The Historiographical and Archaeological Evidence of Autonomy and Rebellion in Chersōn: a Defense of the Revisionist Analysis of Vladimir’s Baptism (987-989) [Alex Feldman] Submitted as MRes Thesis to the Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, The University of Birmingham For the degree of MRes, Byzantine Studies 2013 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. The Historiographical andArchaeologicalEvidence of Autonomy andRebellion in Cherson: a Defense of the Revisionist Analysis of Vladimir 's Baptism (987-989) Author 's Abstract The conversión of Vladimir, grand prince of Kiev, to Eastem Christianity was a watershed in world history, although the exact reasons for his conversión and the precise nature of the relationship he had with the Byzantine Empire at the time have been misrepresented by generations of historians, eager to present the episode in a manner which essentially glorifies Vladimir the Russian as the master of his own political and religious agendas and denigrates the Byzantine role for its supposed duplicity. Nevertheless, this study, which scrutinizes the works of these earlier tóstorians, discards their methodologies, which frequently and dehberately manipúlate the sources, and instead the present study seeks to deposit greater reliance on the archaeological evidence of this episode by concentrating on the role of the city of Cherson in the southem Crimea in this legend, which has been overlooked and dehberately misinterpreted in furtherance of previous historians' personal, religio-political agendas. To better understand the truth behind Vladimir's choice of Byzantine Christianity over Latin Christianity, this study will therefore seek to identify the major cultural, linguistic, economic and political influences on early Kievan Rus' at the time, using both text-based evidence and a signifícant share of archaeological evidence. In a few words, due to a civil war in Byzantium between 987-989, the rebellious forces of which the citizens of the city of Cherson had doubtlessly united with against their rightful emperor, Basil II Porphyrogennetos, the early Russian polity, then seated in Kiev and led by Vladimir, embarked on an expedition to capture this city in the southem Crimean península. But most historians have hitherto suggested that this event was because Basil II had promised Vladimir the hand of his coveted sister in marriage and had then reneged on the offer. The question is, were the Russians acting on behalf of the emperor or in spite of him? 2 Acknowledgements I would like to thank many friends, family members, mentors, professors and colleagues who have contributed to my research and helped to make this work possible. First, I will acknowledge family: my parents, Deb Mesibov and Rick Feldman and their parents, Hugh and Eudice Mesibov and Annette Feldman who have all together provided the support, both economic and mental, and an ever-present confidence in my abilities. I would like to acknowledge some of the close friends I’ve made here who each furnished me with advice or other assistance in my research, whether by providing guidance or counsel in translating, historiographical investigation, or organizational and grammatical coherence. In this list I would include my dear friends Agi Breunig, Lisa Rumpl, Vlad Akopjan, Martin Stein, Janet Ozsolak, Stephen Hall, Lauren Wainwright, Jeff Brubaker, Niki Touriki and Pilar Hernandez, who have each in some way contributed to the present study. There are also professors and other mentors and colleagues I would like to thank for their help as well, comprising Ruth Macrides, Leslie Brubaker, Derek Averre, Dan Davis, Abraham Terian, Andrei Opaiţ and Athanasia Stavrou. Additionally, I would like to thank Alison Lee and the rest of the student funding office at the University of Birmingham for granting me the necessary means to attend the University of Birmingham to complete this degree. Finally, I am indebted to my professors Dr. Stavros Oikonomidēs who first opened my eyes to Byzantium and of course Dr. Archie Dunn who has generously agreed to supervise my research on this topic, providing seemingly endless time, patience and counsel. Thank you. 3 Note on transcriptions and terminology When transcribing Greek and Russian names, ethnonyms, posts and titles into English, I have opted to adhere to what are, in my opinion, the most accurate representational characters available in the Latin alphabet. Therefore, I have listed below the most common letters, in first the Greek and then the Cyrillic alphabets on the left and the corresponding Latin letters on the right, whose transcriptions are not directly self-evident and the