandinavian contexts. In my opinion, a general retardation of the East European finds in relation to the Scandinavian finds is unlikely. The appearance of some type E swords in a late context both in Scandinavia and in Eastern Europe does not change this.

At the watershed between the Baltie and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

69

Fig. 20. Equal-armed Scandinavian brooch presumably found at Klimcnki, Rudnja raj. Smolensk oblast'.

Several finds from the big Long Barrow cemetery of Zaozer'e belong to the middle or second half of the 9th century. The site is located very favourably, where the Rutaveč' River flows into Lake BoTsaja Rutaveč'/4 Nearby is an open settlement with finds from the Tusemlja cultural complex and the Long Barrow culture, including traces of houses, hearths and a furnace. E. Smidt excavated 29 barrows of this cemetery, once perhaps counting a hundred barrows. A majority of the barrows belong to the Long Barrow culture (cremation graves) but there are also barrows with inhumations of the Old Russian culture dating to the 11th century. There is rich material from the cremation graves. From barrows no. 52, 63 and 64 there are very interesting finds of Scandina­ vian broad-plated antler combs (Fig. 21). Two of the combs have a decoration of two distal longitudinal grooves combined with double transversal grooves flanked on the sides bv bullseyes. This is a very well known Scandinavian decoration pattern on combs. The third comb has a similar decoration but in addition to the distal grooves it has constellations of bullseyes. Other finds of early Scandinavian combs, like the one from Kupniki barrow no. 345 and Šugajlovo barrow no. 6, grave L'nsuggest that thev were brought into the wa­ tershed zone in considerable numbers during the whole 9th century. There is also an equal armed brooch of the later Ljönes-series from barrow no. 68 at Zaozer'e. It is of the Salneke type and dates to the very end of the 9th century or c. AD 900/" Among the frequent finds from the Zaozer'e graves we must also stress numerous knives of Scandinavian type (Minasjan's type 4). The site of Novoselki should also be mentioned here.4,4 This barrow cem­ etery is situated only c. 5 km to the north-east of Gnezdovo on a small river, the Poležanka, which flows into the Dubrovenka, in its turn a tiny tributary

70

Johan Callmer

of the Dnepr. There is also a hillfort and a settlement, both contemporary with the cemetery (Fig. 22)." This cemetery, which no doubt belongs to the local Long Barrow culture, features several certain 10th century graves. As seen above, there are few dates well into the 10th century from the Long Barrow culture. The cemetery has been excavated by E. Smidt and by S. Sirinskij (12 barrows). In barrow no. 5, in the cremation, a sword of Petersen's type В was found. According to the excavator (E. Smidt) there were several artefacts of 9th century date in the grave. Later, E. Smidt changed his dating to the 10th century.100 It is however possible that the beginning of this settlement and cemetery was some time in the late 9th century or around AD 900. It must also be considered that many barrows have been destroyed here (of 36 barrows in 1924 only 24 remained in 1954). Only a few hundred metres to the north-east a long barrow cemetery at the deserted village of Plechtino has been recorded (now completely destroyed).The complex at Novoselki has much in common with that at Rokot and perhaps also Gorodok at Siškino on the Carevič (both mentioned above). These three localities and some other similar complexes will be treated below. There are also some comb finds from Vitebsk most likely belonging to the late 9th century. They have been found in the course of excavation at Nižnij Zamok. These combs strongly indicate continuity of settlement at this local­

At the watershed between the Battle and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

71

ity. The bead material supports this interpretation of the chronology of the settlement at Vitebsk.101 The interesting lacuna of dirham hoards in the forest zone of Eastern Eu­ rope from the beginning of the 870s to well into the 890s has already been stressed. Dirhams, many of which by now were Samanid coins, begin to flow in ever increasing numbers at the very end of the 10th century. And what of a "pre-Gnezdovo" phase at Gnezdovo itself? E. Smidt is of the opinion that there is an older settlement at Gnezdovo, at least from the beginning of the 9th century.102 The incomplete standard of publication of the excavations of the settlement, started in 1967, and the hillfort at Gnezdovo, does not allow a detailed discussion of the possibilities of non-permanent activities before the permanent trading settlement and extensive barrow cem­ eteries were established. Among the restricted information available there are some data which in fact suggest activities already in the first half or the middle of the 9th centurv. Most important is the summary publication by Pu skina of the coin finds from Gnezdovo.103 From her presentation it becomes clear that there is a striking discrepancy between the composition of the coin material found in the settlement and at the hillfort (174 coins), in the graves (98 coins) and in the four hoards (515 coins) respectively. It is not so that the coins in the graves feature somewhat earlier coins than the hoard material (with a number of exceptions). In the find material from the settlement and the hillfort there is a distinct group composed of a single Chorezmi coin and more numerous Sasanian drachms, Tabaristani halfdrachms and Omayyad and early Abbäsid

Fig. 22. Artefacts from the cemetery at Zaozcr'e, Ruduja rajon, Smolensk oblast.

72

Johan Callmer

dirhams (including some North African issues). This group of early coins is not represented in the hoard material and with just a few exceptions, as men­ tioned, it is also lacking among the grave coins. These drachms, halfdrachms and early dirhams are typical of a coin pool circulating in Eastern Europe in the first half or even the first third of the 9th century AD.104 There are also non-monetary artefacts indicating activities in the 9th cen­ tury. There are some combs with broad connecting plates and double grooves following the edges from the settlement,105 which belong to the 9th century. Two Khazar finger rings from the settlement could also be dated so early, and a Sasanian seal stone is even earlier.106 A Scandinavian equal armed brooch could be dated to the middle of the 9th century.107A similar or possibly slightly later date applies to a terminal of a Scandinavian armlet found close to the river terrace overlooking the Dnepr.108 It is interesting that, as we have seen, arm rings (often fragments) and equal armed brooches are quite often found on native sites and in native graves in the region in the 9th century. Recently, Puškina published an intriguing find of a silver pendant consisting of three 9th century heart shaped belt mounts attached to a cut Tabaristani halfdrachms.109 Neither the coin nor the belt mounts are much later than the middle of the 9th century. Vešnjakova and Bulkin, on the basis of the settlement excavation 1967-1968, have argued that 9th century settlement remains are concentrated on both banks of the Svinka flowing through the settlement area.110 Last but not least Šmidt has argued that there is evidence of Long Barrow settlement at Gnezdovo dating back to the 9th century. Taken together it is reasonable to interpret Gnezdovo, before the exten­ sive barrow cemetaries and the permanent settlement, as a place where long distance traders from the territory in the north dominated by the Rus' made a stop to trade for necessities with the local people. They also had to decide which way to follow further on. Conclusion What do these data really reveal about the developments in this central region on the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic in the early medieval pe­ riod? Are the various sources, like numismatic finds and other artefact finds, really compatible? In my opinion we have to look upon the relationship of these different sources with caution. First the artefact finds. When the find context can be ascertained, these North European imports are closely con­ nected with the Long Barrow culture of the Smolensk type. This has been interpreted above as the material culture remains of a population with a long and strong continuity in the area. The Scandinavian finds do not in themselves prove the permanent presence of Scandinavians there. Not in one single case has it been possible to demonstrate Scandinavian ethnicity. However, when looking at details in the contexts, like the way the brooches from Toropec and Gorodok were carried, how the brooch from Klimenki was adapted, or how

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

73

the armlets were treated when deposited, it is most likely that Scandinavians were in close contact and were able to bring information about their views on these matters to the people at the watershed. That means that it is very likely that carriers of Scandinavian cultural traditions were present there, living there for shorter or longer periods with the Long Barrow groups, or passing by on long-distance expeditions. Why were these strangers (individuals or small collectives) there? Why did they set out for the watershed zone and why did they cross into the lands beyond? Is it reasonable to think that the major­ ity of the long-distance traders came from the north, from the Il'men' basin? Elsewhere I have argued that a political and economical organisation under the name of Rus' already began to appear in the first half of the 9th century or even around 800.111 The main purpose of this organisation was to tap the resources of fur-bearing animals and collect other products from the woods in the forest zone of Eastern Europe. Already in the first half of the 9th century this early 'Inner Rus" (to use the phrase of Constantine Porphyrogenitus) had expanded into the Caspian basin, and why not into the Pontian? The economic system was not only based on the collecting of fur taxes but included a certain reciprocity (though no equality). Trade goods arrived in considerable quanti­ ties in the ordinary settlements. A strong argument for the extension of this political and economic system into the lands of the Long Barrow culture is the simultaneous occurrence of Scandinavian artefacts in the watershed zone and numerous finds of artefacts of the Long Barrow culture found at Staraja Ladoga.112 Until the middle of the 9th century Staraja Ladoga, in my opinion, was the centre of the Rus". Only in the middle of the century was Ladoga succeeded by Gorodišče near later Novgorod. The system of exploitation was dendritic in character with lower tier cen­ tres. This pattern is characteristic of tribute economies and similar colonial economies.113 Partly against a different background, the structure of the sys­ tem in the Baltic drainage of north-western Russia has been discussed by V. Koneckij and E. Nosov and by J. Callmer.114 Where were the centres for this system of political and economic dominance in the watershed zone? The observations from Vitebsk on the Western Dvina suggest continuity and the position of the site is very favourable with regard to communication. As al­ ready discussed above, a centre on the Dnepr would be important both for contacts with the local population and for further communication towards the south-east and the south. Gnezdovo is an obvious candidate with numer­ ous stray finds of early artefacts found during the excavation of the settle­ ment. In the 9th century these two sites certainly comprised a settlement of the Long Barrow population, storage facilities and open spaces for tents and trading. It is likely that the last mentioned parts of the settlements would not leave many traces behind except for lost or discarded artefacts, hearths and perhaps, but not necessarily, occasional pits. The hillfort-settlement-cemetery complexes of Rokot, Novoselki and perhaps Gorodok on the Carevič, Usvjaty and Staroe Sjalo to the west of Vitebsk (just outside the map) could also have

74

Johan Callmer

Fig. 23. The complex at Novoselki, Smolensk rajon, Smolensk oblast' and its spatial relation­ ship to the Gnezdovo settlement.

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

75

played a role in this system, but on a lower level. The same has been argued for Toropec. They may have been the seats of local big men who controlled routes. The interaction between the Rus' from the north and the local popula­ tion was intensive at these sites. The exchange of products was considerable including iron tools with steel edges (probably not only knives), fine antler combs, bronze jewellery, beads of glass and cornelian, and possibly weapons, cloth and beer. The local population was certainly influenced by this situation of intense interaction as we may glimpse from the grave finds. However, the special character of the Long Barrow culture did not vanish. As already stated, the Long Barrow culture can be followed well into the 10th century, only to fade out in the middle of that century. The sopka burial rite so closely con­ nected with the heartland of the Inner Rus' was, with only a couple of excep­ tions, never adopted in the watershed zone. Later, possibly at the very end of the 9th century, some sopki were built on the Dvina and on its tributary Kasplja, indicating an intrusion from the north. The site of Gorodok na Lovati is situated in the border zone between sopka and Long Barrow territories.115 Its main period is the 10th and 11th centuries, but some finds could indicate activities already in the 9th century. There is another find of an equal armed brooch very similar to that from Klimenki from the site. The relationship between the Long Barrow people and the Rus' should not be understood as an altogether happy story. The south-east movement of Long Barrow groups in a late part of the 9th century and later could perhaps be understood as the result of conflicts and an ambition to evade them. Parts of the watershed zone were intensively involved, but other parts remained more or less outside the sphere of influence of the Rus'. Total control was unlikely. The hoards tell a related but by no means identical story. A rather well developed trade system had been established towards the end of the 8th century, linking the forest-zone of Eastern Europe to the Khazar and Muslim South-east. It is likely that the Rus' traders played an important role in this system quite early. There is however good reason not to exclude the participa­ tion of actors in several local cultures in Eastern Europe. The best argument, in my opinion, are the numerous silver neck rings of Balt types appearing in this part of the forest zone and its surroundings. The hoard with two neck rings and a trapezoidal pendant of Balt type from Ivachniki close to Poltava certainly shows the direction of the contacts.116 Only players in this game can have achieved the wealth invested, amongst other things, in the neck rings of silver. The hoard from Ivachniki also comprised more than a hundred beads of glass of types often found in the watershed zone. The further route is marked by several finds from the watershed zone from that great gateway into Khazaria at Verchnij Saltiv on the upper Severskij Donee (Fig. 24). The watershed zone was probably very active and it is presumed that it was not completely controlled by the Rus'. In the long-distance trade economy of the 9th century, the watershed zone functioned as a bridge not perhaps so

76

Johan Cnlhner Fig. 24. Long Barwic pendants found in Catacomb grave no. 1:2, excavated by A. Fedorovskij in 1911. Verchnij Sattiv, Volcansk district, Charkiv province. Ukraine.

often due south but more to the south-east towards the Khazar lands. The rise of Bulgar on the Volga as the big hub in the trade aiming at the Caliphate came only in the beginning of the 1Oth century. The Byzantine market was not altogether uninteresting (notwithstanding the conflict of AD 860) but much less interesting than the Muslim Middle South-east. There are in fact some important early proofs of Byzantine contacts in the Il'men' basin recently dis­ cussed by Musin (2010). All this has, as mentioned, a relationship to the question of the Slav colo­ nisation of the middle and northern part of the forest zone of Eastern Europe. I have already argued for a strong ethnic continuity in the watershed zone from the Late Bronze Age up to and including the Long Barrow culture. If it is assumed that the Long Barrow culture was not carried by people with a Slav ethnicity (as numerous scholars concede, cf. above), it must be admitted that the Slav colonisation was a process starting in the 9th century and most active, even explosive, in the 10th century. In the early phase of the Rus' do­ minion in north-western Russia the economy based on the collection of trib­ utes of forest products, most prominently high quality furs, was dependant on the dominance over and collaboration of local populations in the forest zone with expert knowledge of how to procure these products. Only in the second phase, when the Rus' dominion was expanding significantly down to the border of the steppe, did the control of agricultural resources become more and more interesting for the leading groups among the Rusr. Not only did control over agricultural districts become important in the south, but poten­ tial agricultural lands were increasingly cleared and settled in the forest zone. Here, the Slav populations of the south soon became dominant. The general

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

77

tendency is the same whether looking at the development in the watershed zone or in the ОроГе of Suzdal' or in the Novgorod heartlands.117 As already said, the process was extremely rapid, even explosive, and in three or four generations the political, economical, demographic and cultural milieu was completely changed. In the formation of the later Rus' the entrepots, of which Gnezdovo was one of the most significant, were of immense importance for the establishment of Slav communities in the Forest zone, a major medieval accomplishment in Eastern Europe. It is a challenging task to analyse this pro­ cess in the watershed zone with its interplay of politics, sociology, economy and demography and not to forget culture. Epilogue After the conclusion of the text in 2010 another two important and highly relevant works have reached me. The first work is an article by V.S. Nefedov К predystorii puti "iz varjag v greki" (ok. 750-850 gg.). Ladoga i Severnaja Evrazija ot Bajkala do La-Mansa. Svjazujusčie puti i organizujusčie centry. Sestye ctenija pamjati Anny Mačinskoj Staraja Ladoga, 21-23 dekabrja 2001 g. Sborník statej. Sankt-Peterburg 2002 (pp. 101-105). Nefedov brings forth some very important supplementary informa­ tion on imports from the Saltovo-Majaki culture to the Long-Barrow culture of the Smolensk type. The second work is the monograph by I.I. Eremeev and O.F. Dzjuba Očerki istoričeskoj geografii lesnoj časti puti iz varjag v Greki. Archeologičeskie issledovanija meždu Zapadnoj Dvinoj i ozerom ll'men'. Sankt-Peterburg 2010. This impressive work mainly deals with the excavations of the fortified settlement at Gorodok on the Majata on the eastern side of Lake ll'men'. Here some early indications of cultural connections with the south were recently brought to light. This early new material (6th-7th centuries) however changes little in the total pic­ ture of the cultural development between the upper Dnepr and the Western Dvina in the period 8th-9th centuries. Some of the additional information is more or less identical with Eremeev 2008. Notes 1 Mikljaev 1992, Sindbæk 2003, who both stress the importance of winter travel. 2 Šmidt 1967, 1994; Lebedev 1975; Lebedev, Bulkin & Nazarenko 1975; Alekseev 2006. 3 Eremeev 2005. 4 I.a. Arne 1952; Mühle 1989; Avdusin 1991; Muraševa 2001, 2007; Nefedov 1998. 5 Majmusov 1992. 6 Priroda Smoleńsko) oblasti 2001. 7 Alekseev 2006, 6-8. 8 E.g. Furas'ev 2003; Olejnikov 2007. 9 Olejnikov 2007.

Johan Callmer

78

10 Graudonis 1967; Egorejčenko 2006.

И

Šmidt 1992; Sadyro 1985.

12 D'jakovskaja kul'tura 1974.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Mel'nikovskaja 1967. Krasnov, Michal'cenko & Patrik 1997; c.f. also Šmidt 1982-3. Šmidt 2003. Mugurevič 1965, 54-59. Urtans 1977. Šmidt 2003; Sedov 1999. Lopatin & Furas'ev 2007. Cf. Terpilovskij & Abašina 1992. Sedov 1974; Aun 1992; Bašenkin 1995; Koneckij 1997; Olejnik 2007. Nosov 2001, 29. Lopatin 2005, 476. Sedov 1999, 117-128; 2000. Buga 1924 already; Trubačev & Toporov 1962. Sedov 1974; Enukov 1990. Štychau 1992. Olejnikov 2007. Statistics according to Krasnov et a l 1997. Enukov 1990. Nefedov 2007. Šmidt 1970. Zarinja 1960. Gavrituchin 1997. Enukov 1990, 84-90. Enukov 1990, 62-64; ŠkoLnikova 1978. Enukov 1990, 58, 60-61 or Skol'nikova 1978, 58,60-61. Enukov 1990, 65-66 or Skol'nikova 1978, 65-66. Enukov 1990, 68, 70-71or Skol'nikova 1978, 68, 70-71. Enukov 1990, 73 or Skol'nikova 1978, 73. Barth 1969. Artamonov 1990; Ljapuškin 1968. Belocerkovskaja 1975; Bulkin, Dubov & Lebedev 1978. Korzuchina 1964. Callmer 1999, 206. Dučyc 1991, 61. Eremeev 2005, 99. Nosov 1976; Leont'ev 1986. Markov 1910, 24. Markov 1910, 25. Noonan 1981, 89. Noonan 1981, 93. Markov 1910, 50-51. Fasmer 1929, 289-290. Markov 1910, 52. Fasmer 1931. Kropotkin 1971, 80. Eremeev 1997a.

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106

79

Rjabcevič 1998; Buben'ko 2004, 14. Černjagin 1941, 110-111; Krasnov et al. 1997, 221. Type 4 according to the typology of Minasjan 1980, 72-73. Carlsson 1997. L'vova & Naumov 1970; Callmer 1989, 26-29. Kovalevskaja 2000, 43-45. Andrae 1975. Callmer 1997,13. Cf. Petersen 1928, 78-84. Smidt 1969, 83-85; Krasnov et al. 1997, 108. Maimer 1966, 204-209. Rjabcevič 1965, 132-160. Stenberger 1947, 32. Markov 1910, 3. Rjabcevič 1965, 129-31. Kuznecov 1949; cf. Noonan 1981, 103. Markov 1910, 2. Sementovskij 1890, 76-77. Cf. Urtans 1977, 21. Cf. Bakka 1973. Štychov 1978, 37. Buben'ko 2004, 80. Buben'ko 2004, 106. Cf.Davidan 1999. Nosov & Plochov 1994. Cf. Urtans 1977, 21. Eremeev 1997a. Spicyn 1906, 209. Callmer 1999, 208-210. Cf. Capelle 1968. Spicyn 1905, 17, 27. Korzuchina 1964, 305-307. Smidt 2002; Nefedov 2004. Kirpičnikov 1966, 30-31; Kainov 2001. Cf. Petersen 1919, 75-80. Šmidt 2008. Šmidt 2005A, 30. Enukov 1990, 73. Callmer 1999, 208-210. Šmidt 2005a; Širinskij 1970. Ljavdanskij 2002, 220-226. Šmidt 2005b, 159-162. Buben'ko 2004, 12-26, 89-90, 106. Šmidt 1974. Puškina 1999, 405-417. Janin 1956, 86-100. Puškina 1993, 67-85. Khazar finger rings: Puť iz Varjag v Greki I iz Grek 1996; Sasanian seal stone: Vešnjakova & Bulkin 1999, 40-53.

80 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117

Johan Callmer Eniosova 2001, 85. Muraševa & Audusina 2007, 21. Puškina 2007, 325-331. Vešnjakova & Bulkin 1999, 49. Callmer 2000. Mačinskaja 1990; Nefedov 2003. Johnson 1970. Koneckij & Nosov 1995; Callmer 2000. Gorjunova 1974. Korzuchina 1954, 79-80. Makarov 2008.

Bibliography Alekseev, L.B. 1980. Smolenskaja zemlja v IX-XIII vv. Moskva. Alekseev, L.B. 2006. Zapadnye zemli domongol'skoj Rusi. Ocerki istorii, archeologii i kul'tury 1. Moskva. Andrae, R. 1975. Mosaikaugenperlen. Untersuchungen zur Verbreitung und Datierung karolingerzeitlicher Millefioriperlen in Europa, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 4,101-198. Arne, T.J. 1952. Det vikingatida Gnezdovo, Smolensks föregångare, in: M. Stenberger (ed.), Arkeologiska forskningar och fynd. Studier utgivna med anledning av H.M. Konung Gustaf IV Adolfs sjuttioårsdag. Stockholm. Artamonov, M.I. 1990. Pervye stranicy russkoj istorii v archeologičeskom osveščenii, Sovetskaja archeologija 3, 271-290. Aun, M. 1992. Archeologičeskie pamjatniki vtoroj poloviny I-go tysjačeletija n.e. na jugo-vostoke Estonii. Tallinn. Avdusin, D.A. (ed.) 1991. Smolensk i Gnezdovo (k istorii drevnerusskogo goroda). 1974. Moskva. Barth, F.1969. Introduction, in: F. Barth (ed.), Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of cultural difference. London, 9-15. Bakka, E. 1973. Eit gravfunn frå Fosse i Meland Hordaland og det arkeologiske periodeskiljet mellom merovingertid og vikingtid, Honos Ella Kivikoski. Suomen muinaismuistoy dis tyksen aikakauskirja, 75, 9-17. Basen'kin, A.N. 1995. Kul'turno-istoriceskie processy v Mologo-Seksninskom meždureč'e v konce I. tys. do n.e. Problemy istorii severo-zapada Rusi, (Slavjano-russkie drevnosti, vyp. 3), 3-29. Belocerkovskaja, I.V. 1975. К voprosu o polusferičeskich kurganach s truposoženijami Smolenskoj zemli, Vestnik gosudarstvennogo Moskovskogo Universiteta, Serija Istorija 5, 60-65. Buben'ko, T.S. 2004. Srednevekovyj Vitebsk. Posad - Nižnij Zamok (X - pervaja polovina XIV v. Vitebsk. Bulkin, V.A. & I.V. Dubov & G.S. Lebedev. 1978. Archeologičeskie pamjatniki Drevnej Rusi IX-XI vekov. Leningrad.

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

81

Buga, K. 1924. Die Vorgeschichte der aistischen (baltischen) Stämme im Lichte der Ortsnamenforschung. Kaunas. Callmer, J. 1989. The beginning of the Easteuropean trade connections of Scandinavia and the Baltic Region in the eighth and ninth centuries A.D., A Wosinsky Mór Múzeum evkönyve XV, 19-39. Callmer, J. 1997. Beads and bead production in Scandinavia and the Baltic Region c. AD 600-1100: a general outline, in: U. von Freden et al. (eds.), Perlen. Archäologie, Techniken, Analysen. (Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschihte 1). Bonn, 197-201. Callmer, J. 1999. Vikingatidens likarmade spännen, in: B. Hårdh (ed.), Fynden i centrum. Keramik, glas och metall från Uppåkra. Lund, 201-220. Callmer, J. 2000. From West to East. The penetration of Scandinavians into Eastern Europe ca. 500-900, in: M. Kazański et al. (eds.), Les centres protourbains russes entre Scandinavie, Byzance et Orient. (Realités Byzantines, 7) Paris. 45-94. Capeile, T. 1968. Kleeblattfibeln und Zierketten, Fornvännen 63, 1-9. Carlsson, M. 1997. Kammarna från gravfältet RAÄ 117, Riksantikvarieämbetet. Rapport UV Linköping 24, 72-77. Černjagin, N.N. 1941. Dlinnye kurgany i sopki, Materiały i issledovanija po archeologii SSSR 6, 93-149. Davidan, O.1.1999. Novye nachodki grebnej v Staroj Ladogi, Sovetskaja archeologija 1, 167-174. D'jakovskaja kul'tura.l97Ł Moskva. Dučyc, L.U. 1991. Braslauskae Paazer'e и IX-XIV st. Minsk. Egorejcenko, A.A. 2006. Kul'tury strichovannoj keramiki. Minsk. Enukov, V.V. 1990. Rannie etapy formirovanija smolensko-polockich krivicej. Mosk­ va. Eremeev, I.I. 1997a. Srednevekovyj Usvjat. Problemy rannej istorii, Novgorod i Novgorodskaja zemlja. Istorija i archeologija 11, 260-274. Eremeev, I.I. 2005. Volok "s vercha Dnepra do Lovati" i varjagi, Archeologičeskie vesti 12, 98-122. Eremeev, I.I. 2007. North European objects of the 9th -llth centuries. From the upper reaches of the Western Dvina and the route from the Varangians to the Greeks, in: U. Fransson et al. (eds.), Cultural interaction between east and west. Archaeology, artefacts and human contacts in northern Europe. Stock­ holm (this is essentially an English version of Eremejev 2005), 250-262. Fasmer, R.R. 1929. Spisok monetnych nachodok zaregistrirovannych Sekciej numizmatiki i gliptiki Akademii istorii material'noj kul'tury, c. 2,1926-1928 gg, Soobščenija. Sbornik Gosudarstvennoj Akademii istorii material'noj kul'tury 2, 281-324. Fasmer, R. R. 1931. Zavališinskij klad kufičeskich monet VIII-IX v. Izvestija Gosudarstvennoj Akademii istorii material'noj kul'tury 7:2, 1-20. Furas'ev, A.G. 2003. Klimaticeskie izmenenija na Severo-zapade Russkoj ravniny v I. tys. n.e. i genesis kul'tury Pskovskich dlinnych kurganov.

82

Johan Callmer

Drevnosti Podvin'ja: istoriceskij aspect. (Po materialam kruglogo stola posvjašcennogo pamjati A M . Mikljaeva 6-8 oktjabrja 1999 g.), 219-225. Gavrituchin, 1.0.1997. Malen'kie trapecevidnye podveski s poloskoj iz pessovannych toček po nižnému kraju. Histaryčna-archealahičny zbornik 12, 43-58. Gorjunova, V.M. 1974. Novoe v issledovanii "Gorodka" na Lovati. Kratkie soobščenija Instituta archeologii AN SSSR 139, 74-80. Graudonis, Ja.Ja. 1967. Latvija v epochu bronzy i rannego zeleza. Riga. Johnson, E. 1970. The organization o f space in developing countries. CambridgeMassachusetts. Kainov, S. Ju. 2001. Esce raz o datirovke Gnezdovskogo kurgana s mečom iz raskopok. Kirpičnikov, A.N. 1966. Drevnerusskoe oružie. Archeologiji SSSR. Svod archeologičeskich istočnikov, El-36, vyp. 1. Moskva. Konecki], V.Ja.l997. К voprosu o formirovanii kul'tury dlinnych kurganov. Novgorod i Novgorodskaja zemija. Istorija i archeologija 11, 213-225. Konecki], V. Ja. & E.N. Nosov. 1995. К voprosu o složenii administrativnych centrov końca I tys. n.e. v vostočnych rajonach Novgorodskoj zemli. Prob­ lemy istorii severo-zapada Rusi Slavjano-russkie drevnost 3, 29-54. Korzuchina, G.F. 1954. Russkie klady. Moskva. Korzuchina, G.F. 1964. Novye nachodki skandinavskich veščej bliž Toropca. Skandinavskij sborník 8, 297-314. Kovalevskaja, V.B. 2000. Chronologija vostočnoevropejskich drevnostej V-IX vekov vyp. 2. Stekljannye busy i pojasnye nabory. Moskva. Krasnov, Ju.A., S.E. Michal'cenko & G.K. Patrik. 1997. Archeologičeskaja karta Rossii: Smolenskaja oblast' 1-2. Moskva. Kropotkin,V.V. 1971. Novye nachodki sasanidskich i kufičeskich monet v Vostočnoj Evropě, Numizmatika i epigrafika IX, 76-91. Kuscinskogo, M.F. 2001. К voprosu o nižnej date Gnezdovskogo mogilnika, in Mutageva, V.V. (ed.), 54-63. Kuznecov, K.V. 1949. Sobolevskij skarb, Izvestija Akademii Nauk BSSR 6,155-156. Lebedev, G.S. 1975. Puť iz varjag v greki, Vestnik Leningradskogo universiteta 20, 37-43. Lebedev, G.S., V.A. Bulkin & V.A. Nazarenko. 1975. Drevnerusskie pamjatniki bassejna reki Kasplja i "p u ť iz varjag v greki". Vestnik Leningradskogo uni­ versiteta 14, 166-170. Leonťev, A.E. 1986. Volžsko-Baltijskij torgovyj puť v IX v., Kratkie soobščenija Instituta archeologii 183, 3-9. Ljapuškin, I.I. 1968. Slavjane vostočnoj Evropy nakanune obrazovanija drevnerusskogo gosudarstva. Materiały i issledovanija po archeologii SSSR, 152. Ljavdanskij, A.N. 2002. Materiały dija archeologičeskoj karty Smolenskoj gubernii. Smoleńskie drevnosti 2, 185- 257. Lopatin, N.V. 2005. Gruppy drevnostej V-VIII vv. n.e. v verchnem Podneprov'e i na severo-zapade Rossii (po keramičeskim materialam), in: P. Kacza-

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

83

nowski & M. Parczewski (eds), Archeologia o początkach Słowian. Kraków, 463-478. Lopatin, N.V. & A.G. Furas'ev. 2007. Severnye rubezi ranneslavjanskogo mira v П.-V. vekách n.e. Moskva. L'vova, Z.A. & D.V. Naumov. 1970. К voprosu o proizchoždenii stekljannych bus VII-X vv. Staroj Ladogi. Slavia Antiqua XVII, 179-186. Mačinskaja, A.D. 1990. Ladoga i kul'tura smoleńskich dlinnych kurganov: problemy chronologii. Novgorod i Novgorodskaja zemlja. Istorija i archeologija 3. Novgorod. Majmusov, F.D. 1992. Pocvy Smoleńskoj oblasti. Moskva. Makarov, N.A. 2008. Archeologičeskoe izučenie severorusskoj derevni: puti, podchody, rezul'taty. Sel'skaja Rus'v IX-XVI vekách. Moskva. Maimer, B. 1966. Nordiska mynt fóre år 1000. Lund. Markov, А.К. 1910. Topografija kladov vostočnych monet (sasanidskich i kufičeskich). Sankt-Petersburg. Meťnikovskaja, O.N. 1967. Plemena Južnoj Belorussii v ranném železnom veke. Moskva. Mikljaev, A.M. 1992. Puť iz "Varjag v Greki" (zimnjaja versija). Novgorod i Novgorodskaja zemlja. Istorija i archeologija. Novgorod. Minasjan, R.S. 1980. Cetyre gruppy nožej Vostočnoj Evropy epochi rannego srednevekov'ja (к voprosu o pojavlenii slavjanskich form v lesnoj zone). Archeologičeskij sborník Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaza 21, 68-74. Mugurevič, E.S. 1965. Vostočnaja Latvija i sosednie zemli v X-XII vv.: Ekonomičeskie svjazi s Rus'ju i drugimi territorijami: Puti soobščenija. Riga. Mühle, E. 1989. Gnezdovo - das alte Smolensk? Zur Deutung eines Siedlungs­ komplexes des ausgehenden 9. bis beginnenden 11. Jahrhunderts. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 69 (1988), 358-410. Muraševa, V.V. (ed.) 2001. Gnezdovo. 125 let issledovanija pamjatnika. Archeologičeskij sborník. (Trudy GIM 124.) Muraševa, V.V. (ed.) 2007. Gnezdovo. Rezultaty kompleksnych issledovanij pam­ jatnika. Moskva. Musin, A.E. 2010. Nachodki chersono-vizantijskich monet na territorii drevnej Rusi i "P u ť iz Varjag v Greki". In A.E. Musin et al. (ed.), Dialog kultur i narodov srednevekovoj Evropy. Sankt Peterburg. 35-45. Nefedov, V.S. 1998. Gnezdovskij archeologičeskij kompleks i puť "iz varjag v greki". Gnezdovo: istorija i sovremennost. Smolensk. Nefedov, V.S. 2003. Nekotorye zamečanija o ukrašenijach kuťtury smoleńskich dlinnych kurganov iz raskopok v Staroj Ladoge. Ladoga, pervaja stolica Rusi. 1250 let nepreryvnoj zizni. (Sedmye čtenija pamjati Anny Mačinskoj.) Sankt Peterburg, 58-67. Nefedov, V.S. 2004. Issledovanija v Smolenskoj oblasti. Archeologičeskie otkrytija 2003 g., 178-180.

84

Johan Callmer

Nefedov, VS. 2007. Mogil'niki kul'tury smoleńskich dlinnych kurganov v Smoleńskom Podneprov'e i Podvin'e: archeologičeskaja karta i topografija. Tverskoj archeologičeskoj sborník 6:11, 185-191. Noonan, T. 1981 Ninth century dirham finds from European Russia: a pre­ liminary analysis, in: M. Blackburn et al. (eds), Viking-age coinage in the northern lands. The sixth Oxford symposium on coinage and monetary history. (BARI 122), 47-117. Nosov, E.N. 1976. Numizmatičeskie dannye o severnoj časti baltijsko-volžskogo puti końca VIII-X w . VspomogateTnye istoričeskie discipliny 8, 95-110. Nosov, E.N. 2001. Ein Herrschaftsgebiet entsteht. Die Vorgeschichte der nördli­ chen Rus' und Novgorods, in: M. Müller-Wille (ed.), Novgorod. Das mittelal­ terliche Zentrum und sein Umland im Norden Russlands. Neumünster, 13-71. Nosov, E.N. & A.V. Plochov. 1994. Archeologičeskie issledovanija v AndreapoTskom rajone Tverskoj oblasti v 1988 g. Tverskoj archeologiceskij sborník I, 145-151. Olejnikov, O.M. 2007. Kul'tura dlinnych kurganov verchnevolžskogo i verchnedneprovskogo regionov. Tverskoj archeologiceskij sborník 6:11,166-184. Petersen, J. 1919. De norske vikingesverd. En typologisk-kronologisk studie over vikingetidens vaaben. Kristiania. Petersen, J. 1928. Vikinegtidens smykker. Stavanger. Priroda Smolenskoj oblasti. 2001. Smolensk. Puškina, T. 1974. O Gnezdovskom poselenii. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Istorija:l, 87-93. Rjabcevič, V.N. 1965. Dva monetno-veščevych klada IX v. iz Vitebskoj oblasti. Numizmatika i epigrafika V, 121-165. Rjabcevič, V.N. 1998. Dirchemy Arabskogo kalifata v denežnom chozjajstve Polockoj zemli (IX-X vv.). Slavjane i ich sosedi. К 70-letiju E.M. ZagoruTskogo. Minsk, 66-80. Šadyro, V.I. 1985. Rannij zeleznyj vek severnoj Belorussii. Minsk. Sedov, V.V. 1974. Dlinnye kurgany krivičej. Svod archeologičeskich istočnikov El-8. Moskva. Sedov, V.V. 1999. Drevnerusskaja národnostIstoriko-archeologičeskie issledovanie. Moskva. Sedov, V.V. 2000. Stanovlenie kul'tury pskovskich dlinnych kurganov. Stratum plus 5, 26-31. Sementovskij, A.M. 1890. Belorusskija drevnosti. Sankt-Peterburg. Sindbæk, S.M. 2003. Varægiske vinterruter: slædetransport i Rusland og spørsmålet om den tidlige vikingetids orientaliske import i Nordeuropa. Fornvännen 98, 179-193. Širinskij, S.S. 1970. Kurgany IX - pervoj poloviny X v. u pos. Novoselki. Drevnie slavjane i ich sosedi 114-116. Skol'nikova, N.A. 1978. Stekljannye ukrasenija konca I tysjačeletija n.e. na territorii Podneprov'ja. Sovetskaja archeologija 1978:1, 97-104.

At the watershed between the Baltic and the Pontic before Gnezdovo

85

Smidt, E.A. 1967. Archeologičeskie pamjatniki perioda vozniknovenija goroda Smoleńska. Smolensk. К 1100-letiju upominanija goroda v letopisi. Smolensk, 43-61. Smidt, E.A. 1969. Raskopki v Smolenskoj oblasti. Archeologičeskie otkrytija 1968g, 40-43. Smidt, E.A. 1970. К voprosu ob etničeskoj prinadležnosti ženskogo inventaria iz smoleńskich dlinnych kurganov. Materiały po izučeniju Smolenskoj oblasti 7, 219-235. Smidt, E.A. 1974. К voprosu o dřevních poselenijach v Gnezdove. Materiały po izučeniju Smolenskoj oblasti 8, 150-164. Šmidt, E.A. 1982-83. Drevnerusskie archeologičeskie pamjatniki Smolenskoj oblasti. č. 1-2. Smolensk. Šmidt, E.A. 1992. Plemena verchov'ev Dnepra do obrazovanija Drevnerusskogo gosudarstva. Dnepro-dvinskie plemena (VIII b. do n.e. - II v. n.e.). Moskva. Šmidt, E.A. 1994. Drevnie puti iz Dnepra čerez vodorazdel v Zapadnjuju Dviny. Tverskoj archeologičeskij sbornik 1, 129-133. Šmidt, E.A. 2001. Plemena kul'tury dlinnych kurganov i Gnezdovo v konce IX - načale X v, in: V.V. Muraševa (ed.), Gnezdovo. 125 let issledovanija pamjatnika. Archeologičeskij sbornik. (Trudy GIM 124), 34-39. Šmidt, E.A. 2002. Gorodišče u der. Rokot v Dnepro-Dvinskom meždureč'e. Smoleńskie drevnosti 2,167-184. Šmidt, E.A. 2003. Verchnee Podneprov'e i Podvine v Ш.-VII. vv. n.e. Smolensk. Šmidt, E.A. 2005a. Kurgannyj mogil'nik u der. Kupniki (Vasilevščina). Smo­ leńskie drevnosti 4, 5-53. Šmidt, E.A. 2005b. Kurgannyj mogilnik u pos. Novoselki. Smoleńskie drevnosti 4, 146-211. Šmidt, E.A. 2008. Zaozeťe. Archeologičeskij kompleks IV-XII vekov. Smolensk. Spicyn, A.A. 1905. Gnezdovskie kurgany iz raskopok S.I. Sergeeva. Izvestija Imperatorskoj Archeologičeskoj kommissii 15, 6-70. Spicyn, A.A. 1906. Otčet o raskopkach proizvedennych v 1905 g. I.S. Abramovym v Smolenskoj gubernii. Zapiski Otdelenija russkoj i slavjanskoj arche­ ologii 8:1, 184-211. Stenberger, M. 1947. Die Schatzfunde Gotlands der Wikingerzeit II. Stockholm. Štychau, G.V. 1992. Krivičy pa materyjalach raskopak kurhanou и paunocnaj Belarusi. Minsk. Štychov, G.V. 1978. Goroda Polockoj zemli IX-XIII vv. Minsk. Terpilovskij, P.B. & N.S. Abašina. 1992. Pamjatniki kievskoj kul'tury. Kiev. Toporov, V.N. & O.N. Trubacev. 1962. Lingvističeskij analiz gidronimov Verchnego Podneprov'ja. Moskva. Urtans, V 1977. Senakie depoziti Latvij (lidz 1200. g.). Riga. Zarinja, A. 1960. Latgal'skie ženskie venčiki-vajnagi VI-XIII vv. Arheologija un etnografia. Rakstu krajums 2, 79-95.

