The North-Western Region of the Black Sea During the 6Th and Early 7Th Century Ad*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
doi: 10.2143/AWE.7.0.2033257 AWE 7 (2008) 151-187 THE NORTH-WESTERN REGION OF THE BLACK SEA 151 THE NORTH-WESTERN REGION OF THE BLACK SEA DURING THE 6TH AND EARLY 7TH CENTURY AD* Florin CURTA Abstract Early Byzantine authors knew very little about the north-western region of the Black Sea. 6th- to 7th-century archaeological assemblages display a remarkable polarity of distribution. This has often been viewed as an indication of distinct ethnic groups (Slavs in the north and nomads in the south), but a closer examination of the archaeological record suggests a different interpretation. Burial assemblages in the steppe represent the funerary monuments of individuals of prominent status from communities living in settlements on the border between the steppe and the forest-steppe belts. ‘From the city of Cherson to the mouth of the Ister river, which is also called the Danube, is a journey of ten days, and barbarians hold that whole region’ (Procopius Wars 8. 5. 29). Procopius of Caesarea’s description of the Black Sea shore between the Crimea and the Danube delta, a part of his ‘account of the distribution of the peoples who live about the Euxine Sea’ (Wars 7. 1. 7), 1 underscores the limits of his knowledge. Because of barbarians holding that entire region, not much was known to him about what was going on north of the Danube delta and the region beyond that, because of barbarians holding that entire region.2 It is not at all clear just who were the barbarians controlling the north-western coast of the Black Sea, but those ‘still’ crossing the Danube during Procopius’ lifetime were the Cutrigurs, whom Procopius otherwise placed ‘on the western side of the Maeotic Lake’ (Wars 8. 18. 14).3 The Cutrigurs had ‘summoned their children and wives and settled’ in that * I am grateful to Péter Somogyi for his comments on an earlier draft of this paper. The research was conducted during a year’s leave supported by a fellowship from Dumbarton Oaks in Washington, DC. 1 For the description of the Black Sea and the peoples living around it as an example of Classical ethnography, see Cesa 1982, 191. 2 Procopius Wars 3. 1. 10: ‘barbarians beyond the Ister River, which they also call the Danube, make the shore of that sea (i.e. the Black Sea) quite impossible for the Romans to traverse.’ It is not clear what particular shore is referred here, but it is certainly not the western coast of the Black Sea. Because of his reference to the barbarians on the other side of the Danube, Procopius most likely had in mind that segment of the northern coast of the Black Sea which is closest to the river, namely the region between the Crimea and the Danube delta. 3 See also Procopius Wars 8. 5. 23, where the Cutrigurs are said to have established themselves ‘over the greater part of the plains of that region’. For the Cutrigurs crossing the Danube, see Wars 8. 5. 16. 1197-08_Anc.West&East_08 151 12-18-2008, 11:28 152 F. CURTA region, where they were still dwelling during his lifetime (Procopius Wars 8. 15. 16).4 Procopius had good information about those ‘Huns’ who, together with their wives and children, had been granted asylum in Thrace by the emperor Justinian, after the Utigur victory over the Cutrigurs (Wars 8. 19. 6).5 Writing in 554 or shortly thereafter, Procopius thus brought back to the minds of his audience the events following the devastating invasion of 540.6 But where did Procopius learn about how long it took to sail from Chersonesus to the Danube delta? There is no doubt that he used earlier sources, most likely Greek descriptions of the circuit of the sea. He mentioned ‘those who have at- tempted heretofore to ascertain these measurements’ in relation to his own inability to come up with exact information, ‘since such vast numbers of barbarians, as stated above, dwell along its shores’ (Procopius Wars 8. 5. 32). While it is unlikely that he used Arrian’s Periplus Ponti Euxini, Procopius may well have consulted ear- lier itineraria or periploi.7 His contemporary, Jordanes, also relied on much earlier sources of different origins and dates, especially on Priscus, for his description of the northern shore of the Black Sea: Farther away and above the Sea of Pontus are the abodes of the Bulgars, well known from the wrong done by them on account of our sins. From this region, the Huns, like a fruitful root of bravest races, expanded with ferocity in two branches of people. Some of these are called Altziagiri, others Sabiri; and they have different dwelling places. The Altziagiri are near Cherson, where the avaricious trader brings in the goods of Asia. In summer they