equivalent transcriptions of which I will use frequently in this research. ω ō η ē υ y β v χ ch ц c ш š щ šč х kh, except at the beginning of a word or name, as in for example, Халаев=Halaev ы ÿ й j ж ž я ja ч č ь ’ ю ju Regarding the Russian letters э, ё and е, I have made no distinction between them and have largely treated them with the Latin letter e. As for the Cyrillic letter ъ, since it appears little to never in this research, I will decline from referring to it further in this note. Byzantine titles and posts such as prōtevōn or stratēgos, I have rendered in italics to prevent them from being confused with both proper place names and personal names, which I have left in a normal font. 4 για τους παππούδες μου 5 The Historiographical and Archaeological Evidence of Autonomy and Rebellion in Chersōn: a Defense of the Revisionist Analysis of Vladimir’s Baptism (987-989) Contents Chapter I Introduction 1.1 Introduction 6 1.2 The generally accepted conversion story 7 1.3 Analysis 10 1.4 Historiography 16 1.5 Methodology 18 1.6 Format 24 Chapter II Narratives 2.1 The historical background of Chersōn from the turn of the 8th c. 26 2.2 “Как Владимир Осаждал Корсунь” or, How Vladimir Besieged Chersōn 31 2.3 The historiographical problems of the “Korsun’ Legend” in the PVL 47 2.4 The chiastic passage 50 2.5 Hagiographical influences on the PVL’s “Korsun’ Legend:” Byzantium, Bulgaria, Rus’ & the Old Testament 55 Chapter III Non-narratives 3.1 Chersōn: the archaeological evidence of rebellion, 987-989 61 3.2 Socio-political evidence 63 3.3 Economic evidence 69 3.4 Rebellion in context: the cases for Chersōn and south Italy during 987-989 79 Chapter IV Conclusion 4.1 Chersōn, between Kiev and Constantinople, a reassemblage of the revisionist hypothesis, 987-989 86 4.2 Vladimir I, defender of Basil II; Kievan Rus’, daughter of Byzantium 87 Appendices I The Black Sea Commercial Network and the Urban Autonomy of the Middle Byzantine Episcopal Kastron: Three Case Studies of Thematic Ports, Their Fortifications, Churches, Sigillographies & Economies 92 II A short expansion on the infamous Toparch Fragments and other matters of Russian historiographical interpretation of Vladimir’s conversion 107 III An English translation of the Povest’ Vremennÿkh Let, Cross & Sherbowizt-Wetzor, 1953, 96-119 112 Bibliography 121 Index 134 List of maps & figures 138 6 I 1.1 Introduction If you go to war pray once; if you go on a sea journey pray twice; but pray three times if you are going to be married.1 The coasts of the Black Sea become the stage of drama in three acts played by two protagonists who, over a thousand years, change only costumes: the Empire, whether called Roman, Late Roman, or Byzantine, and the nomads, known by a multitude of names.2 Запутанный вопрос о крещении Руси еще не разрешен во всех подробностях историками. Запутанность этого вопроса объясняется прежде всего тем интересом, который он возбуждал уже у современников. Чем больше интересовались данным кругом фактов, тем больше осложнялась трактовка вопроса.3 The conversion of Vladimir I, grand prince of Kiev to Eastern Christianity was a momentous watershed in European and Slavic history. The details of his conversion are shrouded in such legend that the modern historian has difficulty digging through such scanty evidence. The precious little verification that has survived, beyond being incomplete, is deliberately misleading and so apparently biased as to invite reinvention, if not refictionalization of legend as opposed to the decipherment of myth from fact. Often overlooked, deliberately misinterpreted and frequently over-generalized, the role of the city of Chersōn in the southern Crimea in this legend is where modern historical debate has centered on his alleged conversion. The story that has been generally accepted by historians essentially glorifies Vladimir I as the master of his own political and religious agenda and denigrates the Byzantine role for its “usual two-faced games.”4 The condemnation of Byzantium in this context fits in with a generalized historical mistrust of all things Byzantine, thus making it easier for modern historians to digest a medieval ruler’s choice of Byzantine Christianity over Western Christianity. Essentially, this disparagement of Byzantine civilization, whether in a political, cultural, economic or religious context, fits in with a generalized Gibbonian treatment of Byzantium which has been handed down by historians for centuries and would have been discontinued, one would have hoped, by 1 Russian Proverb. 2 C. Zuckerman, 2006, “Byzantium’s Pontic Policy in the Notitiae Episcopatuum,” 201. 3 “This tangled skein has not yet been unraveled.