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum: a study of gold imitations of Roman coins Helle Winge Horsnæs

Introduction The present article examines the gold imitations of coins from European Bar­ baricum dated to before the division of the Empire in AD 395.1 The article is based on a recent project, which took as its starting point the 10 gold imita­ tions of Roman coins found in Denmark. The project aimed to collect infor­ mation on gold imitations from European Barbaricum based on Roman coin prototypes and on the contexts of the imitations, and it revealed that three main groups can be distinguished. One is a quite homogeneous group of imi­ tations which are mainly, though not exclusively,2 based on prototypes from the late 3rd century (Tetrarchan period) and the first half of the 4th century (Constantinian dynasty). The majority of the imitations in this group derive from the area outside the Danubian Limes.3A 'Transcaucasian' group is briefly touched upon. The third group, which forms the main theme of the present paper, is by contrast quite heterogeneous. It consists of imitations mainly found in "north-eastern Barbaricum", i.e. areas from Southern Scandinavia to the Black Sea, relatively far from the Limes, and specimens related to these finds. Most of these imitate Roman coins dated before the Diocletian reform. There are two appendices included with this paper: Appendix I is a cata­ logue of hitherto unpublished imitations in the Royal Collection of Coins and Medals in the National Museum of Denmark. Appendix 2 is a shortlist of 131 imitations assigned to the production in North-eastern Barbaricum.4 Roman coins have inspired numerous copies, adaptations, and of course straight-out fakes during the two millennia that have passed since the Roman Empire came into being. Imitations of Roman coins were made already by contemporaries in various metals: Base metal coins - the Limes falsa - were made within the Empire in unofficial mints and were probably intended to help with the supply of small change, while imitations in silver and gold are well known from greater parts of the non-Roman world. It is often hard to distinguish between contemporary imitations from various areas inside and outside the Roman Empire, and some of the many specimens without archaeological provenance may even be modern imitations. The core of the present work has therefore been the finds from European Barbaricum. Imi-

88

Helle Winge Horsnæs

tations that are possibly from finds in the same areas, as well as imitations that can be linked to these by way of die identity, or close resemblance, have been added to this core. The use of the various terms to designate the imitations often implies a tacit interpretation of the status or function of the imitation, or reveal the scholars' subjective views upon the individual artisan's ability (or lack of same) to make close copies of the prototype. It is therefore important to make a few points about the terminology applied. The term "imitation" is chosen as a relatively neutral term to designate a coin-shaped object carrying motifs deriving from Roman coin prototypes, and produced by the ordinary hammer-and-anvil method employed for coin production in the Graeco-Roman world. "Barbaricum" is here used about the non-Roman parts of Europe, from the Black Sea to the North Sea. The imitations are often described as "Barbarian". The word is unfortunate because of its negative connotations, but it makes sense when used to describe an inhabitant of Barbaricum or objects produced in Barbaricum: "Barbarian" is preferred here to the more loaded ethnic terms (German, Sarmathian etc.) that - with more or less justification - have been applied to the inhabitants of this area. "Barbarized" or "barbarous" are often used to describe depictions that derived from Roman motifs, but have been heavily transformed. These terms are loaded with negative connotations, implying a lack of ability to copy the prototype well, and as such they are unfortunate. If used to describe motifs that had come close to the "Barbarian" art it might have made sense, but this is not the case - indeed apart from the Nordic gold bracteates (normally dated c. AD 450-550) the rare examples of figurative art in Barbaricum in the Late Roman and Early Germanic Iron Ages (Danish Iron Age period C-D, c. AD 150-520) are not readily comparable to the "barbarized" motifs of the coin imitations. I have chosen, however, to use the words conventionally to describe coin imitations with heavily transformed motifs. Contrary to these, "close copy" is used to describe imitations that differ from the prototypes only in minor details. "Hybrids" are imitations (and Roman coins) that combine obverse and reverse from two different issues. Hybrids may have been made with original Roman dies - perhaps even as a result of mistakes in the official mint. Thus hybrids are not necessarily Barbarian products, but some imitations are hy­ brids. Research history The first published example of a gold imitation can be found in the catalogue of the Museum Wormianum published in 1655.5 Several imitations have been published during the late 19th and early 20th century, and in 1928-1929 An­ dreas Alföldi collected the first major catalogue of specimens. He discussed 89 Barbarian imitations of Roman gold coins from the 3rd and early 4th cen-

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

89

tury from Central Europe.6 His examples were mostly found in Hungary, but some examples known from auction catalogues were also included in his study. His samples were mainly imitations of solidi (64 %), while the remain­ ing "coins" were aureus or quinarius imitations. The majority of the imitations in Alföldi's catalogue had a very generic provenance only, but Alföldi noted that the majority came from areas close to the Limes. He argued that around AD 300 a major production of imitations took place in present-day Hungary, and he believed this production to have been undertaken by Romans for use in trade in the Limes area. However, gold imitations are also frequently found in Eastern Europe, and an independent line of study was undertaken by various scholars of the former USSR. In 1964 Kazamanova and Kropotkin published a catalogue that has long been the best source for illustrations of the imitations. It described 49 illustrated specimens (most of which were from collections in Moscow and St. Petersburg). A shortlist with casts of 12 illustrated specimens in Kiev supple­ ments this work.7 In 1976 Kropotkin discussed 58 imitations from museums in USSR and Poland. Only six of these had a known provenance, all from the area of the Cernjachov culture between the Dnieper and the Dniester. Imita­ tions of pre-Constantinian aurei or quinarii dominated the material (53 of 58 specimens = 91 %). Based on die links and close relations between dies, Kro­ potkin suggested that the imitations should be divided into seven groups. He argued that the imitations were produced outside areas of Roman influence, namely within the Cernjachov culture, in the second half of the 4th century AD and he believed that they had never had a monetary function.8 Most recently, scholars from Ukraine have taken up the study of the gold imitations. Myzgin studied finds of Barbarian imitations of Roman coins in various metals within the area of the Cernjachov Culture, and he listed 48 imitations from three find categories: Authentic finds with good/reliable in­ formation of the find circumstances (23 coins), less reliable finds (17 coins), and finally eight coins from uncertain finds. Among the total of 48 coin imi­ tations from the Cernjachov culture, ten were made in gold; eight of the gold imitations derived from relatively well-documented finds in the Central Podnieprovie/Dnieper area.9 Typology Alföldi's catalogue mainly enumerated imitations of early 4th century (Constantinian) solidi, but there are also a number of imitations of aurei, of which some are considerably smaller in both weight and diameter than the aurei, and consequently termed quinarius imitations. Kropotkin and other Russian and Ukrainian scholars, on the other hand, knew mainly about imitations of aurei, although imitations of early solidi are not entirely unknown in the east­ ern areas. These diverging figures were noted by Kropotkin, who saw them as reflections of the available pool of original Roman coins.10

90

Helle Winge Horsnæs

This initial division into aureus imitations, quinarius imitations, and soli­ dus imitations seems valid, but an analysis of the finds and their distribution suggest some refinements. The distinction between quinarius imitations and aureus imitations needs to be clarified, as the term quinarius imitation has hitherto been used to say "smaller than usual". In the present study quinarius imitations have been defined as specimens weighing less than 5.5 g and with a diameter of less than 17 mm. The solidus imitations present a portrait modelled after an emperor of the Constantinian era, while the portrait of the aureus and quinarius imitations is normally based on an imperial portrait of the 2nd or 3rd century. There is, however, also a considerable group imitating aureus prototypes from the Tetrarchan period. This group shares the distribution pattern of the imitations of Constantinian prototypes, and like these they are often quite close copies. Distribution o f finds - The Danubian Group The basic classification into main groups reveals a very interesting distribu­ tion pattern. The imitations of Constantinian and Tetrarchan prototypes are concentrated in and around the Hungarian Plain.11 Unfortunately, details about the finds have rarely been recorded. Only the two Constantinian imi­ tations from the Starcevo Hoard in the present-day Republic of Serbia, the three imitations from the Brangstrup Hoard from Funen (Denmark) and the Tetrarchan imitation in the recently discovered (and not yet fully published) hoard in Kostkowice/Skzlary in southern Poland have known contexts.12 Light-weight imitations from Transcaucasia Transcaucasia (the area of modern Eastern Georgia (Iberia), Armenia and Azerbaijan) has yielded no less than 11 gold imitations of Roman coins in archaeologically documented contexts.13 Kazamanova & Kropotkin (1964) realized that the gold imitations of Roman coins from Transcaucasia form a group of their own, not related to the other finds in their study, and they concluded that there must have been two different centers of production: one in Transcaucasia and one in Ukraine.14 Golenko15 also argued that the gold imitations of Transcaucasia must have been made locally, using as his main argument the relatively high occurrences of die-identical specimens.16 The gold imitations from Georgia have mainly been found in burials in Iberia in the eastern part of the country. It should be stressed that the distri­ bution of ancient coinages in Iberia differs significantly from that of Colchis in the western part of the country. In Iberia the majority of coin finds are of the Augustan "Gaius and Lucius" type of denarii that are also imitated locally, while the 2nd century denarii, which dominate the distribution of Roman coins in most areas of Barbaricum, are rare. 16 Roman aurei from the period from Nero to Gordian III have been found in Transcaucasia, and they seem to be

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

91

the prototypes for the 11 aureus imitations of this area. Two subaerati from Modinakhe in the central part of Georgia are the only imitations of Constantinian era prototypes, and they should probably be interpreted in light of the finds of Constantinian solidi from the area.17 An aureus imitation without provenance is housed in the collection of the State Historical Museum of Azerbaijan and it was perhaps found in this area.18 The diameter of the Transcaucasian imi­ tations (varying from 18-21 mm) is consistent with the aureus imitations in general, but a weight analysis of the imitations found in Iberia and the pos­ sible find from Azerbaijan reveal that, weighing from 2.68 to 4.80 g, they are considerably lighter than the majority of aureus imitations.19 They must con­ sequently have been struck on much thinner blanks. This particular group of "light-weight aureus imitations" is found only in Transcausasia. None of the imitations from finds in Transcaucasia were pierced or reworked in any other way. A single aureus imitation was found in a burial with several other coins, the latest being an aureus struck by Tacitus (AD 275-276) at Ureki in Colchis, not far from the outlet of the river Supsa into the Black Sea. The aureus imi­ tation from Ureki differs considerably from the finds from Iberia. There is a clear 2nd century prototype for the obverse, depicting the portrait of Lucilla. Golenko read the first part of the reverse legend as a deformed version of the Iovi Conservatori type of the 3rd century, but the motif seems rather to derive from the Mars walking with transverse spear and carrying a trophy over the shoulder, a motif existing already in the 2nd century and commonly employed for the VIRTVS AVG coinages of the 3rd century. The walking Mars is furthermore the prototype for the quite common class of denarius imitations from the northern Black Sea area. The imitation from Ureki differs stylistically from the finds from Iberia, and weighing 6.43 g it is considerably heavier than them. Contrary to any of the imitations from Iberia, the imitation from Ureki is a subargenteus, i.e. a gilded silver imitation,20 and it is pierced. The many differences in the circulation of Roman coins between Colchis and Iberia are thus reflected in the difference between the imitations from the two areas. The imitation from Ureki stands out as a so-far unique piece, while the group of finds from Iberia, closely interconnected with several dielinks, forms a specific local group not related to the aureus imitations found in European Barbaricum. Aureus and quinarius imitations The imitations of aurei and quinarii form a larger, more heterogeneous, and much more widely distributed group. The majority of the aureus imitations weigh between 5.5 and 7.0 g, but both lighter and heavier specimens are re­ corded. This is only to a small degree due to the reworking of the imitations. The piercing displaces some metal, but it does not take it away as would have happened if the hole had been punched out. Of course, the loop adds

92

Helle Winge Horsnæs

weight to the "coin", as do the infilling of the pierced holes, but the normal loop would add only approximately 0.5 g to the total weight of the imitation.21 The imitations normally follow the coin prototypes in depicting an Impe­ rial portrait and a motif derived from the reverse of a coin. It is not always simple to tell which emperor the portrait of the imitation refers to; indeed, there are several examples of scholars having ascribed the same obverse por­ trait of an imitation to different emperors. The degree of barbarization varies enormously. In some cases the portrait is a very close copy of a Roman coin, in other cases the portrait is unrecognizable, and similarly the prototypes for the reverses may be hard to identify. The two sides of the imitation must be read and interpreted independently from each other, as there are examples of "hybrids" combining obverse and reverse from different issues, and sometimes even from very different periods. The date of production can be established as a terminus post quern of the date of the latest identified prototype, but many of the Roman types are used again and again over a great period of time. Nar­ rowing down the period of use of the imitations can only be done in cases where good and reliable contexts are extant. The legend may be legible, albeit with spelling mistakes and unusual letter forms, or it may be wholly incomprehensible displaying unusual "letter-like" signs, or consist of a nonsense sequence of "Roman style" letters. The style of the letters also varies a lot, and some imitations have letters evolving into animals (snakes), or the curious, and so far unique, imitation from Cerkasy (Ukraine) with a human head growing out of an S.22 Letters are normally based on the Latin alphabet, but there is one example, the quinarius imitation from Gudme (Denmark), where the reverse legend seems to be written in Greek letters.23 Geographical distribution o f finds from north-eastern Barbaricum Finds of aureus and quinarius imitations are spread over a wide area from Ukraine to Southern Scandinavia. Among the ten specimens from Denmark great diversity can be seen:24 three imitations from the Brangstrup hoard form a close unity among themselves. One is based on a Tetrarchan aureus and two are based on Constantinian solidi, thus linking these specimens with the Danubian Group. The remaining seven imitations are based on prototypes from the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Some are clearly smaller in diameter than the Roman originals - and have accordingly been termed " quinarii" - and the weights differ considerably, even for imitations of almost the same diameter. The degree of barbarization, as well as the chronological range of possible prototypes, vary greatly. Funen has yielded the largest number of finds,25 and they must be seen in relation to the Gudme centre in southeast Funen. This site must be regarded as one of the most important centers in South Scandinavia in the Late Roman Iron Age, and the many finds reveal the site's extensive contacts towards

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

93

Map 1. Distribution of imi­ tations of Roman coins in Denmark (Map by Josefine Franck Bican, National Museum of Denmark)

southeast Europe, as well as to the general richness of finds from the 4th century in particular in Funen - both as regards Roman coins and gold finds in general.26 Only one imitation was found in Zealand, from the excavation of a princely burial in Brøndsager.27 Finds from Northern Europe are concentrated in the coastal areas of north­ ern Germany and Poland, in areas with relatively easy seaway access towards Denmark. Furthermore, two - perhaps three - coin imitations have been found in Sweden.28 The highest number of finds, however, has been made in Ukraine. Most of these derive from the area around Kiev, within the Cernjachov cul­ ture area, but unfortunately the remaining imitations reported to have been found in Ukraine have no precise find information. Most recently a find has been made in a Wielbark culture settlement in southeast Poland.29

The archaeological contexts Extremely few of the aureus imitations have an archaeological provenance, and an even smaller number were found in recorded contexts. These are the two burials from Denmark (Brøndsager30 and Årslev31), one from SchleswigHolstein (Heiligenhafen inhumation burial l),32 one from Pomerania (Choszczno/Arnswalde, female burial I),33 and finally an imitation found in the site Cernjachov, burial 160.34

94

Helle

WingeHorsnæs

Map 2. Distribution of imitations of Roman coin in North-eastern Barbaricum (Map by Thomas Bredsdorff National Museum of Denmark)

The male burials from Brøndsager and Heiligenhafen and the female burial from Choszczno are closely related. The deceased belonged to the top strata of society, and the burials were dated to period C2/early 4th century. The Årslev burial is normally regarded to be later, dated to C3 or to the transition C3/D (Danish Iron Age chronology, c. 375), and the Černjachov burial 160 is dated at the transition of period C3 to D (Central European chronology, later 4th century): thus all the burials are later than the prototype for the coin imitation found in them. The imitation from Gudme is a single find made during detector surveys of an area on the periphery of the vast settlement centre. Two imitations de­ rive from settlement excavations in Kanev and Orlovec, both in the Cerkasy region, but no detailed information on the find circumstances are available.35 Most recently a find from a Wielbark culture settlement in Southeast Poland has been reported.36 The three looped quinarius imitations from a hoard found

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

95

in 1887 in a garden in Kašperovka, in the Teteev region near Kiev, is the only case in which imitations from this group were found in a hoard.37 The few contexts known combine to suggest that the imitations were used at the highest level of the social hierarchy. The topographical positions of the Danish single finds are interesting. It can be compared with the single finds of Roman gold coins and with finds of gold hoards in general, and it is suggested that they represent deliberate ritual depositions in marginal areas to signal boundaries.38 Chronological groups and die links The coin imitations from provenanced finds give the best information on the chronological, geographical and social distribution. Yet many Barbar­ ian imitations known today have no archaeological provenance. Not only has information about find contexts been lost, but even knowledge of the general area in which the individual coin has been found. While the core of the present study is based on the provenanced finds, many unprovenanced imitations from old collections, or on the market, have to be considered for their additional information. Based on the obverse portraits it has been possible to distinguish some main groups among the aureus imitations, yet the method is not infallible: It is sometimes hard to say which emperor was copied, and there are many examples of disagreement among scholars on the identity of the emperor.39 Within each group it has been possible to identify some die-linked imitations. The typologically earliest group (c. 50 specimens) displays an obverse portrait based on an Antoninę prototype.40 There are a few clear imitations of Antoninus Pius (and indeed a couple of them can be linked to later reverse pro­ totypes), but the majority has been assigned to Marcus Aurelius and perhaps some of these should in reality be labelled Commodus. Often less precision is preferable, but the silhouette and the way the bust is formed indicate a 2nd century Antoninę prototype. The large number of Antoninę prototypes can be compared at a general level to the finds of Roman denarii from Barbaricum, where the overwhelming majority of finds are struck during the reigns ex­ tending from Trajan to Commodus. Contrary to the denarius finds, however, there is a notable absence of portraits of pre-Antoninę emperors and of the empresses in general; only one portrait of Diva Faustina Major and one of Diva Faustina Minor have been identified. The prototypes in general seem to belong to the latter part of the Antoninę period. The portraits are normally in profile to the right. There are several die links within this group: 1. Marcus Aurelius? Laureate bearded r. / Victory advancing (flying) r., wreath and branch. This is the most extensive use of one set of dies. The chain consists of four die identical imitations, nos. 4-7, but the obverse die was clearly reworked before the last imitation in this series was

96

Helle Winge Horsnæs struck. The axis is not identical on the four imitations. One imitation, no. 49, seems to present the same reverse, but its obverse is related to a later prototype, and thereby to the imitations, nos. 65-66. 2. Marcus Aurelius bearded r. / Aequitas, nos. 8-9. 3. Antoninę emperor / female en face, holding cornucopia, nos. 10-11. The specimen in BNF is said to come from Pannonia. 4. Two portraits based on "Marcus Aurelius laureate, bearded r." may be die-linked. One was found in Kronstadt, Siebenbürgen, in 1864, from whence it came to the Trau Collection (no. 12), the other is now in the National Museum Warsaw (no. 13, Fig. 8).41 Probably the die for the Kronstadt obverse was reworked from the die of the Warsaw specimen. The style and the letter forms of the reverses are closely related, but two different motifs are used: the Kronstadt specimen depicts a standing female 1., the Warsaw imitation has a seated female 1.

Group 1, comprising four specimens and possibly connected through the reverse to more specimens from Ukraine, is of particular interest because of the clear reworking of the obverse die that took place before the last specimen was struck.42 Similarly it is possible that the obverses of the two Marcus Au­ relius portraits from Kronstadt and in Warsaw were made from the same die. In most cases both obverse and reverse are die identical, but there is one important example of a close copy of an Antoninus Pius obverse being linked to a coin with an obverse featuring the portrait of Julia Domna. 5. An imitation in Copenhagen featuring Antoninus Pius / emperor rid­ ing down enemy (no. 37, Fig. 6)43 is die identical on the reverse to the imitation found in Swierczyna (Pomerania) (no. 38), with a Julia Domna portrait on the obverse.44 The reverse type, a horseman riding down a fallen enemy, is seen on a number of other specimens, most often com­ bined with a Seveřan obverse (see below group 7). A small group (11 specimens, including the formerly mentioned Julia Domna imitation) displays an obverse portrait of the Seveřan dynasty: Septimius Severus and Caracalla, either alone or in double portrait, or Julia Domna. There are two die-linked groups, the above-mentioned group 5 and group 6: 6. Three imitations with Septimius Severus & Caracalla 1. / emperor on horseback r., riding down enemy. Two of the imitations, in Copen­ hagen no. 39 (Fig. 2) and the Vatican no. 40, have been struck by the same obverse die, while the reverse motif is identical but struck with two different dies: the obverse die is reworked and the two imitations are therefore not completely identical. The imitation found during the Romaski settlement excavation 1929 (no. 41) has the same obverse and reverse motif as the former coins, but was probably struck with other dies.

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

97

The third group is based on portraits of emperors from the mid-third century. The exact prototype is less readily identified in this group, but many of the portraits are described as "Gordianus III" and in a few cases it is possible to argue that part of the name Gordianus can be identified in the legend. I have extended this group to include imitations with an obverse portrait of a bare-headed or diademed emperor with a short, or no, beard that seems to be based on prototypes among the military emperors of the mid-3rd century. Contrary to the imitations based on Antoninę prototypes, the portraits may be turned both right and left. The group includes a number of die-linked specimens: 7. Emperor (Kropotkin suggested Trebonius Gallus?) laureate draped r., deformed legend / Jupiter enthroned r., patera and spear. Nos. 50 (Co­ penhagen, Fig. 3) and 51 (Moscow). 8. Emperor diademed 1. Two imitations in Odessa and in the Hermitage are linked through the obverse die. One with a rev.: Standing female figure resting r. hand on shield and holding out dress with 1. hand (no. 52). The other rev.: Very small standing figure, rudder and cornucopia? (no. 53). The obverse die was furthermore used for a specimen in Paris (no. 54), which shares its unusual reverse die (horseman charging to­ wards r. in dotted rim and around this a distorted legend) with another imitation in Paris (no. 55). The recently found specimen from southeast Poland (no. 56) is die-linked (both obverse and reverse) to the former Paris specimen. 9. Emperor laureate r. / Horseman 1. (nos. 57-58). The obverse of a third specimen may be an adaption (no. 59). 10. Emperor draped, laureate 1. / Naked figure standing 1., carrying Victory with wreath and vertical spear, drapery behind figure (nos. 60-61). One specimen is known only from a Hirsch auction catalogue, where it was suggested that the portrait should be identified with Diocletian, while Kropotkin 1976, no. 53, believed it to imitate a 4th century ruler.45 An initial suspicion that it should be identical to the unpublished specimen now in Krakow was quickly rejected.46 The style of the portrait and the general likeness with emperors from the middle and third quarter of the 3rd century seem to point towards a prototype date in the period AD 230-270. The reverse may be based on a type with Jupiter standing left with thunderbolt and spear. 11. Emperor r./Female figure draped, helmeted (Roma), standing 1., carry­ ing unidentified object and spear (nos. 62-63).47 The emperor has pre­ viously been identified with Trajan, but it seems more likely that the type should be grouped among the anonymous 3rd century emperors. A third specimen, known only from a 19th century drawing48 seems to be related to these imitations (no. 64). 12. An imitation from Tange (Denmark, no. 66) is closely related by its obverse and reverse motifs to the specimen from Cernjachov Grave

98

Helle Winge Horsnæs 160 (no. 65),49 and the obverse of these is furthermore very similar to an imitation in the Hermitage (no. 49).50 The Hermitage specimen has a reverse (Victory flying r., holding up wreath and palm over 1. shoul­ der) which may be linked to the Marcus Aurelius group (Group 1, see above) with the same reverse. 13. Two imitations, in Copenhagen (no. 68, Fig. 7) and Kiev (no. 67, Fig. 9), are not die identical, but they present a number of similarities in the details of the motifs on both obverse and reverse, and they are prob­ ably an example of specimens made in the same workshop.

The "Probus type" group has been named after the characteristic portrait: the helmeted emperor, most often turned to the left, with spear over right shoulder and shield at left shoulder. No inscriptions can be read to identify the emperor. With 16 specimens the group plays a significant role, but there is only one set of die identities: 14. Helmeted emperor (Probus?) 1., with shield on 1. shoulder and spear over r. shoulder / Concordia?, seated 1. with patera and cornucopia (nos. 86-87). Attached to the Probus Group are two die identical specimens deriving from a prototype of Carus and Carinus. 15. Two emperors, Carus and Carinus(?) r., bearded, carrying helmet and panoply / Standing figure L, with animal at feet r. (nos. 88-89). A minor number of coin imitations from north-eastern Barbaricum may have prototypes from the Constantinian period. One of them is the imitation prob­ ably found in the Cerkasy region, around 2000 (no. 103). The obverse por­ trait of an emperor 1. has been interpreted as either Hadrian (117-138 AD) or Constantine (306-336 AD), highlighting the difficulties encountered when attempting to date the prototype. In this case the Constantinian date seems preferable. The reverse presents a horseman (emperor) 1. in an adventus ges­ ture. The legend is deformed, with a unique S ending in a human head.51 This imitation thus becomes an example of continued copying, also of early 4th century prototypes, in the area of the Cernjachov culture. The horse depic­ tion on the reverse with the slim body, but prominent hind quarters is, for example, comparable to the horses of the quadriga on an imitation found in the Cerkasy region, here assigned to the Trobus' group (no. 90).52 The reverse motifs in general reflect the motifs common among the Roman coins of the second and third centuries, and although some of the popular and long-lived reverse motifs can be very hard to date exactly, one gets the impression that the reverses in general fit the obverses chronologically. Most often the die-linked imitations share both obverse and reverse, and often the pairs of die-identical imitations do not only have identical axis but even the pierced holes are positioned at exactly the same place on

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

99

the two specimens, above the head of the emperor. We may hypothesize that the die-identical imitations, as is the case with some of the finds from Transcaucasia, derive from the same contexts. The fact that there are several examples of die-identical imitations in different museums in the former Rus­ sian Empire (St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev), may be explained by the splitting up of coin finds not uncommon in the 19th century.53 Unfortunately, this hypothesis cannot be supported by archaeological evidence. There are no known examples where the imitations have been found as pairs, on the contrary: the few preserved aureus imitations with known provenance are single finds. The number of die-linked imitations is relatively high, considering the total number of aureus imitations from European Barbaricum identified, but there are numerous variations in style, degree of barbarization, and letter forms. In some cases it is possible to connect imitations by comparing style or motif. For example two imitations, in Copenhagen and Kiev mentioned above (Group 13),54 are not die-linked, but they are stylistically so closely related that they must be part of the same production, and the finds from Tange (Funen) and Cernjachov (Kiev area) depict corresponding motifs (Group 12). Quinarius imitations The number of quinarius imitations is lower than the number of "full-size" aureus imitations. Information about the provenances is only available for the three quinarius imitations from Denmark. Two came from elite burials dated to the 4th century and one was a single find from the central place at Gudme. The three quinarius(?) imitations from a hoard(?) found in a garden in the vil­ lage of Kašperovka in 1887 were never registered professionally, and neither the weight, nor the diameter of the imitations is known. They were described as looped. Kropotkin suggested55 that they should be identified with two qui­ narius imitations in Moscow56 and one in Kiev.57 The main arguments for this attribution is the rarity of the type in combination with the possible dates of entry into the museums: The two imitations in Moscow were, however, not included in Oresnikov's 1892 catalogue of the collection, and should conse­ quently have entered the collection after that date, while the Kiev specimen is included in Antono vic's 1906 catalogue. The consistent information in the earliest publications58 that all three quinarius imitations from Kašperovka were looped is not in correspondence with the imitations now preserved in Moscow and Kiev, and they are not linked by motif or style. There are great stylistic differences among the quinarius imitations, and some are quite difficult to identify. Only two possible die-links seem to exist: 16. Emperor (Gordian III?), l.IMP ANTONIV AVG / Mercury(?) standing 1. holding basket(?) and caduceus COS III (nos. 115-116). 17. It is possible that the Årslev imitation (no. 117) may be linked to a speci­ men in Moscow (no. 118). The motif on the reverse of a specimen in

100

Helle Winge Horsnæs Kiev (no. 119, Fig. 12) seems closely related, but it is not die identical. However, the Årslev specimen is much worn, and the photos existing of the Moscow specimen are not clear.59

I find it unlikely that the small imitations were based on prototypes among quite rare Roman quinarii. The quinarius imitations were probably based on the same 2nd and 3rd century prototypes as the aureus imitations and the reduction in size may explain why the quinarius imitations are generally less close copies of the prototypes. The quinarius imitations differ from the aureus imitations only in their size. The date and function of the imitations seems identical no matter the size. Pierced holes and loops The vast majority of the imitations are re-worked: more than half the imita­ tions are pierced, and at least 10% were looped (the number may be higher, as a loop may have fallen off leaving hardly any trace). The "reworking" of the imitations - whether by piercing or by looping - is always made in a way to render the portrait visible when pending from a string or a chain. The "re-working" may have taken place as part of the initial production, as indicated by the examples of pairs of die-identical imitations with identical axis and position of pierced holes. It is thus highly probable that the imita­ tions were produced in order to be worn, rather than as means of exchange. Undoubtedly they were also exchanged as part of an elite interaction (gifts, special purpose money (dowry?), status symbols) as indicated by the wide distribution. Loops are rare among the specimens in Ukraine and Russia, while most finds from Sweden and Denmark are looped, an indication that loops are a Nordic phenomenon. The loops employed are of the same type as the ones used for Roman coins, Nordic bracteates, and other types of pendants in Scandinavia. In Scandinavia, the loops provide a hint of the date of use of the coin imitations: loops seem to take over the role of the pierced hole at the beginning of the 4th century, as indicated by the Roman coins from the Boltinggård and Brangstrup Hoards, where - a bit simplified - aurei are pierced and solidi looped.60 There are several cases of coins that were initially pierced, but where the hole has been filled in prior to the mounting of a loop. This also applies to the imitation from Vornæs Skov on the island of Tåsinge south of Funen (no. 95), showing that imitations as well as coins may have been re-worked some time after production, and probably in another area. A similar conclusion can be drawn from the evidence of the imitation from the Årslev burial (no. 119, Fig. 12). It is heavily worn on the obverse and in particular on the reverse, but the loop, although probably not new at the time of deposition, presents considerably less wear.

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

101

The suggested date of the Brøndsager burial in period C2 is the earliest deposition date known for a looped coin or coin imitation (no. 120). The prototype paradox The most commonly found Roman coins from north-eastern Barbaricum are denarii struck in the period AD 69-193. As has been shown, some of the imitations are based on Antoninę prototypes, and these were readily at hand among the denarii. Roman aurei from that period, on the contrary, are very rarely found in Barbaricum, so it seems most likely that the denarii served as prototypes for these imitations. The situation is different for the many imitations based on prototypes from the 3rd century. Seveřan denarii are less regularly found, and although the number of finds of Roman aurei from the second half of the third century is somewhat higher than that of coins struck before c. AD 250, they are far from common. Still, it is most likely that the imitations were based on con­ temporary Roman gold coins, and the vast diversity in types and dates reflect the diversity of the prototypes available in Barbaricum. There is good reason to believe that coins did not provide the only source for prototypes. Kropotkin mentioned that the prototype for the reverse of an imitation in Kiev (no. 129) may have been one of the well-known erotic tes­ serae (also called spintriae). Two die-linked imitations (Group 18, nos. 130-131) present extraordinary motifs: 18. Bearded portrait r./Cupid and Psyke. The legends consist of the quite ordinary nonsense sequence of letters C, I, O, N and V. The portrait of the 'emperor' seems to have a close resemblance to the head of the Farnese Hercules type, an often copied highlight of antique art. The reverse depicts the statue group of Cupid and Psyke. This is not known as a coin type, but it is a well-known antique motif, and it has been re­ made in numerous versions - for example in gems. Could it be possible that two gems formed the prototypes for this set of clearly die-linked imitations? Similarly, Bursche suggested that the lion on the reverse of the Gudme imi­ tation (no. 121) may have been taken from a Roman Provincial coin of, for example, Nikopolis ad Istrum, while the Greek inscription may have been copied from another medium, a gem for example.61 The diversity in chronology as well as motif does not indicate that large numbers of lost prototypes were available. On the contrary; in Denmark only 126 gold coins, imitations and medallions struck before AD 395 have been found, and a considerable number of them are from a small number of hoards. There are relatively few examples of aurei from the 2nd and 3rd centuries: 6 aurei can be dated between the reigns of Vespasian and Septimius Severus, and a few single finds are made of gold coins struck AD 250-350. Northern Poland

102

Helle Winge Horsnæs

has produced considerable numbers of Late Roman solidi, but the number of aurei is low. Ukraine, the centre of the Černjachov culture and the area with the greatest concentration of finds of aureus imitations, has yielded only 62 gold coins.62 Thus the number of aureus imitations, although seemingly rela­ tively low, makes up a considerable part of the overall number of gold coins of the period in question: more than 1/6 in Ukraine, and approximately 1/5 in Denmark (not counting coins from hoards). The gold imitations have thus played a prominent role in these societies, and there is no reason to doubt that they were used on a peer level and for the same purposes as the Roman coin prototypes. Their use as personal objects loaded with symbolic mean­ ing within the elite sphere becomes obvious when studying the position of the coin imitation in the Brøndsager and Heiligenhafen burials: in both these male burials the imitation was found in situ at the neck of the deceased, and it must have been worn as a prominent piece of jewellery. Ordinary guidelines for calculating the "mint output" are impossible to apply on the coin imitations: the many different dies in use surely indicate that the production of the coin imitations was considerable, but it is impossible to say how many specimens were struck from each die. I assume that what has been preserved until today is only a small tip of the iceberg: much gold - even from objects with great symbolic content - would sooner or later be melted down. In this connection it is instructive to compare the number of preserved imitations with the number of finds of Roman gold coins from the same areas. As a general rule the weight of the imitations is not lower than the ideal weight of a Roman aureus. It is thus highly unlikely that the imitations were produced with the intention of economic fraud. They probably never deliberately at­ tempted to fool anyone into believing that they were "real" Roman coins. The issue of "real" or "fake" in the modern sense was of less importance if the imi­ tations fulfilled their purpose: to act as power symbols in the elite sphere. The examples of pairs of die-identical specimens that are even pierced in exactly the same position may hint that in some cases they were made to be displayed as pairs, although no archaeological finds support this idea. Conclusions The aureus and quinarius imitations are based on a multitude of different pro­ totypes, and stylistically they differ enormously from each other. There is a number of examples of die-linked specimens, and although they rarely derive from registered contexts, it may be argued that they were spread over long distances already during the Iron Age as a result of elite interaction. Thus, they are on the one hand an archaeological type that provides evidence of an elite culture interacting on a peer level over very long distances, while on the other hand they indicate that a variety of production areas must have existed. The production period may have started already in the third quarter of the 2nd century (considering the date of the earliest prototypes), but there is

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

103

no archaeological evidence for any of the imitations ante-dating the burials of Danish period C2, beginning in the mid-third century. The typologically earliest specimens probably imitated Roman denarii. It is hotly debated when the great outflow of Roman denarii into Barbaricum took place. Most schol­ ars tend to suggest that it started during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and lasted into the 230s. The denarii however remained in use in Barbaricum for an extended period, so the gold imitations of denarii may have been struck long after the production date of the prototypes. Indeed, there are examples where an Antoninę obverse is combined with a somewhat later reverse. Roman gold coins were exported in much smaller numbers. The gold coins found in Barbaricum were normally struck in the period AD 250-350. The Dan­ ish material may indicate that the inflow period was shorter, not beginning until the last years of the third century. I am inclined to believe, therefore, that the majority of the imitations were made in the latter part of the 3rd century, and the (admittedly few) Constantinian prototypes indicate that the produc­ tion must have lasted into the 4th century. The use of later 4th century Roman solidi as prototypes for the Nordic bracteates produced in the period c. 450-550, show that the Roman gold coins were in use for a long period in Barbaricum. And again, imitation need not have taken place during the period of produc­ tion of the coins. There is, however, no evidence for use of Roman prototypes dated later than the early 4thcentury for the imitations, and no specimens have hitherto been found in contexts securely dated after c. AD 400. It seems evident that the imitations are connected to the Nordic Iron Age period C2-C3 and in Ukraine to the Cernjachov culture that peaked during this period. Among the finds there is a slight tendency for imitations based on Anto­ ninę prototypes to be a bit more common on the Continent than they are in Southern Scandinavia and Ukraine, where later prototypes are dominant. This tendency may be interpreted in light of various routes of interaction and it underlines the Gudme-Cemjachov connection, but it must be noted that new discoveries may completely alter the picture: few finds are known today, and among them two of the important finds from Poland have regrettably been lost and are known only from verbal descriptions. The present work has considerably amplified the list of gold imitations that can be connected to the cultures of north-eastern Barbaricum. It has been possible to link a number of unprovenanced specimens to specimens with archaeological provenance or to specimens in collections that have had ac­ cess to material from the Cernjachov culture area. This shows that within the Barbarian cultures of Non-Roman Europe, imitating Roman coins for one's own purpose was a widespread phenomenon, that we are only beginning to appreciate.63 Within the area of modern Denmark - which in this case could almost be restricted to the gold-rich island of Funen - the coin imitations seem to have been used in exactly the same way as other gold objects, including the Roman gold coins of the 4th-5th centuries and the Nordic bracteates of the mid-5th to mid-6th centuries.

104

Helle Winge Horsnæs

Fig. 1. No. 82: Royal Coll, of Coins and Medals/National Museum of Denmark. Ex Museum Wormian urn. Photo HWH. 2:1.

Fig. 2. No. 39: Royal Coll, of Coins and Medals/National Museum of Denmark. Ex Koch. Photo HWH. 2:1.

Fig. 3. No. 50: Royal Coll, of Coins and Medals/National Museum of Denmark. Ex Koch. Photo HWH. 2:1.

Networking in north-eastern Barbariami

105

Fig-5. No. I l l : Royal Coll, of Coins and Medals/National Museum of Denmark. Ex Koch. Photo HWH. 2:1. '

Fig. 6. No. 37: Royal Coll of Coins and Medals/National Museum of Denmark. Ex Thomsen. Photo HWH. 2:1.

106

Helle Winge Horsnæs

Fig. 7. No. 68: Royal Coll, of Coins and Medals/National Museum of Denmark. Ex Thomsen. Photo HWH. 2:1.

Fig. 8. No. 13: Imitation in Warsaw National M useum inv.no. 217322. Antoninę prototype: Marcus Aurelius(?) bearded and diademed r./Female seat.on throne L, wreath or patera in r. hand. Pierced from obverse. Museum photo. 2:1.

Fig. 9. No. 67: Imitation in Kiev Historical Museum, inv.no. 191. 3rd century prototype: emperor w. short beard laureate l./Roma st. I, statue of Victory on extended r. hand. Pierced from obverse. Museum photo. 2:1.

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

107

Fig. 10. No. 94: Imitation from Muuks. Probus type: Helmeted and cuirassed emperor l., spear over r. shoulder and shield on l. shoulder/ Victory on quadriga holding wreath and palm branch, l. Remains of loop. Photo: Kidturhistorisches Museum der Hansestadt Stralsund. 2:1.

Fig. 11. No. 97: Imitation in Warsaw National Museum, inv.no. 165710. Probus type: Helmeted and cuirassed emperor l., spear over r. shoulder and small round shield on l. shoul­ der/Mars st., head. L, holding bird(?) on extended r. hand and spear on l. side, snake(?) I in l field. Fillien-in hotel?). Museum photo. 2:1.

Fig. 12: No. 119: Imitation in Kiev Historical Museum, inv.no. 185. 'Quinarius' imitation of Antoninę prototype: bearded emperor r.fmalef?) fig. walking r. holding long objects in both hands. Remains of loop. Museum photo. 2:1.

108

Helle Winge Horsnæs

Appendix 1: Unpublished imitations in The Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, Copenhagen In addition to the gold imitations found in Denmark,64 the Royal Collection of Coins and Medals in the National Museum of Denmark holds a small col­ lection of gold imitations of Roman coins acquired elsewhere. One imitation pertaining to this class derives from the Renaissance collec­ tion of Ole Worm (1588-1654). Worm was a scholar and collector of interna­ tional fame in his day having an extensive correspondence and exchange of collection objects with scientists all over Europe. He prepared a monumental catalogue of his collection during his lifetime, which was eventually published posthumously by his son in 1655.65 The imitation is not only extensively dis­ cussed, it is also one of the few objects illustrated in the catalogue, and we may presume that it was in the collection for some time before the death of Worm. Unfortunately, the provenance of the imitation is not known. Through the letters of Ole Worm it is sometimes possible to follow the acquisitions to his Museum, but the coin imitation in question is not mentioned.66 List no. 82, Fig. 1 Emperor bearded, laureate 1., wearing dress and necklace / Horseman advancing r., r. hand lifted as if holding a ready-tothrow spear. Deformed legends. Pierced from the obverse. W. 6.34 g; diam. 20 mm; axis 12. Although the head of the "emperor" is turned shaply towards the left, the bust is seen enface. The bearded face of 'emperor' is surely intended to be male. Some similarity to the two portraits of group 4 (nos. 12-13) may be suggested, in particular the almost vertically positioned eye. The loose strands of the laurel wreath are bending outwards, a detail that is more common on coins struck before the Tetrarchan period than after. The bust, how­ ever, seems to be based on the coin portrait of Galeria Valeria with en face bust and necklace. The portrait thereby becomes a rare example of an obverse motif combining details from various periods and both sexes. The reverse motif, with the horseman (emperor) right, is seen on several of the coin imitations, often including a fallen enemy below the horse. The motif is known in Roman coinage from at least the 2nd century onwards, but never belongs among the most common reverse motifs in Roman coin­ age, and its popularity among the coin imitations exceeds what could be expected. The remaining imitations were all acquired in the 19th century and none of them has preserved an archaeological provenance. In 1852 the Royal Collec­ tion of Coins and Medals acquired four imitations from Johan Friedrich Koch in "Coin" (Cologne).67 Johan Koch made a series of exchanges with the Royal

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

109

Collection of Coins and Medals during the 1850s, and he owned one of the most important private coin collections of his day in Germany. It is not known from whence the coins derived. His posthumously auctioned collection con­ tained other examples of gold imitations, but they are difficult to identify due to the very few illustrations, all drawings, in the auction catalogue.68 List no. 39, Fig. 2 Septimius Severus & Caracalla 1. / Horseman (emperor) r., spear­ ing fallen enemy. Deformed legends. Looped. W. 5.21 g; diam. 19 mm; axis 10. The obverse die is identical to the one used for an originally looped specimen in the Vatican (no. 41 ),69 and it is closely related to the imitation from the Romaski settlement excavation in 1929 (no. 40).70 It is possible that the latter specimen was made from the same die after it had been re-cut. The three imitations also share the reverse type (horseman), but three different dies have been used. Callu suggested that the reverse inscription of the Vatican imitation should refer to a Maximus, which thus placed the reverse prototype after the Seveřan period. List no. 50, Fig. 3 Emperor laureate, draped r. / Seated Jupiter r. Deformed legends. Pierced. W. 6.36 g; diam. 19 mm; axis 12. Dies are identical to an imitation in Moscow (no. 51). Kropotkin suggested that the portrait may be based on Trebonius Gallus. List no. 99, Fig. 4 Emperor helmeted 1., spear over r. shoulder and shield on 1. shoul­ der. Legend: IISIIIIIIIIII / Two male figures standing 1., in r. hand (first person) long staff with axe(?) head (or carnyx?) and wreath, (second person) holding oblique spear(?) over r. shoulder. Legend: (only to the right). ]SIIIII. Looped. W. 5.44 g; diam. 20 mm; axis 3. Style and letter forms are comparable to an imitation on the market (no. 91 ),71 and (less close) an imitation from the Čerkasy Region of Ukraine (no. 90).72 List no. I l l , Fig. 5 Emperor laureate 1. / Peacock? 1. Deformed legends. Traces of fallen off loop. W. 3.41 g; diam. 15 mm; axis 6. The exact prototype for the obverse portrait is hard to iden­ tify. Distinct features are the coffee bean shaped mouth and the chevron shaped outline of the nose, which both appear on some of the other imitations: e.g. the Koch specimen imitation with Septimius Severus and Caracalla (above), which otherwise present

110

Helle Winge Horsnæs little stylistic affinity with the present specimen. The letters of the pseudo-legends of these two imitations are likewise comparable.

Two imitations were acquired from the collection of C.J. Thomsen in 1869. Christian Jürgensen Thomsen (1788-1865) is known for his work on Nordic archaeology, where he defined the three-period system of prehistory as di­ vided into Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age, and he played an important role in the foundation of the Danish National Museum.73 He worked in the Royal Coin Cabinet from 1832, and in 1842 he became the director of the Coin Cabinet. Being a leading coin collector in Copenhagen in the mid-19th century, Thomsen was an active member of the international network of col­ lectors and museum peoples. The provenances of his coins are rarely known. In 1808 he bought the collection of mainly antique coins that had belonged to the late statesman and former Royal Secret Secretary, Ove Høegh-Guldberg (1731-1805).74 Many of Thomsen's Ancient coins - in 1816 he owned some 1,200 Greek and 3,500 Roman coins - may derive from this acquisition, but he continuously acquired coins for his private collection throughout his life, and the aureus imitations may have derived from any of his many contacts throughout Europe, including collectors in St. Petersburg, who may have had access to material from the Cernjachov area.75 List no. 37, Fig. 6 Antoninus Pius laureate draped r. ANTONINVSAVG PIVSPPIMPII / Horseman r., spearing fallen enemy. Deformed legend. Pierced. W. 5.74 g; diam. 19 mm; axis 12. Bibl.: Thomsen 1869, no. 2666 The reverse was struck with the same die as the imitation found in Swierczyna/Gross Linichen (Pomerania) in the 1930s (no. 38).76 On the latter specimen it was combined with an obverse with a portrait of Julia Domna. List no. 68, Fig. 7 Emperor laureate draped r. / Male standing 1., carrying Victory and scepter. Deformed legends. Fill ornaments include a bird and an axe (or carnyx?) on the obverse, and children and swaddled babies(!) on the reverse, where also the i's of the legend take on the shape of swaddled babies. Deformed legends. Pierced. W. 3.85 g; diam. 19 mm; axis 5. Bibl.: Thomsen 1869, no. 2667 This imitation with its very flat relief, characteristic letter forms, shape of emperor's portrait and the standing male of the reverse is closely comparable to an imitation in Kiev State Historical Museum (no. 67, Fig. 9).77

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

111

Appendix 2: Shortlist of 131 gold imitations from north-eastern Barbaricum It was not possible to include a full catalogue of imitations in this work. The present shortlist attempts to give an overview of the specimens known to me with reference to the most important publications, and/or to a published illus­ tration of the specimen. Imitations known from verbal description are included only if they are provenanced. The list is built up around the specimens with known archaeological provenance and the specimens included in Kropotkin's study of the Barbarian imitations (Kropotkin 1976). The list is sorted into gen­ eral chronological groups based on the prototype for the obverse. Imitations on the distribution map (Map 2) are marked with an *. Die-linked or closely related groups mentioned in the text have been inserted into a frame. Imitations of Antoninę prototypes 1. Vienna, inv.no. 13.429. Provenance: Germakovka (Galicia) 1862. W. 5.92; diam. 20 A4, Tav. VIII.4; K5; К 1966, 124; 2. *Kiel / Gottorp, inv.no. 4438=4356. Provenance: Angel / Kappeln (bef. 1879). W. 4.93 / 4.95; diam. 19. Balling 1962, 48 no. 46; Müller Wille & Willroth 1983, 310 no. 37; FMRZ VIII (1994), 109-110 no. 1075; Bursche 2009, fig. 9. 3. Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 194. W. 7.14; diam. 18-20.5 Кб; К 1966, 35 no. 12; Antonovič no. 2730

Group 1 4. 5. 6. 7.

In market. W. 6.89; diam. 20 GM 87, 1998, 33 In market. W. 4.28; diam. 19; axis 0 GM 147, 07-03-2006. lot. 1067 Paris BNF, inv.no. 2836. W. 6.18; diam. 19; axis 6 Callu 1991, fig. 1 Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1159. W. 5.26; diam. 20; axis 0 K10; K&K, Tav. II.4

Group 2 8. 9.

Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1154. W. 6.91; diam. 19; axis 6 K12; K&K, Tav. II.7 Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1155. W. 6.38; diam. 19; axis 6 K il; K&K, Tav. II.6

112

Helle Winge Horsnæs

Group 3 10. 11.

Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1157. W. 5.99; diam. 20; axis 6 К7; K&K, Tav. ILI Paris BNF, inv.no. 2838. Provenance: Pannonia? W. 6.11; diam. 19; axis 6 Callu 1991, fig. 2

Group 4 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

*Ex Trau coll. Provenance: Kronstadt, Siebenbürgen 1864. Diam. 22 Sammlung F. Trau 1935, 43 no. 1640 Warsaw National Museum, inv.no. 217322. W. 6.16; 17.7 x 19.3 mm. Un­ published (Fig. 8) Budapest, inv.no. 31/1889.1. W. 5.98; diam. 19; axis 0; A l, Tav. VIII. 1; Gohl 1904, 79 Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1158. W. 3.48; diam. 18; axis 6 K8; K&K, Tav. II.2 Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1169. W. 5.00; diam. 18; axis 6 K9; K&K, Tav. II.3 Kiev Historical Museum, inv.no. 187. W. 6.00; diam. 19-20; axis 6 K29; К 1966, 5 no. 7; Antonovič no. 2475 ’•'Königsberg Akad. Münzkabinett (until 1944, probably lost). Provenance: Robity/Robitten (anonymous) 1857; Ciołek 2001, no.239; Ciołek 2007, 210 no. 283. No il­ lustration exists. London BM, purchased 1864 ВМС IV, 509 no. 816 and pi. 70.8 London BM, ex L.A. Lawrence. 1937 ВМС IV, p. 509 no. 815 and pi. 70.7; Callu 1991, note 40 ^Odessa Numismatic Museum. Provenance: Kiev area Alekseev & Loboda 2004, no. 324; Loboda 2006, fig. 2; Myzgin 2009, no. 21 Vienna, ex Bachofen v. Echt. W. 4.77; diam. 20-21; axis 5 A 8, Tav. VIII.8 Berlin(?); diam. 19 K&K, Tav. IV. 12 Paris BNF, inv.no. 2837. W. 5.11; diam. 18; axis 5 Callu 1991, fig. 3 Odessa Numismatic Museum Loboda 2006, fig. 1 In market. W. 6.34; diam. 19; axis 0 GM 138, 07-03-2005. lot. 1033

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

113

27. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1161. W. 3.90; diam. 19; axis 6 K13; K&K, Tav. II.8 28. Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-182. W. 6.44; diam. 19-21; axis 6 K14; K&K, Tav. IV.2; Orešnikov, 33. tav. 11.32; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 194 29. Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 186. W. 7.04; diam. 20; axis 12 K17; К 1966, 35 no. 11; Antonovič no. 2474 30. Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 195. W. 5.61; diam. 19-20; axis 1 K19; К 1966, 35 no. 6 31. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1162. W. 6.26; diam. 17-18.5 K30; K&K, Tav. II.9 32. Ex Forrer. W. 6.51; axis 0 К p. 29; Forrer 1908, 292-3 & Tav. XL.495 33. Ex Forrer. W. 6.14; axis 11 К p. 29; Forrer 1908, 132-4 & Tav. XL.247 34. ^Berlin. Museum für Völkerkunde(?). Provenance: Choszczno/Amswalde Krause 1893, 81-86; Eggers 1972, 13-15; Ciołek 2001, no. 32; Ciołek 2007, 30 no. 36; Bemmann 2006, 47 no. 185. No illustration exists. 35. ^Private collection. Provenance: Kanev. Cerkasy region. W. 7.07 Kropotkin 2000, 55 no. 2335; Myzgin 2009, no. 17. No illustration avail­ able. 36. *Ex Trau coll. Provenance: Kronstadt (today Brasov), Siebenbürgen 1880 Monatsblatt der Num.Ges. Wien 28, 1885,110. No illustration exists. Imitations of Seveřan prototypes

Group 5 37. 38.

Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. Thomsen 2666, ex Thomsen coll. W. 5.74; diam. 19 (Fig. 6) *Berlin(?). Provenance: Swierczyna/Gross Linichen. Ex Stettin, Landes­ museum (until 1945); diam. 19. K&K, Tav. IV. 13; Kunkel 1938, 331 fig. 27; Ciołek 2001, no. 296; Ciołek 2007, 246 no. 344

Group 6 39. 40. 41.

Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. 217, ex. Koch (Coin 1852). W. 5.21; diam. 19 Vatican. W. 6.06; diam. 20; axis 9 Callu 1991, n. 50; Callu 1993, fig. 1 *Kiev. State Hist.Museum (until 1941). Provenance: Romaški (Kiev) 1929. W. 5.57 (or 5.67?) K32; K&K, Tav. 1.10; Myzgin 2009, no. 7

114 42. 43.

44.

45.

46. 47. 48.

Helle Winge Horsnæs Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 190. W. 5.97; diam. 19-20; axis 12 K21; К 1966, 35 no. 5; Antonovič no. 2478 *Private collection (1956)/lost? Provenance: Gdansk/Danzig area? Diam. 19; axis 7 La Baume 1956, 69-70 Taf. XIV.22; Ciołek 2001, 61-62 no. 81; Ciołek 2007, 62-63 no. 95 Kiel, inv.no. 17916a. Provenance: Heiligenhafen. Ostholstein. W. 6.43; axis О Kersten 1951, 74-76; Raddatz 1962; FMRD VIII (1994), 1048; Bemmann 2006, 41 no. 56; Otte 2005; Bursche 2009, fig. 8. In market. W. 6.98; diam. 21 Hirsch/Ars Classica XV, 1930, no. 2151. Taf. 74; Hirsch/Ars Classica XVI 3/7-1933, 120 no. 1942, Taf. 74; Callu 1993, 465 n. 17 ^Whereabouts unknown. Provenance: Orlovets 09.01. W. 5.95; axis 6 Sostopal 2007, 46 no. 64 fig. 80 Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1153. W. 5.71; diam. 19; axis 6 K4; K&K, Tav. II.5 *Brandenburgisches Landesmuseum für Ur-und Frühgeschichte, Pots­ dam, inv.no. 1964:15. Provenance: Hohenbucko, Brandenburg. W. 6.49; diam. 20; axis 4 Schulz 1967, 148 and Taf. 21a; FMRD XI, 3024; Bursche 2009, 189

Imitations of mid-3rd century prototypes Attached to Group 1 49.

Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1174; diam. 17; axis; axis 0 K33; K&K, Tav. 11.12

Group 6 50. 51.

Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. 217, ex Koch (Coin 1852). W. 6.36; diam. 19 (Fig. 3) Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-183. W. 6.16; diam. 19-20; axis 0 K37; K&K, Tav. IV.3; Orešnikov tav. 11.29; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 199

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

115

Group 8 52.

Odessa. State Archaeological Museum, inv.no. H-52372. W. 6.71; diam. 19; axis 6 K27; K&K, Tav. III.ll 53. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1163. W. 6.24; diam. 19.5; diam. 21; axis 0 K28; K&K, Tav. III.5 54. Paris BNF, inv.no. 2841A. W. 5.94; diam. 20; axis 3 Callu 1991, fig. 5; Callu 1993, fig. 3 55. Paris BNF, inv.no. 2841. W. 6.70; diam. 19; axis 9 Callu 1991, fig. 4; Callu 1993, fig.2 56. ^Provenance: settlement area in southeastern Poland. Personal info. A. Bursche

Group 9 57.

Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-188. W. 5.92; diam. 20; axis 2 K43; K&K, Tav. IV.6; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 201 58. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1160. W. 4.88; diam. 21; axis 2 K44; K&K, Tav. III.3 59. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1170, ex Moscow State Historical Mu­ seum (1927). W. 6.39; diam. 20; axis 0 K47; K&K, Tav. III.4

Group 10 60. 61.

In market? W. 4.78; diam. 20; axis 1235. Hirsch/Ars Classica XV, 1930, no. 2152. Taf. 74 Krakow National Museum, inv.no. VII-A-5479 (prev. VII/8704), ex Karol Wilhelm Halama donation? W. 3.12; diam. 19.5; axis 0 K53; К 1966, 35 no. 2. Personal info. J. Bodzek

116

Helle Winge Horsnæs

Group 11 62.

63. 64.

Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-181. W. 5.94; diam. 19.5-20; axis 6 K l; K&K, Tav. IV.l Orešnikov 1892, 33 tav. 11.31; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 192 Odessa, priv.coll. of D.M. Knjazevič (1844); diam. 19-20 K2; Murzakevič 1844, 318 tav. VII.20 Whereabouts unknown. Provenance: Ukraine? axis 5 http://kladoiskateli.com/index.php?showtopic=185; Myzgin 2009, no. 48

Group 12 65.

66.

*Kiev. State Historical Museum inv.no. 8460 (until 1941, probably lost). Provenance: Černachov. Kagarlyk (Kiev) 1900-01. W. 5.90; diam. 23-25? K35; K&K, Tav. 1.11; See also: Kropotkin 2005; Myzgin 2009, no. 8 ^Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. FP 1977. Provenance: Tange. W. 6.80; diam. 20 Breitenstein 1943, 9 no. XIV; Horsnæs 2010b, fig. 1.

Group 13 67. 68.

69.

Kiev. Hist.mus, inv.no. 191. W. 4.21; diam. 21.5; axis 1 K20; К 1966, 34 no. 3; Antonovič no. 2479 Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. Thomsen 2667, ex Thomsen coll. W. 3.85; diam. 19 (Fig. 7)

Stuttgart. Württembergisches Landesmuseum, inv.no. MK SU, inv.no. 1189 ex Unger coll. W. 5.66; diam. 21. A 20, Tav. VIII.20 70. Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-185. W. 6.43; diam. 17.5-20; axis 6 K24; K&K, Tav. IV.5; Orešnikov tav. 11.28; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 197 71. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1165. W. 4.62; diam. 22; axis 0 K34; K&K, Tav. 11.11 72. Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 192. W. 6.23; diam. 20-21; axis 12 K36; К 1966, 35 no. 8; Antonovič no. 2480 73. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1171, ex Moscow State Hist. Museum (1927). W. 5.98; diam. 20; axis 0 K40; K&K, Tav. III.l 74. Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 193. W. 4.71; diam. 20-21.5; axis 6 K46; К 1966, 34 no. 4; Antonovič no. 2634

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum 75. 76. 77.

78. 79.

80.

81. 82.

83.

84.

117

Budapest, inv.no. 81/1883.18. W. 4.58; diam. 22. A 21. Tav. VIII.21 Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1156. W. 5.00; diam. 20; axis О K51; K&K, Tav. III.9 Krakow NM, inv.no. VII-A-5481 (prev. VII/8705). W. 5.93; diam. 17.3; axis 0 K54; К 1966, 35 no. 3. Personal info. J. Bodzek Vienna, inv.no. 40.434. W. 6.65; diam. 22; axis 0; A 22, Tav. VIII.22 Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-186. W. 5.84; diam. 20-20.5; axis 0 K31 and p. 29; K&K, Tav. IV.4; Orešnikov tav. 11.33; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 198 ^Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. F P 141. Provenance: Brenderup. W. 8.33; diam. 19 Breitenstein 1943, 10-11 no. XVII; Horsnæs 2010b, fig. 5. Berlin; diam. 19; axis 0. K&K, Tav. IV. 14; A 19, Tav. VIII.19 Copenhagen. National Museum, ex Museum Wormianum (bef.1654). W. 6.34; diam. 20 (Fig. 1) Mus.Worm; Horsnæs 2002 ^Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. FP 229. Provenance: Kværndrup. W. 3.68; axis 9. Breitenstein 1943, 10 no. XVI; Horsnæs 2010b, fig. 6. Krakow National Museum, inv.no. VII-A-5480 (prev. VII/8703), ex Karol Wilhelm Halama donation? W. 6.55; diam. 20.4; axis 2 K48; К 1966, 35 no. 1. Personal info. J. Bodzek

Imitations of Probus type 85. ’‘‘Budapest, inv.no. 14A/1928.1. Provenance: Siebenbürgen/Transylvania. W. 5.39; diam. 20 A 23, Tav. VIII.23

Group 14 86. 87.

Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1164. W. 4.80; diam. 20; axis 0 K25; K&K, Tav. III.6 Odessa. State Archaeological Museum, inv.no. 52264. W. 4.49; diam. 20-21; axis 0 K26; K&K, Tav. III.12

Helle Winge Horsnæs

118 Group 15 88.

89.

Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1172, ex Moscow State Hist. Museum, j 1927. W. 5.62; diam. 21.5; axis 0 K41; K&K, Tav. III.8 j Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1168. W. 6.23; diam. 20-21; axis 0 K42; K&K, Tav. III.7 i

90.

”Cerkasy Regional Museum. Provenance: Čerkasy 1970. W. 5.65; axis 6 Sostopal 2007, 46 no. 65 fig. 81 91. In market. W. 5.18; diam. 20; axis 3 GM 108, 3/4 2001 no. 1049; GM 113, 2001. no. 5037 (same specimen) 92. Vienna, ex Missong Coll. W. 5.99; diam. 20; axis 0; A 25, Tav. VIII.25 93. Vienna, ex Missong Coll. W. 6.72; diam. 20; axis 0; A 24, Tav. VIII.24 94. ”Kulturhistorisches Museum der Hansestadt Stralsund, inv.no. 1962:30. Provenance: Muuks. W. 5.71; diam. 23; axis 0. Traces of loop (Fig. 10) Herfert 1963,195; Laser 1982, 52 1-08; FMRD XIV (1997), 221 no. 1017. 95. ”Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. FP 110. Provenance: Vornæs Skov, Tåsinge. W. 6.24; diam. 21 Breitenstein 1943, 9-10 no. XV; Horsnæs 2010, fig. 4. 96. Vienna, ex Missong Coll. W. 5.69; diam. 20 A 26, Tav. VIII.26 97. Warsaw National Museum, inv.no. 165710. W. 6.53; diam. 19-20; axis 2 K39; К 1966, 35 (Fig. 11) 98. ”Stockholm Statens Historiska Museet, inv.no. SHM/KMK 7903. Prov­ enance: Lunda. Kullerstad parish. Östergötland 1885. W. 4.72; diam. 19; axis 7 Bomestaf 2009; Bursche 2009, fig. 7. 99. Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. 217, ex Koch coll. (Coin 1852). W. 5.44; diam. 20 (Fig. 4) 100. ”Whereabouts unknown. Provenance: Moldova? Axis 6 Myzgin 2009, no. 47 (with reference to dead link) 101. Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-184. W. 5.19; diam. 20-21; axis 0 K38; K&K, Tav. IV.7; Orešnikov tav. 11.30; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no.

202 Imitations of late 3rd-early 4th century prototypes 102. In market. W. 6.46; diam. 20; axis 0 GM 115, 03-03-2002. lot. 1031

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

119

103. *Whereabouts unknown. Provenance: Čerkasy Region? (2000); axis 0 Sostopal 2007, 46 no. 66 fig. 82. Probably same specimen as no. 100 Tn market' 104. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1166. W. 5.78; diam. 21; axis 2 K49; K&K, Tav. ШЛО 105. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1167. W. 6.12; diam. 21.5; axis 3 K50; K&K, Tav. III.2 Quinarius imitations 106. Stuttgart. Württembergisches Landesmuseum, inv.no. MK SU 761, ex Unger. W. 2.67; diam. 13. A 18, Tav. VIII.18 107. Stuttgart. Württembergisches Landesmuseum, inv.no. MK SU 751, ex Unger. W. 4.015; diam. 16; axis 10. A 15, Tav. VIII.15 108. Budapest, inv.no. 122A/1909.31. W. 2.74; diam. 14. A 16, Tav. VIII.16 109. *In market? Provenance: "Pester Fund 1874". W. 2.35; diam. 14. A 17, Tav. VIII. 17; Helbing. Auc.Cat. 12/10 1926, no. 1520 HO. Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-189. W. 3.37; diam. 14.5; axis 0 K15; K&K, Tav. IV.9; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 195 111. Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. 217, ex Joh. Fried. Koch (Coin 1852). W. 3.41; diam. 15 (Fig. 5) 112. *Kiev. University Museum(?), ex Coin Cabinet of St. Vladimir University. Lost? Provenance: Kašperovka Hoard, Teteev (Kiev) 1887 K57-59; K&K,p. 143.1; see also Kropotkin 2005; Myzgin 2009, nos. 4-6 113. *same 114. *same

Group 16 115. Hermitage, inv.no. OH-A-A3 no. 1173. W. 2.14; diam. 14; axis 0 КЗ; K&K, Tav. 11.10 116. Ex Trau coll. W. 3.18; diam. 14 Sammlung F. Trau 1935, 65 no. 2417

120

Helle Winge Horsnæs

Group 17 117. ^Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. FP 267 / NM 18571. Provenance: Årslev. W. 3.14; diam. 14 Breitenstein 1943, 7-9; Storgaard 1990 and 1994; Horsnæs 2010b, fig. 7. 118. Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-191. W. 2.26; diam. 12; axis 0 K16; K&K, Tav. IV .ll; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 196 119. Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 185. W. 1.99; diam. 14-15; axis 6. Traces of loop. (Fig. 12) K18; К 1966, 34 no. 1; Antonovič no. 2473

120. *Kroppedal Museum, inv.no. FP 6095. Provenance: Brøndsager. W. 2.99; diam. 14.5 Mahler 1999; Bursche 2009. 121. ^Copenhagen. National Museum, inv.no. FP 5033. Provenance: Gudme. W. 3.13; diam. 15 Kromann 1991-1992; Bursche 2009, fig. 12; Horsnæs 2010b, fig. 8. 122. Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 188. W. 3.13; diam. 16 K55; К 1966, 34 no. 2 123. In market. W. 2.12; diam. 15-16; axis 5 Lanz auc. 145, 05-01-2009 no. 143 124. In market. W. 3.42; diam. 15; axis 0 GM 147, 07-03-2006. lot. 1068 125. Ex Trau coll.; diam. 15 Sammlung F. Trau 1935, 108 no. 3972 126. Ex Trau coll. W. 2.18 Sammlung F. Trau 1935, 116 no. 4254 127. Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-190. W. 3.63; diam. 14.5; axis 0 K52; K&K, Tav. IV.10; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 193 128. In market. W. 4.3; diam. 16; axis 0 Helbing Auc.Cat. 12/10 1926, no. 1489 Imitations with gem prototypes 129. Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 189. W. 6.62; diam. 18; axis 4 K45; К 1966, 35 no. 9 130. Kiev. Historical Museum, inv.no. 182. W. 6.77; diam. 20-20.5; axis 12 K22; К 1966, 35 no. 10; Antonovič no. 2470 131. Moscow State Historical Museum, inv.no. A-187. W. 4.70; diam. 18.5-19; axis 0 K23; K&K, Tav. IV.8; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 200

, ! , !

j I |

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

121

Since the work with the present article was finished in 2009 a webpage has been launced at http://barbarous-imitations.narod2.ru/ dedicated to imitations of Roman coins from Moldova and the Ukraine. This page is continuously updated with new and hitherto unknown specimens, and it presently con­ tains no less than 97 imitations in gold or gold subaerati. Many of these are either die identical to or closely related to coins listed above. It is a laudable attempt to register new finds that otherwise would disappear in the market, but unfortunately these imitations do not derive from controlled archaeologi­ cal excavations, and all information of find contexts seems irreparably lost. It has not been possible to insert crossreferences to all these interesting specimens, but a few with particular relevance to specimens in Denmark should be noted: No. 3, pierced, from Cherkassy (Черкасская) oblast, belongs to group 13 (closely related to above nos. 67-68) No. 30, from Chernivtsi (Черновицкая) oblast, and no. 93, from Zhytomyr (Житомирская) oblast weight 6.91 g, both pierced, are die identical with the specimens in group 6 (above nos. 50-51) No. 92, looped, from Vinnytsia (Винницкая) oblast weight 2.42 g, is die iden­ tical to above no. 121, found in Gudme (Denmark) No. 95, pierced, from Cherkassy (Черкасская) oblast, is die identical to above no. 66, found in Tange (Denmark), and thus belongs to group 12 No. 97, pierced, from Poltavskaya (Полтавская) oblast weight 3.3 g, is closely related to above no. 80, found in Brenderup (Denmark) Acknowledgemen ts The project was funded by a generous grant from The Danish Ministry of Culture (Kulturministeriets Forskningspulje). The research took place in the Royal Collection of Coins and Medals, The National Museum of Denmark, in winter/early spring 2009. The project in a sense became a re-enactment of the prehistoric European network. Being unable to include any substantial amount of travel with­ in the frame of the project, I would not have been able to undertake this work without generous help and good advice from numerous colleagues: Angelica Abegg-Wigg, Gottorp; Paul Belier, Utrecht; Line Bjerg, Aarhus; Jaro­ sław Bodzek, Cracow; Ulrika Bornestaff, Stockholm; Renata Ciołek, Warzaw; Vera Guruleva, St. Petersburg; Dominique Hollard, Paris; Nicholas Holmes, Glasgow; Peter Loboda, Odessa; Matthias Ohm, Stuttgart; Vladimir Štolba, Aarhus; István Vida, Budapest; Klaus Vondrovec, Vienna; Janina Wiercińska,

222

Helle Winge Horsnæs

Warsaw; Gareth Williams, London; Zinaida Zrazjuk, Kiev. I am particularly grateful for the photos of unpublished specimens, which readily were sent to me by several colleagues, and for permission to publish photos of the specimens in the Warsaw National Museum, the Kiev Historical Museum and the Kulturhistorisches Museum der Hansestadt Stralsund. Special thanks to Aleksander Bursche, Warsaw, for interesting discussions and for sending me the manuscript for his 2009 publication, and to Kyrill Myzgin, Kharkov, who also generously mailed me the manuscript of his article of the Barbarian imitations in the Chernachov Culture, now published as Myzgin 2009. Spe­ cial thanks must go to Margarita Gleba, now UCL. Throughout the research period and during the completion of the final version of this article, she with the help of her colleague Sergei Polin, Kiev, searched with unfailing energy for - and copied - publications that I would otherwise never have been able to consult. Furthermore, Margarita translated important Ukrainian texts for me. The latest updates to the text were inserted in August 2010.

Notes 1 After the division into an Eastern and Western Empire we do not only see the regular mints in office, but also the irregular mints producing coins for the Successor Kingdoms emerging in the area of the former western provinces (Kent 1994), as well as less systematic productions of imitations, which are as yet unas­ signed (Horsnæs 2009 presents a catalogue of 5th century solidi from Denmark, including finds of unassigned imitations). 2 See, for example, the die-linked specimens from the Danubian area: Alföldi 1928-1929, tav. VIII.9-11. 3 The Danubian Group is discussed in Horsnæs 2011. 4 Contemporary gold imitations of Roman coins of the 2nd century, and (more rarely) the Constantinian Period, were also produced in southern India; see, for example, P.J. Turner: R o m a n C o in s f r o m I n d ia , London 1989, 37-38 and 115, plates I-III. They are not discussed here, but I suspect that a closer comparative analysis of the Indian material will reveal that some of the imitations on the market clas­ sified as "Indian" or "Oriental" would indeed turn out to be "European" and v ic e v e r s a . Finds from India are often characterized by double suspension holes, never seen in the European material. 5 Horsnæs 2002. 6 Alföldi 1928-1929. 7 Kropotkin 1966. 8 Kropotkin 1976. Unfortunately this article was not illustrated, and Kropotkin's arguments can only be followed through references to previous studies, in par­ ticular Kazamanova & Kropotkin 1964. 9 I am most grateful to Kyrill Myzgin for sending me the manuscript for his article. 10 Kropotkin 1976, 28-29. 11 This group is treated in more detail in Horsnæs 2011. 12 Bursche 2009, fig. 10. 13 Lists by Kropotkin 1961; Kazamanova & Kropotkin 1964, in particular Tab. I; Kapanadze 1970 and Golenko 1971. According to Tedo Dundua (pers.comm.,

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

14 15 16

17 18 19

20 21 22 23

24

25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

123

Nieborow 2005) there are c. 50 locally produced imitations of Roman gold coins from Georgia, but no details are provided. Kazamanova & Kropotkin 1964. Golenko 1971, 50. Kazamanova & Kropotkin 1964, tab. 1.1 and 2 = Kapanadze 1970, tab. 1.4 and 3, and the new specimen with same dies, tab. 1.10; K&K 1964, tab. 1.3 and 4 = Kapanadze 1970, tab. 1.1 and 2; Kapanadze 1970, tab. 1.9 and 11. Kapanadze 1970, Tab. 1.13-14; Tsukhishvili & Depeyrot 2003, 16-17. Golenko 1971, 72 and 50 fig. 1. There are 17 Tight-weighť specimens (3.37-4.77 g) among the 113 weighed aureus imitations studied. None of them can be connected to the Transcaucasian speci­ mens. See weight diagram in Horsnæs 2011. Kapanadze 1970, 85. A fallen-off loop from the Boltinggård Hoard (coin terminus post quern AD 336), weighs 0.54 g. Henriksen & Horsnæs 2006. Sostopal 2007, 46 no. 66 fig. 82: "Handed in to jeweller's shop". Probably same specimen: GM 115, 03-03-2002, lot. 1031. Originally suggested by Kromann 1991-1992. Bursche 2009,191 has identified it as a Bacchic inscription and suggests that the motif was taken over from a gem rather than a coin prototype. No examples have been identified in finds from the British Isles, neither have they been found in Norway. On the other hand Norway has yielded a number of imitations of Roman 4th century medallions, see Skaare 1993. Horsnæs 2002 and 2010b, the latter with colour photos of all specimens from Funen. Henriksen 2010. Bursche 2009. Bornestaff 2009. The possible third specimen is an extremely worn Maximinus Herculius coin/imitation found in a very rich male burial at Fullerön in Uppland (Stockholm SHM 20.724). It is pierced three times(!), and the holes have been filled in, before it was mounted with a simple loop. I thank Ulrika Bornestaff for drawing my attention to this coin/imitation. Furthermore there is a small, unique, group from Gotland consisting of four die-linked medallion imitations based on a prototype from the second half of the 4th century; see Axboe 2007, 22 and figs. 10-13 and Hauck 1985, IK 286. Aleksander Bursche most kindly informed of this find, which he will publish in detail. Bursche 2009. Storgaard 1990 and 1994. Raddatz 1962, Otte 2005. Krause 1893. Excavation of 500-600 burials in 1899-1900 by V.V. Chvojka, main publication in Z R A O 1901, 172ff. Kanev: Kropotkin 2000, 55; Myzgin 2009 no. 17. Orlovec: Sostopal 2007, 46 no. 64 fig. 80. Personal information from Aleksander Bursche. Only reported in brief notes by V.B. Antonovič 1889 and 1895. The find was then in the Coin Cabinet of St. Vladimir University (earlier name for Kiev University Museum).

224

Helle Winge Horsnæs

38 Horsnæs 2010a, 91-94 and 159; on Funěn see also Henriksen 2010. 39 A recent example being Anochin 2010, 170, ascribing the Cherkassk imitation (List no. 90) found in the 1960s/1970s to a Republican issue (Sydenham no. 756 dated 82-81 BC), while Sostopal 2007, 46 no. 65, fig. 81 described the portrait as "emperor". In my grouping this specimen is placed in the "Probus type" group. Die studies as well as classification are not objective methods. In this case the assignments presented should be taken as suggestions, and even more so as the majority of the specimens have only been studied from photos, some of which are known only from relatively old publications. 40 There are some examples described as imitating the portrait of Trajan. Three of them are only known from verbal description. Three illustrated specimens, previously assigned to Trajan, depict a beardless emperor to the right. I am not convinced that the prototype for this portrait is Trajan; the specimen may just as well derive from an anonymous 3rd century prototype (see below). 41 Inv. 217322; unpublished. I thank Dr. Janina Wiercińska, who provided me with photos and all information about this specimen. 42 GM 147, 07-03-2006, lot. 1067. 43 Copenhagen NM inv. Thomsen 2666, see catalogue below. 44 Kunkel 1938, 331 fig. 27; Ciołek 2001, no. 296; Ciołek 2007, 246 no. 344. 45 Hirsch/Ars Classica XV, 1930, no. 2152, Taf. 74. 46 Krakow inv.no. VII-A-5479 (prev. VII/8704). Probably from the Karol Wilhelm Hallama's collection that was formed between the 1890s and 1939. W. 3.12 g, diam. 19.5 mm. Thanks to Dr. J. Bodzek, Cracow, who provided me with all information about this imitation. 47 No. 63 recently appeared on the market, it was probably found in Ukraine: Myzgin 2009, no. 48. 48 Murzakevič 1844, 318, tav. VII.20. Previously in the private collection of D.M. Knjazeviču in Odessa. 49 Horsnæs 2010b. 50 Hermitage OH-A-A3 no. 1174; Kazamanova & Kropotkin tav. II. 1; Kropokin 1976, no. 33. 51 Sostopal 2007, 46 no. 66 fig. 82. The specimen is probably identical to one sold on the market in 2002: GM 115, 03-03-2002, lot. 1031. The photo in the auction catalogue presents a much cleaner version than the one published by Sostopal, but I believe that is the same specimen. 52 Sostopal 2007, 46 no. 65 fig. 81; Anochin 2010,170 no. 62 suggest that this imita­ tion was based on a Republican prototype (Sydenham 756 of 82-81 BC). 53 An example: the hoard consisting of 201, 5th century, solidi from Rublevka 1891 was split between the Hermitage (53 s o lid i ), the collection of 1.1. Tołstoj (12 s o lid i ), The University of Charkov (34 s o lid i ), and the State Archaeological Museum in Moscow (102 s o lid i ). Kropotkin 1961/2005, no. 813. Dr. Vera Guruleva kindly informed me that three of the imitations now in the Hermitage were until 1927 in the Moscow State Historical Museum, while the provenances of the remain­ ing imitations are unknown. The recent republication of imitations in Moscow (Abramzon & Frolova 2006) does not mention provenances. 54 Kiev, Historical Museum inv. 191: Kropotkin 1966, 34 no. 3. 55 Kropotkin 1976, 27.

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

125

56 Moscow State Historical Museum, inv. A-189: Kazamanova & Kropotkin 1964, Tav. IV.9; A&F 2006, no. 195 and inv. A-191: Kazamanova & Kropotkin 1964, Tav. IV.ll; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 196, here nos. 110 and 118. 57 Kiev State Historical Museum, inv. 185: Kropotkin 1966, 34 no. 1, here no. 119. 58 Antonovič 1889, 104. 59 Copenhagen, Dept, of Prehistory 8571; Breitenstein 1943, 7-9; Storgaard 1990 and 1994; Moscow SHM A-191; Abramzon & Frolova 2006, no. 196; Kiev Historical Museum 185; Kropotkin 1966, 34 no. 1. 60 Henriksen & Horsnæs 2006. 61 Bursche 2009, 191. 62 Myzgin 2009; For Moldavia see Ciobanu 1999. 63 The studies of d e n a r i u s imitations made by Stribrny 2003, and Lind 2007 and 2008, provide other insights into this fascinating theme. 64 Most recently discussed in Horsnæs 2010b. 65 M u s e u m W o r m i a n u m , s e u h is to ria r e r u m r a r i o r u m f ta m n a t u r a l i u m , q u a m a rtific ia liu m , ta m d o m e s t ic a r u m , q u a m e x o t i c a r u m , q u æ H a fn i æ D a n o r u m in æ d ib u s a u th o ris s e r v a n t u r , v a riis e t a c c u r a t is ic o n ib u s illu s tra ta , a d o rn a ta ab O la o W o r m .

66 67 68

69 70 71 72 73 74 75

76

77

B r e v e f r a o g til O le W o r m , I-III, translated from Latin by H.D. Schepelern and Holger Friis Johansen. København 1965-68. Inv.no. BP 217 (protocol p. 134). Heberle 1862: No. 2920, Diocletian laureate 1/horseman addressing audience, must belong to the Danubian group of imitations: it is certainly of the same type, perhaps the same dies(?) or even the same specimen as Stuttgart MK SU 917 (Alföldi, 1928-1929, Taf. VIII.31). Likewise No. 2973 has the same reverse type as Alföldi 1928-1929, Taf. IX.3-11. The two coins, No. 3582 and No. 3583, may be Iron Age imitations as well, but information is too general to allow for definite ascription. Callu 1993, fig. 1. Kiev State Historical Museum (until 1941): Kazamanova & Kropotkin 1964 Tav. 1.10; Kropotkin 1976 no. 32. Gorny & Morsch auc. 113, 2001, no. 5037. Sostopal 2007, 46 no. 65 fig. 81. Jensen 1992. Kromann & Jensen 1988. The letters (in German) exchanged between C.J. Thomsen and Jakob Reichel in St. Petersburg were recently published by J.S. Jensen (2002 and 2004). See also Thomsen 1866. Until 1945 in Stettin Landesmuseum, in the 1960s in Berlin. Present whereabouts unknown. Kunkel 1938, 331 fig. 27; Kazamanova & Kropotkin 1964, Tav. IV.13; Ciołek 2001, no. 296; Ciołek 2007, 246 no. 344. Kropotkin 1966, 34 no. 3; Kropotkin 1976, no. 20.

Abbreviations: A BMC FMRD GM

Catalogue number in Alföldi 1928-1929 A Catalogue of the Roman Coins in the British Museum Die Fundmünzen der Römischen Zeit in Deutschland Gorny & Morsch Giessener Münzhandlung Katalog

126 К K&K К 1966

Helle Winge Horsnæs Catalogue number in Kropotkin 1976 Illustration number in Kazamanova & Kropotkin 1964 Catalogue number in Kropotkin 1966

Bibliography Abramzon, M.G. & N.A. Frolova. 2006. Rimskie zolotye monety iz Sobranija Gosudarstvennogo Istoričeskogo Myzeja (časť II), V D I2, 53-78. Alekseev, V.R & RG. Loboda. 2004. Odesskyj Muže] Numyzmatiki, Katalog sobra­ nija III, Anticnye i srednevekovye monety severo-zapadnogo pricernomorja. Odessa. Alföldi, A. 1928-1929. Materialien zur Klassifizierung der gleichzeitigen Nachahmungen von römischen Münzen aus Ungarn und den Nachbar­ ländern. II. Nachahmungen von Goldmünzen aus diocletianisch-constantinischer Zeit, Numismatikai Közlöny XXVI-XXVII, 1928, 59-71. Anochin, B.A. 2010. Materiały; issledovanija i zametki po archeologii i numizmatike. Kiev. (anonymous) 1857. Das akademische Münzkabinett in Königsberg. Antonovič, V.B. 1889. Monetnye klady Kievskoj gubernii. Kiev. Antonovič, V.B. 1895. Archeologicheskaja karta Kievskoj gubernii. Moscow. Antonovič, V.B. 1906. Opisanie monet i medalej chranjaščisja v numizmaticeskom kabinete muzej Universiteta sv Vladimíra vol. III. Kiev. Axboe, M. 2007. Brakteatstudier, Nordiske Fortidsminder, serie B, vol. 25. Køben­ havn. Balling, J. 1962. De romerske møntfund fra Jylland, Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift, 5-78. Bemmann, J. 2006. Zur Münz- und Münzerstazbeigabe in Gräbern der Römischen Kaiserzeit und Völkerwanderungszeit des mittel- und nord­ westeuropäischen Barbaricums, Studien zur Sachsenforschung 15,1-62. Bornestaff, U. 2009. En östgötsk "barbar", Svensk Numismatisk Tidsskrift 2, 38-39. Brajcevs'kij, M.J. 1950. Znachidki rim'skich monet na territorij UPSP, Arche­ ologia III. Kiev, 93-103. Brajcevs'kij, M.J. 1959. Rimska moneta na territorij Ukraini, Kiev. Breitenstein, N. 1943. De romerske Møntfund fra Fyen udenfor Gudme Herred, Nordisk Numismatisk Årsskrift, 1-20. Bursche, A. 2009. Coins, in: L. Boye & U. Lund Hansen (eds.), Wealth and Prestige. An Analysis o f Rich Graves from Late Roman Iron Age on Eastern Zealand, Denmark. Kroppedal, Studier i Astronomi, Nyere Tid, Arkæologi Vol. II, 195-192. Callu, J.-P. 1991. La perforation d'or romain, Festschrift Alföldi, 99-121. Callu, J.-P. 1993. Un aureus du barbaricum, Rivista Italiana di Numismatica e Scienze Affini 95, 461-472.

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

127

Ciobanu, L. 1999. Les découvertes monetaires romaines dans la zone PrutoNistranie en Moldávie, in: G. Gomolka-Fuchs (ed.), Die Sintana de MuresCemjachov-Kultur. Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums in Caputh vom 20. Bis 24. Oktober 1995. Bonn. Ciołek, R. 2001. Katalog znalezisk monet rzymskich na Pomorzu, Swiatowit Supplement Series A: Antiquity, vol. VI. Warszawa. Ciołek, R. 2007. Die Fundmünzen der römischen Zeit in Polen. Pommern, Wet­ teren. Chvojka, V.V. 1901. Polja pogrebenij v Srednem Pridneprovje. Zapiski imperatorskago russkago archeologičkago obsčestva, tom. XII, 172. Eggers, H.K. 1972. Ein reiches Skelettgrab mit römischen Import aus Arnswalde, Kr. Arnswalde, in: Pommern, Kunst, Geschichte, Volkstum 10.3,1972, 13-15. (Not available for consultation) Forrer, R. 1908. Keltische Numismatik der Rhein- und Donaulande. Strassbourg 1908. Gohi, E. 1904. Monnaies Sarmates frappées en Hongrie å l'epoque romaine, Numizmatikai Közlöny 3, 77ff. Golenko, K.V. 1971. Zametki ob obraščenija monetyv Zakavkaz'e, VDJ 1971.4, 47-73. Hauck, K. 1985. Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit, Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften 24. Münster. Heberle, J.M. 1862. Katalog der von Herrn Friedrich Koch nachgelassene sehr bedutende Sammlung v. Münzen u. Medaillen der Griechen, Römer, des Mittelalters u. der N euzeit... 7. Juli 1862 (Auction catalogue). (Otto) Helbing, Nachf. 1926. Auktion ab Dienstag 12. Oktober 1926, Barbarische Prägungen nach römischen Vorbildern. München, 99-108. Henriksen, M.B. & H.W. Horsnæs. 2006. Boltinggård Skov: A Hoard of Roman gold coins of Constantinian period from Funen, Denmark, Revue Numismatique 162, 259-271. Henriksen, M.B. 2010. Gold deposits in the Late Roman and Migration Period Landscape, a case study from the Island Funen (Fyn), Denmark, in: U. Lund Hansen & A. Bitner-Wróblewska (eds.), Worlds apart? Contacts across the Baltic in the Iron Age. Network Denmark-Poland 2005-2008. Nordiske Fortidsminder Serie C, volume 7. København - Waszawa. Herfert, P. 1963. Ein goldener Münzanhänger von Muuks, Kr. Stralsund, Ausgrabungen und Funde, Archäologische Berichte und Informationen 8,1963, 195-197. Hirsch/Ars Classica XV. 1930. Catalogue de monnaies antiques grecques, romaines, Byzantines, etc. bibliotheque numismatique. Collections de deux amateurs étrangers récemment décédes et ďautres provenances, choix tire de la coellection W.-H. Woodward. Londres. Lucern. Hirsch/Ars Classica 1933. Catalogue de monnaies antiques grecques et romaines. Geneve.

228

Helle Winge Horsnæs

Horsnæs, H.W. 2002. Lidt om Ole Worm og nogle barbariske guldmønter, in: L.K. Jacobsen & A.M. Carstens (eds.), Til Jens Erik Skydsgaard, Meddelelser fra Klassisk Arkæologisk Forening Suppl. 1, 29-39. Horsnæs, H.W. 2009. Late Roman and Byzantine coins found in Denmark, in: M. Wołoszyn (ed.), Byzantine Coins in Central Europe between the 5th and the 10th century, (Congress Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences, Krakow, April 23rd to 26th, 2007), Moravia Magna seria Polona vol. III. Krakow, 231-270. Horsnæs, H.W. 2010a. Crossing Boundaries. An Analysis o f Roman Coins in Dan­ ish Contexts, vol. 1: Sealand, Funen and Jutland, Publications of the National Museum, Studies in Archaeology and History Vol. 18. Horsnæs, H.W. 2010b. Et grænseoverskridende fund, in: M. Andersen & P.O. Nielsen (eds.), Danefæ. Skatte fra den danske muld (gave til Dronning Mar­ grethe II, 2010). København, 105-110. Horsnæs, H.W. 2011. Imitations in gold, in: N. Holmes (ed.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Numismatic Congress, Glasgow 2009,1, Glasgow, 742-748. Jensen, J. 1992. Thomsens Museum. Historien om Nationalmuseet. København. Jensen, J.S. 2002 and 2004. Christian Jürgensen Thomsen og Jakob Reichel - en numismatisk og etnografisk brevveksling mellem København og Sankt Petersborg 1821-1855, Danske Magazin 2002, 391-475 and 2004, 451-608. Kapanadze, D.G. 1970. Novye nachodni lodrazanija rimskim aureusam v Gruzii (English summary page 92) VDI 1970.4, 81-92. Kazamanova, L.N. & V.V. Kropotkin. 1964. Podražanija rimskim zolotym monetám II-III w . N.E. Vestnik Drevnej Istorij, 140-148. (French summary: Imitations des monnaies d'or romaines du II et du III siedes de п.ё.) Kent, J.P.C. 1994. Roman Imperial Coinage X. London. Kersten, K. 1951. Ein Münzdatiertes Körpergrab aus Heiligenhafen, Offa 9, 1951, 74-76. Krause, E. 1893. Skelettgräberfunde bei Arnswalde in der Neumark, Nachricht über der Altkunde 4, Heft. 6, 81-86. Kromann, A. & J.S. Jensen. 1988. C.J. Thomsen som numismatiker, Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 97-112. Kromann, A. 1991-1992. Nyt fra Nationalmuseet, 2. Kropotkin, V.V. 1961. Klady rimskich monet na territorii SSSR. Moskow 1961. (Updated French edition: Kropotkin, V.V. 2005: Les trouvailles de monnaies romaines en U.R.S.S., Collection Moneta. Wetteren 2005) Kropotkin, V.V. 1966. Ekonomiceskie svjazi Vostocnoj Evropy v I tysjaceletii nasej ery. Moscow. Kropotkin, V.V. 1976. Varvarskie podražanija zolotym monetám v vostocnoj Evropě, Slovenská Numizmatika 4, 11-35. (German summary: Barbarische imitationen römischer Goldmünzen in Osteuropa, 34-35). Kropotkin, V.V. 2000. Dopolnenie к spisku nachodok rimskich monet (Addi­ tions to the List of Roman Coins), Stratum plus 6, 20-117. Kunkel, О. 1938. Urgeschichte, Baltische Studien (Stettin) XL, 331.

Networking in north-eastern Barbaricum

129

La Baume, P. 1956. Germanische Goldprägung nach einem Denar des Caracalla aus der Umgebung von Danzig, in: O. Kleemann (ed.), Documenta Archeologica W. La Baume dedicata. Bonn, 69-70. Laser, R. 1982. Die römischen und frühbyzantinischen Fundmünzen auf dem Gebiet der DDR (2nded.), Schriften zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Bd. 28, Berlin. Lind, L. 2007. A group of barbarous Roman denarii represented in Sweden and Hungary (and Germany and Britain?), in: M. Andersen, H.W. Horsnæs & J.C. Moesgaard (eds.), Magister Monetae, Studies in Honour o f Jørgen Steen Jensen, Publications of the National Museum 13, Copenhagen 2007,53-58. Lind, L. 2008. En ny grupp imitationer av romerska denarer representerad på Gotland, Myntstudier http://www.myntstudier.se/myntstudier_low/0802lag. p d f 9-13. Loboda, P.G. 2003. Novye materiały k drevnej numizmatike Ukrainy, Vestnik Odesskogo Muzeja Numizmatiki, Vypusk No. 17, 2003,156-160. Loboda, P.G. 2006. Varvarskie podražanija rimskom monetám čemjachovskogo perioda (Barbarous imitations of Roman coins in the Chernyahov period), Vestnik Odesskogo Muzeja Numizmatiki, Vypusk No. 22, Berezen' 2. http:// www.museum.com.ua/en/nauch-isled/vestn4.htmltt22. Mahler, D.L. (ed.) 1999. Høje Tåstrup før buerne, Københavns Amtsmuseums­ råd, Høje-Taastrup. Murzakevič, N.N. 1844. Zapiski Odesskogo obscestva istorii i drevnostej, Odessa. Müller-Wille, M. & K.H. Willroth. 1983. Zur eisenzeitlichen und frühmittelal­ terlichen Besiedlung von Angeln und Schwansen, Offa 40, 275-319. Myzgin, K.V. 2009. //Varvarskie,/ podražanija rimskim monetám na territorii Černjachovskoj kul'tury, Drevnosti, 2009, 90-106. Orešnikov, A.V. 1892. Materiały po drevnej numizmatike Černomorskago poberez'ja. Moscow. Otte, P. 2005. Die jüngerkaiserzeitlichen Körpergräber von Heiligenhafen, Kr. Ostholstein - Ein Bestattungsplatz zwischen Skandinavien und Mittel­ deutschland, Starigard, Jahresbericht des Fördervereins des Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte der Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel 6, 38-41. Raddatz, K. 1962. Kaiserzeitliche Körpergräber von Heiligenhafen, Kreis Oldenburg. Offa 19, 91-128. Sammlung F. Trau 1935. (Anon.), Sammlung Franz Trau. Münzen der römischen Kaiser, Versteigerung 22. Mai 1935. Wien. Luzern. Schepelern, H.D. & H. Friis Johansen. 1965-1968. Breve til og fra Ole Worm I-III. København. Schulz, H.D. 1967. Ein barbarisierter Aureus des Severus Alexander von Hohenbrucko, Kr. Herzberg, Ausgrabungen und Funde, 148-149. Skaare, K. 1993. Roman gold medallions and their imitations in Scandinavia, Rivista ltaliana di Numismatica e Scienze Affini 95, 473-486. Sostopal, A.V. 2007. Skarby Čerkaščyny. Čerkasy. Storgaard, В. 1990. Arslev-fundet - et fynsk gravfund fra slutningen af yngre romersk jernalder, Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 23-58.

