Готланд Эрманариха: остроготы в Восточной Европе на рубеже Древности и Средневековья

Summary

One of the most actively developing subjects of contemporary historical studies is the research of statehood formation in various regions of Europe. Study of its ancient roots, various types of early states may shed light on origins of historical and cultural peculiarity, which worked at ground zero of European peoples’ history, including that on the territory of Russia and Ukraine. At the turn of Antiquity and Middle Ages Eastern Europe saw the rise of one of the largest potestary formations known as the Ostrogothic kingdom of Ermanaric. For archaeologists this time in the south of Eastern Europe is marked with a phenomenon of Chernyakhov culture, which crossed the border separating barbarity from civilization.

Historiography of Goths in Eastern Europe is very extensive and diverse. However, up to date there are no monographic studies containing an integral analysis of Ostrogothic potestarity in IV^ century AD. Meanwhile, history of Ermanaric’s kingdom appeals not only to classicists but also to mediaevalists studying the origins of West-European statehood as if with ‘clean sheet’ and generally without regard to the heritage of the Black-Sea period in the history of Goths. The age of Ermanaric is just as well important for those who study the history of Russia, since it was exactly that time, when Eastern Europe saw the rise of the largest ethnopolitical formation before Kievan Rus’.

In Russian historiography this subject was ill-starred until the recent time due to several reasons quite far removed from the science. The official Soviet science of 1930—70s could mention Goths and Ermanaric only with latent understatement of scale and role of his kingdom. The level of historical development of Ostrogoths in IV^th century AD was estimated as being not higher than a primitive alliance of tribes’. Depending on beliefs and sometimes nationalistic, political, personal, etc. favours, narrative sources let the scholars draw directly opposed conclusions about the Ostrogothic kingdom and its role in political and cultural life of the south of Eastern Europe.

Situation in the Gothic studies started to change cardinally in 1980—90s, first of all — owing to the change of ideological directives and the progress in studying of Chernyakhov culture. By the end of XX^th century a weighty contribution in development of the Gothic studies has been made by European scholars, such as R. Hachmann, H. Wolfram, V. Bierbrauer, R Heather, J. Tejral, A. Kokowski, M. Maczynska, etc. It seems that for today’s generation of scholars the above-mentioned publications toghether with a fundam-etal book of Austrian scholar H. Wolfram drew a certain line in study of Goths. But the phenomenon of the Ermanaric’s lingdom still remains largely unexplored. It appears that it requires a different approach and, first of all, a higher level of historical analysis of the whole body of sources and historiographic heritage accumulated within two centuries.

Chronological framework of our study covers the IV^th century AD, when the south of Eastern Europe saw formation and heyday of Ermanaric’s kingdom. They correspond to Phases C2, C3, D1 of archaeological chronology of European Barbaricum. The Ostrogothic kingdom appeared at remote North-Western boundaries of Late Ancient oecumene in the beginning of the period, which may be defined as the turn of Antiquity and Middle Ages (IV—VI^th centuries AD). Its geographical framework include not only the main territory of Ermanaric’s domain between the Dniester and the Severski Donets (within the area of Chernyakhov culture), but also the whole sothern half of Eastern Europe, where Goths interacted with other peoples of this extensive region.

Our study has an interdisciplinary nature. In terms of age and several sources used (the work of Ammianus Marcellinus, etc.) it belongs to the problematics of contemporary classical studies. But in terms of subject (‘barbarian kingdom’) and other sources (Jordanes’ Getica, early medieval heroic epos, etc.) it enters the area of medieval studies. Our work is based on the analysis of various types of sources — written, linguistic, archaeological, as well as that of epic tradition with further correlation of obtained results. In order to extract authentic information we had to perform a repeated verification of the basic narrative sources. While studying archaeological materials we used not only traditional methods (comparative-typological, cartographic, stratigraphic, etc.), but also a civilization approach, which allowed us to define the development level of Chernyakhov culture creators without any prejudice. The obtained results were interpreted with the use of a historical-comparative method, as well as with regard to the latest achievements of historical politology.