range the plains, their broad domains, wherever the pasturage of the cattle invites them, and in winter they return back to the Pontus (Jordanes Getica 37).8 While Procopius speaks of Cutrigurs, Jordanes introduces the Altziagiri.9 The former are associated with Lake Maeotis, the Altziagiri appear near Chersonesus, but are otherwise given ‘broad domains’ in the form of vast plains, which they use for grazing their cattle in the summer. The seasonal movements of the Altziagiri between the plains and the Black Sea coast have been interpreted as an authentic description of their nomadic pastoralism. Although not as explicitly as Jordanes, his (and Procopius’) younger contemporary, Agathias of Myrina, attributed a similar mode of life to the ‘Hunnic tribes’, which were ‘at the height of their fame’ during 4 English translation from H.B. Dewing (Cambridge, MA 1928). 5 The Cutrigurs had brought with them their chieftain, Sinnion. 6 For the date of Book 8, see Greatrex 1994, 102, 105-06; Evans 1996. 7 Cesa 1982, 193. 8 For Jordanes’ use of Priscus, see Anfertev 1991, 128-29. The Altziagiri are not known from ei- ther Priscus or any other source. 9 Despite evident parallels, Procopius’ ‘Huns’ and ‘Cutrigurs’ are not the same as Jordanes’ ‘Altziagiri’, as maintained by several historians (Beshevliev 1970; K. Dimitrov 1996). 1197-08_Anc.West&East_08 152 12-18-2008, 11:28 THE NORTH-WESTERN REGION OF THE BLACK SEA 153 his lifetime (Agathias Histories 5. 11. 5).10 Agathias certainly was in Constantinople in 558/9, when ‘Hunnic’ horsemen under the leadership of Zabergan crossed the frozen Danube, as if on a bridge, and invaded Thrace. According to him, prior to that invasion, the ‘Hunnic tribes’ had moved south from their abodes and ‘had en- camped not far from the banks of the Danube’ (Agathias Histories 5. 11. 5).11 Given that the ‘Hunnic’ horsemen subsequently crossed the Danube on ice, it is therefore likely that the movement to the south in the direction of the Black Sea shore had taken place in winter time. An eyewitness to the fears inflicted upon the population of Constantinople by Zabergan’s invasion of 558, Agathias may have learned about these movements from military reports sent to Constantinople from the Danube frontier, and not from personal experience.12 Written sources pertaining to the north-western Black Sea coast during the 6th century are therefore based on second-hand information. No author had ever vis- ited the region and all used written sources of various origins. This has not deterred scholars from attempting to reconstruct the 6th- and 7th-century history of the re- gion primarily on the basis of written sources. Conclusions drawn from such ac- counts were then illustrated by means of the archaeological evidence, which was rarely, if ever, studied for its own merits. For example, according to Procopius, ‘the countless tribes’ of the Antes lived to the north of the Utigurs, whom he placed in the region of Lake Maeotis (Procopius Wars 8. 4. 8-9).13 As a consequence, scholars attributed archaeological assemblages of the forest-steppe belt to the (supposedly Slavic) Antes, and those of the steppe to the (supposedly Bulgar) nomads.14 But is this clear-cut polarity supported by the archaeological evidence? Burials To date, over 30 burial sites possibly of the 6th and 7th centuries can be listed in the north-western region of the Black Sea (Fig. 1). The burial customs in the Black Sea lowlands differed from those at the periphery of the steppe. The dominant form of burial in the valley of the Middle Dnieper, as most clearly shown at four sites in Velika Andrusivka,15 consisted of cremations with few, if any, grave goods. Systematic excavations in Velika Andrusivka, on the banks of the River Tiasmin, a 10 Translation of J.D. Frendo (Berlin/New York 1975). 11 For Agathias’ life and work, see Cameron 1970, 3; Levinskaya and Tokhtasev 1991. For Agathias’ account of the events of 558/9, see Bakalov 1974. 12 For Agathias’ reliance on written sources, see Curta 2001, 45. 13 For Procopius’ account of Utigur and Cutrigur history, see Peneva-Ruseva 1997. 14 Most typical in this respect are Symonovich 1971 and Prikhodniuk 1996. For the north-west- ern Black Sea region and the 6th-century ‘Bulgar’ nomads, see D. Dimitrov 1987; Romashov 1992- 94; K. Dimitrov 1996; Rashev 2000. 15 Petrovska and Telegin 1965; Berezovets 1969, 58-59, 67-69. 1197-08_Anc.West&East_08 153 12-18-2008, 11:28 154 F. CURTA Fig. 1: Location map of the main burial sites mentioned in the text. Lowest contour 200 m, thereafter 500 m and over 1000 m. Triangle = cremation; circle = inhumation. right-hand tributary of the Dnieper, have brought to light a cemetery of 43 burials, some of which were urn, others pit cremations.