130

Helle Winge Horsnæs

(German summary: Årslev - ein Grabfund von Fünen vom Ende der jüngeren römischen Kaiserzeit). Storgaard, B.1994. The Årslev grave and connections between Funěn and the Continent at the end of the later Roman Iron Age, in: K. Randsborg, RO. Nielsen & H. Thrane (eds.), The Archaeology ofGudme and Lundeborg, Papers presented at a Conference in Svendborg October 1991. Copenhagen, 160-168. Stribrny, K. 2003. Funktionsanalyse barbarisierter, barbarischer Denare mit­ tels numismatischer und metallurgische Metoden. Zur Erforschung der sarmatisch-germanischen Kontakte im 3. Jahrhundert n.Chr., Studien zu Fundmünzen der Antike 18. Mainz am Rhein. Thomsen, C.J. 1866. Catalogue de la collection de monnaies de feu Christian Jürgensen Thomsen. Premiere partie. Les Monnaies Antiques, tome IL Les monnaies romaines (vente publique, å Copenhague le 6 mai 1867), Copenhague. Tsukhishvili, I. & G. Depeyrot. 2003. History and Coin Finds in Georgia, Late Roman and Byzantine Hoards (4th - 13th c.), Collection Moneta 34. Wetteren.

The Herulians are coming! Line Bjerg

The coin material of the late Antique Bosporan Kingdom in the Azov Sea re­ gion records a curious break in the hoard material between the rulers Rheskouporis V (AD 242-276) and Thothorses (AD 285/286-308/309). Written sources record an attack by the Gothic tribe the Herulians on the Bosporan Kingdom at the same time. Are these two events linked? This paper discusses the historical interpretation of numismatic data in relation to one of the earliest documented confrontations between the powers of the Black Sea and the Baltic. The Bosporan Kingdom The core of the Bosporan Kingdom is the peninsulas situated at the strait be­ tween the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. (Fig. 1) The geographical borders of the kingdom fluctuated through time. During most of the Roman period the northernmost point of the Bosporan Kingdom was the emporion of Tanais, situ­ ated at the northern end of the Sea of Azov. Theodosia was the western border town towards the central Crimea and Gorgippia was the border town towards the east and the North Caucasian area. Pantikapaion on the Kerč Peninsula was the capital and the main city on the Taman' Peninsula was Phanagoria.1 The Bosporan Kingdom grew out of the Spartocid Kingdom of the 5th century BC in the eastern Crimea and on the Taman' Peninsula. This king­ dom came under the rule of Mithridates VI (132-63 BC), who created the Pontic Empire uniting Pontos and Bosporos. The kingdom flourished in the first centuries AD. It was a buffer zone, just outside the Roman Empire in an area with strong Barbarian influence. The term "Barbarian" should here be understood to refer to the culture of the geographical area of "Barbaricum", which was defined by the Romans as the area beyond Greek and Roman civilization. The culture of the Bosporan Kingdom was highly influenced by Barbarian culture in the Roman period, especially in the 2nd to 3rd centuries AD, just as it had been influenced by the Greek culture of the city-states in the pre-Roman period. Because the Bosporan Kingdom was a buffer zone between Rome and Barbaricum the events which took place here played a role in the shifting power balance between Romans and Barbarians and as will be demonstrated below also gave the Barbarians an important stronghold in the push towards conquering previously held Roman territory in the Black Sea region. The Bosporan Kingdom was one of the major Black Sea states and one of

132

Line Bjerg

the grain suppliers to the Aegean throughout the Greek and Roman periods. It probably exported agricultural and fish products, as well as other goods, to the Roman Empire, and exported Roman and Bosporan luxury items to neighbouring tribes.2 The Bosporan Kingdom is one of a few independent kingdoms border­ ing the Roman Empire that retained its own coinage after the introduction of Roman presence in the area. However, we do not know if the import/export goods were paid in Roman coins, the main international currency of the pe­ riod.3 The coinage and coin circulation of the Bosporan Kingdom show a number of unique traits when compared with other regions, both within the Roman Empire and beyond. Most importantly, the coin system was bi-metallic gold-bronze4 - whereas the Roman coin system was tri-metallic - gold-silverbronze.5 The gold coins were referred to as staters throughout the Roman period, but the bronze coinage varied through the period from tetrachalkoi to aes, sestertius, dupondius, denarius and double denarius. 6 The distribution pattern of the Bosporan hoards indicates that the Bosporan currency was probably a local currency and was meant to circulate within a limited area: the Bos­ poran state and the areas closest to it.7 But it was not a closed circulation, as foreign coins - in particular Roman coins - circulated along with Bosporan coins within the kingdom.8

The Herulians are coming!

133

The Herulians in the historic record The Bosporans constantly needed to negotiate with the surrounding tribes. This was made more difficult in the 3rd century AD when an economic crisis left the kingdom vulnerable, just at the moment when the Gothic tribe the Herulians emerged from the Sea of Azov. The most important source for the raids in the Bosporan Kingdom and in the Black Sea area is Zosimus (AD 490s to 510s) Historia Nova (1.27 and 1.31-36). His text is based on the books by Dexippus (AD c. 210-273) for the period AD 238-270. Dexippus wrote two books on the subject: Scythica, on the wars between Rome and the Goths (Scythians) and Chronike Historia, a thousand years of history up to AD 270 and the reign of the emperor Claudius Gothicus (268-270) and on Vitae sophitarum by Eunapius of Sardis (AD 347-4th-5th century) for the period AD 270-404, though this book also relied heavily on Dexippus. The text by Zosimus describes three raids. The first two were undertaken by the Boranoi, an unknown tribe identified by Zosimus as Scythian, which undertook an unsuccessful attack on Pityus on the north-east coast of the Black Sea, by frightening the Bosporans to grant them free passage through their lands and to lend them the Bosporan fleet to carry out attacks further afield (1.31-1.32.2). The second and more success­ ful attack sacked Pityus and Trapezus and laid waist to large areas of Pontos (1.32.3-1.33.3). In the second attack the Bosporan fleet was again used by the tribes to gain access to overseas regions, though this time round the fleet was not returned. The success of these attacks encouraged the Goths and the Heru­ lians to undertake a third and devastating attack. This attack destroyed large parts of Pontos, Kappadokia, Galatia and Bithynia (1.34-35). The date of the two first attacks is given as possibly three successive years either AD 254-56 or 255-257.9 In the third attack in around AD 267 Zosimus describes how the Gothic tribes the Herulians, the Peucae and the Gothi came from the North, stole the Bosporan fleet of 6.000 ships set sails from Tanais and sailed along the western shore of the Black Sea and ransacked the coastal area and tried to capture the cities of Tomis and Marcianopolis in Myria. Afterwards they set sails for Greece and after sustaining heavy losses on the way, rendering them unable to take the fortified cities, they returned to the Tanais area in much smaller numbers than had originally set forth.10 Zosimus stated that their goal was booty, both in the form of human and material objects. The second source to the events in the Bosporan Kingdom is Jordanes Getica (AD 551). Accord­ ing to him the Goths and Herulians settled on the Crimean Peninsula in ter­ ritory previously occupied by the Alans and the most highly cultured among them lived beyond Tanais (1.37-38, 44, 89, 123-126). Because the information in Jordanes is exceedingly vague on the specific location and time when they appeared, the first skirmishes with the Romans cannot be dated. Ammianus Marcellinus (AD 325/330-after 391) in Res Gestae (2.16-17;4.6) describes how the Alans were forced to flee beyond the areas controlled by the Sarmathians and the Scythians into the Azov region where they remain until the second

134

Line Bjerg

part of the 4th century AD. According to A. Aibabin Alan necropoleis occur from the 3rd century AD near the slopes of the Third Ridge of the Crimean Mountains.11 Based on the finds from the necropoleis near the abandoned Roman fortress of Charax Chapunov (2002) and Мус, Lysenko, Sčukin & Šarov (2006) discuss the possibility that the Borani and the Goths had settled on the southern coast of Crimea and on the border of the chora of Chersonesos between AD 252 and 256. They point to a shift in burial practice towards cremation, finds of food and fire near the graves and the style of ceramics and metal objects found there.12 Heather and Matthews argue that many of the attacks by Gothic tribes on the Roman Empire were launched from the northern part of the Black Sea area.13 It is important to understand the impact of the attacks on the Bosporan Kingdom, as this gives us an indication of the early effects of the Gothic at­ tacks on the Roman Empire and the economic implications throughout this region. The evidence o f the coin material The coin material from the period of the beginning of the 1st century AD to when the mintage ends in AD 341 can be divided into two main circulation groups:14 Group 1 The reign of Aspourgos (AD 9/10-37/38) to the reign of Rheskouporis V (AD 242-276) Group 2 The reign of Thothorses (AD 285/286-308/309) to the annexation of the former Bosporan Kingdom by the East Roman Byzantine Empire in the 6th century AD Due to the focus of the present study only the coinages and hoards of the latest kings in group 1 will be discussed in detail, together with the whole of group 2, though an overview of the development in group 1 is included. In order to get the most reliable data the focus is on published coin finds from archaeological excavations from the 1st to the 4th century AD. There is an inherent danger in this, however, because the material reflects where archae­ ologists have chosen to excavate. To avoid this complication the material with less information has also been considered, although the main focus is on the archaeologically excavated material.

The Herulians are coming!

135

The first group In general, the coins dating from the reign of Aspourgos (AD 9/10-37/38) until that of Rheskouporis V (AD 242-276) circulated in one pool. There are, however, clear subgroups within this group, which will not be dealt with here. There is a group of three hoards from Pantikapaion and Sukko that all end with coins of Mithridates III (AD 39/40-44/45) (See Table 1 and 2), and which, if the depositions had been dated, might have been confirmed as hav­ ing been buried as a response to the Bosporan civic war in AD 45/46-49. The period from Aspourgos (AD 9/10-37/38) to Ininthimaios (AD 234/235-238/239) is characterized by almost no hoards on the Kerc peninsula; there are only two hoards from Nymphaion, with less than 10 coins in each.15 This picture is almost the same when examining finds made outside archaeological exca­ vations. The five hoards with compositions within this time frame were all found in Kerč/Pantikapaion from the 1840s to the 1870s.16 They include two hoards of Mithridates III (AD 39/40-44/45) and one hoard from the middle of the period: Rhoimetalkes (AD 131-154) and two hoards, dated to late in this period; one hoard of coins of Kotys II (AD 123/124-132/133) to Kotys III (AD 227/228-233/234) and one with coins of Kotys III (AD 227/228-233/234) to Ininthimaios (AD 234/235-238/239) (See Table 3). The composition of these hoards corresponds with the hoards from Nymphaion that are roughly dated to the first half of the 3rd century AD. When turning to the Taman' Peninsula a different pattern is observed. There are no early or middle period hoards on the peninsula, but there is a hoard from Sukko, further to the east from the Taman' Peninsula, with a composition from 13/12 BC to Mithridates III (AD 39/40-44/45), corresponding to the Kerc hoards; another hoard, found during excavations in Gorgippia to the south of the Taman' Peninsula, also has an early composition: 13/12 BC to Kotys II (AD 123/123-132/133).17 On the other hand the single finds from excavations on the Kerc peninsula show a consistent pattern of a few coins from each site within the period, with more coins found in Pantikapaion. The concentration in this site may either be due to the many years of continued excavations here or to the fact that it was the capital of the kingdom, whence more trade may have taken place. A slight peak of Mithridates III (AD 39/40-44/45) coins can also be seen in Pantikapa­ ion, Poljanka and Tyritake, and there seems to be a more substantial peak of Sauromates I (AD 93/94-123/124) coins in all sites. After AD 130-150 and through the remainder of the period covered by group 1 only a few coins from each king have been found in excavations on the Kerc Peninsula. This does not correspond with the picture provided by the hoards, which suggests that there were enough coins available to able to hoard. It is not until Sauromates I (AD 93/94-123/124) that the Bosporan coins are found to have a wider distribution area than the Kingdom itself and the nearest surrounding areas. His coins have also been found in the Caucasus

136

Line Bjerg

area. Many of the bronze types of Sauromates I are known only from Tanais and Gorgippia, which is a sign that the interests of the Bosporan kings now lay towards the east. The gold hoards also seem to shift from within the king­ dom to the east of the kingdom at this time, and, later in this group, to the Taman' Peninsula as well. This change may be due to military activity in the area or tributes transferring from the Bosporan Kingdom towards the east. This might also explain the presence of the coins and coin types in Tanais and Gorgippia, since these sites would have been important settlements for provisioning the army and navy. Since it is the late series of bronze coins that is predominantly found in Tanais and Gorgippia, it may be that the reign of Sauromates I ended in more conflict than it began. The coins of Sauromates II (AD 93/94-123/124) and possibly Rheskouporis VI are the only Bosporan coins to have been imitated. This could indicate that the supply of coins was unable to meet the demand. The coins of Sauromates II have quite often been found in contexts dated from the 3rd to the 4th century AD and thus were in circulation for a long period. The gold hoards have mainly been found to­ wards the east from this point on. This may indicate that the finances of the state were tied up in this area. The single finds from the city excavations on the Taman' Peninsula show a similar picture as the single finds from excavations on Kerč in the period with a slight peak of Mithridates III coins and a greater peak with Sauromates I coins. But in contrast to the single finds from excavations on the Kerč Pen­ insula there is a more consistent pattern of single finds in the excavations throughout the period, also in the late part. The coins of Eupator (AD 154/155 to c. 170/171) have been found in small numbers although he issued a very limited number of bronze types com­ pared with his predecessors. A hoard from an excavation in Krasnobatareiny further inland from the Taman' Peninsula has a slightly later composition of Sauromates II to Eupator.18 Perhaps this should be taken as an indication of a consolidation of the coin drain towards the east which began during the rule of Sauromates I. Maybe this placed a strain on the finances of the state and as a shift is seen as a result internally within the kingdom from finds on the Kerč Peninsula towards the east and the Taman' Peninsula and even further east. In around AD 180-183 there is a reduction of the gold content of the stater from 50% to 30%. The gold hoards from this period have been found mostly on the Taman' Peninsula and further east, whereas the bronze coins seem mainly to be limited within borders of the kingdom. There are also more finds in the Tanais area compared to earlier coinages. A new pattern can be seen to emerge during the reign of Rheskouporis III (AD 211/212-226/227). The gold coins, which for previous kings had been concentrated amongst the hoards and single finds from sanctuaries and mili­ tary contexts, are now found within the city excavations. The gold coins were devalued at this point in time (AD 218) and the gold content was only between

The Herulians are coming!

137

15-37%. They have been found primarily in contexts dated to the 3rd century AD. A large proportion of hoards are found in the east, and there is a clear preference for the inclusion of pre-devaluation staters. With the coins of Kotys III (AD 227/228-233/234) mixed denomination hoards also begin to appear. This may indicate that the values of the bronze coins and the devalued gold coins were getting closer to each other. From the middle and late part of the period there are two hoards from excavations in Gorgippia with compositions ranging from Rheskouporis II (AD 68/69-92/93) to Ininthimaios (AD 234/235-238/239).19 To this middle and late period also belong two hoards from excavations on the Taman' Penin­ sula.20 One from Patreus composed of Sauromates II (AD 93/94-123/124) to Rheskouporis V (AD 242-276) and a hoard from excavations in Hermonassa consisting solely of Rheskouporis V (AD 242-276) coins. Hoards from outside excavations in the middle and late period are also represented further to the east and south of the Taman' Peninsula with a group of eleven hoards with compositions between Sauromates I (AD 93/94-123/124) and closing with Kotys III (AD 227/228-233/234), though a hoard from Novorossijsk has an end coin of Rheskouporis IV (AD 234-235).21 The gold hoards of Ininthimaios have been found primarily in the western part of the kingdom. This is a change from the locations of the gold hoards of his predecessors. The bronze hoards, on the other hand, are more closely associated with the Taman' Peninsula and Gorgippia. Perhaps this is an in­ dication that the western part of the kingdom faced more severe problems than the eastern or that the army was based here. There are four hoards clos­ ing with coins of Ininthimaios, which may be a testimony to the pressure exerted on the Bosporan Kingdom by the Gothic tribes at this point in time. The dated contexts with coins of Ininthimaios have all been found at Tanais and Gorgippia. Tanais was lost around AD 244, following the crisis after the wars against the Scythian tribes.22 But, as both Tanais and Gorgippia were destroyed in this period and other sites lack dated contexts, this cannot be taken as proof that they were never deposited together with later coins at other sites. Nonetheless, at Pantikapaion the coins of Ininthimaios have not been found in contexts with coins later than those of Rheskouporis III. The distribution of the coinage of Rheskouporis V resembles the distri­ bution of the coins of Ininthimaios. The staters of the years AD 263-264 are of interest because they represent the only attempt to include silver coins in the Bosporan coinage. They have been found in excavations all across the kingdom, but the attempt failed and the succeeding group of coins from the years AD 265-267 has been found only on the Kerc Peninsula and the Taman' Peninsula. It is possible that the degraded staters were not of interest to the tribes surrounding the kingdom. Frolova points out that there were many overstrikes in AD 267 compared to the staters of the previous years.23 She argues that this is due to an increased need for coins for the war against the invading Barbarian tribes. In AD 267-275 there is an interlude in mintage that

138

Line Bjerg

Frolova linked to the emergence of the Herulians from the Sea of Azov in AD 267.24 No single finds of staters of the years AD 275-276 have been found in the course of the excavations. One possible stater dated to AD 276 was found in the Batareika 1958 hoard and one stater of AD 275 was identified in the Sudak 1958 hoard. In the course of the excavations the coins of Rheskouporis V have been found mostly together with much earlier coins. But there are also instances of coins of Rheskouporis V being found with coins of Rheskouporis VI. The hoards have been found mainly on the Kerč Peninsula and the Taman' Peninsula, which may be an indication that the devalued coins were not of great interest to the surrounding tribes. It is also very clear that from this point onwards the bronze coins had outlived their useful role as a functional element of the Bosporan coinage, and very few bronze coins of this and later periods have been found in comparison to the number of staters found. Rheskouporis V was the last king to issue bronze coins. Rheskouporis V did not rule alone but had three co-rulers. The finds of the coins of these kings are much fewer in number than the coins of Rheskouporis V and their distribution is different. The coins of Pharsanzes have been found mostly in the western part of the kingdom, but they are also known from eastern hoards in Adygea. However, the coins of Sauromates IV and Teiranes are only known from the Kerč Peninsula and the Taman' Peninsula and further west. This does make one wonder if these co-rulers were in charge of the western portion of the kingdom. The coins of Teiranes which were minted after AD 276, when the reign of Rheskouporis V ended, have been found in hoards in both the western and eastern parts of the kingdom, which is an indication that he may have ruled in both portions after the death of Rheskouporis V. In my opinion, this first circulation pool, beginning with the coins of Aspourgos, ends with the coins of Rheskouporis V, and that this termination might be caused by the attacks of the Herulians and a possible succeeding economic crisis and a possible coin drain towards the east. This is further corroborated by the archaeological city excavations, such as the capital Pantikapaion and the emporium Tanais.25In AD 250-270 the Herulians invaded Pantikapaion. Follow­ ing the invasion, no more public buildings were constructed in Pantikapaion, but destroyed houses were rebuilt using fragments from the previous public buildings. The fishing industry and trade declined after the Gothic invasions in the 3rd century AD. Pantikapaion was destroyed again by the Hunnic in­ vasion of the 4th century AD, only to be rebuilt later by Justinian. Tanais was destroyed in a Gothic attack in around AD 250. The Herulians captured Tanais in the second stage of the Gothic wars (AD 256-270). After the invasion it was abandoned to be rebuilt 100 years later around AD 350-375. The second group The second coin circulations pool begins with the coins of Thothorses and ends with the coins of Rheskouporis VI. The distribution of the coins of Thothorses

The Herulians are coming!

139

is more widespread than that of his predecessors. More staters are found from the years when most stater types are issued. This is especially the case for the hoards. The coins of Thothorses have been found mostly in contexts dated to the 3rd to the 4th century AD. They are generally found together with much older coins but also with a coin of Rheskouporis VI. Late coins of Thothorses have not been found in hoards, only as single finds. The hoards with coins of Thothorses seem more evenly distributed throughout the kingdom than has been seen in the previous period. A new feature appears on the coins of Thothorses - a symbol, a so called tamga - which would have made the coins easy to recognize. This is an interesting feature at a time when the portraits of the kings had become stylized to the point of being unrecognizable. There are less finds of coins of Rhadamsadios than of Thothorses. Apart from finds made at Chersonesos and on the island of Leuke, they have all been found within the Bosporan Kingdom, although hoards have also been found further west in the Crimea and further east of the Bosporan Kingdom. The coins of Rhadamsadios have mainly been found in the same contexts as the coins of Pantikapaion and Bosporan coins of the 4th to the 1st century BC. Since they have not been found together, this could suggest that the re­ cent coins had disappeared before the coins of Rhadamsadios were issued, as was the case with the coins of Thothorses. The distribution of the staters of Rheskouporis VI is more widespread than that of the coinage of Rhadamsadios and also to some degree that of Thothorses. The staters of Rheskouporis VI have been found in contexts dated from the 2nd to the 4th centuries AD, but some as late as the 6th century AD. They have been found mostly in the same contexts as coins of Thothorses, but some have also been found in the same contexts as earlier coins from the second group. Coins issued in the years AD 341-342 have not been found in excavations, but only in hoards. In the two instances where coins of Rheskouporis V have been found in the same hoards as coins of Rheskouporis VI (Kepoi 1962 and Ili'cevskij 1975) the coins were issued in AD 251-257 and 262. This is a further clear indication that there is a break between the latter two groups and that these might have been a few surviving coins from the former coin pool. The staters of Rheskouporis VI had a long circulation period and were probably in circulation until the area was annexed into the Roman Empire in the 6th century AD, when a fresh coin supply may have been introduced. There are 20 hoards which end with the coins of Rheskouporis VI, which is a reflection of their long circulation period; what is particularly interesting is that most of these hoards start with a coin of Thothorses and in all cases the main body of the hoard is made up of coins of Thothorses to Rheskouporis VI. It is striking that the late hoards all include coins of Thothorses, but only very few coins of the previous kings. Two hoards from excavations on the Kerc Peninsula testify to this, one from Kerč and one from Tyritake.26 The Tyritake hoard includes one Teiranes coin dated to AD 276. Both compositions end

140

Line Bjerg

with the last Bosporan king Rheskouporis VI (AD 314-342). The earlier coins seem not to have been available for hording when these hoards began to be accumulated: in most cases the earliest coins are dated to AD 276. This pattern is further underlined by four hoards from outside excavations on Kerc with compositions beginning with Thothorses, and by the Kurubaš and Taraktaš hoards from close to Theodosia on Crimea.27 Although the Taraktaš hoard includes a few coins of Sauromates IV and Teiranes coins, dated to AD 276, the Thothorses coins are in majority. Single finds of this period are found on most sites up to and including Rheskouporis V; thereafter single finds from excavations are found almost exclusively in Pantikapaion, Kytai and Tyritake. On the Taman' Peninsula the picture is the same. Excavations in Patreus, Kepi and Il'icevskij confirm the pattern of a new hoarding horizon beginning with coins of Thothorses.28 In the Patreus hoard the opening coins are one Rheskouporis IV and two Teiranes coins dated to AD 276. In Kepi the open­ ing coins are one Ininthimaios AD 234-238, one Rheskouporis V coin dated to AD 251-257 and a Teiranes dated to AD 276. In Il'icevskij the hoard begins with a Rheskouporis V coin dated to AD 262. They are the only ones to in­ clude coins of the middle of the century, in the instance of Il'icevskij the end coins are emitted by Justinian (AD 527-538). Generally it is evident that the hoards on the Taman' Peninsula are accumulated over a longer period than the hoards on Kerc, which have short accumulation periods. Two hoards found outside the excavations in Gaj Kodzor begins with coins of Thothorses and also end with Rheskouporis VI just as the others.29 The single finds from excavations on the Taman' Peninsula show the same pattern as the hoards with an almost absence of coins dated to AD 253-285, but with numerous coins of Thothorses to Rheskouporis VI. The absence of coins dated to the period AD 267-275 could be due to the termination of Roman silver minting and the consequences this had on the related currencies of the day. Zosimus (I, 63) writes that the Scythians used Bosporus as a base camp during their raids as far away as Cilicia, but there is no evidence that this sparked hoarding in Bosporus, as the early group does not contain coins of the 250s and later. In Bosporus there was also social un­ rest in the period, perhaps as a consequence of the attacks. It is also interesting that after the attacks when Thothorses assumes the throne in AD 285, he adorned the coins with his personal emblem, a tamga. Could it be in order to establish his credentials with a new population group and possible new power factor in the region. Conclusion Frolova concluded that there were many overstrikes in AD 267, and she ex­ plained this by assuming an increased need for money to fund the war against the Herulians.30 The use of overstrikes rather than freshly minted coins may be an indication that the finances of the Bosporan Kingdom suffered during

The Herulians are coming!

141

this period and that supplies of fresh bullion to the state coffers could not be procured in sufficient quantity. She further linked the interlude in mintage of AD 267-275 to the emergence of the Herulians from the Sea of Azov in AD 267. This does seem plausible as the kingdom must have been hit hard by the attacks as excavations have shown. It is possible, then, that the attacks of the Goths and Herulians were responsible for the economic decline in the Bosporan Kingdom, which resulted in a highly unstable period in the Bosporan Kingdom, and virtually no coins were left to hoard until hoarding picks up again with the coins of Thothorses. The situation encountered by the Hunns when they came to the area occupied by the Bosporan Kingdom a hundred years later was very different as this area had lost its economic and politi­ cally important role in relation to Black Sea politics, partly due to the loss of its fleet. The Bosporan Kingdom could no longer act in the interest of the Roman Empire and lost its role as a buffer zone for the Roman Empire and this was an added cause why the later Barbarian tribes had such an easy ac­ cess to the Roman Empire.

Notes 1 The history of the Bosporan Kingdom has been treated by Gajdukevič 1971; more recently by Fornasier & Böttger 2002. 2 Gajdukevič 1971. 3 Reece 2008, 59-73. This is, of course, a complex problem, which will not be dealt with here. 4 Apart from a very brief interlude during the reign of Rheskouporis V in AD 263-264, when silver s t a t e r s were minted. 5 The most recent classification studies of Bosporan coinage are: Frolova 1979,1983; Anochin 1986; Frolova & Ireland 2002. 6 In Roman coinage the d e n a r i u s and the double d e n a r i u s were silver coins, but in the Bosporan bi-metallic system the term "denarius" was used for bronze coins after the coin reform of Sauromates II. 7 Abramzon & Frolova 2008, 578. 8 Abramzon & Frolova 2008, 579; who, contrary to this view, held that Roman coins did not supplement Bosporan coinage. 9 Heather & Matthews 2004, 2. See also Heather & Matthews 2004, 2, note 5 for an overview of the discussion of the reliability of Zosimus' evidence. 10 Frolova 1983, 21; Zosimus 1.63. 11 Aibabin 1997. In contrast to other researchers Aibabin considers that the Alani settled in Crimea in the 3rd century AD. 12 Aibabin 1997; Chrapunov 2002. 13 Heather & Matthrews 2004, 15. 14 The material presented in group 1 and 2 is based on unpublished material from my Ph.d. dissertation. The dissertation will be published in the Moneta series in either 2011 or early 2012. 15 Nymphaion 1941: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 76, 319-320; Nymphaion 1949: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 72, 311-312.

242

Line Bjerg

16 Pantikapaion 1877: Ljucenko 1880, 1. 18; Pantikapaion 1879: Ljucenko 1880, 1. 18-19, no. 13; Kerč 1846: Abramzon and Frolova 2008, 256-257, hoard 69; Kere 1867: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 82, 331; Surroundings of Kerč 1863: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, 333, hoard 84. 17 Sukko 1963: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 65, 294-297. 18 Near Krasnobatareiny townsite 1960: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 70, 304-309. 19 Gorgippia 1984: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 86, 352-357; Gorgippia 1987: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 85, 334-352. 20 Patreus 1970: Abramzon, Frolova & Gorlov 2002, 319-332; Hermonassa 1970: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, Hoard 88, 366-368. 21 Ust Labinskaja 1849: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, Hoard 83, 328; Surr. Gorgippia 1850: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, Hoard 73, 313; Ko'jakovskoe 1850: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, Hoard 73, 313; Chanskaj 1913: Bezuglov 2000, 86-97; Titarovka 1834: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, 591, 597; Chaprovskoe 1868: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 74, 314-315; Raevskoj 1998: Frolova, Savostina 1998, 140-155; Kazanskaja 1972: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 79, 325-327; Ust Labinskaja 1845: Abramzon, Frolova & Gorlov 2001, 169-184; Temjrukskogo 2004: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, Hoard 83, 332; Novorossijsk: Bezuglov, 2000, 86-97. 22 Frolova 1983, 17. 23 Frolova 1983a, 21. 24 Frolova 1983, 21. 25 Košelenko, Kruglikova & Dolgorukov 1984; Fornasier & Bötger 2002; Hind 1993; Guldager Bilde et al. 2008. 26 Kerč 1964: Frolova Abramzon 2008, hoard 89, 369-371; Tyritake 1937: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 97, 404-445. 27 Taraktaš 1908: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 105, 518-521; Kurubas 1927: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, Hoard 101, 471-478. 28 Patreus 1951: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 103, 484-498; Kepi 1962: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, Hoard, 104, 498-518; Il'icevskij 1975: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 114, 566-571. 29 Gaj Kodzor 1972: Frolova, Abramzon 2008, hoard 108, 530-537; 1977: Abramzon, Frolova & Gorlov 2002, 422-431. 30 Frolova 1983a, 21.

Bibiography Abramzon, M.G., N.A. Frolova & Ju.V. Gorlov. 2002. Klady anticnych monet naj uge Rossii (po materialam Krasnodarskogo kraja). Magnitogorsk. Abramzon, M.G. & N.A. Frolova. 2008. Korpus Bosporskich kladov antičnych monet, Bosporskie issledovanija I. Simferopol-Kerč. Aibabin, A. 1997. Archeologie de la mer Noire. La Crimée å l'époque des Grandes Invasions IVe-VIIIe siedes. Conseil regional de Basse-Normandie, 30 mai­ ler septembre 1997. Anochin, V.A. 1986. Monetnoe delo Bospora. Kyev. Bezuglov, S.I. 2000. К rekonstruchii sostava dońskich kladov bosporskogo zolota, Donskaja Archeologija 2, 86-97.

The Herulians are coming!

143

Chrapunov, I.N. 2002. Mogil'nik Družnoe III-IV vv. Nasej ery, Monumenta Studia Gothica II. Lublin. Frolova, N.A. 1979. The Coinage of the Kingdom o f Bosporus A.D. 69- 238. Oxford. Frolova, N.A. 1983a. The Coinage o f the Kingdom o f Bosporus A.D. 242-341/342. Oxford. Frolova, N.A. & E.A. Savostina. 1998. Nachodki pod stenami bosporskoj usaďby. Klad ili stroitel'naja žertva, SovA 1,140-155. Frolova, N.A. & S. Ireland. 2002. The Coinage o f the Bosporan Kingdom. Oxford. Fornasier, J. & B. Böttger (eds.) 2002. Das Bosporanische Reich: der Nordosten des Schwartzen Meeres in der Antike. Mainz am Rhein. Gajdukevič, V.F. 1971. Das Bosporanische Reich, Berlin. Guldager Bilde, R, B. Bøgh, S. Handberg, J. M. Højte, J. Nieling, T. Smékalova & V. Štolba (eds.) 2008. Archaeology in the Black Sea region in Classical antiquity 1993-2007, Archaeological Reports 54 2007-2008,115-173. Heather, P. & J. Matthews. 2004. The Goths in the fourth century, Liverpool. Hind, J.G. F. 1993. Archaeology of the Greeks and Barbarian peoples around the Black Sea (1982-1992), Archaeological Reports 39, 82-112. Košelenko, G.A., I.T. Kruglikova & V.S. Dolgorukov (eds.) 1984. Anticnye Gosudarstva Severnogo Pricernomor'ja, Moskva. Ljucenko, E.E. 1880. Opisanie kladov s drevnimi monetami, najdennymi na Kerčenskom I Tamanskom poluostrove i častju v Novorossijskom krae (na juge Rossii), Archives o f the Leningrad Section o f the Institute o f Archeol­ ogy of the Academy o f Sciences o f the USSR, holding 28, file 22, sheet 9-53. Myc, V.L., A.V. Lysenko, M.B. Ščukin, M.B. &, O.V. Šarov. 2006. čatyr-Dag NekropoT rimsko j epochi v Krymu, St. Petersburg. Reece, R. 2008. Roman silver goes abroad, in: Bursche, A. & R. Ciołek (eds.). Roman coins outside the Empire, Ways and Phases, Contexts and Func­ tions, Proceedings of the ESF/SCH Exploratory Workshop Radziwiłł Pal­ ace, Nieborów (Poland) 3-6 September 2005, Moneta 82, 59-75.

A san d ro s

P a n tik a p a io n

K a is a re a

3 0 0 -2 2 0 B C

A g rip p ia

4 9 /4 8 - 2 1 /2 0 B C

1 3 -1 2 B C

A sp o u rg o s

1 6 -1 2 B C

A D 9 -3 7

M i t h r i d a t e s III

G e p a ip y ris

B A E m o n o g ram

A D 3 9 -4 5

K o ty s I

A D 3 7 -3 9

A D 4 5 -6 9

S a u ro m a te s I

R h e s k o u p o r i s 11

K o t y s II

A D 6 8 -3 9

R h o im e ta lk e s

A D 9 3 -1 2 4

A D 1 2 3 -1 3 3

R h e s k o u p o r i s III

A D 1 3 1 -1 5 4

K o ty s III

S a u r o m a t e s II

A D 2 1 1 -2 2 7

S a u r o m a t e s I II

E u p a to r

A D 2 2 7 -2 3 4

R h e s k o u p o r is IV

A D 1 7 4 -2 1 1

A D 2 2 9 -2 3 2

A D 1 5 4 -1 7 3

A D 2 3 4 -2 3 5

I n in th im a io s

R h e sk o u p o ris V

__________

A D 2 3 4 -2 3 8

A D 2 4 2 -2 7 6

1

Year

C ity /k in g

ą

P a n ti k a p a in 1 8 5 2 o

ö

P o lja n k a 1 9 8 4

O"

T e m r ju k s l ii r a jo n 1 9 9 7 Q.

u> w VI

o o

S u lt a n o v k a 1 8 5 2



R h e s k o u p o r i s II

K o t y s 11

S a u r o m a t e s II

I

A D 9 3 -12 4

A D 12 3 -13 3

A D 154 -17 3

A D 1 3 1 -1 5 4

A D 174 -2 11

R h e s k o u p o r i s III

<

cn

K o t y s 111

S

3 з‘

A D 2 2 7 -2 3 4

s X

NJ W oo

A D 2 2 9 -2 3 2

rx

л

Ы OJ 4-.

R h e s k o u p o r i s IV

7.

>

A D 2 3 4 -2 3 5

о

R h e s k o u p o ris V

C/3

A D 2 4 2 -2 7 6

jf

A D 2 5 3 -2 5 4

fV

A D 2 7 5 -2 7 6

X •Jl

A D 2 7 5 -2 7 9

>

Y ear

C ity / k in g

F o n ta lo v s k i i 1 8 7 0 C lo s e to K r a s n o b a ta r e in y

O'.

to w n s ite 1 9 6 0 00 g

N y m p h a io n 1 9 4 9

-

K a z a ń s k a ja 1 9 7 2

-

U s t L a b in s k a ja 1 8 4 9

0 .1

N e ig h b o rh o o d o f

NJ

G o rg ip p ia 1 8 5 0 hJ О

—

3

^

G n ilo v o 1 8 6 8 G n ilo v o 19 5 8

g

T e m jru k s k o g o 2 0 0 4

GC 1

40 cr

P a n tik a p a io n 1 8 6 7

00 о

N o rth o f G o rg ip p ia 1 8 5 2

N> rJ I

S u r. P a n tik a p a io n 18 6 3 I llu r a to n 1 9 7 6 * j

ё

:

Sem yonovka 1957 *

Л 3

о

P a n tik a p a io n 1 8 7 1

£

H e rm o n a ssa , 19 7 0 * P a n tik a p a io n 1 9 6 4 *

* oc

NJ

40

00

*

•o

=

JT\

5Ć

Л

Jl

P a n tik a p a io n 1 9 8 8 b !

-

A d a g u m s k a ja 1 9 9 9

OC

B a ta re ik a 1 9 5 8

T y rita k e 1 9 3 7 *

1 oc 'J

S u d a k 1958 L

_

1______

Table. 2. The gold hoards ending with coins before Rheskouporis VI (excluding unidentified coins) * = hoard from excavation Grey highlight = the number of coins for an individual Mng is not known

Notes a

One Julius Caesar, denarius, 47/46 BC, 1 DYM, 17 Polemon I, staters b Sauromates I-Rheskouporis III c Kotys II-Kotys III d Kotys II-Sauromates III e Rhoimetalkes-Rheskouporis III f Sauromates II-Rheskouporis III

g h

i j

Kotys III-Ininthimaios Around 500 coins of Ininthimaios and Rheskouporis V, and at least one Rheskouporis IV, also known as Kerch 1884a (unknown denomination) Also one Alexander Severus AD 232 Also one Gordian AD 242-244

g.

"S.

s

T.

3 3 0 -10 0 BC

■č’

> 30

A sa n d ro s

fb

O'

100-50 BC

a!

Ö

4 9 / 4 8 -2 1 / 2 0 B C

?

ví

1

BAE m o n o g ra m

2

OJ

A sp o u rg o s

X

> о

E n d o f th e 1 s t c e n t u r y I3C

£ ’

A D 3 7 -3 9

A D 3 9 -4 5

řD СЛ

R h e s k o u p o r i s II

2

3 (b

i

OJ

A D 4 5 -6 9

m

■p

K o t y s II

R h e s k o u p o r i s III

OJ

>

S a u ro m a te s 1

л

A D 9 3 -1 2 4

vj

A D 123-133

>

A D 1 3 1 -1 5 4

>

S a u r o m a t e s II

OJ

A D 2 11-2 2 7

S a u r o m a t e s III

>

K o t y s III

A D 2 2 9 -2 3 2

I n in th im a io s

R h e s k o u p o r i s IV

o

A D 2 3 4 -2 3 5

»

A D 2 3 4 -2 3 8

■vj

P h a rs a n z e s

OJ

R h e s k o u p o r is V

•vi

A D 2 4 2 -2 7 6

O J to

OJ

vC

S a u ro m a te s IV

T e ira n e s (2 6 6 )

S

w О

Л Ю ~v|

A D 2 5 3 -2 5 4

T h o th o rs e s

s

ta

A D 2 7 5 -2 7 6

A D 2 8 5 -3 0 9

R h e s k o u p o r is V I

R h a d a m s a d io s

J u s tin ia n

A D 3 0 9 -3 2 3

A D 5 2 7 -5 3 8

A D 314-342

> a

Y ear

Sr

77

T3

C i t y / k in g

o’

3

3

T y rita k e 1 9 4 6 * vC

O-

T a ra k ta š 1 9 0 8 P a n tik a p a io n 1 9 6 1 a* P a n tik a p a io n

Л

Q o

-

1870 F o n ta lo v s k ii 1878

Š

oo v]

O'

м

Dl

•a "north" for "east", "guided by his experience and common sense in order to adopt the translated text to his point of reference" (Vedjuškina 2001, 105). Tvorogov 1975, 49-50, 274. The same goal was pursued by the narration about the Apostle Andrew's travel to Rus'. The preposition do ("as far as") makes a problem as it connects syntactically the phrase "as far as the Pontus to the north" with the previous "the river Tigris flow­ ing between the Medes and Babylon" which suggests that the chronicle-writer thought that the Tigris discharged into the Black Sea (the same mistake occurs in an Old Icelandic note on the rivers flowing out of the Paradise: Melnikova 1986,128-130). To avoid this interpretation the publishers of the P r im a r y C h ro n ic le introduced a semicolon after the word B a b y lo n (PVL, 7). As George the Monk's text ends with the words "between Medes and Babylon" (Istrin 1927, 59), it seems probable that the annalist whose knowledge about Mesopotamia was exclusively bookish took it for granted that in his last phrase George defined the northern

M enta l maps o f the O ld R ussian ch ronicle-w riter

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

42

43 44 45

46

47

48 49

337

boundaries of the described region and these, from the point of view of the Russian chronicle-writer, coincided with the southern boundaries of the region he was going to deal with further. The Danube was a natural and at the same time sacral border between the "Slavia" and Byzantium in Slavic tradition (Petruchin 2000, 38-40). Melnikova 1998, 81. RPC, 140; PC, 10. Melnikova & Petruchin 1994. Melnikova & Petruchin 1991. Melnikova & Petruchin 1997. Bolin 1952; Hodges & Whitehouse 1983. Melnikova 1995; Nosov 1999. Jackson 2001, 39-48. Melnikova & Petruchin 1994. Melnikova 2010. Petruchin 2000, 25-36. Vedjuskina 1993. The same list of Scandinavian peoples is included in the Legend about the calling Varangian princes in: 'These particular Varangians were known as Rus', just as some are called Swedes, and others Normans, English, and Gotlanders..." (RPC, 59; PVL, 13). These are first and foremost the names of G a lic h a n e (it is considered to be derived from the Latin designation of the celts g a lii and to designate the Galls, Gaels or Spanish Galicians) and V o lk h v a (supposedly from the name of a Gallic tribe v o lc a e ; it is assumed to denote the Franks or in a wider sense the subjects of the Carolingian empire with further transfer of the name to the Romanic population in general: Petruchin 1995, 21-22). For example, the embassy of al-Ghazal sent to Denmark by the Spanish emir Abd al-Rahman II in 845. Leighton 1972. The usage of ethnonyms to define geographical space was known to European tradition too, cf. for example the so-called B a v a ria n G e o g r a p h e r of the end of the ninth century where the enumeration of tribal names also follows the itinerary principle (Nazarenko 1993, 13-14). It runs as follows: "Chuď, Merya, Ves', Muroma, Cheremis' (absent in the T ab le o f N a t io n s . - E.M.), Mordva, (Chuď-beyond-the-portages omitted. - E.M.), Perm', Pechera, Yam', (Ugra omitted. - E.M.), Litva, Zimegola, Kors', Noroma (instead of Leťgola. - E.M.), and Liv'. These tribes have their own languages and belong to the race of Japheth, which inhabits the lands of the north" (RPC, 55; PVL, 10). The mention of these tribes belonging to the race of Japheth makes an obvious link between the two lists. The acquaintance with Christian geography caused superposition of the local quadripartite oecumene on the tripartite Christian one. The correlation of these two divergent models was not fully achieved even by the early 14th century which is clearly reflected in Old Norse L a n d a l ý s in g a r though they base on Latin chorographies (Melnikova 1986). Jackson 1998. They are mentioned for the first time in the relation of Gjurjata Rogovič about his travel to the north s.a. 1096 (RPC, 184-185; PVL, 107-108). In the same way

338

Elena M elnikova

the annalist inserted the name Slovene in the list of Japhetides borrowed from George the Monk and modified the list of tributaries to Rus'. 50 The initial phrase "When the Polyanians lived by themselves among the hills" is repeated immediately after the tale about the voyage of the Apostle Andrew and it introduces the legend about the first Polyanian rulers who founded Kiev. As the phrase obviously belongs to the legend about Kij, Seek and Choriv it is generally considered to be misplaced. It may, however, serve as an indication that both texts, on the Road from the Varangians to the Greeks and about the voyage of the Apostle Andrew, were inserted in an already existing text. 51 Alekseev 1974.