Chapter I “Narrative sources about Goths of Ermanaric” is dedicated to analysis of literary evidences. Paragraph 1 is related to Res Gestae by Ammianus Marcellinus — the last outstanding Roman historian, for whom the kingdom of Ermanaric was a political reality, Paragraph 2 — to works of early Byzantine historians Eunapius and Zosimus, who described the final events of Ostrogothic history in Eastern Europe, Paragraph 3 — to Jordanes’ Getica containing the most complete information about the Ostrogothic kingdom, Paragraph 4 — to the Bible of Ulfila, Paragraph 5 — to a Christian hagiographie work Passio s. Sabae Gothi (these two sources reflected^ many fundamentals of Gothic society in the IV^th century AD allowing to estimate the level of its historical development), Paragraph 6 — to analysis of Germanic epic tradition, which saved the memory about the mighty Ostrogothic king Ermanaric, and Paragraph 7 to early medieval historical chronicles. The indicated sources cover the history of Ostrogoths and their kingdom in Eastern Europe in varying degrees. But notwithstanding the incompleteness of each of them, as a whole they create a quite certain information field allowing to cover the key issues of the Gothic history in IV^th century AD.

Chapter II “Kingdom of Ermanaric in European and American historiography” comprises the analysis of reach historiographic heritage concerning this kingdom. Within two centuries scholars have collected and analyzed virtually the whole corpus of written evidence about Goths (P.F. Suhm, K. Zeuss, Th. Mommsen, K. Müllenhoff, W. Tomaschek, Th. Grienberger, J. Marquait, W. Streitberg, etc.). Studying of this problem showed a basic range of issues connected with territorial and chronological framework of the Osthrogothic state and its polyethnicity. In the first third of XX^th century the German concept of the Gothic history found its logical end in numerous works of L. Schmidt. In 1930—40s studying of the concerned problematics was heavily influenced by national-socialist ideas, which became an ideological basis for justification of the German aggression to the East (F. Altheim, H. Jankuhn, K. Gloger, etc.). The last paragraph of the chapter includes the historiographic analysis of studying of Ermanaric’s empire’ in West-European and American science in the 2^nd half of XX—early XXI^st centuries: ethnological studies of R. Wenskus about Tradition-skern, N. Wagner’s monographs about Jordanes’ Getica, works of R. Hachmann, which were of great methodological importance for studying of sources about Gothic ethnogenesis, G. Schramm’s studies of Ermanaric’s ‘empire’ as a predecessor of Kievan Rus’. The modern level of West-European Gothic studies is reflected in numerous publications by H. Wolfram. In terms of coverage and insight in the most difficult issues of the Gothic history his final work is unprecedented. Works of a German archaeologist V. Bierbrauer made an important contribution in understanding of those complex ethnocultural processes, which occurred in Central and East European Barbaricum in IV—V^th centuries AD.

In the 2^nd half of XX^th century the Gothic issues were also studied by scholars from Scandinavian countries: a Swedish linguist and historian J. Svennung, a Finnish explorer I. Korkkanen, a Danish scholar A.S. Christensen, etc. Since the middle of the century monographic works concerning the Gothic problematics have been appearing in UK and US: these are works by C. Brady, E.A. Thompson, D.T. Barnes, H. Bradley, R Heather, J. Matthews, O.J. Maenchen-Helfen, etc. We also have to note a considerable contribution made by Polish scholars, especially M. Maczynska and A. Ko-kowski. At the same time, an evident drawback of West-European studies of East European Goths is a poor use of archaeological sources, which serve as more objective evidence of ethnopolitical situation in the south of East Europe than traditional narrative texts.

In Chapter III “Kingdom of Ermanaric in Russian historiography” we distinguish four stages in studying of the Gothic issues in Russian and Ukrainian science. Paragraph 1 is dedicated to the analysis of works of Russian scholars of XIX—early XX^th centuries: A.A. Kunik, A.S. Budilovich, F.A. Braun, A.N.

