Did the Vikings trade with China? : on a controversial passage in Ibn Khordāhbeh’s Book of itineraries and kingdoms Romgard, Jan http://kulturarvsdata.se/raa/fornvannen/html/2016_229 Fornvännen 2016(111):4 s. 229-242 Ingår i samla.raa.se Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1 2016-11-21 10:24 Sida 229 Did the Vikings trade with China? On a controversial passage in Ibn Khordāhbeh’s Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms By Jan Romgard Romgard, J., 2016. Did the Vikings trade with China? On a controversial passage in Ibn Khordādhbeh’s Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms. Fornvännen 111. Stock- holm. This paper discusses a 9th century Arabic source, Ibn Khordādhbeh’s Kitāb al- Masālik wa l-Mamālik, The Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms, in which it is claimed that the Rus travelled to China. I look into previous interpretations of the text and present new studies of the two oldest extant copies of the original source. Several translators from the late 19th century on have claimed that this passage is mis- placed. I argue that they have adapted their interpretations to fit their preconcep- tions rather than follow what is actually written in the original source. The text does state that the Rus traded with China. Whether Ibn Khordādhbeh’s belief in the extent of Rus’ eastern trade journeys was correct or not is another matter. But I point out that Ibn Khordādhbeh in his time may have had logical reasons for his statement. I also explain that “China” probably refers to Eastern Central Asian regions populated by Turkic-speaking peoples, who in their turn had direct trading contacts with Tang and later Liao Dynasty China. Jan Romgard, Dept of Asian, Middle Eastern and Turkish Studies, Stockholm University, SE–106 91 Stockholm [email protected] Eastern Scandinavian trade during the Viking was interrupted, or at least minimised, following Period in the 9th to 11th centuries coincided with the withdrawal of Chinese influence from Cent- a time when economic exchange on the Silk Road ral Asia from the mid-8th century on. After being appears to have declined. Yet, this particular era defeated by the Arabs at the battle of Talas in 751, in Central Asian history saw the creation of far- the An Lushan rebellion, and the expansion of reaching trading networks between the Samanids, the Tibetans towards Gansu, Imperial China had Byzantium, the central Caliphate, the Khazars, to direct most of its attention towards internal the Volga Bulgars and the Rus from the north. rather than external affairs. On the other hand, as Written sources like The Book of Itineraries and often occurred during times of instability on the Kingdoms and finds of Samanid coin hoards in land routes from Central Asia, trade on the open Sweden and of Baltic amber in China indicate sea route to China around India intensified that these networks also had contact with eco- (Chaudhuri 1985; 2005, p. 172). Nevertheless, nomies further to the east of the Pamir Moun- trade across the land routes with China did con- tains. This gainsays a general belief that trade on tinue, although now mostly under the control of the Silk Roads at this time had almost ceased. the rising power of the Uighurs, who became rich One reason for this common view is that trade and powerful to the extent that they were able to Fornvännen 111 (2016) Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1 2016-12-05 10:10 Sida 230 230 Jan Romgard build an empire stretching far eastward from the Jansson 1997.) The accounts of the two groups are Tianshan Mountains to Manchuria, establishing of equal length, about one page each. First, under their centre in what is now Mongolia. a headline about the Radhanites (“Itinéraire des In this paper I will discuss a 9th century sour- marchands juifs, dits ar-Râdhânyya” according ce relating to this eastward trade: two passages in to de Goeje’s translation), the author describes Ibn Khordādhbeh’s Kitāb al-Masālik wa l-Mamā- the languages they speak, the various goods they lik, that is, The Book of Itineraries and Kingdoms. It trade in, and their travels from France to Con- is mentioned in the book that Jewish traders, stantinople and Baghdad, Sind, India and China. called Radhanites, traded with the Uighurs and Then follows a passage about the Rus, under the China, and that the Rus (i.e. Scandinavians in headline “Itinéraire des marchands russes”. Here Russia) went to the Caspian Sea and Baghdad. Ibn Khordādhbeh explains the goods and trade Few historians and archaeologists today, however, routes taken by the Rus, for instance how they go know that the most commonly quoted transla- ashore wherever they like on the Caspian Sea, tion of this text is controversial. An alternative and sometimes