Bibliography Alekseev, L.V. 1974. 'Okovskij les' Pověsti vremennych let, in: M.K. Karger, A.N. Kirpichnikor & P.A. Rappoport (eds.) Kul'tura srednevekovoj Rusi. Posvjaščajetsja 70-letiju M.K.Kargera. Leningrad, 5-11. Bagrow, L. 1964. History o f Cartography. Cambridge (Mass.). Borcova (Vedjuškina), I.V. 1988. Legendarnaja tradieija o razdelenii zemli v vizantijskich istočnikach Pověsti vremennych let, in: S.T. Eremjan (ed.) Kavkaz i Vizantija. Erevan, 6, 53-60. Bolin S. 1952. Mohammed, Charlemagne and Ruric, Scandinavian Economic History Review 1, 5-29. Cekin, L.S. 1989. Ob antičnych toponimach v srednevekovoj geografičeskoj literature, in: Drevnejsie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR. 1987 god. Moskva, 257-260. Chekin, L. 2006. Northern Eurasia in Medieval Cartography. Inventory, text, trans­ lation, and commentary. Tumhout. De Boor, C. (ed.). 1978. Georgii Monachi Chronicon. Ed. anni 1904 correctionem curavit P. Wirth. München. Eusebius. Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, in: E. Klostermann (ed.) Eusebius. Werke. 3:1, Berlin, 1904. Goffart, W. 1988. The Narrators o f Barbarian History (A.D. 550-800). Princeton. Gutschmid, A. 1894. Untersuchungen über den A iapcpiopdę zf\ę yr\ę und andere Bearbeitungen der Mosaischen Völkertafel, in: A. Gutschmid. Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von F. Rühl. Leipzig, V, 585-717. Harley, J.B. & D. Woodward (eds.). 1987. History o f Cartography. ChicagoLondon, 1. Hodges R. & D. Whitehouse 1983. Mohammed, Charlemagne and the Origin o f Europe. London. Hougen, E. 1957. The Semantics of Icelandic Orientation, Word, 13/3, 447-459. Hyppolytus. 1955. Werke 4. Die Chronik, A. Bauer. Berlin. IL-Ipaťevskaja letopis'. Moskva, 1998 (Polnoje sobranije russkich letopisej II). rec. I. Thurn. Berolini, 2000, Ioannis Malalae Chronographia.

M en ta l maps o f the O ld R ussian ch ronicle-w riter

339

Istrin, V.M. 1897. Pervaja kniga Chroniki Ioanna Malały, Zapiski imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk. Ser. VIII. Istoriko-filologičeskoje otdelenije, 1/3, S.Peterburg. Istrin, V.M. 1927. Knigi vremennyja i obraznyja Georgija Mnicha. Chronika Georgija Amar tola v drevnem slavjano-russkom perevode. 1. Text. Leningrad. Istrin, V.M. 1994. Chronika Ioanna Malały v slavjanskom perevode. Reprintnoe izdanie materialov V.M. Istrina podgotovila M.I. Černyševa. Moskva. Jackson, T. 1998. On the Old Norse System of Spatial Orientation, Saga-Book o f the Viking Society, XXV / 1, 72-82. Jackson, T.N. 2001. Austr i Göröum. Drevnerusskie toponimy v drevneskandinavskich istočnikach. Moskva. Leighton, A.C. 1972. Transport and Communication in Early Medieval Europe A.D. 500-1100. New York. Lindsay, W.M. (ed.). 1911. Isidoři Hispalensis Etymologiae, sive originum libri XX, Oxford. LL - Lavrenťevskaja letopis'. Moskva, 1997 (Polnoje sobranije russkich letopisej

I). Lynch, K. 1960. The Image o f the City. Cambridge (Mass.) Melnikova, E.A. 1986. Drevneskandinavskije geografičeskije sočinenija. Teksty, perevod, kommentarij. (ser. Drevnejšie istočniki po istorii Vostočnoj Evropy). Moskva. Melnikova, E.A. 1995. K tipologii predgosudarstvennych i rannegosudarstvennych obrazovaní] v Severnoj i Severo-Vostočnoj Evropě. Postanovka problemy, in: A.P. Novoseltsev et al. (eds.) Drevnejšie gosudarstva na territorii SSSR. 1992-1993 gody. Moskva, 16-32. Melnikova, E. 1996. The Eastern World o f the Vikings. Göteborg. Melnikova, E.A. 1998. Obraz mira. Stanovlenije i evoljucija geograficeskich predstavlenij v Evropě. V-XIV veka. Moskva. Melnikova, E.A. 2010. Prostranstvennaja orientacija v "Pověsti vremennych let", Drevnejšie gosudarstva Vostočnoj Evropy. 2006 god. Prostranstvo i vremja v srednevekovych tekstach. Moskva, 73-94. Melnikova, E.A. & V. Ja. Petrukhin 1991. The Origin and Evolution of the Name rus'. The Scandinavians in Eastern-European Ethno-Political Processes before the 11th Century, Tor 23, 203-234. Melnikova, E.A. & V. Ja. Petruchin 1994. Skandinavy na Rusi i v Vizantii v X-XI vv. К istorii nazvanija varjag, Slavjanovedenie 2, 56-68. Melnikova, E.A. & V. Ja. Petruchin 1997. Rus' i chuď. К probleme etnokul'turnych kontaktov Vostočnoj Evropy v pervom tysjačeletii n.e., Balto-slavjanskije issledovanija. 1988-1996. Moskva, 40-49. Nazarenko, A.V. 1993. Nemeckie latinojazyčnyje istočniki IX-XI vekov: Teksty, perevod, kommentarij. (ser. Drevnejšie istochniki po istorii Vostochnoj Evro­ py). Moskva.

340

Elena M elnikova

Nosov, E.N. 1999. Rečnaja seť Vostočnoj Evropy i eje гоГ v obrazovanii gorodskich centrov Severnoj Rusi, in: A.A. Gippius, E.N. Nosov (eds.) Velikij Novgorod v istorii srednevekovoj Evropy. Moskva, 157-170. Petruchin, V. Ja. 2000. Drevnjaja Rus': Národ. Knjazja. Religia, in: Iz istorii russkoj kultury. Moskva. Petruchin, V. Ja. 1995. Načalo etnokulturnoj istorii Rusi IX-X vekov. Smolensk. Podosinov, A.V. 1999. Ex oriente lux! Orientacija po stranam světa v archaičeskich kulturach Evrasii. Moskva. PVL - Povesť vremennych let, ed. V.P. Adrianova-Peretz with commentaries by D.S. Lichačev and additions by M.B. Sverdlov, 1996. St.-Peterburg. Sachmatov, A.A. 1908. Razyskanija o dřevnějších russkich letopisnych svodach. S.-Peterburg. Sachmatov, A.A. 1940. Povesť vremennych let i eje istočniki, Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoj literatury 4, 9-150. Simons, J. 1954. The 'Table of Nations' (Gen. 10): Its General Structure and Meaning, Ondtestamentische Studien 10, 155-184. RPC - The Russian Primary Chronicle. Eaurentian text, transl. and ed. by S.H. Cross and O.P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor. 1953. Cambridge (Mass.). Trowbridge, G. 1913. On Fundamental Methods of Orientation and "Imagi­ nary Maps", Science 38, 888-897. Tvorogov, O.V. 1975. Drevnerusskie chronografy. Leningrad. Vedjuškina, I.V. 1989. Legendarnyje ekskursy o razdelenii zemli v drevneruss­ koj literature, Drevnejšije gosudarstva na territorii SSSR, 1987 god. Moskva, 175-185. Vedjuškina, I.V. 1993. Etnogeografičeskoje vvedenije "Pověsti vremennych let": osobennosti kompozitcii, Vostočnaja Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekovje. Spornyje problemy istorii. Moskva, 12-14, 92-100. Vedjuškina, I.V. 1999. Nazvanija storon gorizonta v etnogeografičeskom vvedenii Pověsti vremennych let i ego istočniki, Vostočnaja Evropa v drevnosti i srednevekovje. XI. Kontakty, zony kontaktov i kontaktnyje zony. Moskva, 127-139. Vedjuškina, I.V. 2001. Leksičeskije ekvivalenty grečeskich nazvanij storon gori­ zonta v drevnerusskom perevode chroniki Georgia Amartola, Srednevekovaja Rus'. Moskva, 3, 82-105. Wagner, S. 1947. Die Stammtafel des Menschengeschlechtes. Saarbrücken.

Darkness in the East? Scandinavian scholars on the question of Eastern influence in Scandinavia during the Viking Age and Early Middle Ages John H. Lind

As the title suggests, the focus in this paper will be on scholarly views of the eastern influence in Scandinavia during the later period covered by our net­ work. In this period we shall concentrate first of all on the question of possible Christian influences within different spheres; either direct influences from the Byzantine Empire or those that were transmitted by people living or travel­ ling through the areas in between - especially those who were themselves Scandinavians or of Scandinavian descent. We shall limit ourselves here to the period when archaeological and written sources in Scandinavia and Rus' begin more or less to overlap, i.e. the Viking Age from the 8th century onwards. Perhaps in the context of our Varangian network, this period could more fittingly be named the 'Varangian Age', not least because the word 'Varangians' was identified with Scandinavians which Vikings were not.1 The possibility of earlier Christian influences in Scandinavia, which may have been transmitted through the Christian Goths, who were active along the borders of the Byzantine Empire in the earlier period, will only be given a cursory consideration here. There seems, however, to have been links at least between Scandinavia and the Ostrogoths in Pannonia during the period from 450 AD to around 490 AD, as gold solidi, struck in that period and presumably paid as tribute to the Ostrogoths, found their way to Scandinavia but ceased to appear after the Ostrogoths moved from Pannonia around 490.2These links to the Goths may have transmitted some of the evidence on which archae­ ologists like Ulf Näsman and Charlotte Fabech have based their theory that the area that was to become Sweden experienced its first Christian impulses in the 3d century AD and that the actual Christianisation began already in the late 5th century AD.3 These are ideas that would find favour with one of Näsman's and Fabech's Finnish colleagues, Unto Salo, who has recently pub­ lished a book on early Christianity in Finland in the same period.4 True or not, it is worth keeping in mind that Scandinavians may have been exposed to Christian ideas from the east long before the period we usually associate with the advent of Christianity in Scandinavia during the Viking Age. We

342

John H . L in d

should take into account that eastern influence, as observed in the Viking Age, may reflect long-established, continuous relations between the Baltic and Black Sea regions that were, however, unlikely to be reflected in written sources because they were carried by peoples without a written culture. Scandinavian scholarly attitudes to eastern influence are expressed in a number of anthologies from the last thirty years, based on seminars or exhibi­ tions in which the question of eastern - and especially Byzantine - influence on Scandinavian Christianity was raised and debated. These include: Les Pays du Nord et Byzance, held in Uppsala in 1979 and published in 1981;5 Bysans och Norden (Byzantium and the North), held in Uppsala in 1986 and published in 1989;6 From Viking to crusader. The Scandinavians and Europe 800-1200, The 22nd Council o f Europe Exhibition;7 Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8-14. Jahrhunderts, held in Kiel in 1994 and published in two volumes in 1997-1999;8 The Cross goes North, held in York 2000 and published in 2003;9 Från Bysans till Norden. Östliga kyrkoinfluenser under vikingatid och tidig medeltid (From Byzantium to the North. Eastern Church Influences during the Viking Age and the Early Middle Ages), held Göteborg in 2002 and published in 2005.10 Also to be considered is a small book from 1994, Nordens kristnande i euro­ peiskt perspektiv (The Christianisation of Scandinavia in European Perspec­ tive), in which two church historians, Reinhart Staats and Per Beskow, both also contributing to some of the five above-mentioned anthologies,11 express their general scepticism with regard to possible Byzantine influence on early Scandinavian Christianity. It is an interesting fact that in all the anthologies mentioned, we find both scholars who deny that there is any evidence of eastern influence in Scandi­ navia and scholars who find an abundance of such evidence. In the former group we primarily find church historians like Staats and Beskow, while in the latter we find first and foremost archaeologists.12 Art historians seem to be divided on the question. A further observation that can be made is that the scepticists, often in contrast to their opponents, are generally unfamiliar with the situation in Eastern Europe and Byzantium. Many of the scholars involved in the discussion on both sides are Swedes. This is understandable, since it is generally assumed that the majority of Scan­ dinavians active in the east came from present-day Swedish territory, which meant therefore, that Sweden was more exposed to eastern influence than other parts of Scandinavia. Of course, if we look at the highest stratum of so­

D arkness in the E ast?

343

ciety, Norwegians in the shape of the four successive kings - Olav Tryggvason, Olav Haraldson, Magnus Olavson and Harald Sigurdson Hardradi - who all spent periods of their lives in Rus' or Byzantium, certainly outnumber their Swedish counterparts. This may, however, reflect the nature of the preserved written sources rather than differences in the "real world". The Art Historian Taking a long view on scholarly attitudes to the question of eastern influence it becomes clear that these have shifted from one extreme to another. We may consider for instance the famous Hoen hoard from Norway, thought to be one of the largest finds of gold from the Viking Age in Northern Europe. The hoard was presumably deposited in the late 9th century. It was unearthed in 1834 and since then it has been at the centre of a lively debate, which was summarised a few years ago in an international and interdisciplinary study. The editor of the ensuing volume (The Hoen Hoard. A Viking gold treasure o f the ninth century), the well-known Norwegian art historian and archaeologist Signe Horn Fuglesang, stated well before its publication that the "previous theories" which "have assumed that the bulk of ornaments in the Hoen hoard had been imported from the East are now disproved". She continued: "only one or two small objects are attributable to Byzantium, and two more may be of an unspecifiable eastern origin", while "all the neck and arm rings which have often been referred to as Russian, are now proved to be Scandinavian" (italics, JHL).13 The team behind the new investigation, which was eventually published in 2006, consisted of thirteen international experts from Norway, Denmark, England, Germany and Sweden, each claimed to be a "specialist in his or her field" and therefore able to "identify the origins of the objects with a high degree of precision".14 However, precisely with regard to the crucial discus­ sion of the origin of production of the various items in the Hoen hoard, it is striking that none of these thirteen scholars can be said to be an expert on what Fuglesang designates as "Russian", and only one, David Buckton, can be seen as an expert on Byzantium. Furthermore, Buckton's contribution to the volume takes up less than one page and concerns a disc, which, as an inscrip­ tion also shows, is of undeniable Byzantine origin. With such a composition of experts it is not surprising that the team, in Fuglesang's words, can reach the conclusion that "the eastern element [in the Hoen hoard] is far smaller than previously believed".15 In one of her own chapters, The Necklace, in the 2006 edition Fuglesang admits that a garnet boss (no. 38) and the disc (no. 39) "were both originally used in Christian contexts' and that 'both are attributable to Byzantium". To this, however, she adds significantly that both "probably came to Scandinavia by way of the continent",16by which she obviously means Western Europe. That these general conclusions may not be the last words with regard to the

344

John H . L in d

Hoen hoard was signalled in a paper at the recent 22nd International Congress o f Byzantine Studies (2011) by the archaeologist, Christoph Kilger, " Treasures, myths and female belongings: the Hoen hoard revisited". Here Kilger stressed that "some of the artefacts alluding to a Christian symbolism come from the Byz­ antine world".17 The view advanced by Fuglesang in the new edition of the Hoen hoard is anticipated in several earlier papers. The arguments presented here are in­ structive as illustrations of common attitudes among Scandinavian scholars. A paper entitled "A Critical Survey o f Theories on Byzantine Influence in Scandi­ navia" was first read in 1994 at the conference, Rom und Byzanz im Norden,18 and then repeated in August 1996 at the XIX International Congress o f Byzantine Studies, where it was also included among the pre-published papers.19 Here Fuglesang initially considers what should be meant by "Byzantine influence", because, as she and other participants in this discussion rightly point out, not only Scandinavia but Western Europe at large was exposed to strong influence from Byzantium as long as the East Roman empire existed. As a result, themes and motifs that originated in Byzantium may not necessarily have been transmitted to Scandinavia directly from Byzantium but could have their immediate origin in the west. Therefore, what is often termed "Byzantine influence" in Scandinavia may in reality have been filtered through the arts of Italy, France, Germany, England or Russia. Consequently, to the extent the transmitting country can be identified, one may, according to Fuglesang, use terms like "Russo-Byzantine", "Anglo-Byzantine", or "German-Byzantine". Based on these considerations she argues that "each question of Byzantine influence thus demands a two-pronged method: firstly, identifying the model as unquestionably direct and Byzantine, not transmitted through a Russian, German, French or English intermediary; and secondly determining the sig­ nificance of an impulse - was it restricted to the copying of a visual model, or did it depend on a wider ecclesiastical or secular pattern of political ideals?" (italics, JHL). After these preliminaries Fuglesang expressly claims as her aim: "to do away with some of the spurious claims for Byzantine influence in dif­ ferent spheres of society".20 Against this background Fuglesang finds that there is no foundation for linking to the east that Bishop Osmund, who to the disgust of Adam of Bremen in the 1050s was kept as court bishop by the Swedish King Emund. Likewise Fuglesang rejects the suggestion that bishops, present in Iceland at the same time and mentioned in Norse sources like Islendingabok and as "ermsker", were of Armenian origin, preferring instead the view that "they came from Ermland, i.e. Pomerania east of the Vistula". In this context Fuglesang also quotes this stipulation from the Icelandic law codex Grågås: "If bishops or priests should come to this country, those that are not learned in the Latin language, whether they are hermskir or girskir, then people are allowed to at­ tend their service if they want to" (italics, Fuglesang). However, even though she has italicized both "herm skir" and "girskir" she fails to comment on

D arkness in the E ast?

345

"girskir"21 and since "girskir" seems universally to be accepted as Old Norse for 'Greek', this needs also to be explained.22 Ulla Haastrup is also among the scholars whose views are challenged precisely with regard to the interpretation of the wall paintings in the two churches Vä and Jørlunde, on which Haastrup writes in the present volume. As to Vä, Fuglesang writes, "Christ in Majesty has the type of "cloisonne" folds which were a Western adaptation of the current Byzantine figure style that was highly appreciated in most West European workshops", and her overall conclusion with regard to the Danish wallpaintings of the 12th century is that in no case "are the Byzantinising elements in the Danish wall paintings of a kind which suggests direct contact between Constantinople and Denmark".23 This summary of Fuglesang's arguments highlights two observations. First, a double standard is applied to the topic. While the notion of east­ ern, Byzantine influence in Scandinavia has to be proven as "unquestionably direct" in order to be accepted, this does not apply to a route via Western Europe. If there is a possibility that a Byzantine theme or motif can have ar­ rived along a western route, that seems to be enough to disprove that it has arrived in Scandinavia directly from Byzantium. A kind of double standard is also applied on another level. With regard to both Bishop Osmund and the question of Armenian bishops in Iceland, Fuglesang consistently chooses to rely on scholars who, on the one hand, have argued against Bishop Osmund having links to the east, while, on the other, argued against that "ermsker" (or "ermskir") in the Norse sources referred to Armenian. Accordingly, with regard to Bishop Osmund, no mention is made of the historian and archaeologist Peter Sawyer's endorsement of Ture Arne's argument presented in 1947 that Osmund had been ordained as bishop in Kiev, which Sawyer supports with additional evidence;24 nor do we find any mention of the Slavicist Anders Sjöberg's articles to the same effect.25 With regard to the Armenians as bishops in Iceland, we find no reference to Ya.R. Dashkévytch nor to Jan Ragnar Hagland.26 Not least as a result of Hagland's articles on the subject most scholars today subscribe to the Armenian solu­ tion.27 The second observation to be made is that, when Fuglesang looks for alter­ native models for Byzantine themes, motifs or ornaments in Scandinavia, she does not seem to have considered who the carriers or transmitters to Scandi­ navia may have been. It should be noted also that there is little evidence that Scandinavians prominent enough to influence religious culture and art in Scandinavia ever visited the places in Western Europe where possible models are to be found. By contrast, we do know that over a longer period countless influential Scandinavians did visit Byzantium.

346

John H . L ind

Church History and Archaeology With regard to the attitudes of church historians to the question of eastern influence, the situation is not unlike what we encountered with the Hoen hoard, where the theory of early acceptance of eastern influence is now denied. With a critical approach to sources like Rimberťs Life o f St Anskar, Adam of Bremen's Chronicle o f the Bishops o f the Hamburg Church and to the later Swed­ ish hagiographical sources, the Austrian-born Toni Schmid in 1934 wrote a book on the Christianisation of Sweden. Here she combined a deep insight in both western Christianity and early Rus' religious culture, which made it possible for her to argue that early Christianity in Sweden experienced a considerable eastern influence. This she did, even though she was seemingly unaware of the role which the originally Scandinavian Rus' had played in the early spread of Christianity in the Rus' polity. Therefore she did not see these Rus' as transmitters of Christian influence to Sweden but focused instead on the later influx of Varangians to Rus' and Constantinople. Importantly she also realized that Christian influences could go both ways. Thus, she seems to be the first and, for a long time, only scholar to have been aware that Scan­ dinavian saints in the twelfth century had been venerated in Rus'.28 A quarter of a century later the, so to speak, secular historian Sven Ulric Palme wrote a popular book on Sweden's Christianisation characterised by the same critical approach to the traditional written sources. There he was still open to the possibility of eastern influence in the spread of early Chris­ tianity to Sweden. He even suggested that the first Swedish king to adopt Christianity, Olof Skötkonung, had been baptized in Novgorod at the court of his son-in-law Prince Jaroslav.29 Since then insight into the situation in the east and in Rus', with its close connections to Scandinavia, has diminished among Swedish scholars (with a few archaeologists as outstanding exceptions). Accordingly, the question of eastern influence is often not even posed and, if posed, more or less denied. Instead, scholars have stressed the influence from first and foremost Germany and the archbishopric of Hamburg-Bremen. This was the position taken by the German church historian Reinhart Staats when he gave the introductory paper to the seminar, Rom und Byzanz im Norden, and when he wrote the introductory chapter to the small volume he published in 1994 together with Per Beskow under the title Nordens krist­ nande i europeiskt perspektiv. In the latter Staats stressed that 'the great eccle­ siastical power of the Church of Bremen during three centuries from 789 to 1104 is still felt in Northern Europe. They [the archbishops of Bremen] had a great impact on the Christianisation of Northern Europe. Even if one reckons with the direct influence of the English mission in Denmark, Sweden and particularly Norway - and, perhaps, a certain influence from the Church in Russia - it is the archbishops in Bremen who played the decisive role in the Christianization of Scandinavia' (translation and italics, JHL).30

D arkness in the E ast?

347

This is no doubt an extreme view, not least considering the critical attitude to the sources emanating from Hamburg-Bremen, Rimberťs Life o f St. Anskar and Adam of Bremen's chronicle, that characterized Schmid's and Palme's works and which today is shared by secular historians at large. It is true that these two sources describe a more or less continuous missionary activity in Scandinavia or at least in the part of Scandinavia that became Denmark and Sweden. Nevertheless, they are, despite their age, not necessarily very good sources, when it comes to understand how and why Scandinavians turned Christian. Furthermore, the continuity in the Scandinavian mission from Hamburg-Bremen is a claim made by Adam, but Adam had a vested interest in making such a claim, because when he wrote it was not at all sure that Scan­ dinavia would be forever linked to Hamburg-Bremen, if indeed Scandinavia ever was as closely linked to Hamburg-Bremen as Adam wishes to assert.31 Therefore Adam's chronicle is hardly a trustworthy source on precisely this point. Concerning the English mission in Scandinavia mentioned by Staats, we do not have sources that compare with the sources originating in HamburgBremen in age or detail. In fact, apart from late home-grown sources of a hagiographical nature, much of the early information we have on the English impact on Scandinavian Christianity is supplied (reluctantly) by Adam of Bremen. When it comes to possible influence on Scandinavian Christianity from the east, whether directly from Byzantium or indirectly through what Staats called the "Church in Russia", such influence hardly exists in the view of re­ cent church historians. The main reason for this negative view is that, if we dismiss the "ermskir" bishops as Armenians and the links Bishop Osmund may have had to Kiev, we find no mention of missionaries or missionary ac­ tivity from the east in Scandinavia. In present-day Swedish church history this fact is important because here the early adoption of Christianity seems to be all about the presence of mis­ sionaries in Sweden. Therefore the period in which the Christianisation of Swe­ den took place is called the "epoch of mission" (missionstiden or missionskedet), research in that period is called "mission historical research" (missionshistorisk forskning); and in the process of becoming Christians the Swedes had to be exposed to what is called "missionary preaching" (missionsförkunnelse). With this emphasis on the presence of missionaries in Sweden as a prerequisite for Christianisation, the present view seems to be that a pagan Swede cannot have turned Christian unless he met a missionary at home in Sweden. This is a surprising position to take considering how well-travelled Swedes like other Scandinavians were in precisely this period, the Viking Age. Furthermore it is seemingly contradicted by as early as Rimbert in his Life o f St. Anskar. Here Rimbert retells this possibly imagined conversation, which Anskar had with an old man on his second visit to Birka. Here the old man says:

348

John H . L ind

"with regard to worshipping this God [Anskar's] several of us have experienced that he can help those who put their hopes in him ... and some of us, visiting Dorestad, have of our own accord adopted this religion, thinking it to be useful" (translation, JHL).32 Even if this conversation is imagined, it must nevertheless reflect an experi­ ence many Scandinavians travelling far and wide must have had. In fact we find a close parallel in the Gutasaga, where it is said of the originally Heathen merchants of Gotland, trading in both heathen and Christian countries: "then the merchants saw Christian ways in Christian countries. Some let themselves be baptised there and brought Christian priests to Gotland" (translation, JHL).33 Before we develop this theme we shall stay for a moment with the Swed­ ish situation. In addition to the sources emanating from Bremen, we do have almost contemporary native Swedish sources that reflect the status of Christianity in Sweden, i.e. the runic stones. They are mostly dated to the 11th century and several aspects of the stones and their text have been used in the discussion on possible eastern influence. This is hardly surprising because, to the extent the texts mention Swedes abroad, a sizeable majority show them to have been active in the east: in Rus', Byzantium or further to the east.34 Here we shall not enter the discussion on whether the shapes of crosses on the stones might reflect Byzantine style. Nor shall we discuss Anders Sjöberg's suggested identifications of two of the most prolific rune carvers: Asmund Kareson with Bishop Osmund and Öpir Ofeigr with the priest and scribe Upir Lichyj. The latter in 1047 transcribed a Cyrillic ecclesi­ astical text in Novgorod, while the Swedish wife, Ingegerd, of Prince Jaroslav held court there.35 Instead we shall focus on some aspects of the texts which have divided Swedish church historians. The majority of the 11th-century rune stones in Sweden somehow reflect the Christian faith, either because the carver has supplied them with a cross or because the texts contain Christian elements. In addition to informing contemporaries and posterity about the person who had the stone raised and carved, and the person for whom it was raised, many stones also contain a prayer for the soul of the deceased, addressed to some Christian heavenly figure: God, Christ, the Virgin Mary, an archangel or a saint. In 1972 and in 1983 Eric Segelberg published two articles, in which he tried to determine from which corners of the Christian world different elements in these prayers could have originated. Thus, "soul" spelt as "sei" or "sal" could indicate an origin in German/Frisian territory as opposed to England. How­ ever, with regard to two features, Segelberg found a Byzantine origin likely. That applies to the prayer "God help his soul", which, according to Segelberg is common in the inscriptions on Byzantine seals. The other is the prayer to

Darkness in the East?

349

God and God's mother, where the concept of Mary not as the Virgin Mary but as Mother of God also points to the Eastern rather than the Western Church.36 These articles by Segelberg and a further article from 1984 by yet another Swedish church historian, Carl Hallencreutz, on the Virgin Mary in runic in­ scriptions37 were later criticized by Per Beskow in one of his articles in Nordens kristnande i europeiskt perspektiv. Giving credence to Rimberťs Life o f St. Anskar and Adam's chronicle, Beskow finds that both Segelberg and Hallencreutz wish to "minimise" the importance of what to Beskow are "the better known transmitters of Christianity" to Sweden, that is "the more southern Germanic people [Danes?] and the missions from England and Bremen" (translation, JHL). It is on his conviction that these "better known transmitters" were also the "true" transmitters of Christianity to Sweden that Beskow explicitly bases his criticism of Segelberg and Hallencreutz. Besides, because the Latin west adopted the Greek Theotokos, "there is no reason with Segelberg ... to seek the origin of the phrase in the contacts of Scandinavian Vikings with Byzantium" (translation, JHL).38 Essentially, this is same argument we saw Fuglesang use: it is enough to reject a Byzantine origin if a western origin is possible. When Beskow and Staats wrote their 1994 book a large interdisciplinary research project on the Christianisation of Sweden was already underway with professor in The History of Christianity, Bertil Nilsson, as coordinator and author of the first volume. Here the problem of eastern influence does not loom large, but Nilsson does make the claim that "in reality there is no evidence of Christianity in its Byzantine form ever striking root in Sweden" (translation and italics, JHL).39 Here it seems that Nilsson uses the expression "Christianity in its Byzantine form" as if it was a clear, well-defined entity, which it was not, especially if the Byzantine influence was filtered through Christianity as it took root in Rus' in the first part of the 10th century. We shall return to this below. In the most recent of the anthologies referred to above, Från Bysans till Norden. Östliga kyrkoinfluenser under vikingatid och tidig medeltid, Nilsson re­ turns in more detail to the problem in an almost direct confrontation with the archaeologist, Ingmar Jansson. While Jansson, together with his colleague Johan Callmer, a leading Swedish authority on the links between Scandinavia and Rus', find strong archaeological evidence for eastern influence on the form early Christianity took -at least in the eastern part of Sweden, the Malar region - Nilsson flatly denies any such influence. Even a cursory look at their respective arguments reveals that the differ­ ence in opinion between the two sides largely reflects the difference in their basic source material. Thus, while the archaeological sources are generally contemporary with the topic discussed, the written sources stem almost with­ out exception from a later period. The perspective of the archaeologist is there­ fore different from that of the church historian, and while the archaeologist is securely based in the period he investigates, it seems the church historian cannot help being influenced by what was to come in his evaluation of what went before.

350

John H. Lind

In his preliminary remarks Nilsson maintains that possible influences from the Eastern Church, in order to be accepted as such, must somehow show up in the source material. It is obvious that Nilsson believes that to be possible, although the written sources on which he bases his point of view are late. How­ ever because the split between the Eastern and Western Churches, as he main­ tains, began much earlier than 1054, if there were influences or even mission­ ary activity from the east, these would have taken such different forms from similar western initiatives that they would somehow show up in the sources. In his attempt to find such signs of eastern influence, Nilsson, however, sets up some very exacting preconditions: "In order to be able to speak of [eastern] influences, at least some typical features in the Swedish ecclesiastical landscape must by necessity be assigned to the Eastern Church tradition" (translation and italics, JHL). Such features Nilsson is unable to find.40 However, to assign such "features in the Swedish ecclesiastical landscape" to the Eastern Church tradition is exactly what Jansson does in his article. For instance, Jansson points out that indisputably Christian burials in Rus' continued far into the High Middle Ages to include various kinds of grave goods, even types that are usually interpreted as pagan. This can be seen as a result of a less strict ecclesiastical regulation of burial practices in the Eastern Church than came to be the rule in the Western Church. However, a similar situation exists in the eastern part of central Sweden where we see the same blend of pre-Christian and Christian burials as in Rus'. Although difficult to date, these burials used to be dated to a short period in the 11th century by Swedish archaeologists before Christian cemeteries were established, whereas Russian archaeologists date these graves to a much longer period in the 11th12th century or even later.41 Another archaeologist, Jörn Staecker, has reached similar results based on other archaeological data, that he published in articles in Rom und Byzanz (Bremen - Canterbury - Kiev - Konstantinopel? Auf Spurensuche nach Mis­ sionierenden und Missionierten in Altdänemark und Schweden) and in The Cross goes North (The Cross Goes North: Christian Symbols and Scandinavian Women). Here, on the basis of his studies of the spread of various types of cross- and crucifix-pendants, Staecker finds that it is German influence in Sweden that is almost nonexistent, not Byzantine. Therefore, Staecker writes, the success of Bishop Unni's missionary activities in Birka, which according to Adam of Bremen began in the 930s after the failure of Anskar's earlier mission, may be doubted.42 To this Staecker adds, 'probably Gotland and the eastern coast of Sweden used their good contacts with Russia (through marriage and trade) to keep the German mission at a distance by using their own images and by keeping the process of Christianisation in their own hands'. It is in such a context Staecker sees the role of bishop Osmund at the Swedish royal court in the 1050s.43 In this discussion Bertil Nilsson seems to apply the same type of double standard to the problem as we have seen Signe Horn Fuglesang use when she

Darkness in the East?

351

demanded Byzantine influence to be "unquestionably direct" to be accepted as such: if phenomena in early Swedish Christianity cannot "by necessity" be assigned to the east they cannot be seen as Byzantine influence. In contrast, influence from the west does not have to be proven but is taken for granted. In view of the results achieved by archaeologists it is tempting to turn Nilsson's argument around and ask: which typical features in the Swedish ecclesiastical landscape of the 10th and 11th centuries must, by necessity, be assigned to the Western Church tradition? If such features exist, when do they start to ap­ pear? Did it happen before Sweden was finally incorporated into the Roman Church, with the advent of the Reform Papacy towards the end of the 11th century? These are questions that Nilsson and most of his colleagues have failed to ask, and seemingly do not see the need to ask. Admittedly they are difficult to answer because of the lack of contemporary native written sources apart from the runic inscriptions which, as we have seen can be interpreted either way. Scandinavians in the East - Who were the transmitters o f Byzantine influence In reality we know very little about how early Christianity spread to Scandi­ navia and in which form. None of the written sources, whether contemporary with or originating in a later period, are really trustworthy in this respect. Thus, to quote the Oxford historian, Lesley Abrams who, like Jörn Staecker, doubts the efficiency of the German mission from Hamburg-Bremen, "if the mission of Anskar and his immediate successors had significant and enduring effects beyond his death in 865, however, they have so far failed to make them­ selves known to historians".44 But as we have seen from both Rimberťs Life of Anskar and the Gutasaga, quoted above, Christianity did not necessarily reach Scandinavia through the work of missionaries from one or other of the dominant Churches,45 as modern church historians seem to think. Individual and widely travelled Scandinavians could adopt Christianity in places where they became acquainted with the new faith, and in the form it had locally.46 It might even have proved advantageous for them to be at least prime-signed as a first step towards becoming a Christian in places they visited, where they traded, or where they served as mercenaries. This was what Olav Tryggvason did, according to Oddr Snorrason's Saga o f Olav Tryggvason, when he visited Greece before returning home through Rus'.47 This individual approach to the adoption of Christianity may be the origin of one of the dominant features of early Scandinavian Christianity: the wide­ spread use of proprietary churches, where a magnate built his own church and chose his own priest. The latter could be one of his servants or slaves, whom the magnate had educated in the confession he, the magnate, had in one way or another adopted, perhaps on travels to distant regions.48 Such widely travelled Scandinavian magnates were probably among the first Christians in their respective regions. Often they adopted Christianity

352

John H. Lind

long before the "official" Christianisation of the rulers in the late 10th and early 11th century. In all the hitherto pagan territories dominated by Scandi­ navians, archaeological data show to a still larger extent that Christianity was quite widespread before these "official" Christianisations. That is the case in Denmark prior to the baptism of Harald Bluetooth c. 965.49 More importantly in our context, it was also the case in Rus' before the baptism of Vladimir Svjatoslavič in 988/9.50 With regard to early Christianity in Rus', however, we do not have to rely only on archaeological data, nor do we have to rely on nar­ rative sources like Rimberťs Life o f St. Anskar or Adam of Bremen's chronicle with their vested interests. In the early Russian chronicle, The Tale of Bygone Years (Povesť vremennych let), written c. 1110, the compiler had, in contrast to his immediate predeces­ sor,51 access to the texts of a number of treaties which the Rus' leadership had concluded with Byzantine emperors in 907, 911, 944 and 971. The original texts were probably written in Greek but were translated into Old East Slavonic before they were inserted in the chronicle. It is generally agreed that these texts offer a faithful rendition of the original treaties with a few minor adap­ tations to 12th-century forms.52 As performative sources, these treaty texts are far superior to the early narrative sources on the spread of Christianity among Scandinavians that have been mentioned so far. In both early treaties (907 and 911) the Rus' envoys with Scandinavian names like their leader Prince Oleg (Helgi, preserved as HLGW in a contem­ porary Hebrew source), are portrayed as pagans, who swear oaths on the treaty by their gods and their weapons.53 By contrast, the Byzantines, referred to either as Greeks or simply Christians, as if the two terms were synonymous, take their oaths by kissing the cross.54 In the third treaty from 944 this has changed. The treaty lists no less than seventy-two or seventy-three names by whom, or on whose behalf, the treaty was concluded on the part of the Rus'. Once again almost all the names of the Rus' in the text are clearly Scandinavian.55 But in contrast to the previous treaties, the 944 treaty repeatedly, when relevant, distinguishes between those Rus', who are still pagan and those who are now Christians. The chronicler ends his quotation from the treaty with a report by the Greek envoys on its ratification by the Rus' in Kiev: "in the morning, Igor' [the ruling prince, Ingor according to a contemporary Greek source] summoned the envoys, and went to a hill on which there was a statue of Perun. The Rus' laid down their weapons, their shields, and their gold ornaments, and Igor' and his people took oath - at least, such as were pagans, while the Christian Rus' took oath in the church of St Elijah", This situation the compiler of The Tale of Bygone Years expounds c. 1110:

Darkness in the East?

353

"which [the Elijah Church] is above the creek, in the vicinity of the Pasyncha square and the quarter of the Chazars. This was, in fact, the cathedral church, since many of the Varangians were Christians".56 From this text it is clear that between 911 and 944 a significant number of Scandinavians or people of Scandinavian descent in Rus' had decided to adopt Christianity, presumably by individual choice, perhaps while living in or visiting Byzantium. Furthermore, the fact that a separate ratification to this international treaty by the Christian Rus' was now a necessity, shows that Christianity by 944 had obtained official status in Rus' almost half a century before the conversion of its ruler, Vladimir Svjatoslavič. Even though it has largely gone unnoticed by Scandinavian scholars, this fairly large-scale adoption of Christianity by Scandinavians or people of Scan­ dinavian descent, active in the east at a time when there was a constant flow of Scandinavians between Scandinavia and Byzantium, can hardly have failed to influence Scandinavians at home - especially those living in present-day Sweden, if we assume that Swedes constituted the majority among Rus' and Varangians. It is true that we find few traces of Byzantine influence in Scandinavian church life as it appears in our earliest written sources from around 1100 and later, unless we read such influence into the runic inscriptions. Thus, in con­ trast to Finland, where a number of important Christian terms, derived from Church Slavonic, survived the Swedish crusades in the 12th century when the Catholicism, as perceived by the Reform Papacy, was forced upon the Finns,57 we do not find a similar Christian vocabulary in Scandinavia that is influenced from the east. One reason for this could be that Scandinavians were already acquainted with a Christian vocabulary in related Germanic languages, first of all Anglo-Saxon. The Finns did not have the same opportunity to acquaint themselves with a ready Christian vocabulary in a related language. Above we have seen how Signe Horn Fuglesang considered that, what is to be found of Byzantine influence in Scandinavia "probably came to Scandi­ navia by way of the continent", (meaning Western Europe), without consider­ ing the question of, who the most likely transmitters of Byzantine motifs and ornaments found in Scandinavia could be. Thus like many other scholars she disregards the fact that so many Scandinavians, first known as Rus' since as Varangians, travelled along the East European rivers to Byzantium. This traffic started no later than the early 9th century and it continued until at least the Latin conquest of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade in 1204: as late as in the early 1190s we are told in a contemporary source that the Danish and Norwegian participants in the Third Crusade (1189-92) had contacts with their compatriots in the Varangian Guard when they returned home through Constantinople.58 The Scandinavians came to Byzantium either as part of armies that attacked

354

John H. Lind

Byzantine territories or, more importantly, to serve the Byzantine emperors. In case they entered imperial service, they also stayed in Byzantium for prolonged periods, acquainting themselves with and adapting to the Byzantine way of life. Those who survived either returned home or settled in Rus', which was politically dominated by Scandinavians until well into the 10th-llth century. As we have seen, many of these Scandinavians adopted Christianity in the process long before the official Christianisation of their home countries, whether these were the Rus' principality or the emerging Scandinavian kingdoms. If we take into consideration the fact that Byzantine emperors were able to field armies that comprised several thousand Varangians in one battle, as Constantine IX Monomachos did in 1045,59 there must have been a consider­ able flow of Scandinavians over the centuries, travelling in their thousands to Byzantium. Like Harald Hardradi or the lesser known Ragnvald, who claimed on a runic stone that was raised in commemoration of his mother to have been in Greece as 'commander of the retinue' (U 112), these many Scandinavians must generally have belonged to the higher echelon of Scandinavian society. An ordinary, low-born Scandinavian could not just leave home in order to join the Varangian Guard. Even if he had the necessary military training to be a member of the imperial army, he had to be able to afford the travel expenses from Scandinavia to Constantinople, but in addition he also had to pay a substantial entrance fee, before he could join the Varangian Guard and begin to earn the dividends of this very substantial investment.60 Consequently, the Scandinavians who joined the Byzantine army had to be people whose influ­ ence at home counted, and who probably expected their influence to have grown when they returned. These Scandinavians, therefore, also represented that social stratum, which today is thought to have played a leading role in the Christianisation of their respective countries from Rus' to Iceland. If, with Harald Hardradi, we move a further step up on the social latter to the level of royalty, the link to the east is equally clear. Apart from Knud the Great, who after the conquest of England married into the English royal house in order to bolster his power, only the Danish King Knud IV (+1086) married in the west, probably as part of a plan to reconquer England; other­ wise almost all dynastic links we know of beyond Scandinavia were formed with royal or princely houses in the east: with West-Slavic dynasties to the south and south-east, or with the gradually slavicised Scandinavian relatives in Rus'.61 These eastern links dominated in the Scandinavian royal houses well into the 12th century and reached a peak during the reign of King Niels and his wife Margrethe Fredkulla in the early 12th century, when a direct link to the Byzantine imperial family was established.62 Some of the effects of this ongoing traffic of Scandinavians to and from Byzantium are well-known and are reflected to a growing extent in archaeo­ logical data in Byzantium, in Scandinavia, and along the river systems of east central Europe,63 where the Scandinavians in forming the Rus' principality linked a Finnic-Baltic dominated region in the north with Staraja Ladoga -

Darkness in the East?

355

and later Novgorod - as centres with a Slavic dominated region in the south, with Kiev, Cernigov and Perejaslavl' (Russkij) as centres. As the Danish slavicist, Adolf Stender-Petersen demonstrated in his disser­ tation from 1933, this traffic is not just reflected in archaeological data, but also in folkloric and literary motifs that were soaked up by Scandinavians in oral tradition in Byzantium and transmitted through Rus' to Scandinavia, where these motifs emerge in literary works such as the Russian chronicles and the Norse sagas.64 The fact that we find these motifs in both Russian and Scandi­ navian contexts shows that in this case the route this type of Byzantine influ­ ence travelled to Scandinavia was via the eastern route and not through some Western intermediary. Against this background it seems rather far-fetched to seek alternative places of origin of Byzantine influence in Scandinavia in the west, unless conclusive evidence supports such an alternative. "Russian " as opposed to Scandinavian and the concept o f the "Church in Russia" The hesitancy of some scholars to see and accept Eastern influence in Scan­ dinavia has, to a large extent, to do with their general unfamiliarity with the situation in the east. This can be exemplified in the way in which they use the term "Russian". In connection with the 9th-century Hoen hoard we quoted Signe Horn Fuglesang for the claim that "all the neck and arm rings which have often been referred to as Russian, are now proved to be Scandinavian". The question here is, what in a 9th-century context, "Russian" as opposed to Scandinavian can refer to? At that time the term Rus' still referred to Scan­ dinavians or people of Scandinavian descent or to the polity to which they gave their name and where they were the dominating force. Apart from these Scandinavian Rus', the Rus' polity was a multi-ethnical and multi-cultural formation. Therefore it hardly makes sense to characterise something as "Rus­ sian" in this period unless it refers Scandinavians in Rus'. It also seems problematic to refer, in the words of Reinhart Staats, to the "Church in Russia" as a possible - if, in his opinion, unlikely - source of in­ fluence on Christianity in Scandinavia prior to 1104 when the Scandinavian church province was established, centred at Lund. Similar to what was stated above concerning Bertil Nilsson's use of the concept "Christianity in its Byz­ antine form", such an expression seems to imply that we can really talk about a "Church in Russia" as if this was a clearly defined entity, which on the basis of contemporary sources would allow us to distinguish the forms Christianity took in Rus' from Christianity in Scandinavia. But this is not the case. Interaction between Christianity in East and West What we can do, more or less by coincidence, is to observe several instances of possible interaction between Christianity in the two regions. As noted above

356

John H. Lind

already, Toni Schmid knew that Scandinavian saints in the twelfth century had been venerated in Rus'.65 This concerns the following sequence of saints included in the litany of a 12th-century Russian prayer to the Trinity: Magnus (of Orkney), Canute, Benedict, Alban (St. Knud and his brother Benedict killed in 1086 in St. Alban's Church in Odense, hence Alban), Olav, and Botulph.66 Another case of interaction can be seen in relation to the foundation in the second half of the 11th century of the Kiev Monastery of the Caves, a leading centre of Russian spirituality. The foundation is described in the monastery's Paterikon, where the first three tales are devoted to the role played by a Varan­ gian, Simon (Sigmundr). Baptized according to the Latin rite, he had newly arrived in Kiev from Scandinavia. In the Paterikon we are told how traditions he had brought with him from Scandinavia influenced not only the building of the main church, dedicated to the Dormition of the Mother of God, but also the rituals that were adopted in the monastery. Elsewhere in the Paterikon we are told how two other Varangians, a father and his son, this time baptized according to the Greek rite and killed during pagan riots in Kiev in 983, were now venerated in the monastery as the first martyrs in Rus'. As described in the Paterikon, it is clear that the monks in the monastery held the early Va­ rangian Christians in high regard, whether they had adopted Christianity in Byzantium according to the Greek rite or at home in Scandinavia according to the Latin rite. It is equally clear that the monks to a large extent saw these Varangians as founders of Christianity as it was practised in the monastery, where Christianity was presented as a blend of influences from both east and west.67 Another kind of interaction can be seen in the early spread of saints' cults to Rus' and to Scandinavia. With regard to the cult of St Clement this is demon­ strated by Ildar Garipzanov in the present volume, while in an earlier parallel article Garipzanov has done the same with regard to the cult of St. Nicholas. In both cases Garipzanov has shown the spread of these cults to Rus' and to Scandinavia to be interlinked and that they are not a separate phenomenon within the Eastern and Western Churches.68 For a final case of possible interaction we shall return to Bishop Osmund, mentioned several times above. The controversy concerning his person is based on Adam of Bremen's account. According to this he appears in the 1050s as King Emund's court bishop. Adam is critical towards the king because he did not care about what Adam calls "our religion", by which Adam presum­ ably meant that the king did not accept the authority of Hamburg-Bremen. Against Bishop Osmund, who is said to stand outside the church hierarchy as "headless" (episcopus acephalus), Adam is even more critical. He describes him as a "tramp" who, after having been taught in Bremen, had in vain sought ordination in Rome before he was finally ordained by an archbishop in Pola­ nia.69 This may be Poland as many scholars think.70 It may, however, just as well have been in Kiev, the centre of the East Slavic tribe, the Poljanians. Be that as it may, there is however a further aspect to this story. Approximately

Darkness in the East?