Veselovsky, F.I. Uspensky, N.P. Dashkevich, I.V. Sharovolsky, Y.A. Kulakovsky, etc. Some of them considered Goths as some kind of Normans of the Great migrations age and the Ermanaric’s ‘empire’ as a predecessor of Kievan Rus’. But most of Russian scholars thought that Goths played much more modest role in Russian history. When V.V. Khvoiko discovered Chernyakhov antiquities, the Gothic problematics acquired a new, archaeological aspect, which resulted in a stormy discussion with German scholars (R Reinecke, etc.).

Paragraph 2 considers development of Gothic studies in Russia in a period of establishing of Soviet Marxist history. Works of V.I. Ravdonikas and a ‘Gothic group’ in GAIMK established a notion of Ermanaric’s Goths as a quite primitive tribal alliance, which persisted in the Soviet science until 1970—80s.

Paragraph 3 contains the analysis of works by Soviet archaeologists and historians of the 2^nd half of 1950s—1980s, who touched upon the Gothic problematics anyway. Mitigation of ideological pressing with the beginning of a ‘thaw period’ altogether had a positive influence upon studying of Gothic problematics in Russia (discussion concerning problems of Chernyakhov culture in 1957 and further numerous archaeological studies of antiquities dating back to the second quarter of the 1^st millennium AD, publishing of Jordanes’ “Getica” by E.C. Skrzinskaya, etc.). It was that time when the accent in studying of the subject of our interest started to shift to the area of archaeological research (works of M.A. Tikhanova, P.N. Tretyakov, E.A. Rikman, VV. Kropotkin, V.D. Baran, Y.V. Kukharenko, etc.). By 1980s, under pressure of continuously multiplying archaeological facts, the number of advocates of the Gothic attribution of Chernyakhov culture has increased (M.A. Tikhanova, M.B. Shchukin, Y.V. Kukharenko). This idea was developed by the most prominent Russian linguist V.N. Toporov. His work immediately induced an incisive criticism on the part of academic B.A. Rybakov and V.P. Budanova. Some years later Budanova’s own book was published — it was the first monographic work concerning the Gothic problematics in Soviet historical studies. The final conclusion of the author was that a traditional concept of‘Ermanaric state’ could not be considered as adequate to a set of ancient written evidence about this ‘state’. The book by V.P. Budanova showed that it was impossible to study the Gothic problematics further being limited only to analysis of traditional literary sources. By that time it was evident that information allowing scholars to have a new look on the old problem was confined not in written, but in archaeological sources.

Paragraphs 4 analyze results achieved by contemporary Russian scholars in studying of Ermanaric’s kingdom. At the turn of XX—XXI^st centuries there appeared new approaches to historical estimation of anciejit societies, including Chernyakhov, which had been previously considered as late primitive one. At this time fundamental monographic studies concerning the history of Goths and Chernyakhov culture were created by M.B. Shchukin, A.M. Oblomski, M.M. Kazanski. They testify that priority in studying of Ermanaric’s kingdom and its culture has transferred to archaeologists. Meanwhile, all the enormous corpus of archaeological sources is still far from being completely used for studying of the phenomenon of our interest.

Chapter IV “Goths and Chernyakhov culture” is dedicated to studying of historical, geographical, socio-economical and cultural aspects of the problem in the light of comparative analysis of data from narrative, linguistic and archaeological sources. Paragraph 1 considers stages of the Ostrogothic history in context of Chernyakhov culture evolution. Special attention is paid to the ‘age of Ermanaric’ (333—375 AD), which was marked with a heyday of classic Chernyakhov culture in Phase C3. Paragraph 2 defines the territory of Ermanaric’s kingdom. In IV^th century AD the enormous area occupied by Chernyakhov culture was a scene of complex processes marked by spreading of uniform items, homebuilding traditions, funeral rituals, and also information, experience and innovations. The Ostrogothic society of IV^th century AD was characterized by the quick synthesis of achievements of late ancient civilization and local barbarian culture.

Paragraph 3 throws light on a contemporary approach to the problem of Goths in the south of Eastern Europe. Today no one of the scholars is doubtful that linguistically Goths belong to East German group (vocabulary of Ulfila’s Bible, runic inscriptions, etc.). But all that complex conglomerate united under the reign of Gothic kings was perceived by Greeks and Romans as ‘Scythians called Goths’ (Dexipp., Chron., 16). It is not impossible that such a definition masks a wish of Greek and Roman authors to emphasize some special, non-Germanic features of Goths, which had to emerge in the process of‘finding of native land’ in Black-Sea Scythia.