bring their goods from the Caspi- interpretation would imply that the Rus played a an to Baghdad by camel. These two passages are more important role in the eastern trade on the followed by the controversial section, a descrip- Silk Road than has generally been believed. tion of land routes: As this less known controversy concerns an era in history from which written sources are These different journeys can also be made by scarce, it seems worthwhile to take a closer look land. The merchants that start from Spain or at Ibn Khordādhbeh’s account, compare the var- France go to Sous al-Akza (Morocco), and ious interpretations of it, and discuss the implica- then to Tangiers, whence they march to tions that they would have for our understanding Kairuwan and the capital of Egypt. Thence of 9th century eastern trade. I aim to clarify what they go to al-Ramla, visit Damascus, al- is actually said in the passages in question, to Kufa, Bagdad, and Basrah, cross Ahwaz, look into the various interpretations made, and Fars, Kirman, Sind, Hind, and arrive at to suggest possible explanations as to why Ibn China. Sometimes they likewise take the Khordādhbeh might have written what he did route behind Rome, and, passing through and whether he really could have been referring the country of the Slavs, arrive at Khamlij, to the Rus or not. the capital of the Khazars. They embark on Transliterations and transcriptions of Arabic the Jorjan Sea, arrive at Balkh, betake them- texts have varied greatly from source to source in selves from there across the Oxus, and con- the last 150 years. I have as far as possible fol- tinue their journey toward the Yourts of the lowed the most established versions, and when Toghozghor, and from there to China. quoting, used the same as given in the original (transl. J. Jacobs 1919, p. 196) source. The question is, however: to whom is Ibn Khor- A controversial passage dādhbeh referring in the quoted passage? The The controversial section in The Book of Itineraries Rus or the Radhanites? If we did not have any and Kingdoms consists of three pages (for the most previous knowledge or assumptions about the quoted print and translation, see Bibliotheca Geo- extent of Rus travels, would we not imagine that graphorum Arabicorum VI 1889; reprint 1967, Ara- the text was about the Rus? After all, it is placed bic pp. 153–155, French pp. 114–116) where Ibn under the headline about the itineraries of the Khordādhbeh describes the routes taken by two Rus, and Ibn Khordādhbeh has already in the different groups of traders: a Jewish group called previous section described the Radhanite traders the Radhanites and a group called the Rus, today and their routes to China, which in fact seem to mostly referred to as Vikings or Varangians. (For include both travels by land and by sea.1 a balanced and modern view on the issue of Scan- Or does this passage actually refer to the Ra- dinavian influence in Early Medieval Russia, see dhanites? Is its placement under the headline about Fornvännen 111 (2016) Art. Romgard 229-242_Layout 1 2016-11-21 10:24 Sida 231 Did the Vikings trade with China? 231 Rus itineraries a mistake? Should it have been work: an early version finished around AD 848– somewhere else, or should it not have been there 849 (AH 232) – used by the copyist for the Ox- at all? ford manuscript – and a later more complete edi- tion, which was not finished until 885/886 (AH Radhanite interpretations 272) – represented by the Vienna document. De The first two translations of the section (Sprenger Goeje claimed that the later copy, which he main- into English 1844, pp. 521–524; Meynard into ly used for his translation, is very close in terms of French 1865, pp. 512–515) presented the Rus’ and time, and therefore content, to the original sec- Radhanites’ trade routes in the order given in the ond edition written by Ibn Khordādhbeh.3 How- original source and did not question the land ever, he contradicted himself, because in that travels further.2 very version the passage we are interested in was The arguably most influential translation of placed under the “Rus” headline (BGA VI, p. Ibn Khordādhbeh’s text, however, was presented 154/116; MS Vienna Nationalbibliothek 783). at the Oriental Congress in Vienna in 1889: the Moreover, that is actually the case in both edi- classical work by Michael Jan de Goeje, published tions (MS Huntington 433). Indeed, de Goeje in the same year as volume VI of the Bibliotheca Geo- himself states that the value of Ibn Khordādh- graphorum Arabicorum (BGA). This is still not only beh’s testimony on the Rus and the Radhanites is the most used translation of Ibn Khordādhbeh’s increased by its existence in both versions (de account, but also probably the translation most Goeje 1889, reprint 1967, p.