357

at the same time as Osmund appears as an independent bishop at the court of King Emund, King Emund's cousin by marriage in Kiev, Prince Jaroslav decided, likewise in opposition to the church hierarchy - in this case the Byz­ antine church authorities - to appoint his own residential cleric, the Russianborn Ilarion, to the metropolitanate after the reigning Greek metropolitan of Kiev had died in 1049. In time, this further coincides with a clash, described by Adam, between the Bremensian archbishop Adalbert and Harald Hardradi of Norway, Prince Jaroslav's son-in-law. Adalbert had reproached Harald, the "tyrant" in Adam's words, for having had his bishops ordained either in France or in England without asking Adalbert, who, according to Adam, had the apostolic authority to do the ordaining. To this criticism Harald replied, according to Adam, that he did not know who was archbishop in Norway nor who had power there except himself.71 Thus, more or less simultaneously, we see all three closely related rulers, of which at least two had intimate knowledge of the Byzantine system, apply a caesaropapistic approach to appointments to the highest ecclesiastic offices in their countries, exactly as it was done in Byzantium. Therefore, whether or not Bishop Osmund was ordained in Kiev or in Poland, his presence at the court of King Emund was nevertheless likely to be a result of Byzantine influence. These cases of interaction shows that throughout the 11th and well into the 12th century Christianity, whether in Scandinavia or in Rus', had not as yet been subjected to the dogmatic and ritual centralization that especially the Western Catholic Church under the Reform Papacy attempted to accomplish. Concluding Remarks If we want to form an idea of the kind of influences that helped shape early Christianity in Scandinavia and in Scandinavian-dominated regions like Rus' at a time when we really have no or at best very few native written sources, it is first of all important to avoid drawing conclusions based on sources that describe a later situation or, worse, use that situation as an additional source. That is particularly important with regard to Scandinavia. Apart from the Runic inscriptions, native written sources describing local church life in Scandinavia only begin to appear after the region had become firmly inte­ grated into the Latin Church, which by then had already been taken over by the Reform Papacy, with its wish to centralize, dominate and conform local Christian usage in accordance with a strict set of rules. Before this take-over of the Latin Church by the Cluny-inspired reform popes, Christianity in the West could, just like in the East, take many local forms. A case in point can be found in Adam of Bremen's criticism of his arch­ bishop, Adalbert (1043-1072), because he had on three occasions used "some other Roman or Greek tradition", when he no longer wished to follow the established Latin rite.72At that time it was still possible to use Church Slavonic

358

John H. Lind

within the Western Church. But when Vratislav II of Bohemia in 1080 asked permission for the Bohemian church to use the Church Slavonic liturgy, Pope Gregory VII refused,73 and the result was that the last vestiges of the Church Slavonic rite within this region of the Western Church were eradicated in 1096, when the Sázava Monastery in Bohemia was "Latinized". In view of this ongoing process of centralization and standardization, first of all within the Catholic Church - but also to a lesser degree within the Or­ thodox Church, the only features in later written sources that can cast light on earlier stages of Christianity are those that cannot be explained within the framework of the current form of Christianity but must be seen as remnants of earlier stages. That is the case with regard to the early Latin influence in the Caves Monastery; and it is the case with the remnants of Church Slavonic in the Finnish Christian vocabulary. It must also be the case with regard to the stipulation in the Icelandic law codex Grågås, quoted by Fuglesang, about the " ermskir" and "girskir" bish­ ops, whose services people were "allowed to attend", if they wished to do so, even though these bishops were not "learned in the Latin language".74 A stipulation like this would hardly have been inserted into a normative source had the problem not at some point been on the agenda. And even if we were to accept the unlikely situation that the "ermskir" bishops could be clerics from the Baltic Ermland and, therefore, baptized, educated and consecrated in the Latin rite, even if they were unable to function in that rite, we are still faced with the "girskir" bishop(s). They did not necessarily have to be Greek. They could very well be Scandinavians (even Icelanders), who were baptized, educated and consecrated in Byzantium or Rus', but they belonged in any case to the Greek rite. We find a similar case on the other side of the confessional border. Probably most early Scandinavian Christians, whether in Rus' or at home, were unaware of the existence of such a border, at least it was not felt as sharp among them as it was felt between Constantinople and Rome. But over time this border be­ came more distinct. As we have seen, Varangians of both the Greek and Latin rite were influential in the formation of Christianity in Rus', but in the course of the Middle Ages the Latin rite did become a problem and already by the middle of the 12th century the term Varangians in Rus' became synonymous with Scandinavians of the Latin rite and later in the Middle Ages the term "Varangian faith" (varjažkaja vera) even became synonymous with the Latin Christianity - whether or not Scandinavians were involved. It is against this background we have to understand some questions on a list of inquiries from the middle of the 12th century, attributed to the monk Kirik (Voprošanije Kirika) and put to his archbishop, Nifont of Novgorod. One question concerns a per­ son baptized in the Latin faith who wishes "to convert to us"; the reply states that he "should attend a [Russian] church for seven days, take an [Orthodox Christian] name, and say four prayers a day". Another question concerns those Orthodox people who bring their children to the "Varangian priest" [to be bap­

Darkness in the East?

359

tized]. These were now said to be "dual believers" and were to accept 6 weeks' penance.75 The decisions by the archbishop clearly reveal a new attitude to a problem that was not earlier felt to be a problem. Especially the last question shows that ordinary Novgorodians (people who were not of Scandinavian de­ scent) often had their children baptized by the priest at St. Olaf's Church, just like other Novgorodians did in other of Novgorod's many churches. A final case concerns the very heart of the Scandinavian church, at least if the Danish historian Kai Hørby is correct in assuming that Archbishop Absalon's liturgical reform in 1187 of the diocese of Lund "removed the remnants of a Greek-influenced liturgy in favour of the liturgy prescribed by Rome" (translation, JHL).76 Apart from this type of evidence from later written sources we have, in general, to base our knowledge on early Christianity in both Scandinavia and Rus' on archaeological data, and it is mainly through future archaeological excavations that we can hope to gain added knowledge. With luck archaeol­ ogy can, of course, also produce new written sources. Thus, in addition to the more than 1.000 birch bark documents, unearthed so far during excavations in Novgorod, archaeologists in 2000 also found some waxed wooden tablets, now known as the Novgorod Codex. The codex contains two Psalms and fragments of a third. It seems to have been written by the monk Isaakii, who claims in the codex that he was consecrated as a priest in 999 in Suzdal' in the "church of St. Alexander the Armenian". The reference to this Alexander the Armenian may, according to Andrej Zaliznjak, reflect Bogomil influence.77 This suggests that many varieties of Christianity were at play at the time. We can hope that future archaeological excavations may produce further evidence of this type. With luck archaeologists may also eventually be able to bridge the gap that still faces us with regard to relations between the Baltic and the Black-Sea regions in the period between the migration of the Goths in the early centuries of the Christian era and the appearance of the Scandinavian Rus' along the East European river system in the 8th century. If this will also produce further evidence of early Christian influence in Scandinavia, it is to be hoped that in the future this will be appraised without sidelong glances at Christianity as it developed in later periods. In any case there is a distinct need among scholars for a keener awareness of the links between Scandinavia, Rus' and Byzantium during the early spread of Christianity. Notes 1 Lind 2011; Lind 2012; see also this volume, Introduction. 2 Kromann 1989, 85-86; Kaliff 2001, see also Metcalf 1995, 413-41. 3 Press releases: http://svt.Se/2.33731/l.1144708/kalmarforskare_spracker_ansgarmyten?pagel 851238=8; http://www.dagen.se/dagen/article.aspx?id=153413; http://www.vr.se/huvudmeny/forskningvistodjer/humanioraochsamhallsvetenskap/manadensprojekt/sverigeborjadeblikristetredanpa500talet.4.41c4c50bll9

360

4

5

6 7

8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

John H. Lind 5b50750780002443.html;. English presentation of project: http://www2.hik.se/ applikationer/forskningspresentation/project.aspx?culture=en&projectid=423 (all accessed 5.09.2010) Salo 2006. For a comparative approach to the question of Christianization, Berend (ed.) 2007, and herein esp. Bagge & Nordeide 2007; Blomkvist, Brink & Lindkvist 2007; Gelting 2007; and Shepard 2007. Zeitler 1981. Piltz 1989. Roesdahl & Wilson 1992. Müller-Wille 1997. Carver 2003. Janson 2005. Beskow 2003, Staats 1997. There are sceptics also among archaeologists such as Anne-Sofie Gräslund, who, although she wishes "to show the potential of archaeological evidence to highlight the process of Christianization", in her introductory overview and before she has presented this evidence nevertheless a p r io r i claims that Sweden was christianized from the west, Gräslund 2002, 24, 140. Fuglesang 2001. Below we shall return to the apparent inconsistency concerning "Russian" vs. "Scandinavian". Fuglesang 2001. Fuglesang 2001. Fuglesang & Wilson 2006, 94. Kilger 2011. Fuglesang 1997. Fuglesang 1996. Fuglesang 1997, 35-36. Fuglesang 1997, 36. In fact the close link between "hermskir" and "girskir" about bishops and priests who are not familiar with the Latin rite seems in itself to lend support to the identification of the "[hjermsker" bishops as Armenians rather than coming from Ermland, where we would expect them to have been "learned in the Latin language". We shall return to this quote in Grågås below. Fuglesang 1997, 47. Sawyer 1982, 141; Arne 1947. Sjöberg, 1982; Sjöberg 1985. Sjöberg, 1982; Sjöberg 1985; Dashkévytch 1986-1987; Hagland 1996. Hagland returned to the question in Hagland 2005 and Hagland 2011. Uspenskij 2000; Cormack 2007. Schmid 1934, 55-56. Palme 1962, 58, 104-27. Staats 1994, 3. Below we shall return to what can be meant in this context by the "Church in Russia". As we shall see below both the Swedish king, Edmund, and the Norwegian king, Harald Hardradi, appointed bishops that were independent of Hamburg-Bremen, for which Adam repudiated them severely. By contrast, he praised the Danish king Sven Estridsen for his apparent obedience towards Hamburg-Bremen; however while King Sven entertained Adam at his court in a friendly manner, the king was at the same time in contact with the popes Alexander II and Gregory VII

Darkness in the East?

32 33 34 35

36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50 51

52 53

54 55 56

361

with the intention of establishing a separate Danish church province, which Pope Gregory was apparently prepared to grant had King Sven not died in 1074/76. Rimbert 1978, 90. Gutasaga: http://runeberg.org/gutasaga/05.html (accessed 10.09.2010). Larsson 1990. Sjöberg, A. 1982; Sjöberg 1985. After Ingegerd's and Jaroslav's deaths in 1050 and 1054 a different branch of the dynasty without links to Sweden took power in Novgorod. That, in Sjöberg's opinion, could be the occasion when Upir Lichyj left Rus' to become Öpir ofeigr, as 'ofeigr' could be a possible Swedish rendition of "lichyj". Segelberg 1972; Segelberg 1983. This point is also made by Sjöberg 1985, 76. Hallencreutz 1982. Beskow 1994, 16, 25. Nilsson 1998, 64. Nilsson 2005, 38. Jansson 2005, 66-67. Staecker 2003, 476. Staecker 2003, 478. Abrams 1995, 213. Often we only operate with two major churches, the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches. This may be relevant at a later period, but it is appro­ priate in this connection to recall that when the Byzantine Patriarch and the Roman Pope towards the end of the 9th century jointly supported the CyrilloMethodian Mission to Great Moravia based on the Church Slavonic rite, they were both opposed by the powerful Frankish Church that managed to expel the Church-Slavonic missionaries from Great Moravia. Later, in the second half of the 11th century the Frankish Church took over the papacy when Cluny-inspired reform popes like Gregory VII came to power. Wilson & Roesdahl 1992, 42. Hagland 2007, 50. Smedberg 1981, 235-36; Wood 2006. http://lindegaarden.wordpress.com/ (accessed 27.12.11). Petrukhin & Pushkina 1999 and articles in the present volume. The Povesť vremennych let has been translated into English under the mislead­ ing title T h e R u s s ia n P r im a r y C h r o n i c le , cf. Cross & Sherbowitz-Wetzor 1953. The predecessor from c. 1095 is partly preserved as the initial part of the Y o u n g e r V e rs io n o f th e F ir s t N o v g o r o d C h r o n ic le . It is traditionally labelled N a č a T n y j s v o d (Primary Chronicle or Compilation, which is why it is not helpful to refer to Povesť vremennych let as The Russian Primary Chronicle). Malingoudi 1994; Malingudi 1995-97; Bibikov 1999. Compare Adam of Bremen's account of a peace making between Danes and Franks at the time of Louis the Pious: "the Danes swore on the treaty according to the tradition of the people an unbreakable oath by their weapons", Adam of Bremen, 298. Byčkov 1926, 30-31; Cross & Sherbowitz-Wetzor 1953, 64-77. Melnikova 2004. Byčkov 1926, 32-37; Cross & Sherbowitz-Wetzor 1953, 73-77. Observe that when­ ever the chronicler quotes the treaty itself he only uses the term Rus', whereas he has to call these Rus' "Varangians" when commenting on the text because of the

362

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

66 67

68 69

70 71 72 73 74

75 76 77

John H. Lind different connotations the term Rus' carried in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, when it had already turned from a semi-ethnic term denoting Scandinavians into a term that also included the Slavic majority population of the Rus' principality. Lind 2006. Skovgaard-Petersen 2001. Blöndal 1978, 105. Blöndal 1978, 200. Gillingstam 1981; Lind 1992. See Haastrup & Lind, this volume. See Androshchuk; Eniosova & Puškina, this volume. Stender-Petersen 1933. Schmid 1934, 55-56. Lind 1990; Lind forthcoming. Lind forthcoming. Garipzanov 2010; and his article in this volume. Adam of Bremen 1978, 344. After the death of King Emund, Bishop Osmund went to England and lived his final years in the monastery at St Ely, where he was eulogized in the L ib e r E lie n s is , Fairweather 2005, 201. Janson 1998,113. Janson gives the most detailed, recent presentation of Osmund's role, Janson 1998, 104-75. Adam of Bremen 1978, 348. Adam of Bremen 1978, 362. Emerton 1969, 148. See the quote from Fuglesang above. The original text reads, "Ef biskupar koma út hingaÖ til lands eöa prestar their er eigi eru laeröir á latinutungu, hvorts their eru ermskir eöa girskir, og er mönnum rétt aö hlýóa á tiöir theirra ef vilja", see Karlsson, Sveinsson & Årnason 1992, 19. Pavlov 1880, 22, 31. Hørby 1994, 29. The text of the reform was reconstructed by Hørby's colleague Niels Skyum-Nielsen and published posthumously; see Skyum-Nielsen 1991-93 Zaliznjak 2003.

Bibliography Abrams, L. 1995.The Anglo-Saxons and the Christianization of Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon Studies 24, 213-49. Adam of Bremen 1978. Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum, in: Trillmich, W. & R. Buchner (eds.) Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters. Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe 11. Darmstadt, 135-498. Arne, T.J. 1947. Biskop Osmund, Fornvännen 42, 54-56. Bagge, S. & S.W. Nordeide 2007. The kingdom of Norway, in: N. Berend (ed.), Christianization and the Rise o f Christian Monarchy. Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900-1200. Cambridge, 121-66. Berend, N. (ed.) 2007. Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy. Scan­ dinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900-1200. Cambridge. Beskow, P. 1994. Runor och liturgi, in: Nordens kristnande i europeiskt perspektiv. Skara 1994, 16-36.

Darkness in the East?

363

Beskow, P. 2003. Byzantine Influence in the Conversion of the Baltic Region? in: Carver, M. ed. 2003. The Cross Goes North: Processes o f Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300. Woodbridge, 559-63. Beskow, P.& R. Staats (eds.) 1994. Nordens kristnande i europeiskt perspektiv. Skara. Bibikov, M.V. 1999. Rus' v vizantijskoj diplomatii: dogovory Rusi s grekami X v., in: E.A. Mel'nikova, (ed.) Drevnjaja Rus' v svete zarubeznych istocnikov. Moscow, 111-116. Blomkvist, N., S. Brink & T. Lindkvist 2007. The kingdom of Sweden, in: N. Berend (ed.), Christianization and the Rise of Christian Monarchy. Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900-1200. Cambridge, 167-213. Blöndal, S. 1978. The Varangians o f Byzantium. An aspect o f Byzantine military history translated, revised and rewritten by Benedikt S. Benedikz. Cambridge. Byčkov, A.F. (ed.) 1926. Lavrenťjevskaja letopis', in: Polnoje sobranie russkich letopise] 1. Carver, M. (ed.) 2003. The Cross Goes North: Processes o f Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300. Woodbridge. Cormack, M. 2007. Irish and Armenian Ecclesiastics in Medieval Iceland, in: Smith, B.B. & S. Taylor (eds.), West over Sea. Studies in Scandinavian SeaBorne Expansion and Settlement Before 1300. A Festschrift in Honour o f Dr Barbara E. Crawford. Leiden, 227-34. Cross, S.H. & O.P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor (eds.), 1953. The Russian Primary Chron­ icle. Laurentian Text. Cambridge, Mass. Dashkevytch Ya.R. 1986-1987. Les arméniens en Islande (Xle siede), Revue des etudes armeniernes 20, 321-336. Emerton E. ed. 1969. The Correspondence o f Pope Gregory VII. New York. Fairweather, J. (ed.) 2005. Liber Eliensis, a history of the Isle o f Ely from the seventh to twelfth century, compiled by a monk o f Ely in the twelfth century. Fuglesang, S.H. 1996. A Critical Survey of Theories on Byzantine Influence in Scandinavia, in: K. Fledelius (ed.), Byzantium: Identity, Image, Influence. XIX International Congress o f Byzantine Studies, University o f Copenhagen 18-24 August 1996. Vol. Major Papers. København, 137-68. Fuglesang, S.H. 1997. A Critical Survey of Theories on Byzantine Influence in Scandinavia, in Müller-Wille, M. (ed.) 1997. Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts. I. Mainz, 35-58. Fuglesang, S.H. 2001. Internet presentation of Fuglesang, S.H. & D.M. Wilson (eds.) 2006: https://vortex.uio.no/prosjekter/forskningsformidling/apollon_old/2001_3/english/gold.html (accessed 6 Febr. 2010). Fuglesang, S.H. & D.M. Wilson (eds.) 2006. The Hoen Hoard. A Viking gold trea­ sure o f the ninth century. Roma. Garipzanov, I.H. 2010. The Cult of St Nicholas in the Early Christian North (c. 1000-1150), Scandinavian Journal o f History 35, 229-46.

364

John H. Lind

Gelting, M.H. 2007. The kingdom of Denmark, in: N. Berend (ed.), Christian­ ization and the Rise o f Christian Monarchy. Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900-1200. Cambridge, 73-120. Gillingstam, H. 1981. Utomnordiskt och nordiskt i de äldsta svenska dynas­ tiska förbindelserna, Personhistorisk tidskrift 77, 17-28. Gräslund, A.-S. 2002. Ideologi och Mentalitet. Om religionsskiftet i Skandinavien från en arkeologisk horisont. Uppsala. Grågås 1974. Grågås, Konungsbok. Genoptrykt efter V. Finsens udgave 1852. Odense Universitetsforlag. Gutasaga. http://runeberg.org/gutasaga/05.html (accessed 1 October 2011) Hagland, J. R. 1996, The Christianization of Norway and possible influences from the Eastern churches. Paleobulgarica XX, 3-19. Hagland, J. R. 2005. Armenske biskopar i Norden på 1000-talet? in: Janson, H. (ed.) 2005. Från Bysans till Norden. Malmö, 153-63. Hagland, J. R. 2007. State Formation and Early Christianization in Norway the problem of Possible Eastern Influences, in: motskrift 2007, 48-52. Hagland, J.R. 2011. Early Christianization in Norway and State Formation - the Problem of Possible Eastern Influence, in: N.Yu. Gvozdeckaja, I.G. Konovalova, E.A. Melnikova & A.V. Podosinov (eds.), Stanzas of Friend­ ship - Visy Družby. Studies in honour o f Tatjana Jackson. Moskva, 429-35. Hallencreutz, C.F. 1982. Runstenarnas Maria. En studie av kristendomens översättning till runsvenska, in: Svensk missionshistorisk tidskrift 12,12-22. Hørby, К 1994. Absalon, in: Den store Danske Encyklopædi 1, 28-29. Janson, H. 1998. Templům nobilissimum. Adam av Bremen, Uppsalatemplet och konfliktlinjerna i Europa kring år 1075. Göteborg. Janson, H. (ed.) 2005. Från Bysans till Norden. Malmö. Jansson, I. 2005. Situationen i Norden och Osteuropa för 1000 år sedan - en arkeologs synpunkter på frågan om östkristna inflytanden under mis­ sionstiden, in: Janson, H. (ed.), Från Bysans till Norden. Malmö, 37-95. Kaliff, A. 2001. Gothic connections. Contacts between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC-500 AD. Uppsala. Karlsson, G., K. Sveinsson & M. Arnason, 1992. Grågås, lagasafn islenska pjódveldisins. Reykjavik. Kilger, C. 2011: Treasures, myths and female belongings: the Hoen hoard revisited (abstract), in: Proceedings o f the 22nd International Congress o f Byzantine Studies 2. Sofia, 114-15. Kromann, A. 1989. Mønterne fra Byzanz, in: E. Piltz (ed.), Bysans och Norden, Aktasamling över nordiska forskarkursen 8-18 juni 1986. Stockholm, 81-90. Larsson, M.G. 1990. Runstenar och utlandsfärder. Aspekter på det senvikingatida samhället med utgångspunkt i de fasta fornlämningarna. Lund. Lind, J. 1990. The Martyria of Odense and a Twelfth Century Russian Prayer. To the Question of Bohemian Influence on Russian Religious Literature, The Slavonic and East European Review 68, 1-21.

Darkness in the East?

365

Lind, J. 1992. De russiske ægteskaber. Dynasti- og alliancepolitik i 1130'ernes danske borgerkrig, Historisk Tidsskrift 92, 225-63. Lind, J.H. 2006. Reflections on church historians, archaeologists and early Christianity in Finland, in: Mervi Suhonen (ed.), Arkeologian lumoa synkkyyteen. Artikkeleita Christian Canpelanin juhlapäiväksi = Lighting the dark­ ness - The attraction o f archaeology. Papers in honour o f Christian Carpelan. Helsinki, 68-74. Lind, J. 2011. "Vikings" and the Viking Age, in: N.G. Gvozdetskaja & I.G. Konovalova, E.A. Melnikova & A.V. Podosinov (eds.). Stanzas o f Friend­ ship - Visy Druzhby. Studies in honour o f Tatjana Jackson. Moskva, 201-22. Lind, J. 2012. "Vikinger", vikingetid og vikingeomamentik, Kumi 2012. Arbog for Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, 151-70. Lind, J.H. forthcoming. 'Varangian Christianity' and the Veneration of AngloSaxon and Scandinavian Saints in Early Rus', in: J. Callmer, I. Gustin & M. Roslund (eds.), Crossing Cultural Boundaries. Brill Academic Publishers. Malingoudi, J. 1994. Die russisch-byzantinischen vertrage des 10. Jahrhunderts. Aus diplomatischer sicht. Thessaloniki. Malingudi, Ja. 1995-97. Russko-vizantijskie svjazi v X veke s točki zrenija diplomatiki, Vizantijskij vremennik 56-57, 68-91, 58-87. Melnikova, E.A. 2004. The Lists of Old Norse Personal Names in the RussianByzantine Treaties of the Tenth Century, in: Tidskrift för nordisk personnamnsforskning 22, 5-27. Metcalf, M. 1995. Viking Age Numismatics 1: Late Roman and Byzantine Gold in the Northern Lands, The Numismatic Chronicle CLV, 413-441. Müller-Wille, M. (ed.) 1997. Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mission und Glaubens­ wechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts. I—II. Mainz. Nilsson, В. 1998. Sveriges kyrkohistoria I. missionstid och tidig medeltid. Stockholm. Nilsson, B. 2005. Förekom det bysantinska influenser i tidig svensk kyrkohis­ toria? in: Janson, H. (ed.) 2005. Från Bysans till Norden. Malmö, 17-35. Palme, S.U. 1962. Kristendomens genombrott i Sverige. 2d ed. (1st ed. 1959). Stockholm. Pavlov, A. S. (ed.) 1880. Pamjatniki drevnerusskogo kanoničeskogo prava. 1. St. Petersburg. Petrukhin, V.Ya. & T.A. Pushkina, 1999. Old Russia: the Earliest Stages of Christianization, in: M. Müller-Wille (ed.), Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mission und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts. II. Mainz, 247-58. Piltz, E. (ed.) 1989. Bysans och Norden. Aktasamling över nordiska forskarkursen 8-18 juni 1986. Stockholm. Piltz, E. (ed) 1998. Byzantium and Islam in Scandinavia. Acts o fa Symposium at Uppsala University June 15-16 1996. Jonsered.

366

John H. Lind

Rimbert 1978. Vita Anskarii, in: W. Werner Trillmich & R. Buchner (eds.), Ausgewählte Quellen zur Deutschen Geschichte des Mittelalters. Freiherr vom Stein-Gedächtnisausgabe 11. Darmstad, 1-132. Roesdahl E. & D.M. Wilson (eds.) 1992. From Viking to crusader. The Scandina­ vians and Europe 800-1200. New York. Salo, U. 2006. Ristija rauta. Kristilliset kuvat, symbolit ja ornamentit Suomen rautakauden löydöissä. Vammala. Sawyer, RH. 1982. Kings and Vikings. London. Schmid, T. 1934. Sveriges kristnande. Från verklighet till dikt. Uppsala. Segelberg, E. 1972. God help his soul, in: Ex orbě Religionům. Festskrift för Geo Widengren, Leiden, 161-176. Segelberg, E. 1983. Missionshistoriska aspekter på runinskrifterna, in: Kyrkohistorisk årsskrift 83, 45-57. Shepard, J. 2007. Rus', in: N. Berend (ed.), Christianization and the Rise of Chris­ tian Monarchy. Scandinavia, Central Europe and Rus' c. 900-1200. Cambridge, 369-416. Sjöberg, A. 1982. Pop Upir' Lichoj and the Swedish rune-carver Ofeigr Upir, Scando-Slavica 28, 109-124 Sjöberg, A. 1985. Orthodoxe Mission in Schweden im 11. Jahrhundert? in: Acta Visbyensia 7. Uddevalla, 69-78. Skovgaard-Petersen, К. 2001. A Journey to the Promised Land: Crusading Theology in the Historia de profectione Danorum in Hierosolymam (c. 1200). København. Skyum-Nielsen, N. 1991-93. En nyfunden kilde til Absalons historie, in: His­ torie 19, 244-64. Smedberg, G. 1981. Nordisches kontra Kanonisches Recht, in: Acta Visbyensia 6, Visby, 235-39. Staats R. 1994. Missionshistoria som "Geistesgeschichte"; ledmotiv i den nor­ deuropeiska missionshistorien 789-1104, in: P Beskow & R. Staats (eds.), Nordens kristnande i europeiskt perspektiv. Skara, 3-15. Staats, R. 1997. Missionsgeschichte Nordeuropas. Eine geistesgeschichtliche Einführung, in: M. Müller-Wille (ed.), Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mis­ sion und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts. I. Mainz, 9-35. Staecker J. 1997. Bremen - Canterbury - Kiev - Konstantinopel? Auf Spu­ rensuche nach Missionierenden und Missionierten in Altdänemark und Schweden, in: M. Müller-Wille (ed.), Rom und Byzanz im Norden. Mis­ sion und Glaubenswechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhunderts. I. Mainz, 59-82. Staecker J. 2003. Christian Symbols and Scandinavian Women, in: M. Carver (ed.), The Cross Goes North: Processes o f Conversion in Northern Europe, AD 300-1300. Woodbridge, 463-82. Stender-Petersen A. 1933. Die varägersage als quelle der altrussischen chronik. København.

Darkness in the East?

367

Uspenskij, F.B. 2000. Marginálii к voprosu ob armjanach v Islandii (XI vek), Scando-Slavica 46 61-76. Wilson, D. M. & E. Roesdahl 1992. Vikingarnas betydelse för Europa, in: S. Karlsson (ed.). Frihetens källa. Nordens betydelse fór Europa. Stockholm, 38-63. Zaliznjak, A.A. 2003. Problemy izučenija Novgorodskogo kodeksa XI veka, najdennogo v 2000 g., in: Slavjanskoe jazykoznanie. X IIIMeždunarodny s"ezd slavistov. Lubljana, 2003. Doklady Rossijskoj delegacii. Moskva, 190-212. Zeitler, R. ed. 1981. Les pays du nord et Byzance (Scandinavie et Byzance). Actes du colloque nordique et international de byzantinologie tenu å Upsal 20-22 avril 1979. Uppsala.

The journey of St Clement's cult from the Black Sea to the Baltic Region Ildar H. Garipzanov

The Primary Chronicle, an early 12th-century historical narrative from Kievan Rus', preserves a legend describing the mythical travel of the apostle Andrew from the Black Sea region to the Baltic region.1 According to this tale, the apostle decided to travel from Cherson in Crimea to Rome. But instead of an expected journey westward to the Mediterranean, his route lay along the Dniepr River and further north. On this trip, Andrew made stops at the sites where Kiev and Novgorod - the two major urban centers of early Rus' - would be established later on, and then crossed the Baltic Sea to reach the Varangians (Scandinavians). Thereafter, he finally arrived in Rome.2 This voyage should not, of course, be judged in purely geographical terms, since this story was developed sometime in the late 11th or early 12th century to provide recently converted Rus' with its own apostle. What is more important is that the anony­ mous author of this tale perceived the Baltic region as the main channel of communication between Eastern and Western Christendom, and the Scandi­ navians as the main intermediaries between Orthodox Rus' and Latin Rome. This perception reflected the intensive contacts across the north-eastern rim of Christian Europe in the 10th and 11th centuries. The early dissemination of the cult of St Clement in these regions provides another illustrative example of such cultural interaction, since the existing evidence suggests that around the year 1000 the cult of this saint traveled from the Black Sea northward, to be brought via the Baltic Sea to Western Scandinavia. The Dissemination o f the Cult o f St Clement in Northern Europe around the Year 1000 Although the holy Pope Clement has been more associated with Rome, where from the 9th century onwards he was venerated as the successor of St Peter, his cult seems to have emerged in the early Byzantine period in Crimea, the region of his alleged martyrdom. During the early Middle Ages, he became a saint universally venerated in European Christendom - on November 23 in the Latin West and November 25 in the Greek East.3 The miraculous discovery of St Clement's relics near Cherson in 861 by St Cyril (Constantine) provided a powerful impetus for the veneration of the saint across Europe. Some of his relics were deposited in the cathedral of Cherson, the center of a flourishing

370

Ildar H. Garipzanov

local cult. More importantly, St Cyril is reported to have brought some relics of St Clement to Rome in 867. The precious gift was no doubt appreciated in Rome, since by that time the saint had become prominent enough to have his name included in the Gregorian Canon of the Roman mass and his cult was already crossing the Alps and reaching the Carolingian realm. The relics of St Peter's successor had provided the developing cult in Rome with a sacred basis and further contributed to its growing popularity in the Latin West, including Ottonian Germany.4 In early Rus', St Clement became a popular saint immediately after con­ version (988). Early Russian sources report that the newly converted Prince Vladimir brought the saint's relics from Cherson to Kiev in 989, which means that they might have been the first prestigious relics that became available to the prince and his entourage. According to the traditional view, the relics were placed in the princely church - known as the Tithe Church (Desjatinnaja cerkov') - immediately after its consecration in 996.5 Yet as argued by Uchanova, a mention in the Primary Chronicle of saints being translated to the Tithe Church in 1007 may refer to St Clement as well as other saints; and thus she suggests that before that year the relics of St Clement may have been kept in Vladimir's palace as an indication of the saint's special role for the prince.6Yet since St Clement is not mentioned in the record of 1007 directly, it may well refer to other relics. One way or the other, St Clement's relics were deposited in the Tithe Church and remained there up to the 12th century, when they (specifically his head) were last mentioned in connection to the ordination of the Kievan metropolitan Klim (Clement) Smoljatič (1147).7 The importance of his relics for this church in its earliest period can also be deduced by the fact that although the church was always referred to in early Russian sources as dedicated to the Mother of God, an early 11th-century German chronicler, Thietmar of Merseburg, wrote that the Tithe Church was dedicated to St Clem­ ent at the time when Vladimir was buried there in 1015.8 The church must have had a chapel dedicated to St Clement and hosting his relics, which could have confused the foreign narrator. This assumption is not too far stretched, considering that the Primary Chronicle mentions Vladimir bringing to that church not only relics but also clergymen from Cherson, and appointing a person from the same town (Anastasios) to supervise the church. These Greek clerics must have promoted the local cult of their hometown both in the Tithe Church and in Kiev in general.9 Uchanova has even suggested that the Old Church Slavonic canon of St Clement dedicated to the translation of his relics, traditionally linked to Cyril-Constantine, was created in the Tithe Church in the first third of the 11th century.10 The support for the cult by Prince Vladimir and the clergy in Kiev must have led to a special elevated status of the saint for the early Russian church and, consequently, to the quick dissemination of his cult in post-conversion Rus'. It has even been speculated that in the first decades after the conversion the early Russian church might have venerated him as its own apostle, a role

The journey of St Clement's cult

371

later given to St Andrew.11 The mosaic imagery in the Kievan Cathedral of St Sophia, created between 1043 and 1046, bears witness to the saint's promi­ nent status. As pointed out by Lazarev, in contradiction to the iconographic tradition of Constantinople, St Clement's image is given a place of honor in the lower register of the apse, on its north side, along with more established figures of the Orthodox Church: Epiphanios of Cyprus, Gregory of Nazianzus, Nicholas Thaumaturgos, and the protomartyr Stephen.12 An elevated status of St Clement, reflected in the iconographic program of St Sophia in Kiev, corresponds to the surviving liturgical evidence dated to the second half of the 11th century, showing his importance for early Rus­ sian liturgy in that period. Two feasts of this saint are listed in the earliest Russian manuscript, the Ostromir Gospel, produced in 1056/7. This liturgical book, known in the Orthodox Church as aprakos-gospels, was commissioned by Ostromir, posadnik of Novgorod, although the place of its production and early usage remains a matter of debate.13 The first feast of St Clement in the menologion of this aprakos (November 25) commemorates his passion.14 The second feast (January 30) is dedicated to the discovery of his relics in Cherson in 861.15 The fact that the other earliest Russian aprakos, the Archangelsk Gospel (1092), also lists this feast indicates that it must have been a regular part of the 11th-century Russian liturgy of saints.16 It is unclear when the first church was dedicated to St Clement in northern Rus'. Based on rather inconclusive archaeological evidence from Old Ladoga, Hoffman has suggested that a wooden church of St Clement may have been built there soon after 989.17 This suggestion contradicts written evidence dat­ ing the foundation of the first church of St Clement in Old Ladoga to the mid-12th century.18 It is still possible that a church or a chapel dedicated to the same saint existed in Novgorod as early as the turn of the 11th century since - similar to the first clergymen in the Tithe Church - the first bishop of Novgorod, Joakim (d.1030), came from Cherson and must have had a similar affection for the cult of St Clement.19 There is more conclusive evidence confirming the popularity of St Clement in 11th-century Novgorod. His name is inscribed on a contemporary wooden board, with the sketch of an icon on both sides, found in that town - in the layers that have been dated to the 1070s and 1080s.20 It must be kept in mind that such icons were objects of personal devotion and, as such, represented popular saints. Furthermore, St Clement is mentioned in a birch-bark letter (no. 914) found in Novgorod in 2000, which has been interpreted as either an abbreviated formula of Dismissal21 - that is, the final prayer in the Orthodox liturgy of mass, invoking Christ, the Mother of God, and some saints - or an order list of icons.22 Either way, the inclusion of St Clement in this list along with other popular saints like St Demetrios, St Nicholas, St Peter, and St Paul indicates the importance of St Clement in Novgorod at that time. The analysed birch-bark was found at the Troickij dig on estate E. In the second half of the 11th century, when the liturgical birch-bark letter was thrown down there, this

372

Ildar H. Garipzanov

estate functioned as an administrative centre where tribute collected by local magnates across the Novgorodian land was redistributed between the local knjaz and the city.23 Thus, the place where the liturgical birch-bark letter with the name of St Clement was found links it to the political and ecclesiastical elite of this northern town of early Rus'. The first church dedications to this saint can be found in Scandinavia and England precisely in the 11th century, when St Clement was venerated both in Novgorod and Kiev. This correspondence may indicate possible connections in the transmission of this cult across the European north, although different scholars have disagreed on the precise ways of its transmission to Scandina­ via. In the 1970s, Matthias Zender suggested that the cult of St Clement was transmitted from the Lower Rhine region, thus emphasising the importance of a German influence in this process.24 In the same decade, Rikard Holmberg ar­ gued that this cult arrived to Scandinavia from early Rus'.25 Recently, Dietrich Hofmann and Barbara Crawford have emphasised the role of England in the dissemination of St Clement's cult in Northern Europe.26 Yet it is possible that the dissemination of this cult in early Christian Scandinavia was influenced by different regions simultaneously. In 1968, Erik Cinthio argued for this pattern of dissemination. While questioning the older tradition of connecting early St Clement's churches in Scandinavia with an emerging class of merchants, he interpreted the earliest Scandinavian churches of St Clement as being royal estate churches and explained such dedications by royal contacts to the east (Kiev) and south (Rome): he linked St Clement's churches in Norway, such as the one in Trondheim, to contacts by the early Norwegian kings (Olaf Tryggvason and St Olaf) with early Russian princes (Vladimir and Jaroslav), and the dissemination of the cult in Denmark to contacts by Knud the Great with Rome.27 Crawford has recently developed Cinthio's argument further and provided more evidence for royal involvement in the appearance of early St Clement's churches in both Norway and Denmark. She has also suggested that the earliest Danish church dedications to St Clement, such as those in Lund and Roskilde, might have partly been Knud the Great's response - a kind of "contesting patronage" - to the Norwegian dynasty's attachment to the cult.28 All in all, it is very likely that the earliest church dedications to the saint in Norway and Denmark, which can be dated to the first third of the 11th century, were connected to the members of Norwegian and Danish royalty. Based on radiocarbon dates from the cemetery of St Clement's in Oslo, Sæbjørg Walaker Nordeide and Steinar Gulliksen have recently re-dated the foundation of that church from between 980 and 1030 to between 996/1000 and 1028.29 The new dating makes it contemporaneous with the church of St Clement in Trondheim, which was built according to sagas between 997 and 1016. Most importantly, they both were founded immediately after the Tithe Church, hosting the relics of St Clement, was built in Kiev under the order of Prince Vladimir and consecrated in 996. Visiting Varangians of higher status must have attended the Kievan princely church where the precious relics of

The journey of St Clement's cult

373

the holy Roman pope, including his head, were venerated. They must have also noticed the importance of St Clement for the early Russian ruling dynasty. From this perspective, the fact that the first churches built soon after 996 in Norway were dedicated to St Clement is hardly accidental, especially since there is ample evidence suggesting royal involvement in the construction of those churches.30 Both Olaf Tryggvason and St Olaf traveled to early Rus' and may have noticed the close connection of St Clement's cult to princely power. Knjaz Vladimir was buried in the Tithe Church after his death in 1015. As Thietmar reports, Vladimir "was buried next to his wife in the great city of Kiev, in the church of Christ's martyr, Pope Clement. Their sarcophagi are dis­ played openly (;palam stantibus), in the middle of the church".31 As if directly following this model, Olaf Haraldsson founded the church of St Clement, in the winter of 1015/16 according to the Heimskringla, to be buried there after his death in 1030.32 "Subsequently the body of the king was carried into Saint Clemens Church and set up in public view before [yfir - "over", I.G.] the high altar'"33 In both cases, the bodies of the rulers seem to have been placed in the churches associated with St Clement, within the space accessible or visible to lay visitors. It is this early Russian model of the princely patronage of St Clement's cult that explains why his cult in Norway was initially connected to early Norwegian kings, while his fame as a patron saint of sailors and merchants developed later in the 12th and 13th centuries. When the age of the Varan­ gians came to an end, and the cultural contacts between Scandinavia and early Rus' weakened, the early connection between the cult of St Clement and royal power in Scandinavia established after the example of Knjaz Vladimir and the Tithe Church was lost. Consequently, the spread of the cult of St Clement in Scandinavia began to be perceived as influenced from the Latin West. 11th-century Rus' and Latin Christendom We should not consider the early Russian cult of St Clement influencing the emergence of a similar cult in Norway in the early 11th century as something abnormal. Instead, this case can be seamlessly woven into the wider picture of interactions between Rus' and Latin Christendom in the 11th century, which were much less divided in ecclesiastical terms than they were in the follow­ ing centuries. A few examples can illustrate this point. Early Russian menologia of the 11th and 12th centuries contain some West­ ern feasts of saints, and the students of Old Church Slavonic liturgy offer dif­ ferent answers to the question how these Latin feasts ended up in Orthodox liturgical books. The established tradition is to see these 'Latinising' feasts as deriving from the 9th-century South-Slavonic liturgical tradition.34 This as­ sumption has been recently questioned by O.V. Loseva, who has pointed to the fact that the Bulgarian liturgical manuscripts that preserve the Western feasts similar to ones listed in early Russian menologia were produced from

374

Ildar H. Garipzanov

the late 12th to the early 14th century. Moreover, the Bulgarian manuscripts also preserve early Russian liturgical feasts that were established only in the 11th century, like the one dedicated to the consecration of the church of St George in Kiev (November 26). So, Loseva suggests it is very likely that both types of feasts were transmitted to the Bulgarian liturgical tradition from Rus' in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, when Russian culture was influenc­ ing South Slavic countries at the time when the Second Bulgarian Kingdom was restored and the Serbian kingdom of the Nemanic emerged. She argues furthermore that, in religious terms, early Rus' was much more open to the West than in the later periods, which resulted from active cultural contacts of Rus' with Western Europe in the time of Jaroslav and his sons. In such an environment, the "Latinising" feasts were transmitted to early Russian menologia from various sources, including Latin liturgical books.33 The so-called Gertruda Codex provides an example of such a manuscript available in mid-llth-century Kiev at the court of Izjaslav Jaroslavič. This book, also known as the Trier Psalter, is a Latin liturgical manuscript that Princess Gertruda (a daughter of the Polish King Mieszko II and the German princess Richesa, and the wife of Prince Izjaslav) owned in the m id-llth cen­ tury. Valerian Meysztowicz thought that Gertruda herself wrote the liturgical calendar in the manuscript, along with the prayers following it.36 The first Latin prayers are addressed to St Peter and accompanied by a miniature on which Gertruda and her son Jaropolk humbly supplicate the apostle of Rome,37 which indicates that the calendar and the prayers were written after the birth of her son in Rus'. In the following folia, the codex preserves a prayer that the Polish princess addressed to St Peter on behalf of her son Peter-Jaropolk.38 It is known that this son of Gertruda and Izjaslav received the baptismal name Peter, and some scholars have taken this fact as a sign of his conversion to Catholicism. As shown by Nazarenko, this argument is hardly valid.39 None­ theless, the choice of a baptismal name for the son of the 'Orthodox' prince and the 'Catholic' princess might have been the result of a compromise. St Peter, who was venerated both in Western and Eastern churches, must have been a good choice for both parents. It is known that Jaropolk visited Rome, where he promised fidelitas to St Peter and asked Gregory VII to give him the Rus' principality as a gift of St Peter. This story is quite obscure, but upon his return to Rus', Jaropolk dedicated to St Peter a new church built in the monastery of St Demetrios in Kiev that had been founded by his father.40 This church might have been the first in early Rus' dedicated exclusively to St Peter. These two examples contrast with the traditional view presenting the dissemination of the cult of saints in Northern and Eastern Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries as strictly divided into two parts and influenced by either Latin or Byzantine Christianity. Instead, the two examples indicate that the culture of sanctity was not abruptly divided along the borders created by confessions and liturgical languages. The example of liturgical calendars shows that even such a conservative element as the Church Slavonic liturgy

The journey of St Clement's cult

375

of saints was open to influences from Latin liturgical culture. The example of Gertruda and Jaropolk shows that the religious divide between the West and East was even less important for royal and princely families, who played a crucial role in the early promotion of the cult of saints in their realms. Thus, dynastic ties and political contacts were as important in the early dissemina­ tion of the cult of saints on the north-eastern periphery of medieval Europe as official ecclesiastical promotion. The early church dedications in Crakow, in Wawel, provide another good example of this point. According to Andrzej Buko, the remains of a pre-Ro­ manesque church of St Nicholas have been found in the central part of the hill near the Romanesque church of St Nicholas. Another early church in Wawel, a church of St George, is dated to the pre-Romanesque or early Romanesque period.41 So they might have been built as early as the 11th century. How should we interpret the early church dedications in Wawel? In the first half of the 11th century, the two closest regions in which St Nicholas was vener­ ated as a prominent saint were Lower Lotharingia and Normandy in the West and Rus' in the East. Up to the 11th century, the cult of St George was limited to the world of Byzantine Christianity: the closest parallel to the church in Wawel dedicated to this saint is the church of St George that a son of Vladimir, Prince Jaroslav, founded in Kiev in the middle of the 11th century. St George was chosen as the patron saint of Jaroslav, and the church dedicated to him became so symbolically significant for Kiev that the date of its consecration, November 26th, began to be celebrated in the early Russian liturgy as a sepa­ rate feast. Considering the prominence of both St George and St Nicholas in 11th-century Kiev, it is very likely that the choice of the early church dedica­ tions in Cracow was somehow influenced by Kiev. Intensive dynastic and political contacts, testified to by the marriage of the Polish princess Gertruda and a son of Jaroslav, must have played a crucial role here. In short, what these examples seem to suggest is that, as far as some aspects of the cult of saints are concerned, the division between Latin and Eastern Christianity was less sharp in the 11th centuries than some modern scholars assume. We have to keep in mind that the Great Schism (1054) and its rheto­ ric did not considerably affect northern regions of Europe until the late 12th century. Furthermore, the cult of saints should not be reduced to the liturgy of saints, which developed according to Latin, Greek, or Church Slavonic li­ turgical traditions. The cult of saints was a wider socio-political phenomenon, in which political and dynastic links and cultural and trading contacts often mattered more than confessional differences. As the journey of the cult of St Clement, from Crimea to Scandinavia, around the year 1000 shows, the trans­ mission of the culture of sanctity in Northern and Eastern Europe followed routes established by political and trading contacts. In this perspective, the route from the Varangians to the Greeks was a road of cultural exchange as much as of trade.