Paragraph 4 deals with a question about the area of Oium and a pre-Gothic substrate in connection with the problem of Spali. Paragraph 5 analyzes the basic ethnic components of Chernyakhov culture to the east from the Dniester. Now we reveal more and more distinctive archaeological ethnic indicators of the presence of Eastern Germans in the south of Eastern Europe in III—IV^th centuries AD: long houses, inhumations with northern orientation and cremations in urns, hand-made ceramics of Wielbartype, arms, many details of clothing, first of all fibulae, decorations, as well as horn combs. Certainly, one of the most definitive Germanic elements was represented by the runic script. Anthropological research testifies that Chernyakhov population also included ethnic groups close to the population of Northern and Central Europe of the Roman age. A late Scythian tradition in Chernyakhov culture shows itself in stone homebuilding in the Black sea region, some pottery shapes, partly — in anthropology; Sarmatian elements are perceptible in the spread of circular yurt-shaped dwellings, in some types of burial structures (pits with fillets, cuttings, catacombs), as well as in a custom of artificial deformation of skulls. ‘Sarmatian’ features serve not as a heritage of the pre-Gothic substrate, but as an evidence of the presence of scattered groups of Sarmatians and Alans among the population of already formed Chernyakhov culture.

Despite the intense search performed by several generations of Russian and Ukrainian scholars, a Slavic component in Chernyakhov culture is feebler. It finds its most distinct manifestation in a Trans-Dniester group of Cherepin-Teremci sites. It is represented by dwellings deepened in the ground — predecessors of early Slavic half-dugouts with stone stoves, some shapes of plastic pottery finding analogs in Praga culture of V—VII^th centuries AD, etc. Another, eastern group of sites, which was probably connected with a Slavic ethnos within Chernyakhov culture, is known in a forest-steppe area between the Dnieper and the Don rivers — these are the settlements of so-called Kiev tradition in Chernyakhov culture. Recently, a new type of sites has been discovered on the left bank of the Dnieper — it is so-called ‘Boromlya horizon’. They are associated with a forced migration of some population (Venetae) from Middle and Upper Dniester region under the pressure of Goths.

Chapter V “Social organization” analyzes the data of narrative and archaeological sources about the level of social development of Chernyakhov culture carriers. Types of settlements, absence of any testimonies for their growth into urban structures is completely consistent with traditional Gothic lifestyle, which remained mainly rural (Goth, haims, weihs) during the whole their history. Traces of fences around some Chernyakhov manors, findings of keys and locks may be considered as the evidence for emergence of village community and private ownership among Ostrogoths. Presence of a term ‘land ownership’ (Goth, haimojfii) in the Gothic Bible allows us to consider it as an institute close to a Germanic ôdal. Coexistence of different homebuild-ing traditions (long above-ground houses, half dugouts, etc.) in the same settlements denotes the development of social inequality among their dwellers. Materials from Chernyakhov burial sites and numerous hoards of Roman coins may be considered as markers of considerable property differentiation among the population of Ostrogothic kingdom. A question about its social stratification is more difficult. According to the archaeological data, in IV^th century AD its main body was represented by free people (Goth, freis), there is also a small series of burials being close to Central European ‘princely’ tombs as well as warrior cremations in urns and inhumations. A special group of population was represented by persons, who left western-oriented burials. However, in general Chernyakhovo necropolises of IV^th century AD still demonstrate a social equality of most society members.

Chapter VI “Level of economic development” comprises materials allowing us to specify a level of economic development of Chernyakhov culture in its heyday. Its economy was based on plough agriculture, which ensured certain prosperity of the Chernyakhov society and caused a real demographic explosion in IV^th century AD. Presence of specialized workshops (potter’s, blacksmith’s, jeweller’s, bone-cutter’s) testifies the generation of commodity production, which is well consistent with the linguistic material of the Gothic Bible, where artisanal and other specialties are mentioned. From works of ancient authors we know that Ostrogoths had considerable monetary resources (Amm. Marc., XXXI.3.3; Zos., IV.38.3-4). The presence of currency circulation is testified by vocabulary of the Gothic Bible, as well as by widespread occurrence of Roman coins (more than 20,000 pcs. are found) in the territory of Chernyakhov culture. Most likely, the major part of this money found its way to the south of Eastern Europe in IV^th century AD in noneconomic way: in the form of payments to barbarian federates, ‘gifts’ to Gothic kings, as well as prizes of war.

Chapter VII “Culture and religion” deals with a problem of spiritual and intellectual development of people living in Ermanaric’s kingdom. The Chernyakhov phenomenon showed itself in literacy of some people, who used Greek and Latin alphabets, in the use of a runic script, in emergence of complex calendar systems impressed on ritual vessels and, finally, in the spread of Christianity, though en masse Goths in IV^th century AD remained pagans. Archaeological sources testify that during Ermanaric’s rule Ostrogothic society was already crossing the edge separating barbarity from civilization.

Chapter VIII “Ermanaric’s wars” contains detailed analysis of Jordanes’ list of arctoi gentes (Get., 116). The author offers an archaeological identification of one of them — Rogas Tadzans (Goth. *Rauastadians — ‘those living on the banks of Ra’ = Volga) with the population, which left the sites like Lbishche near Samara. This and other latest archaeological discoveries compel us to be much less skeptical to Jordanes’ data, including his list of ‘northern peoples’. Paragraph 2 throws light on Ermanaric’s wars with Heruli and Vandali. Paragraph 3 is dedicated to Ermanaric’s campaigns against Venetae. Analysis of all versions of their localization showed that the Ostrogothic king could lead a military expedition to the North to the Dnieper left-bank forest-steppe area, which was then inhabited by numerous tribes of Kiev culture. Paragraph 4 describes the war of Ermanaric’s successor — king Vinitarius — with Boz’s Antes (Get., 246—247). Entrance of Antes into historical arena was promoted by a unique ethnopolitical situation, which developed in East-European forest-steppe as a result of Hunnic invasion and destruction not only of Ermanaric’s ‘empire’, but also of Ostrogothic potes-tary formations, which emerged on its ruins (like Vinitharius’ ‘kingdom’).

Chapter IX is dedicated to a “conspiracy of Rosomoni” against Ermanaric. In this chapter, the author reviews various versions of Rosomones’ ethnicity: Slavic, Iranian and Germanic. According to comparative analysis of Jordanes’ evidence (Get., 129), Germanic epic tradition (Hervarar saga, 10-11) and an image on a Gottland stone of Ardre VIII, Rosomoni may initially mean ‘those around the ai)Ату Most likely, they were courtiers, servants of Ermanaric and not a special tribe (ethnos), which had been unsuccessfully looked for by lots of historians and archaeologists.

Chapter X “Ermanaric’s kingdom — an early ‘barbarian state” contains the reconstruction of Ostrogothic statehood formation based on the analysis of the whole set of narrative, linguistic and archaeological sources. Paragraph 1 contains the analysis of Ermanaric’s regnum. According to Jordanes’ account, Ermanaric was the sixth descendant of legendary Amalus and obtained a royal status by inheritance (in regno successit). Time of Ermanaric’s reign most likely fell on the period of 333—375 AD. Evidence of Ammianus and Jordanes leave no doubt that Ermanaric created a very large politico-military formation, which included a considerable part of Eastern Europe between the Lower Don region occupied by Alani-Tanaitae and the Dniester marking the boundary with the domain of Visigoths. Judging by a list of tribes conquered by Ermanaric (Get., 116-119), his ‘empire’ was very polyethnic (Goths, Heruli, Vandali, pre-Slavs — Venetiae, Aestiorum natio, Galindi). Perhaps, arctoi gentes also depended on Ermanaric’s kingdom. Therefore there is no cause to call Ermanaric’s domain as an ‘alliance of tribes’, as was traditionally accepted in Soviet science, since sources do not offer any evidence of their alliance relations with Ostrogoths. Vice versa, virtually all these peoples (excluding Aesti) turned out to be included in Ermanaric’s kingdom as a result of conquest. Huge extent of the territory controlled by Ermanaric and a great deal of dependant peoples serve as a direct evidence of the measure of his rule. Probably, it is also testified by his name, which could be a title (Erman — ‘great’ and riks — ‘king’) emphasizing the might of the last Ostrogothic ruler.