376

Ildar H. Garipzanov

Notes 1 For more details on the composition of this legend and its implications and rel­ evant bibliography, see Müller 1974, 48-63; Poppe 1987, 498-501; Istrin 1992,130; and Tolochko 1998, 243-245. Istrin and Tolochko have dated the creation of the legend to the 1070s, while Müller and Poppe have argued for a later date for its composition, between c. 1085-86 and 1116. 2 P o v é s t ' v r e m e n n y c h let 2004, 67. 3 For more details and references on St Clement and his cult before 861, see Uchanova 1997, 505-519. 4 For details and references on the discovery of the relics of St Clement and wider historical and liturgical contexts, see Uchanova 1997, 519-546. This event is tra­ ditionally dated to 30 January 861, although Akenťev 2005, 105-120, offers an argument in favor of 30 December 860. 5 See P o v é s t ' v r e m e n n y c h let 2004, 160-161; and S lo v o o z á k o n e i b la g o d a ti m itro p o lita Ila rio n a 2004, 50-51. 6 Uchanova 1997, 547; and P o v é s t ' v r e m e n n y c h let 2004,172-173. 7 For details and references on his cult in early Rus', see Begunov 2005, 10-13. Cf. Hofmann 1997, 173-180. 8 Thietmar of Merseburg, C h r o n i c o n , VII, 74. 9 See Čubatij 1965, 1,286; and Tolochko 1998, 241-242. 10 Uchanova 1997, 557-570. She connects this literary composition to liturgical fes­ tivities either in 1007 or 1039. 11 Begunov 2005, 12. 12 This design was repeated at the Church of Our Saviour on Neredica at Novgorod in the late 12th century. See Lazarev 1966, 32, 42-44, and 227-229; and Lazarev 1960, 34-35. 13 For details and references, see Garzanti 2001, 322-328. 14 O s tr o m iro v o e v a n g e lie , fol. 242v. The date of this feast complies with the original Eastern tradition, although in the Greek church the feast was later moved to November 24. 15 O s t r o m iro v o e v a n g e lie , fol. 263v. For more details and bibliography, see Uchanova 1997, 548-551. 16 A r c h a n g e l s k o j e e v a n g e lie , 352; Loseva 2001, 259; and Nevostrujev 1997, 436. 17 For more details and references, see Hofmann 1997,180-186. He refers in his sug­ gestion to essays in Sedov 1985, but the evidence provided there does not support Hoffman's suggestion. See also Platonova 1997, 67-71; and Petru chin 2002, 85. 18 The N o v g o r o d s k a ja p e r v a ja le t o p is ' m la d s e g o iz v o d a , 215, mentions the church of St Clement founded in Old Ladoga by Archbishop Nifont in 1153. See also Kirpičnikov 1985,172; and Medynceva 2000, 131-132. To the same century prob­ ably belongs a reliquary with the image of St Clement and his name A g io s K lim e n t with the provenance from northern Russia. For its discussion, see ibid., 128-134. 19 On Joakim and the question of his Chersonian origin, see Birnbaum 1988-1989, 522-524. 20 For details, see Medynceva 2000, 210-211. 21 Zaliznjak 2004, 283. 22 Poppe 2008, 88, fn. 126; and Sergejus Temcinas (pers. comm.). 23 Janin, Zaliznjak & Gippius 2004, 5-6; and Janin 2001, 48-49. 24 Zender 1974, 5-6.

The journey of St Clement's cult 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

32 33

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

377

Holmberg 1979, 21-23. Hofmann 1997,186-202; and Crawford 2008. Cinthio 1968, 103-116. Crawford 2006, 235-282; and Crawford 2004,100-129. Unlike Cinthio, she thinks that England and Normandy might have been as influential as Rus' in the choice of the patron saint for the first churches in Norway. Walaker Nordeide and Gulliksen 2007,1-25. For more details on this church, see also Liden 2007, 257-262. For details and references on the dating of these churches and their connection to early Norwegian kings, see Crawford 2004,106-115. 'Sepultus in Cuiewa civitate magna et in ecclesia Christi martiris et papae dem entis juxta predictam conjungem suam, sarcofagis eorundem in medio templi palam stantibus'. Thietmar of Merseburg, C h r o n i c o n , VII,74. The English translation is from Warner 2001, 359. Snorri Sturluson, H e i m s k r in g l a , in Hollander 1964, 287 and 530. 'Var \>å likami konungs borinn inn í Clemenskirkju ok veittr umbúnaór yfir háaltári'. Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla II, in: Aöalbjarnarson 1979, 405. The English translation is from S a in t Ó l á f s S a g a , in Snorri Sturluson, H e i m s k r i n g l a , in: Hollander 1964, 530. On the first shrine of St Olaf, see Ekroll 2007, 151-153. Schnitter & Miklas 1999, 283-284. Loseva 2001, 63-75. Meysztowicz 1955, 107. Ibid., 123-124. Ibid., 123 and 145. Nazarenko 2001, 567-570. For details and references, see ibid., 535-536 and 568-569. Buko 2008, 298-299.

Bibliography Akenťev, K.K. 2005. О structure bogoslužebnogo posledovanija, opisannogo v slově na perenesenie moščej sv. Klimenta Rimskogo: Část I: Obretenije moščej', Byzantinorossica 4,105-120. Archangelskoje evangelije, 1997 in: T.L. Mironova (ed.), Archangelskoe evangelie 1092 goda. Moscow. Begunov, Ju.K. 2005. Sv. Kliment Rimskij v slavjanskoj tradiciji: Nekotorye itogi i perspektivy issledovanija, Byzantinorossica 4,1-61. Birnbaum, H. 1988-1989. When and How Was Novgorod Converted to Chris­ tianity?, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 12-13, 505-530. Buko, A. 2008. The Archaeology o f Early Medieval Poland: Discoveries - Hypo­ thesis - Interpretations. Leiden. Cinthio, E. 1968. The Churches of St. Clemens in Scandinavia, in: A.W. Mårtens­ son (ed.), Res mediaevales: Ragnar Blomquist kal. Mai. MCMLXVIII oblata. Karlshamn, 103-116. Crawford, В. 2004. The Churches Dedicated to St. Clement in Norway: A Discussion of Their Origin and Function, Collegium medievale 17,100-129.

378

Ildar H. Garipzanov

Crawford, В. 2006. The Cult of Clement in Denmark, Historie, 2006, 235-282. Crawford, B. 2008. The Churches Dedicated to St. Clement in Medieval England: A Hagio-geography o f the Seafarer's Saint in the 11th Century North Europe. St. Petersburg. Cubatij, M. 1965. Istorija christianstva na Rusi-Ukraine. Rome-New York. Ekroll, 0 . 2007. The Shrine of St Olav in Nidaros Cathedral, in: M. Syrstad Andås (ed.), Medieval Cathedral o f Trondheim: Architectural and Ritual Con­ structions in their European Context. Turnhout, 147-207. Garzanti, M. 2001. Die altslavische Version der Evangelien: Forschungsgeschichte und zeitgenössische Forschung. Cologne. Hofmann, D. 1997. Die Legende von Sankt Clemens in den skandinavischen Län­ dern im Mittealer. Frankfurt-am-Main. Holmberg, R. 1979. Om Lunds murade vallar, Historisk Tidskrift för Skåneland 1,1-23. Istrin, V. L. 1992. Ocerki po istoriji drevnerusskoj literatury domoskovskogo perioda. St. Petersburg. Janin, V.L. 2001. U istokov Novgorodskoj gosudarstvennosti. Velikij Novgorod. Janin, V.L., A.A. Zaliznjak & A.A. Gippius, 2004. Novgorodskie gramoty na ber­ este iz raskopok 1997-2000 gg. Moscow. Kirpičnikov, A.N. 1985. Posad srednevekovoj Ladogi, in: V.V. Sedov (ed.), Srednevekovaja Ladoga: Novye archeologičeskie otkrytija i issledovanija. Lenin­ grad, 170-180. Lazarev, V.N. 1960. Mozaiki Sofii Kievskoj. Moscow. Lazarev, V.N. 1966. Old Russian Murals & Mosaics from the XI to the XVI Cen­ tury. London. Liden, H.-E. 2007. The Church of St Clement in Oslo, in: B.B. Smith, S. Tay­ lor, and G. William (eds.), West over Sea: Studies in Scandinavian Sea-Borne Expansion and Settlement Before 1300. Leiden, 251-264. Loseva, O.V. 2001. Russkije mesjaceslovy XI-XIV vekov. Moscow. Medynceva, A.A. 2000. Gramotnost' v drevnej Rusi: po pamjatnikam epigrafiki X - pervoj poloviny XIII veka. Moscow. Meysztowicz, V. 1955. Manuscriptum Gertrudae filiae Mesconis II Regis Poloniae, Antemurale 2, 105-157. Müller, L. 1974. Drevnerusskoe skazanie o choždenie apostola Andreja v Kiev i Novgorod, in: Letopisi i chroniků Sborník statej. Moscow, 48-63. Nazarenko, A.V. 2001. Drevnjaja Rus' na mezdunarodnych putjach: Meždisciplinarnye očerki kul'turnych, torgovych, politiceskich svjazej IX -XII vekov. Moscow. Nevostrujev, K.1.1997. Issledovanije o evangelii, pisannom dlja Novgorodskogo knjaza Mstislava Vladmiroviča v načale XII veka, v sličenii s Ostromirovym spiskom, Galičskim i dvumja drugimi XII i odnim XIII veka, in: Mstislavovo evangelie XII veka: Issledovanija. Moscow, 5-649.

The journey of St Clement's cult

379

Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis' mladsego izvoda, 1950, in: Polnoe sobranie russkich letopisej, III: Novgorodskaja pervaja letopis' staršego i mladsego izvodov. Moscow-LeningracL Petruchin, VJa. 2002. Christianstvo na Rusi vo vtoroj polovine X - per voj polovine XI v, in: B.N. Florja (ed.), Christianstvo v stranách Vostočnoj, JugoVostočnoj i Central'noj Evropy na poroge vtorogo tysjačeletija. Moscow, 60-132. Platonova, N.1.1997. Srednevekovyj mogil'nik na zemljanom gorodišče Staroj Ladogi, in: Sovremennosť i archeologija: meždunarodnye čtenija, posviascennyje 25-letiju Staroladozskoj archeologičeskoj ekspedicii. St. Petersburg, 67-71. Poppe, A. 1987. Two Concepts of the Conversion of Rus' in Kievan Writing, Harvard Ukrainian Studies 11, 488-504. Poppe, A. 2008. Vladimir Svjatoj: U istokov cerkovnogo proslavlenija, in: B.A. Uspenskij and F.B. Uspenskij (eds.), Fakty i znaki: Issledovanija po semiotike istorii. Moscow. Povést' vremennych let, 2004. in: Biblioteka literatury drevnej Rusi, I: XI-XII veka. St. Petersburg, 62-315. Schnitter, M, & Н. Miklas, 1999. Kyrillomethodianische Miszellen: Westliche Einträge in den ältesten kirchenslavischen Kalendarien, in: E. Hansack and others (eds), Festschrift für Klaus Trost zum 65. Geburtstag. Munich, 259-288. Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, in: L.M. Hollander (ed.), Heimskringla: History of the Kings o f Norway. Austin, 1964. Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, in: B. Aöalbjarnarson (ed.), Heimskringla II. Reykjavik, 1979. Sedov, V.V. 1985. Srednevekovaja Ladoga: Novyje archeologičeskije otkrytija i issle­ dovanija. Leningrad. Slovo o zákone i blagodati mitropolita Ilariona. 2004, in: Biblioteka literatury drevnej Rusi, I: XI-XII veka. St. Petersburg, 26-61. Thietmar of Merseburg, Chronicon, in: R. Holtzmann (ed.), Die Chronik des Bishops Thietmar von Merseburg und ihre korveier Überarbeitung, MGH SRG ns, 9. Berlin, 1935. Tolochko, P.P. 1998. Rom und Byzanz in der Kiever Rus' im 10-11. Jahrhun­ dert, in: M. Müller-Wille (ed.), Rom und Byzanz im Norden: Mission und Glaubenwechsel im Ostseeraum während des 8.-14. Jahrhundert, 2 vols. Stutt­ gart, 2, 239-246. Ostromirovo evangelije, in Vostokov, A. (ed.) 1845. Ostromirovo evangelije 1056-57 goda: S priloženiem grečeskogo teksta evangelij i s grammatičeskimi objasněnijami. St Petersburg. Uchanova, Je.V. 1997. Kul't sv. Klimenta, papy rimskogo, v istorii vizantijskoj i drevnerusskoj cerkvi IX-l-j poloviny XI v.', Annali dellTstituto universitario orientale di Napoli: Slavistica 5, 505-570. Walaker Nordeide, S. & S. Gulliksen, 2007. First Generation Christians, Second Generation Radiocarbon Dates: The Cemetery of St. Clement's in Oslo, Norwegian Archeological Review 40,1, 1-25.

380

Ildar H. Garipzanov

Warner, D.A. (ed.), 2001. Ottoman Germany: The Chronicon of Thietmar o f Merse­ burg. Manchester. Zaliznjak, A.A. 2004. Drevnenovgorodskij dialect, 2d rev. ed. Moscow. Zender, M. 1974. Heiligenverehrung im Hanseraum, Hanseatische Geschichts­ blätter 92, 1-15.

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact on Danish Romanesque church frescos. Queen Margareth Fredkulla and her nieces Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind

Examples of Byzantine influences in Danish church frescos are quite frequent. They are often to be found in single motifs, but Byzantine features are also seen in painting technique, painting style and in the shaping of figures. It must be stressed that in no Danish church do we find a pictorial program that can be assumed to originate in Byzantium in its entirety. What we do find is single motifs that are unusual in western iconography and style, and which can be derived from Byzantine art.1 Nowhere in medieval Denmark do we find a central church with a dome decorated after the common Byzantine model. The vast majority of Danish stone churches consist of a nave and chancel, possibly with an added apse. In such churches there is no room for structuring the pictures in zones with the Pantocrator in the cupola. In Denmark the semi-dome of the apse is therefore normally decorated with a Christ in Majesty in a mandorla surrounded by the evangelist symbols and with the interceding Mary and John. Occasionally they are accompanied by Peter and Paul, sometimes in combination with archangels. It is on Gotland in Sweden that we find the most directly transferred Byzantine painting in Scandinavia. Erland Lagerlöf has studied this Byz­ antine influence in his book from 1999. His study concerns both remains from wooden churches in the shape of painted panels and the murals in the stone churches in Garda and Källunge. The panels have recently been dendrochronologically dated to around 1120. The frescos have been dated by comparisons with frescos in Novgorod, where roof constructions have also recently been dendrochronologically dated to this period. Consequently, the Russo-Byzantine influence in both painting style and ornaments is so clearly demonstrated that it must be considered highly probable that painters from Novgorod were also active on Gotland.2 Likewise it is possible that Russian artists may have worked in some Danish churches. In Denmark, however, we never find Byzantine ornamentation corresponding to the paintings in Gotland and in Novgorod.3 In Denmark artists probably had access to models through Byzantine

382

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind

Manuscripts. We have positive knowledge of at least one Russian or Byzantine manuscript being present in Denmark in the 12th century. In the preface to his edition of Saxo's Gesta Danorum, printed in 1644, the historian Stephanus Johannis Stephanius mention that he had a "Russian" parchment manuscript of the New Testament in his personal library at the Academy in Sorø. Previ­ ously, he tells, this manuscript had belonged to the Cathedral of Roskilde, where a number of benefactor names had been added. Among these we find "Margareth Queen and our sister" (Margareta Regina et Soror nostra).4 Un­ fortunately the manuscript is lost today, but based on the names entered in the manuscript we can see that it was present in Roskilde Cathedral already in the beginning of the 1100s.5 Presumably this Russian or Byzantine manu­ script was a costly present and most likely well-illustrated. It is possible that books like this one provided artists with models of Byz­ antine iconography and style. Furthermore, artisan workshops usually had model books with sketches of common motifs in different versions and style.6 How did this Byzantine influence reach Denmark? Was it transmitted by returning members of the Varangian Guard? Did it originate in pilgrimages to the Holy Land or did it travel along the trade routes through Russia? Yet another possible route for cultural exchange is the personal exchanges of monarchs and princes, travelling as they did with large followings. The question has been raised whether it is possible to distinguish between influence from Constantinople on one side and Greek Orthodox Christianity in Russia on the other. Some scholars suggest that the Byzantine influence came via Italian, French and German works of art and that direct transfer as seen on Gotland, with painters coming from Novgorod, did not take place in Denmark.7 These scholars seem, however, to be unaware of the many contacts Scandinavia had to Rus' and Byzantium at the time. Direct contacts to Constantinople - King Erik Ejegod of Denmark Direct contacts between Scandinavia and the Orthodox world were numer­ ous. In addition to the many Scandinavians who travelled to Constantinople in order to serve in the Varangian Guard, sometimes staying for a period in Rus' on the way out or back, several royalties also visited Constantinople. In 1103 the Danish king, Erik I Ejegod, died while travelling to the Holy Land on a combined crusade and pilgrimage, accompanied by Queen Bodil and by one of his sons, the later King Erik II Emune. Erik Ejegod was already a widely travelled man before he became king in 1095. After the killing of his brother King Knud IV, soon to be canonised as St Knud, whom he had sup­ ported, Erik had gone into exile, while his half-brother Oluf ruled as king. According to the Eiriksdrapa, composed by the contemporary skald Markus Skeggjason, Erik spent considerable time in Rus' during his exile.8 Later, both according to Knytlinga Saga and Saxo, Erik visited Rome twice as king, al­

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

383

though both visits probably happened during the same journey, which brought him to Bari in-between.9 While Knytlinga Saga does not mention the route by which King Erik and his following travelled on their way to Constantinople and the Holy Land,10 Saxo claims that they first sailed to Rus' before continuing to Byzantium over land.11 On their arrival at Constantinople the emperor at first mistrusted the foreign king and therefore asked him to strike camp outside the city. But after members of the Varangian Guard, who spoke the "Danish Tongue" (in principle all Scandinavian members of the Guard) had visited the king one by one in the camp and the emperor had learned through his spies that King Erik had urged them to continue to serve the emperor faithfully, the king was found trustworthy and invited with great honour into the town. He received many gifts, including relics for both Roskilde and Lund cathedrals, in addition to a St Nicholas relic and a fragment of the Holy Cross for his own church in Slangerup, where he had been born.12 The emperor is also said to have had King Erik painted, ordering the painter to "depict him diligently life-size in colour both standing and sitting so that he [the emperor] always had an image of his spectacular stature" (Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 12.7.3, our translation). Such pictures must have appeared unique to the Danes who knew only of the more anonymous type of donator pictures without portrait likeness. The Danes continued from Constantinople towards the Holy Land. How­ ever, King Erik died already on Cyprus, while Queen Bodil reached Jerusa­ lem before she also passed away on Mount Olive. By contrast the young Erik Emune was among those who made it home with the gifts, relics and other mementos. - King Sigurd Jorsalfar of Norway A few years later, in 1108, the Norwegian King, Sigurd Jorsalfar (Jerusalem traveller), likewise set out on a crusade to the Holy Land with a fleet of 60 ships and 5000 men. First he visited Santiago de Compostela on the north coast of Spain where the grave of the apostle James attracted many pilgrims. Then he continued via Lisbon to Mallorca where his forces fought off a fleet of Muslim pirates, or vikings as they are called. Finally he reached Jerusalem where he was welcomed by Baldwin, the first king of Jerusalem, whom he helped to capture Sidon.13 During his visit Sigurd, as other prominent pilgrims, swam the Jordan River and fixed a lent on a bush on the opposite shore.14 Travelling back, Sigurd stayed for a period with the emperor in Constanti­ nople. On his departure he left his ships with the emperor while some of his men joined the emperor's Varangian Guard. From Constantinople Sigurd trav­ elled over land through Bulgaria, Hungary and Germany before he reached

384

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind

Schleswig, where he was met by King Niels and possibly his stepmother Margareth Fredkulla (the Peace Maiden), who after the death of Sigurd's fa­ ther Magnus Barefoot in 1103 had married King Niels. The Danish king now accompanied Sigurd through Jutland from where he supplied the Norwegian king with a ship for the crossing to Norway.15 According to Heimskringla, Sigurd had a frontal of bronze and silver, gilded and with enamels and precious stones made for himself While he was still in Greece; and from Jerusalem he brought back a piece of the Holy Cross and other relics. These and a prayer book, written with gold letters, which the patriarch had presented to Sigurd, were deposited in the Church of the Holy Cross in Konghelle at its consecration in 1127. Included among these gifts was also a casket, which Sigurd had received from Erik Emune.16 This casket may also have been of eastern origin, since, as we saw, Erik Emune had accompanied his father, Erik Ejegod, on the pilgrimage to the Holy Land.17 Which forms of artistic influences did these many travellers towards the end of the 11th and the beginning of the 12th century bring back from the east in the shape of general impressions, devotional pictures or pictorial programs in various forms? The answer may be anything from icons, manuscripts, small ivory panels, precious enamel works from the imperial court to pilgrim badges of lead. Moreover, when the emperor in Constantinople gave monarchs like Erik Ejegod and Sigurd Jorsalfar relics of the Holy Cross or St Nicholas, these were verified not with an episcopal but with the imperial stamp, a point stressed by Saxo, and they were, no doubt, enfolded in precious Byzantine silks or perhaps in an encolpion or a casket.18 Other Contacts to the Orthodox World Is it reasonable to claim, as has been done,19 that only pictures acquired in Constantinople represented "genuine" Byzantine influence? What about Byzantine treasures from the Russian area, with which Scandinavians had maintained close contacts ever since their Scandinavian ancestors c. 900 had founded the Rus' polity? Personal connections with Rus' continued to be close not only thanks to the Scandinavians who served in Rus' and Byzantium but also through the numer­ ous dynastic links that were formed over the centuries. Several Scandinavian queens combined Scandinavian roots with contacts to the Greek Orthodox world. One of these, of particular importance in the present context, stands out: the Swedish princess Margareth Fredkulla, who as Danish Queen acted as patroness of church decoration, furnishings and liturgical vestments. In Vä in Skåne she even founded the church and had it decorated with wonderful, still extant, wall paintings from c. 1121. There she is depicted with a model of the church, while her husband, King Niels, is shown with a golden reliquary. We shall return to her and her links to the east in the section on the murals in Vä.

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

385

Selected examples of Byzan tine influence in Danish murals - Gundsømagle Church In 1987, after a fire in Gundsømagle Church, some hitherto whitewashed frescos were uncovered. On the north and partly on the south wall a row of apostles appeared. The best preserved figures reveal clear Byzantine features in style and painting technique. Even the otherwise almost unknown feature to paint the shadows in the well-preserved carnation with green earth colour is found exactly as in Byzantine paintings (Fig. 1-2). In the wall of the chancel, part of a strengthening beam of the ceiling was found and dendrochronologically dated to c. 1100. This shows that the old­ est known wall paintings on Sealand are indeed early, so early that they are thought to reflect the lost paintings of the original tufa cathedral in Roskilde,

F ig . 1. G u n d s ø m a g le C h u r c h , S e a la n d , c 1 1 0 0 , S t P e t e r in th e C h a n c e l

386

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind Fig. 2. Gundsømagle Church, Sealand, c 1100, St Paul in the Chancel.

the predecessor of the present-day cathedral from the 13th century.20 In Den­ mark hardly any of the original decorations of the cathedrals has survived because the cathedrals were usually rebuilt or replaced by new buildings. Therefore most early frescos have been preserved in parish churches. The Chronicle of Roskilde relates that Bishop Arnold of Roskilde (1088-1124) had the wall paintings restored in the old tufa cathedral, which his predeces­ sor, Sven Normand (1073-1088), had built.21 Sven had died in 1088 on Rhodos, having passed Constantinople on his pilgrimage to Jerusalem. During his stay in Constantinople, Bishop Sven had, according to Saxo, assembled 'Various kinds of ornaments and relics of holy men, which, sent home, became indis­ pensable to his own church".22 Probably Bishop Arnold had Gundsømagle church built as a proprietary church. It would therefore not be surprising if the frescos here reflect those, which Arnold had restored in the original Roskilde Cathedral.

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

387

The original apse of Gundsømagle's church was pulled down already in the Late Middle Ages, hence we have no knowledge of the Christ in Majesty that was presumably depicted here, or of the Romanesque pictures on the wall of the triumphal arch. A few traces of the latter are preserved on the wall above the Gothic chancel vault, such as the Offerings of Cain and Abel. On the north wall of the chancel, partly covered by the later vault, some figures of apostles are visible. Their artistic quality is superbly preserved, uncovered as they are according to the newest methods of conservation (Figs 1, 2). Parts of an Apostle row were also preserved on the south wall, but the fragments were once more whitewashed. In the chancel arch we see a heavily restored decoration with three medaillons in a system of prismatic lines on a chequered background. The motif is possibly three half-length figures of virtues with haloes, although without texts, similar to the chancel arch in Sæby Church (Fig. 3). - Vä Church and Queen Margareth Fredkulla In the large Vä Church near Kristianstad in Skåne a considerable part of the decoration of the chancel has been preserved together with parts of the paint­ ings in the gallery in the west tower. According to a parchment fragment, inscribed with the year 1121, which was found in the original tufa altar in the apse, the consecration of at least the chancel must be dated to this period. A huge Christ in Majesty is painted in the apse, surrounded by symbols of the evangelists. The image may be a parallel to the painting that once ex­ isted in the great apse of Lund Cathedral. In Vä there is ample room for the six-winged symbols, whereas the otherwise traditional side figures to Christ in Majesty have been moved down into the picture zone on a level with the

F ig . 3 . S æ b y C h u r c h , S e a la n d , th e V ä W o rk s h o p , c 1 1 2 5 , c h a n c e l a rc h , d eta il o f th e V irt u e C h a rita s w ith B y z a n t in e e a r r i n g .

388

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind F ig . 4 - 5 . V ä C h u r c h , S k å n e , 1 1 2 1 , the tw o p a tr o n s , Q u e e n M a r g a r e t h F re d k u lla w ith a c h u r c h m o d el a n d K i n g N ie ls ( 1 1 0 3 - 1 1 3 4 ) w ith a g o ld e n re liq u a ry .

windows. Preserved here are only an archangel and the Virgin Mary on the north side. On the two pillars that support the arch of the apse St Peter is depicted on the northern one, St Paul on that to the south. Along with these Church Fathers, a patroness is depicted on the same level on the narrow northern part of the east wall of the chancel. Her head is covered by a white veil with a band, indicating that she is a married woman. In 2004 conservators found traces of an earring with a string of pearls corresponding to preserved Byzantine earrings and similar to those of the crowned virtues painted in the chancel arch of Sæby Church at Tissø on Sealand (Fig. 3). This church was also painted by the Vä workshop.23 As mentioned, the uncrowned woman presents a model of Vä Church and in a quarter circle above her God is shown in half length extending his blessing hand towards her (Fig. 4). On the corresponding wall to the south we see the figure of a king with a hoop crown with three balls. He is dressed in a short coat, a mantle and the char-

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

389

acteristic red tights. The king offers another present, a large gilded reliquary, to God, who likewise in a quarter circle extends his hand towards the king's gift (Fig. 5). The composition in Vä Church is unique in showing a patroness present­ ing a church building. Mostly married women are depicted offering candles, a book, a gold ring, a gold chalice or a vestment, whereas it is normally the male patron who presents the church model, the most expensive and finest donation. Therefore the identity of these two patrons has been widely dis­ cussed. Some have suggested that they may be King Valdemar I the Great and his queen, Sophia.24 In a dissertation on the wall-paintings in Skåne from 1976 Inger Ahlstedt Yrlid discussed this question further, especially in rela­ tion to the dating of the choir and the parchment fragment's date of the altar consecration;25 and when volume IV of A Catalogue of Wall-Paintings in the Churches of Medieval Denmark 1100-1600. Scania, Halland, Blekinge appeared in

390

L ig . 6 . V ä C h u r c h , S k å n e ,

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind

2222,

th e b a rre l v a u lt c o n ta in s n u m e r o u s m e d a illo n s s h o w in g

s a in ts w ith th e te x t 'Те D e i im ', d eta il o f o n e m e d a llio n w ith tw o a n g e ls .

1982, the author of the art-historical survey, Søren Kaspersen, together with the present author ((UH) as consultant) thought that, considering the date of the altar consecration, 1121, the figures were almost certainly Queen Margareth Fredkulla with the building and King Niels (1104-34) with the reliquary.26 One problem concerning the identification of the patroness as Queen Mar­ gareth has, however, been the dating of her death.

Queen Margareth Fredkulla Margareth Fredkulla was a highly unusual queen. As a daughter of the Swed­ ish king, Inge the Elder and Queen Helena, she got her byname, the Peace Maiden, when she married the Norwegian king Magnus Barefoot in 1101 as part of a peace settlement between Norway and Sweden. Her dowry was Väs­ tra Götland, the very territory, which the two parties contested. After Magnus' early death in 1103 she married the Danish King Niels and her dowry fol­ lowed her to Denmark, because her first marriage had been childless. In this way she was still a very rich woman.27 In Denmark Margareth gave birth to at least two sons. The first son, Inge, named after his maternal grandfather, died as a minor.28 According to Saxo, the next son, Magnus - named after his

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

391

paternal grandfather, Svend Magnus Estridsen - was offered kingship among the Götar in the 1120s, after the death of the Swedish king Inge the Younger, Margareth's cousin:29 through his mother Magnus could claim the throne. Furthermore it was here that Queen Margareth had estates in her own right and as her dowry. In Danish society Queen Margareth had an exceptional status. This is stressed by the Ordinal o f St Knud Lavard from c. 1170, which gives the follow­ ing account of the relationship between king and queen: "but as Niels lacked in foresight and disposition necessary for the kingdom, rule depended to a large extent on the noble Queen Margareth, so that foreigners said that Denmark's government resided in a woman's hand" (Gertz 1908-1912, 190, our transla­ tion). That these were not empty words is suggested by the fact that, uniquely for the period, Margareth's name appears side by side with that of King Niels on coins issued for the king in Lund.30 Moreover, she was the first woman to appear in the list of witnesses of a Danish document.31 Saxo is by far the most informative source on Queen Margareth and he considers her several times in detail. He states that she had lost her virgin­ ity in marriage to the Norwegian king, Magnus.32 Saxo also presents her as a very devout woman, and a great benefactor of churches, endowing them with decorations and raising the otherwise poor standard of liturgical vest­ ments in Denmark.33 Finally Saxo includes a lengthy account of a conversa­ tion, which Queen Margareth is said to have had with Duke Knud Lavard. Here she sought to mediate in the conflict that culminated when her son, Magnus, killed Knud on 7 January 1131. According to Saxo, this conversation took place while Queen Margareth lay dying from dropsy.34 However, Saxo does not actually mention the year in which she died. That particular piece of information is only mentioned in one source, the Næstved Annals, which claims that she died in 1117.35 The Date o f Margareth Fredkulla's Death Many scholars have doubted the accuracy of the Næstved Annals. Saxo's account of her mediating role in the family conflicts strongly suggests that she must have been alive in the late 1120s, when these conflicts were on the agenda. To assign her such a role already before 1117 hardly makes sense, since Prince Magnus could hardly be more than 12 years of age in 1117.36 More­ over, Saxo has placed her death after his account of Magnus' marriage to the Polish princess, Richiza, in 1128. Even more important than Saxo's evidence is, however, the fact that Helmold of Bosau, writing c. 1170, explicitly claims that Margareth - mentioned as Magnus' mother - was present at a meeting

392

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind

between King Niels and Knud Lavard in 1128/29.37 The day of Queen Margareth's death is recorded as November 4 in Lund Cathedral's Necrologium, according to which she had donated a gold chalice to the Cathedral, adorned with amber and precious stones (Necrologium Lundense, f. 266r). This dona­ tion may have been given when the main altar in the newly built crypt of the present cathedral was consecrated in 1123. Together these facts have led many scholars to conclude that the Queen died on 4 November 1130. Adhering to this late date, the Swedish historian Lars Hermanson has convincingly portrayed her as the architect behind marriages and contacts between royal and aristocratic families. Hermanson has further argued that it was her death that sparked off the conflict that lead to Prince Magnus kill­ ing Knud Lavard in January 1131, soon after the queen's death.38 The Woman in the Pillar Grave Linked to the question of Queen Margareth's age and death is a pillar grave in Roskilde Cathedral. In the brick chancel of the cathedral there are four pillar graves in which prominent persons have been reburied from the former ca­ thedral: three men and one woman. At the female grave a painted renaissance inscription reads "Margrethe dicta Estrith, regina Danie". This inscription cannot have been the first written indication of the identity of those buried in the pillar graves. It was important to record the identity of those buried in this prominent way already when the burials were moved from the original tufa cathedral. The identity of the buried person had probably been indicated in the original wall-paintings from Absalon's time with inscriptions that in­ cluded the day of their death, in order that these important days could be celebrated. However, a now lost parchment leaf that was found in the 1550s provides more information in a versified Latin text, explaining the identity of the three men and the woman. Here the woman is said to be, "The pious Margareth, Denmark's princess ... the mighty Swedish King Inge begot the fair Estrid, gave her as spouse to the Danish king. She added the Gothian to the Scanian territories, She adorned the divine houses, providing them with various gifts by weaving with her fine hands exceedingly beautiful cloacks and robes ..." (our translation).39 In spite of the clear proclamation of her parentage, it was for a long time thought that "Estrid" in the Renaissance inscription and even in the Latin verse was Svend Estridsen's famous mother; when the skeletons were exam­ ined in 1911 it was suggested that the cranium of "Estrid" revealed a family likeness with Svend, buried in one of the three male pillar graves. However, in 2004 the graves were once more opened and a tooth was removed from both Svend Estridsen and the well-preserved set of teeth of the woman. The

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

393

ensuing DNA-analyses showed that the two could not be related. The woman's tooth suggested an age of about 35 and the cranial fusion suggested that she was over 40.40 It is not known exactly when Margareth Fredkulla was born. What we do know is that she married Norwegian King Magnus Barefoot in 1101 and that the marriage was childless, while King Magnus on his part already had sev­ eral sons, such as Sigurd Jorsalfar, bom c. 1090 by one of his mistresses, Tora. As to Queen Margareth it was only after she married King Niels in 1103-04 that she began to give birth to children. Had she been a child bride in her first marriage, concluded as part of a mediation? If so, she may have been no more than 12 years old in 1101. In that case she would have been born around 1089 - and was consequently about the same age as her stepson Sigurd. The skeleton in the pillar burial was about 40 at her death, and if this is indeed the remains of Margareth Fredkulla, as the parchment-text suggests, she must then have died approximately 1129. According to the above-mentioned Russian or Byzantine manuscript of the New Testament from Roskilde Cathedral, Queen Margareth was "our sister". Presumably the dying queen had taken the vow and entered the monastery. Perhaps she wished to receive treatment for the dropsy from which, according to Saxo, she died shortly after her conversation with Knud Lavard. Dying as a nun Queen Margareth might expect both indulgence and subsequent interces­ sory prayers. An argument against identifying the female skeleton as Queen Margareth Fredkulla has been that she did not, at least according to existing sources, donate anything to Roskilde Cathedral. But apart from the fact that Roskilde Cathedral may at the time still have been considered the preferred royal burial church, a "soror nostra" was obliged to bequeath considerable valuables, which Queen Margareth was undoubtedly able to do. Presumably the queen was buried in the chancel of Sven Normand's tufa cathedral, where the plan must have been that her husband was also to be buried. But after their son Magnus had been killed in the battle of Fodevig in 1134, King Niels fled to Schleswig where the citizens killed him in revenge of the murder of Knud Lavard. King Niels was therefore buried in Schleswig. When Bishop Absalon built the present brick cathedral the most distinguished burials were then transferred from the old cathedral to the chancel pillars. Altogether, from what we now know of Queen Margareth's life and death, she could very well be the patroness we see in Vä church, offering her church to the Lord. The fact that she and the whole pictorial composition is executed in Byzantine style can easily be understood against the background of the links she had to the East. Margareth Fredkulla and her fam ily connections As mentioned Queen Margareth was the daughter of the Swedish king, Inge the Elder, and his queen, Helena, a name that could in itself suggest a recent

394

Ulla Haastnip & John H. Lind

link to eastern Christianity. Margareth's sister, Kristina, had married the pow­ erful Mstislav-Harald,41 prince in Novgorod. Mstislav on his part was the son of Vladimir Monomach, grand prince in Kiev 1113-25, and a daugther, Gytha, of the last Anglo-Saxon king, Harold Godwinson. This marriage had come about through the mediation of the Danish king, Sven Estridsen.42 Leaving his son Vsevolod as Prince of Novgorod, Mstislav had been called to Kiev in 1117 to assist his ageing father and, when he died in 1125, Mstislav succeeded him as Grand Prince of Rus'. Few years earlier, in 1122, Kristina had died. During the second decade of the 12th century, two of Mstislav's and Kris­ tina's daughters were married into Scandinavian royal houses, possibly with Margareth as a go-between, while in 1122 a third daughter married into the Byzantine imperial house,43 thus forming a direct family link between Scan­ dinavia and Byzantium.44 As to the Scandinavian marriages of Queen Margareth's two nieces, one, Ingeborg, married Knud Lavard, c. 1117. Immediately after the killing of Knud Lavard in 1131, while visiting her father in Rus', Ingeborg gave birth to the future king, Valdemar the Great. The other niece, Malmfrid, had married the Norwegian king Sigurd Jorsalfar between 1116-20. After Sigurd's death in 1130, Malmfrid married Knud Lavard's half brother, the later Danish king, Erik Emune, one of Erik Ejegod's many illegitimate children. Thus Queen Margareth had indeed multiple family links both to the other Scandinavian countries but especially to the east, to Rus', to Byzantium and to the Holy Land. Thereby she had also easy and direct access to Byzantine art both in Byzantium itself, in Rus', and in the Holy Land. This influence is very visible in the frescos of Vä Church with their Byzantine features. Sønder Jernløse Church In 1949 a unique Christ in Majesty was uncovered in the apse of Sønder Jern­ løse Church (Fig. 7). The figure of Christ in particular stands out in relation to other Danish apsidal compositions. In his left hand Christ holds a scroll rather than the usual book, while his right hand is raised to bless in the GreekOrthodox and not the Roman-Catholic manner. After the Schisma between Rome and Byzantium in 1054 pictorial composi­ tions also began to differ. In the Roman Church the blessing was painted with the index finger and middle fingers of the right hand gathered and the other fingers folded in the palm. In Sønder Jemløse, however, we find a Christ in Majesty blessing with a Greek-Orthodox sign around 1125. Among the exist­ ing apse paintings in Denmark this image is so far unique. It has been demonstrated that the schism first of all effected relations between Rome and Constantinople, whereas it only slowly penetrated into territories in the periphery. Members of the princely houses thus continued to marry across confessional boundaries, as Ingeborg and Knud Lavard did around 1117.45 In the east Scandinavians, observing the Latin rite, even in-

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

F ig . 7. S d r. J e r n lø s e C h u r c h , S e a la n d , 1 1 2 5 , A p s e , C h r is t in M a je s t y , d etail.

395

396

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind

fluenced early Christianity as it was understood in one of the very centres of Rus' Orthodox spirituality, the Kievan Caves Monastery in the 11th cen­ tury Moreover as late as in the 12th century Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon saints, obviously imported from Denmark, became venerated in Rus'.46 In the west Adam of Bremen disapprovingly describes how Archbishop Adalbert (1043-1072), formal head of the Scandinavian churches, at one point no longer wished to follow the Latin rite but instead used "some other Roman or Greek tradition".47 Against this background it is possible that the artists who painted the fres­ cos in Sønder Jernløse came directly from Rus' and that this is why Christ was depicted according to the Orthodox tradition. The painting technique is among the finest in the entire Danish material. The paint layer is very finely glazed and the beautiful pictures are painted with great care. In the best-preserved parts, the protracted figures show an attention to detail in the folds and a style that point to enamel works in the Byzantine workshops of Constantinople. The patrons of Sønder Jernløse Church presumably lived in a manor north­ west of the chuch, which was excavated in 1949. Among the many finds from the excavations were large amounts of so-called Slavic pottery.48 Found in the yard was also a thinly polished porphyry lamina, normally used as cover over a reliquary in an altar stone slab or as cover on a portable altar. Also found was a pilgrim token with the two apostle princes, Sts Peter and Paul, the highest regarded saints within the Roman Church. The inhabitants must have been widely travelled. In 2008 Sønder Jernløse Church turned out to be even more interesting, when the chancel and chancel ornamentation were dendrochronologically dated. The eastern-most ceiling beam in the nave could be securely dated to 1125. The beam was surrounded by the characteristic painting plaster and the painting on the wall of the triumphal arch. That dates both the stone chancel and the wall paintings to about that year. Very few Danish stone churches have been dated so precisely. The Jørlunde Workshop The workshop which decorated Jørlunde Church has worked widely on Sealand and in a single church in Swedish Småland. No less than 17 preserved or known monuments are attributed to this workshop. Many of the preserved churches on Sealand with frescos attributed to the Jørlunde workshop were painted in parishes in which the rich Hvide fam­ ily held estates. Jørlunde Church was the first in which wall-paintings were uncovered. This happened in 1864 under the direction of Jacob Kornerup. Kornerup's description of the uncovered paintings made Jørlunde Church one of the best-known Danish medieval monuments. Characteristic of this workshop was that it was one of the first to extensively use stucco halos, i.e. halos in relief made by very calcarous plaster, which on a minium base was

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

397

covered with gold leaves. Items that were to be emphasized, chalices, croziers and robe borders were also executed in relief. The background in the Jørlunde workshop's paintings is luminous blue. Ground lapis lazuli was applied to a grey lime base so that the background appeared as a deep blue heaven. This was an association that suited the medi­ eval mindset. In connection with the question of Byzantine influence the use of lapis lazuli as a pigment is also interesting. Then as now the blue stone is obtained in Afghanistan. In the 12th century it was a costly colour, difficult to acquire. The Byzantine emperor had a monopoly on trade with the colour from Afghanistan. The Dutch scholar Krijnie Ciggaar has advanced the hy­ pothesis on the basis of Byzantine accounts that the extensive use of lapis lazuli in 12th-century Danish wall-paintings resulted from payments by the Byzantine emperor to the Danish royal house for mercenaries sent to Byzan­ tium from Denmark.49 The Scandinavian mercenaries that constituted the emperor's Varangian Guard continued a tradition from the Viking Age. During his visit in Con­ stantinople in 1103 Erik Ejegod met with members of the Guard, who, in Snorri Sturluson's words, spoke the common Scandinavian language, "Danish tongue". Sigurd Jorsalfar, on his part, offered the emperor most of his men and ships when he continued his journey home by land. The Scandinavian mercenaries continued to defend the emperor until 1204 when Venice together with the crusader army conquered Constantinople. On that occasion Christian Varangians fought the Catholic crusaders from within the Christian city. Among the many motifs that exhibit Byzantine iconography in the Jørlunde workshop a few shall be highlighted. Vrigstad Church The only church outside Sealand known to have been decorated by the Jørlun­ de workshop is the church in Vrigstad in Småland. The church, thought to be the proprietary church of Bishop Gisle of Linköping (+ 1158), was demolished in 1865, and we are left with only seven watercolours of the wall paintings in the chancel. The apse had a Christ in Majesty and the decoration of the wall of the triumphal arch consisted of four picture zones with numerous motifs. The Vrigstad frescos were well-preserved and had kept all the clear colours. In the high frieze the ornamentation had the characteristic mixed frieze with botanical ornaments, intercepted by sections with saints' icons and character­ istic white birds. This ornamental frieze is sufficient to place Bishop Gisle's church in the Jørlunde workshop. Måløv Church In Måløv Church, in the central east-west axis just on top of the chancel arch, we find a Deesis composition with Christ sitting on the rainbow with the Book

398

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind

L ig . 8 . M å lø v C h u r c h , S e a la n d , T h e J ø r l u n d e W o rk s h o p , 1 1 2 5 - 1 1 5 0 . W a ll a b o v e th e c h a n c e l a rc h , D e e s is .

of Life in his lap (Fig. 8). His white tunic has two gilded relief borders, the Roman clavi. Presumably he blesses with his right hand in front of the breast, but the hand is no longer visible. There is no mandorla but he is painted im­ mediately against the blue background. On Christ's "good" side in the north the Virgin is depicted in a Byzantine dress with extended, imploring hands. On the southern side we see John the Baptist (the beard shows that it is not John the Evangelist). John the Baptist also extends his hands in prayer. This is the only time this motif occurs in Denmark and the link to, for instance, the mosaic composition of the Deesis in the Hagia Sophia is compelling. Christ in Majesty has no evangelists' symbols, and the devotional Deesis is surrounded by two large epic compositions, the Crucifixion with Ecclesia, Longinus and Stephaton in the north and the Resurrection of Christ in the south. The wall of the triumphal arch in Måløv Church has two further devotional paintings. The northern one was discovered in 1929 when the walling-up of the altar-niche was removed. Behind the wall a half-length Madonna and Child emerged in all its splendour (Fig. 9). The image had never been whitewashed, therefore both colours and details were extremely well-preserved. The Virgin

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

399

F i g . 9 . M å lø v C h u r c h , S e a la n d , T h e J ø r l u n d e W o rk s h o p , 1 1 2 5 - 1 1 5 0 . M a d o n n a H o d e g e t r ia in n o r t h e r n a lt a r- n ic h e , h a lf-fig u r e .

400

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind

holds the Infant Jesus on her left arm. He is dressed in white with a green mantle and it looks as if He held a scroll in his left hand while blessing the Mother with his right. The Virgin points her right hand toward the divine child: a so-called Virgin Hodegetria. The imperial court in Constantinople possessed a picture of the Virgin and Child painted by the Apostle Lucas. On one occasion the Hodegetria had miraculously saved the city from conquest. Therefore it was kept in the imperial palace, where it was shown from a bal­ cony once a week. Other sources mention that it was carried around in the city. The motif was copied both as a sculpture and in painting, in full-length or cut in half as an icon.50 In Måløv the lower part of the side altar-niche is first filled with an or­ namental border with a drapery below. The space would have allowed for a full-length portrait of the Madonna but presumably the artist wished to fol­ low the original's icon-like half-length figure. The bottom of the niche was raised approximately one meter over the original floor level. It was made of the painting plaster as a glazed surface in the semi-circular bottom. In the altar-niche on the southern side of the wall of the triumphal arch we find another half-figure, depicting a bishop with pallium or omophorion and crozier (Fig. 10). The crozier is modelled in stucco and gilded. The bishop's hand is also modelled and painted with carnation colour. In his other hand he holds a book in front of his breast. The bishop is portrayed without a mitra and he has a stucco halo just like the Virgin and Child. It has long been discussed who this ecclesiastic could be. However, if we compare the devotional picture in Måløv with the common pilgrim tokens from Bari depicting St Nicholas, we see an immediate likeness down to the smallest detail. In the tokens the bishop is shown half-length with the crozier in his right hand and a book in the left. Bari, in the south of Italy, was where pilgrims disembarked for the Holy Land. It had a large stone cathedral built to house the relics of St Nicholas of Myra.51 In 1087 Italian sailors had abducted the holy and revered relics of the bishop from Myra in Asia Minor to Bari, where they became the centre of pilgrimages from all over Europe. St Nicholas' pilgrim tokens have been found in several places in Scandinavia, for instance in Helsingborg and Lund (Fig. 11). We think that an icon or indeed such a pilgrim token may have been the artist's model when he painted the half-length saint in the altar-niche of Måløv Church. A portrayal of a bald-headed St Nicholas without a mitra is perhaps also a sign of Byzantine influence. In several early depictions of bishops in chan­ cel arches in both the Jørlunde and Finja workshops they are depicted with crozier and pallium but without mitra. The first and only time a relief mitra with infuła is seen is in Herstedøster Church, painted by the Jørlunde work­ shop. In the German material from the first part of the 12th century we find several wall-paintings of bishops with mitra, for instance in the Prüfening Abbey near Regensburg from 1119. Therefore the bald-headed bishops in these

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

401

F ig . 1 0 . M å lø v C h u r c h , S e e l a n d , T h e J ø r l u n d e W o rk s h o p , 1 1 2 5 - 1 1 5 0 . S t N ic h o la s in s o u t h e r n a lt a r- n ic h e , h a lf-fig u r e .

402

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind F ig . 11. P i l g r i m 's to k en f r o m S t N ic h o la s ' b u ria l C h u r c h in B a ri , Italy. F o u n d in a g r a v e in H e l s in g b o r g , S v e r ig e .

wall-paintings on Sealand and Skåne must result from a deliberate choice, inspired by Byzantine art.52 In addition to the two altar-niche portrayals painted half-length, Måløv Church also have half-length figures of holy men and women in the high frieze inserted in the meander frieze (Fig. 8).

Jørlunde Church As mentioned above the wall-paintings in Jørlunde Church were among the first to be uncovered in modern times. Already then it was stressed that they had a markedly Byzantine appearance. Today we know almost the complete picture program in the chancel, although the apse was demolished in the late middle ages, when the chancel was extended with a further bay. The apse undoubtedly had a Christ in Majesty similar to the one we see in Hagested Church. The picture frieze begins on the chancel's northern wall with the Entry in Jerusalem; east of the window follows the Last Supper (Fig. 12). The Last Supper is more or less painted according to the late antique tradition. From west Christ lies on a kline or mattress; leaning against him and joining the supper lies the young beardless John. Alongside is a rectangular table with a white cloth with bluish shadowing, behind which some of the apostles are

Royal family connections and the Byzan tine impact

403

F ig . 1 2 . J ø r l u n d e C h u r c h , S e a la n d , 1 1 2 5 - 1 1 5 0 . N o r t h w all o f th e c h a n c e l F a s t S u p p e r ; a c c o r d ­ i n g to B y z a n t in e ic o n o g r a p h y .

404

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind

L ig . 1 3 . J ø r l u n d e C h u r c h , S e a la n d , 1 1 2 5 - 1 1 5 0 . W a ll o f th e t r iu m p h a l a rch ,

norf/z,

W e d d in g at

С а п а , a c c o r d i n g to B y z a n t in e ic o n o g r a p h y .

seated. Perhaps Judas is now hidden behind the Gothic vault pillar. The fact that Christ is depicted lying down at dinner is so unusual that it must be at­ tributed to a Byzantine artist or at least a Byzantine model. In the 12th century this iconographic feature rarely occurs in West-European art. Another motif that deserves attention is found on the northern part of the wall of the triumphal wall in the lower picture frieze (Fig. 13). This is another table scene. Here the table is a half circle with a white cloth in front. In the picture's right side, nearest the chancel arch, is a tower, indicating that the scene takes place indoors. The background is skye-blue, painted in lapis lazuli, with a green border. Two persons sit behind the table. The person nearest the tower lifts his hand with the palm turned away. The other figure wears a pe­ culiar headgear in stucco. The one, well-preserved hand is held in the same position as the first person's. The left hand, heavily restored, points towards the companion. Obviously they are in deep conversation. Beside the table a man dressed in green with an elegant collar holds a gold chalice in his left hand, while raising his right hand high in great agitation up in to the green border (Fig. 14). Finally, a standing figure with a scroll in his left hand enters from the north. This must be Christ, as he has a cross in the stucco halo. Christ extends his right hand with a conversational gesture. He

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

405

speaks to the man with the chalice. In the now hidden area behind the vault pillar a further person must have been placed, of whom we now see only a small hand. Annette Kruse found the solution to a long-standing debate on the mean­ ing of this scene. A look at the Wedding at Cana in Byzantine iconography shows this is without question the scene we see depicted. The cupbearer with the chalice is supposed to show amazement; the bridal pair is shown in con­ versation, the Virgin, in shape of the remnant of a hand, stands side by side with Christ. All the essential elements are there, just as the scene takes place indoors surrounded by scenic towers. Again, the motif is far removed from the western tradition but is clearly linked to Byzantine tradition. The painting technique in the Jørlunde frescos has many qualities that originate in the Byzantine way of rendering, for instance, the characterisation of facial features. In the best preserved, almost original faces it is possible to discern how the colour layers have been structured. The cupbearer's face (Fig. 14) shows how a half tint to the carnation has been constructed by shad­ ing in two dark tints placed side by side and supplemented with highlight­ ing, which creates great spatiality. The large white surface of the eyeball did originally have an entirely black pupil. The facial features and proportions resemble icons as does the colouring. The picture program in Jørlunde chancel is characterised by quite unusual jumps to and fro between the wall of the triumphal wall and the walls of the chancel. The motifs proceeds from the life of Christ: the Wedding at Cana, the Raising of Lazarus, two of the Temptations, and an as yet unidentified table scene: perhaps Christ in the House of Simon the Pharisee. Added from the Passion are: The Entry in Jerusalem, the Last Supper, the Arrest in Geth­ semane and finally Christ's Death on the Cross. Either the structure of the narrative is based on entirely foreign concepts, or otherwise somebody construed the picture program according to models, which were then painted in coincidental order without observing the biblical chronology. When I (UH) described the Jørlunde frescos in Danmarks Kirker, some thoughts about the process were proposed. However, during the lat­ est restorations in 2004 some fragments of the Devil tempting Jesus to make bread out of stones were uncovered. This spoiled the scheme then suggested, just as the table scene on the south wall of the chancel, now once more white­ washed, changes the program. Perhaps the artist and his assistants attempted to introduce a form of biblical chronology in a West European church? If these artists had been taught in single motifs from the considerable ar­ senal of programs of feast day illustrations in Greek Orthodoxy, this cannot have been easy. However, after many years of study of Danish wall-paintings, I (UH) expect that the picture programs are forming a whole and that every­ thing has been painted according to a strict theological reasoning, which today we perhaps fail to understand.

406

Ulla Haastrup & John H. Lind F ig . 1 4 . J ø r h in d e C h u r c h , S e a la n d , 1 1 2 5 - 1 1 5 0 . W a ll o f th e t r iu m p h a l a rc h , n o r t h , W e d d in g at C a n a ( F i g . 1 3 ), C u p b e a r e r 's fa c e , a c c o r d i n g to B y z a n t in e sty le.

Conclusion In this short article it is only possible to mention a few of the unmistakable examples of Byzantine influence in the frescos considered, all of which belong to the first half of the 12th century. This is exactly the period during which the Russo-Byzantine influence seems to have been at its strongest, perhaps nurtured by the many personal contacts that were formed at the time. This influx of eastern influence coincides in time with the adoption and venera­ tion of Scandinavian and in particular Danish saints in the Russian Orthodox Church. These two phenomena may very well be interlinked.53 The written, Scandinavian sources that cast light on this period are few

Royal family connections and the Byzantine impact

407

and we can hardly expect to find new information here. By contrast, picto­ rial sources in the shape of wall-paintings are still growing in number. When frescos were found in Sønder Jernløse Church in 1949 and in Gundsømagle Church in 1987 these paintings seemed entirely unfamiliar, immediately sug­ gesting hitherto unknown links to the Byzantine world. We can expect that more Romanesque frescos will appear in the next decades. Many Danish stone churches were decorated when they were built in the 12th century. For that reason, whitewashing of later periods must still cover numerous paintings. When we emphasize this point, it is because we must realize that we are looking for "needles in haystacks". After nearly a millennium the amount of preserved written and pictorial sources is entirely coincidental. In our search for Byzantine links in the Danish frescos we have found that iconography, style and painting technique, in combination with the written evidence for personal contacts, clearly indicate how this Byzantine impact may have occurred. The corpus of Danish wall-paintings are indeed an excellent historical source.

Notes 1 The basis for this article is Ulla Haastrup's studies in the early Romanesque frescos in Danish churches, to which John H. Lind has added information on different types of links with the East and Orthodox Christianity. 2 Lagerlöf 1999, esp. 71-2; Vasilyeva 2009. 3 Stangier 1995 provides a complete survey of all Danish ornaments in romanesque wall-paintings. 4 We shall repeatedly return to this Queen below in connection with the wallpaintings in Vä Church and especially in the section "The Woman in the Pillar Grave". 5 Otto 1933,166-69. Stephanius 1645,11 (in the 1978-pagination of H.D. Schepelern, p. 29). It is Otto who suggests that the MS may have been Greek although Stephanius writes that it is "charactere et Idiomate Russico". I am grateful to my friend, the medievalist Marianne Johansen (t), for referring me to this text (UH). 6 Scheller 1995. 7 Fuglesang 1996. 8 Petersens & Olson 1919-25, 164-66. 9 Petersens & Olson 1919-25,170-73; Friis-Jensen 2005, 2,12.5.1-2. For a discussion of his travels as king, see Breengaard 1982, 163-65 with n. 171. 10 Petersens & Olson 1919-25, 191-95. 11 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 12.7.1. 12 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 12.7.2-4. 13 Jonsson 1911, 534-39. 14 Jensen 2005, 25. 15 Jönsson 1911, 539-40. 16 Jonsson 1911, 553-54. 17 Petersens & Olson 1919-25, 188. 18 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 12.7.4. 19 Fuglesang 1996.

408

Ulla H aastru p & John H . L ind

20 Græbe 1990.

21 Gertz 1917, 25. 22 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 12.1.5. 23 The early Sealand/Skåne workshops will be fully described in my forthcoming book on Danish Romanesque wall-paintings. 24 On this, see Nyberg 2007, 379-80. 25 Ahlstedt Yrlid 1976, 61-68. 26 Banning 1982. Haastrup 1986, s. 43-45, 53-54, 96-101. See also Kaspersen 2003. 27 This has been stressed by Lars Hermanson in the central chapter, Maktförhållanden under kung Niels och drottning Margaretas regering 1104-1134, of his disserta­ tion, Hermanson 2000, 51-186. See also Damsholt 1985,144-45,191-92, 208, 225-26; Damsholt 2000. 28 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 13.1.3. 29 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 13.5.1. Philip Line dates Magnus' Swedish kingship to 1129, Line 2007, 80. 30 Reproduced in Hauberg 1900, Tab. XIII, nr 2.: http://www.danskmoent.dk/tidl2/ niels02.htm (accessed 24.01.2011). 31 Skyum-Nielsen 1971, 36-37. 32 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 13.1.1. 33 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 13.1.5. 34 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 13.5.6. 35 1117. Margareta, regina Danorum, obiit, Kroman 1980, 83. 36 Nyberg 2007, 362. 37 Stoob 1973, 190. 38 Hermanson 2000, 98-113. 39 The Latin text concerning the female sceleton reads, "In piam Margaretam Daniæ Principem / Carmina Glyconicum et Asklepiadeum / Estridem placidam potens / Ingo Rex generat Sveticus: hane dědit / Et Dano comitem thori / Gottenses Scanicis addidit orbibus / Divorum decorat Lares / Quibus tam vario munere profuit / Pallas et chlamydes enim / Perbellas teneris texuit artubus / Egit namq(ue) dies pios / Faustos post ceneres perpetuum valet". Danmarks Kirker, Roskilde Domkirke, Stifternes pillegrave, s. 1765. Kalkmalerier, s. 1609-10. 40 Kruse 2004. 41 In Norse sources Mstislav is invariably called Harald after his maternal grand­ father, Harold Godwinson. 42 Friis-Jensen 2005, 2, 11.6.3. 43 Šachmatov 1908, 286. 44 Most likely she married Alexios Komnenos, oldest son of the Byzantine emperor Ioannes II Komnenos, see Kazhdan 1988/1989, 422-23. 45 Lind 1990. 46 Lind 2004; Lind forthcoming. 47 Adam of Bremen, 362. See also Lind 2006, 70-71. 48 Liebgott 1982. 49 Ciggaar 2000. 50 Belting, 1991, 87-91. 51 St Nicholas was an important saint for the Varangians both before and after his abduction to Bari, and in Bari the Varangians seem to have had a church of St Nicholas for their own use, Blöndal 1978, 112.

Royal fa m ily co nnections a nd the B yzan tine impact

409

52 In the Russo-Byzantine region St Nicholas only begin to be depicted with a mitra from the fourteenth century onwards. 53 Lind 1990.

Bibliography Ahlstedt Yrlid, I. 1976. Och i hopp om det eviga livet. Studier i Skånes romanska muralmåleri. Lund. Banning, К., M. Brandt & S. Kaspersen. 1982. A Catalogue o f Wall-Paintings in the Churches o f Medieval Denmark 1100-1600. Scania, Halland, Blekinge. IV. Art-Historical Survey. København. Belting, H. 1991. Bild und Kult. Eine Geschichte des Bildes vor dem Zeitalter der Kunst. München. Blöndal, S. 1978. The Varangians o f Byzantium. An aspect o f Byzantine military history translated, revised and rewritten by Benedikt S. Benedikz. Cambridge. Breengaard, C. 1982. Muren от Israels Hus. Regnum og sacerdotium i Danmark 1050-1170. København. Ciggaar, K. 2000. Denmark and Byzantium from 1184 to 1212. Queen Dagmar's cross, a chrysobull of Alexius III, and an 'ultramarine' connection. Mediaeval Scandinavia 13. Odense, 118-143. Damsholt, N. 1985. Kvindebilledet i dansk højmiddelalder. København. Damsholt, N. 2000. Middelalderens dronninger og andre fyrstelige damer i europæisk perspektiv, in: S. Heiberg (ed.) Danske dronninger i tusind år. København, 147-162. Danmarks Kirker. 1933-. København. Demus, O. & M. Hirmer. 1968. Romanische Wandmalerei. München. Demus, О. 1970. Byzantine Art and The West. New York. Fleischer, J., 0 . Hjort & M.B. Rasmussen 1996. Byzans. Senantik og byzantinsk kunst i nordiske samlinger. København. Friis-Jensen, K. (ed.) 2005. Saxo Grammaticus: Gesta Danorum, Danmarks­ historien. København. Internet version, http://wayback.kb.dk:8080/wayback-1.4.2/wayback/20100107153228/http://www2.kb.dk/elib/lit/dan/saxo/ lat/or.dsr/index.htm (accessed 28.01.2011). Saxo's text is referred to by book, chapter and section used in most editions and translations. Fuglesang, S. 1996. A critical survey of theories on byzantine influence in Scandinavia, in: K. Fledelius (ed.), Byzantium: Identity, Image, Influence. XIX International Congress o f Byzantine Studies, University o f Copenhagen 18-24 August 1996. København, 137-68. Gertz, M. (ed.) 1908-1912. Vitae Sanctorum Danorum. København. Gertz, M. (ed.) 1917. Chronicon Roskildense, Scriptores Minores Historiæ Danicæ Medii Ævi I. København. Græbe, H. 1971. Kyrkorna i Vä. Sveriges Kyrkor: Skåne III: 1. Stockholm. Græbe, H., B. Als Hansen & H. Stiesdal. 1990. Gundsømagle Kirke. National­ museets Arbejdsmark 1990. København, 141-156.

410

Ulla H a astru p & John H . L in d

Haastrup, U. 1981. Byzantine Elements in Frescoes in Zealand from the Mid­ dle of the 12th. Century, in: R. Zeitler (ed.), Les Pays du Nord et Byzance. Uppsala, 315-331. Haastrup, U. & R. Egevang (ed.) 1986. Danske Kalkmalerier. Romansk tid 1080-1175. København. Haastrup, U. 2002. Hjembragte byzantinske andagtsbilleder i Måløv Kirke. Roskilde Stiftsbog 2002. Roskilde, 28-34, ill. Hauberg, R 1900. Myntforhold og Udmyntninger i Danmark indtil 1146. Køben­ havn. Hermanson, L. 2000. Släkt, vänner och makt. En studie av elitens politiska kultur i 1100-talets Danmark. Göteborg. Jensen, K.V. 2005. Politikens bog om korstogene. København. Jonsson, F. (ed.) 1911. Snorri Sturluson, Heimskringla, Noregs konunga sogur. København. Kaspersen, S. 2003. The Vä Master and his Workshop. Some Danish Murals and their European Background, in: Romanesque Art Scandinavia. Hafnia. Copenhagen Papers in the History of Art 12, 97-130. Kazhdan A. 1988/1989. Rus'-Byzantine Princely Marriages in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, Harvard Ukrainian Studies XII/XIII. Kroman, E. (ed.) 1980. Danmarks middelalderlige annaler. København Kruse, A. 2004. Pillegravens gåde. Skalk 4. Højbjerg, 9-14. Lagerlöf, E. 1999. Gotland och Bysans. Bysantinskt inflytande på den gotländska kyrkokonsten under medeltiden. Uddevalla. Lazarev, V. 1966. Old Russian Murals & Mosaics. London. Liebgott, N-K. 1980. Jemløsegård. En middelalderlig gårdtomt i Sønder Jern­ løse, Holbæk Amt. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie. Køben­ havn. Lind, ]., C. Jensen, K. Jensen & A. Bysted. 2004. Danske korstog - krig og mission i Østersøen. København. Lind, J. 1990. The Martyria of Odense and a Twelfth Century Russian Prayer. To the Question of Bohemian Influence on Russian Religious Literature, The Slavonic and East European Review 68:1, London, 1-21. Lind, J.H. 2004. Varangians in Europe's Eastern and Northern Periphery. The Christianization of North- and Eastern Europe c. 950-1050 - A Plea for a Comparative Study, in: Ennen ja nyt: http://www.ennenjanyt.net/4-04/ lind.html Lind, J.H. 2006. Reflections on church historians, archaeologists and early Christianity in Finland, in: M. Suhonen (ed.), Arkeologian lumoa synkkyyteen. Artikkeleita Christian Carpelanin juhlapäiväksi i Lighting the darkness. The attraction of archaeology. Papers in honour of Christian Carpelan. Helsinki. 68-74. Lind, J. forthcoming. 'Varangian Christianity' and the Veneration of AngloSaxon and Scandinavian Saints in Early Rus', in Crossing Cultural Bound­ aries, The Northern World, Brill Academic Publishers.

Royal fa m ily connection s and the B y zan tine impact

4 11

Line, R 2007. Kingship and State Formation in Sweden, 1130-1290. Leiden. Meisen, К. 1931. Nikolauskult und Nikolausbrauch in Abendlande. Düsseldorf. Necrologium Lundense, netversion: http://laurentius.ub.lu.se/cgi-bin/imagerange-db.cgi?volume=Mh_6&start=124v&end=173v (accessed 28.01.2011) Nyberg, T. 2007. Kong Niels. Skitse til en biografi. Historisk Tidsskrift 107, 353-387 Nørlund, P. & E. Lind 1944. Danske Romanske Kalkmalerier. København. Otto, A. 1933. Liber Daticus Roskildensis. Roskilde Gavebog og Domkapitlets Anniversarieliste. København. Petersen, C. & J.E. Olson (eds.) 1919-25. Knytlinga Saga, in Sögur Danakonunga. København. Šachmatov A. (ed.) 1908. Ipacevskaja letopis', Polnoe sobranie russkich letopisej, 2, 2d ed. St Petersburg. Scheller, R.W. 1995. Exemplum. Model-Book Drawings and the Practice o f Artistic Transmission in the Middle Ages (ca. 900 - ca. 1470). Amsterdam. Skyum-Nielsen, N. 1971. Kvinde og Slave, Danmarkshistorie uden retouche 3, København. Stangier, S. 1995. Ornamentstudien innerhalb der dänischen romanischen Wand­ malereien. Dissertation am Institut für Kunstgeschichte der Westfälischen Wil­ helms-Universität in Münster. 1992. Kopenhagen. Stephanius, S. 1645. Notae uberiores in Historiam Danicam Saxonis Grammatici (faksimile-optryk af udg. Sorø 1645. Intr. H.D. Schepelern). Cop. 1978 (Danish Humanist Texts and Studies, 2.) Stoob, H. (ed.) 1973. Helmoldi Presbyteři Bozoviensis Chronica Slavorum. Darm­ stadt. Trillmich, W. (ed.) 1978. Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum, in: Quellen des 9. und 11. Jahrhunderts zur Geschichte der Hamburgischen Kirche und des Reiches. Darmstadt. Vasilyeva, S. 2005. Den bysantinske konsten på Gotland. Meddelanden från Föreningen Gotlands Fornvänner. Argång 77. Lund. Vasilyeva, S. 2009. Bysantinska traditioner i Gotlands konst under 1100-talet. (Byzantine traditions in Gotlandic art in the 12th century.) Fornvännen 104. Stockholm. Wämser, L. (ed.) 2004. Die Welt von Byzanz - Europas Östliches Erbe. Glanz, Krisen und Fortleben einer tausendjährigen Kultur. Germering/München.

Index

Achremcy 62 Adygea 138 Afghanistan 397 Afrati 153 Alexandria 198-199 Alstad 167 Antinoopolis 198 Antioch 196, 200 Area of the Cernjachov culture 89,98 Arles 196, 200 Armenia 90, 321, 344-345, 347, 359 Asia Minor 222,236,244,307-308, 317, 400 Athens 197 Avtunyči 226 Azerbaijan 90-91 Azoros 153 Baevo 62 Balkan-Danube region 237-238, 242 Balkans 222, 236, 307-308 Baltic basin 40-41 Barbaricum 7, 19, 87-88, 90-92, 94-95, 98-99,101,103, 111, 131 Bari 383, 400, 402 Batareika 138,145 Belgorod 162-163, 288 Berezan' Island 171 Berezina 41, 56 Bilogorodka 162-163 Birka 7-8, 67, 153, 157-158, 160, 164, 202-204, 230, 232, 234, 238, 289, 347, 350 Bithynia 133 Black Sea 7-9, 17-20, 87-88, 91, 131, 133-134, 141, 153, 172, 193, 196, 199, 214, 222-223, 258, 297, 300, 304,307-309,318,323,325,334-335, 342, 369 Boge 168-169

Bosporan Kingdom 131-134,136-137, 139,141 Brangstrup 7, 90, 92,100 Bremen 344, 346-352, 356-357, 396 Broungs 62 Brøndsager 93, 94, 101-102,120 Budylo 169 Bulgaria 147-149, 153-154, 160, 173, 216, 222, 227, 237-238, 244, 246, 273, 327, 373-374, 383 Byelorussia 41, 62, 64-65 Byzantium 8, 19, 147-150, 152, 164, 166, 172-174, 201, 203-204, 213, 216,218-219, 222-224,226, 230,235, 239, 242, 246, 257-259, 277, 286-287, 305-307, 309, 311-313,327,333-334, 342-345, 347-349, 353- 359, 381-384, 394 Canosa 198 Canterbury 201, 350 Carevič River 60 Caspian basin 40-41, 47, 49, 73 Caucasus 136, 227 Central Asia 160, 204, 231 Central Europe 9, 11, 13, 89, 94, 216, 296-297,354 Čerkasy region 92, 94, 98, 110, 113, 118-119,130 Ćemaja Mogiła 156, 258 Cernigov - Ukr. Cernihiv 147, 156, 163, 167, 203, 222, 224, 226, 232, 247, 258-259, 278-279, 287, 289290, 355 Char ax 134 Cherson 154, 169, 173, 216-218, 244, 332, 369-371 Chersonesos 13,139,165,236,241,245 Chitrovka 165 Chortyca Island 171

414

Index

Choszczno/Arnswalde 113 Colchis 90-91, 321-322 Constantinople 147,156-157,163,167, 172-174,196,202, 204, 213,217-219, 222, 226, 232, 235, 239, 246- 247, 295, 300, 305, 307-309, 313, 331, 333, 345, 353-354, 358, 371,382-384, 386, 394, 396-397, 400 Corinth 239, 242, 244-245 Crakow 375 Crete 173, 307 Crimea 7, 13, 131, 133-134, 139-140, 147,149,153-154,157,170,199-200, 227, 241, 244, 246, 322, 369, 375 Cyprus 204, 307, 371, 383 Dannevirke 288 Danubian Limes 87 Denmark 9,12-13,17-19, 87, 90, 92-94, 97, 99-100, 102, 104-106, 108, 121, 149, 163, 173, 202, 204, 232, 238, 288-289,300-301, 304, 308, 312, 343, 345-347, 352, 372,381-382, 389-392, 394, 396-398 Dereva 165 Desna valley 55 Dmitrov's kremlin 203 Dnieper River region 151 Dniepropetrovsk 167 Dniester 7, 89, 321, 323-325 Dobrino 62, 68 Don 59, 165, 258 Dublin region 301 Dura-Europos 198 East Prussia 44 Eastern Europe 11, 14, 16, 32, 42, 46-47, 54, 59, 63, 68, 72-73, 75-77, 89,151,153,157,160,163,165, 204, 287, 297, 319, 325, 327, 329, 330, 333-334, 342, 374-375 Eastern Georgia 90 Egypt 194, 197-198, 321 England 27, 33, 304, 307, 309, 312-313, 327-328, 334, 343-344, 348-349, 354, 357, 372

Ermland 344, 358 Erochino 66-67 Estonia 13, 18, 47, 49, 67, 218, 299 Euboia 153 Fayum 196, 198 Finja 400 Finland 58, 149, 298-299, 341, 353 Fodevig 393 Funen 90, 92-93, 99, 100, 108, 234 Fyrkat202 Fårup 202 Gadir 198 Gaj Kodzor 140 Galatia 133, 321 Ganos 224 Garda 320, 381 Germany 13, 93, 109, 199, 232, 288, 313, 343-344, 346, 370, 383 Glazunovo 60 Gnezdovo 7-8,10,19, 39, 41, 56, 68-69, 71-74, 77, 147, 151, 154-158, 203, 213-220, 222-227, 230-232, 235, 238-239, 241-242, 245-246, 275, 287, 289 Gokstad 201, 297 Gorgippia 131, 135-137, 144-145 Gorodok 48, 60-62, 70, 72-73, 75, 77 Gorodok na Careviče 48 Gorodok na Lovati 48, 75 Gotland 7, 8, 62, 160, 164, 168, 321, 323, 328, 348, 350, 381-382, 390 Great Moravia 216 Greater Poland 166 Greece 133,153-154,197, 244, 296, 351, 354, 384 Greenland 257, 304 Gudme 92, 94, 99, 101, 103 Gundsømagle 385-387, 407 Gušin 259 Hagested 402 Hamburg 346, 347, 351, 356 Hedeby 8, 58, 62, 149, 163, 173, 202, 289, 301-302, 312 Heiligenhafen 93-94, 102

Index Herculaneum 198 Hermonassa 137, 145 Herstedøster 400 Hungary 89, 154, 199, 216, 238, 244, 308, 322, 383 Hvilehøj 202 Häggestad 172 Hørning 202 Iberian Peninsula 307 Iceland 304,317-318,320,344-345,354, 358 Il'icevskij 140 Ingelheim 149,151, 173 Iran 216, 231, 244 Ireland 300, 301, 304, 317, 328 Irish Sea region 302 Istanbul 19, 227, 310 Italy 152, 173, 197-199, 201, 244, 257, 307, 309, 328, 344, 400, 402 Ivanov 203 Jellinge 157 Jerusalem 199, 308, 383-384, 386, 402, 405 Jørlunde 345, 396-406 Kanev 94 Kappadokia 133 Kašperovka 95, 99,119 Katynka 48, 56 Kent 200 Kepi 140 Kerč peninsula 131,135-138,140 Khazaria 75,148,173 Kičkas passage 171 Kiev 7-8, 32, 35, 47, 89, 93,95, 98-101, 106-107,111-114,116-117,119-122, 147,154-157,160,162-163,165-167, 169,172,175, 202-204, 213, 218-220, 224, 226, 232, 234, 238, 244, 247, 258-260, 278, 280, 286- 300, 308, 312-313, 319, 325, 345, 347, 350, 352, 355-357, 369-375, 394, 396 Kislye 62-63 Klee River 68 Klimenki 67, 69, 72, 75

415

Knjaža gora 167 Konghelle 384 Koropi 197 Korovel 259-260, 262, 268, 272-273, 278, 285, 289 Kostkowice/Skzlary 90 Kostroma cemeteries 153 Krasnobatareiny 136,145 Krasnyj Ručej 66 Krdžalijsko 153 Kun'ja 56 Kupniki 69 Kurubaš 140 Kytai 140 Källunge 381 Ladby 157, 201, 234 Lake Bol'saja Rutaveč' 56 Lake Il'men' 77, 166, 330 Lake Ladoga 297 Lake Nevo 166, 330 Lake Želikov'e 68 Latvia 43, 45-46, 58, 160 Lebanon 198 Leuke 139 Levenka 288 Lisbon 383 Liskovoe 226 Lithuania 11, 43, 46 Litvinoviči (Kosljaki) 60 Ljubytino 153 Lochanskyi Rapid 168 Lotsmanska Kamianka 167 Lovať 56,166, 214, 330, 333 Lower Lotharingia 375 Lučesa estuary 60 Luga 56 Lund 147, 355, 359, 372, 383, 387, 391-392, 400 Lydia 193,195,199 Lyšnij 169 Mallorca 383 Mammen 157, 202 Marcianopolis 133 Maskaviči 58

416

Index

Mediterranean region 295-296 Mereja River 62 Messina Strait 309 Minsk region 41 Misevsko 153 Modinakhe 91 Mohilev 59 Moldova 7, 118, 121 Moravian Gate 40 Moščevaja Balka 227 Moscow 10, 13, 28-29, 31, 34, 43, 89, 97, 99-100, 109, 113, 115-121, 203, 247 Mycenae 193 Myra 400 Myria 133 Malar region 349 Måløv 397-402 Nabatovo 60 Naintré 199-200 Neman 258 Nenasytec rapid 168 Nikopolis ad Istrum 101 Nižnij Novgorod 203 Nižnij Zamok 70 Nižnjaja Syrovátka 60 Normandy 257, 307, 327, 375 Norrtälje 257 North Sea 88, 304, 312-313, 328 Norway 149, 157, 167, 201, 288, 304, 307-308, 312, 343,346, 357,372-373, 383-384, 390 Novgorod 16, 35, 73, 77,149,153,156, 162-163,167,173, 203, 218, 225-226, 229, 259, 286, 290, 296, 299, 307, 325,327-328, 330,332, 346, 348,355, 358-359, 369, 371-372, 381-382, 394 Novorossijsk 137 Novoselki 53, 69-70, 73-74 Novyj Mlin (Paristovka) 60 Nymphaion 135, 144-145 Ocksarve 160 Oka River 165 Old Riazan' 203

Orgoš 259 Orlovec 94 Orša 59 Oršica 56 Oseberg 27,157, 201 Palermo 201 Paliokklisi 153 Palmyra 198 Pannonia 112, 341 Pantikapaion 131, 135, 137-140, 144-146, 199 Patreus 137, 140 Perejaslavl' (Russkij) 247, 355 Persepolis 194 Persia 193 Peterhof 149 Phrygia 195, 199 Pilgård 168 Pityus 133 Plakun 154, 244 Plechtino 70 Plesnesk 238 Podgorcy, Western Ukraine 238 Poland 7, 13, 18, 41, 44, 89-90, 93-94, 97, 102-103, 115, 166, 307, 322, 356-357 Poležanka 69 Poljanka 135,144 Pomerania 93, 96, 110, 344 Pompeii 198 Pontos 131-133 Porec'e 62 Posady 153 Preslav 153,160 Připjat 258, 325 Prüfening Abbey 400 Pskov 8, 35, 67, 158, 203-204, 218, 232 Ravenna 196 Regensburg 400 Reims 196, 200 Rhodos 386 Ribe 149, 163, 173, 222 River Ol'sha 214 River Volkhov 166, 330

Index River Žerespeja 62 Rjurikovo gorodišče 7,16,35,147,149, 162-163, 173, 218, 222 Rokot 48, 68, 70, 73 Roman Empire 7, 8, 87,131-132, 134, 139,141,196,198-199,306-307,344 Romania 7, 238 Romaški settlement 96,109 Rome 131,133,166,195,198-199,320, 330-334, 356, 358-359, 369-370, 372, 374, 382, 394 Roskilde 18,301-303,312,372,382-383, 385-386, 392-393 Russia 7-11,13-20,27,30-31,34,39,41, 44,47, 62, 73, 76,100,147,151,153, 165-166,169,173,193,203,213, 218, 235, 238, 295, 299, 344, 346-347, 350, 355, 382 Saltovo-Majackaja 153,167 Santiago de Compostela 383 Saraęhane 227 Sardinia 7 Sázava Monastery 358 Scandinavia 7, 9,11,16-17,19, 44, 60, 65, 68, 87, 92, 100, 103, 147, 154, 157,163,173,201,203-204,222,235, 266,285-286,297,299-300,305-308, 311-313, 327, 329, 341-347,349,351, 353-357, 359, 369,372- 373, 381-382, 400 Schleswig 93,147, 301, 384, 393 Sea of Azov 131, 133,138, 141, 258 Sealand 385-388,395-399,401-404,406 Sens 201 Serbia 90, 199 Seręe Limani 160 Šestovica 8, 147, 153-154, 156-158, 161-163,175, 203-204,218, 222, 226, 244,259-260, 270, 273-276,278-281, 284-289 Severskij Donee River 59 Siberia 160 Sicily 173, 201, 204, 243-244, 257, 307-309, 321

417

Sidon 383 Sigtuna 147, 164, 203 Šiškino 60-61, 70 Skåne 384, 387-390, 402 Slangerup 383 Slovakia 242 Smolensk 41- 44, 47-58, 61-63, 66-67, 69-72, 74, 77,167, 203, 214,216, 247 Småland 396-397 Snovs'k 259 Sobolevo 62, 68 Sokolova Mogyla 200 Sorø 382 Southern France 154 Southern Scandinavia 44, 87, 92,103 Sož 60 Spain 173,198, 201,204,244,257,295, 383 Spitalfields 199 Stambol Jolu 153 Staraja Ladoga 7,11,14,35, 66, 73, 77, 147, 151, 154, 158, 218, 225, 238, 244, 297, 355 Staraja Rjazan' 226 Starodub 288 Staroe Sjalo 48, 73 Suchodrevo 63-64 Surskij cataract 168 Surskyi Island 168 Suzdal' 77, 203, 359 Svineč river 214 Swierczyna (Pomerania) 96,110,114 Syria 147,173, 197-199, 222, 236, 244, 321 Sæby 387-388 Søllested 238 Sønder Jernløse 394, 396, 407 Taman' Peninsula 131, 135-138, 140, 144 Tanais 131,133, 136-138, 144 Tange 97, 99, 116, 121 Taraktaš 140,146 Taras/Tarentum 197 Teteev region 95

418

Index

Theodosia 131, 140, 146 Timerevo settlement 153, 223, 242 Tissø 149, 163, 173, 222, 388 Tomis 133 Toropec region 48, 58 Transcaucasia 87, 90-91, 99 Trapezus 133 Trelleborg 19, 288 Trier 196, 199-200, 374 Trondheim 372 Truso 13-14, 17-18 Tsar'grad 166, 331 Tuna Badelunda 297, 299 Turaida 160 Turkey 154, 156, 160, 167 Tušemlja 44-48, 50, 55, 62, 65, 69 Tver' 59, 66, 203 Tyre 195, 198-199 Tyritake 135,140,145-146 Uglič hillfort 151 Ukraine 7,14,18-19, 35, 41, 76, 89-90, 92-93, 96, 100, 102-103, 110, 116, 121, 147, 154, 158, 167, 193, 200, 203, 213, 235, 238, 244, 259 Upper Dnepr 41, 47, 77 Upper Oskol 60 Ureki 91 Usvjača river 56, 60 Usvjaty 56, 67 Uzviz 259 Valsgärde 156, 203, 232 Vangsnes 201 Varangian Sea 166, 321, 323, 329-331, 334 Varjažskaja Ulica 151

Abbreviations KSIA KSIIMK MatlsslA SovA TrudyErmit VDI

Venice 151, 173, 204, 397 Vergina 197 Vilnyj or Hadjučyj 169 Vinica 153 Vitebsk 41,48, 50, 56, 60, 64-65, 67-68, 70-71, 73 Vitičev 167 Vladimir 153, 203 Volchov 56, 214 Volchov River 154, 167 Volga 42, 48, 76, 165, 214, 216, 223, 238, 244, 258, 290, 304, 321, 323, 325-327, 329, 330-331, 333-335 Volga River region 153 Vornæs Skov 100, 118 Vrigstad 397 Vyšegrad 167 Vä 345, 384, 387-390, 393-394 Västerhaninge 201 Wawel 375 Western Dvina 41, 48, 62, 65-66, 73, 77, 214, 325, 333 Yaroslavl' region 223 Yenikapi 19, 310-312 Yužnij Bug 200 Zamość 41 Zaozer'e 69, 71 Zapadnaja Dvina 60 Zarub 167 Zavališino 60 Žerdova 259-260, 273-274, 278 Zvenyčiv 259 Zvoneckoe 168 Aachen 201 Årslev 7, 93-94, 100-101, 120

Kratkie soobščenija o dokladach I polevých issledovanijach Instituta archeologii Kratkie soobščenija Instituta istorii materiaTnoj kuTtury Materiały i issledovanija po archeologii SSSR Sovetskaja archeologija Trudy Gosudarstvennogo Ermitaža. Leningrad/St Petersburg Vestnik drevnej istorii