According to ancient Germanic tradition, Ostrogothic king ruled his people as a rex Gothorum. (Getarum) (Get., 118). But when describing Ermanaric’s deeds Jordanes uses Latin verbs imperare (Get., 120) and servlre (Get., 118-119) denoting absolute character of his royal power over the conquered peoples. The king wielded a supreme military authority. It is interesting that Jordanes wrote that the last Ostrogothic ruler forced all the conquered peoples suisque parère legibus fecit (Get., 116). He knew the genuine Gothic name of these legibus — belagines (Get., 69). Most probably, these were conventional rules used for legal proceedings within Goths themselves. However, it is also necessary to pay attention to the fact that Ostrogoths had a popular assembly like Germanic thing (Get., 129).

In Paragraph 2 Ermanaric’s kingdom is considered in the light of modern theories of potestarity. According to the typology of early polities, Ermanaric’s regnum had several features of an early state, but not those of a complex chiefdom. Numerous archaeological data denote the increase of cultural and social complexity of Ostrogothic society in IV^h century AD, which is more characteristic for a stage of civilization. Probably, this explains the fact that Chernyakhov culture turned out to be the most developed among all the barbarian cultures of Late antiquity. Ermanaric’s empire’ demonstrated a historical possibility for formation of a ‘barbaric kingdom’ beyond the territory of Roman provinces, in East-European Barbaricum. But, unlike classical barbarian states of V—VI^th centuries AD, it did not have a nutrient Roman medium, towns and other institutions of old civilization, though the IV^th century Goths managed to assimilate a lot from that.

Most of Soviet scholars who rested upon the Marxist concept of history a priori assigned the Ostrogothic society to a stage known as a breakdown of tribal society (A.R. Korsunsky, E.A. Rikman, E.A. Symonovich, V.D. Baran, etc.). B.D. Grekov, B.A. Rybakov, V.I. Dovzhenok defined the Chernyakhov society as a forming early-feudal one. Recently some scholars started to lean towards a conclusion that this society was already at the stage of ‘proto-civilization’ (M.Y. Braychevsky, О. M. Prikhodnyuk). In our opinion, formation of an integrated archaeological culture occupying a vast territory and having several significant features characteristic for a stage of civilization is very indicative. In this regard classic Chernyakhov culture of IV^th century AD may be considered as some kind of a ‘state’ culture of Ermanaric’s kingdom being a result and a material reflection of complex consolidation of various tribes and peoples within the framework of forming Gothic potestarity with preservation of certain local peculiarity in the provinces.

The analyzed data of narrative sources and archaeology allow us to conclude that Ostrogothic society of Ermanarich’s age appeared as a multilevel sociopolitical organization (over-tribal ‘imperial’, ‘national’ Gothic, regional and local communal levels) for regulation of social and interethnic relations in the forming stratified society. It was already divided into at least some estates (strata): a ruling family of Amali and its company, including king’s retinue; free Goths; various groups of dependent population, as well as tributaries from the remote periphery. Social organization of Goths did not have any features of feudal society but had a lot of attributes of forming early state’.

Our research showed that in IV^th century AD the south of Eastern Europe was occupied by the vast Ostrogothic kingdom, which found its archaeological equivalent in the classic Chernyakhov culture. It cannot be defined by traditional categories used in Soviet historical studies, such as ‘alliance of tribes’, ‘federation, etc. The best name for that is an authentic ‘kingdom’ (regnum). By the end of Ermanaric’s reign it overgrew the scale of a ‘super-complex chiefdom’ and was becoming an early state’ demonstrating the development of exopdïitary system of exploitation focused on conquered ethnic groups and resources of remote areas (Jordanes’ ‘northern peoples’). Probably, if the development of Ostrogothic kingdom had not been forcibly interrupted by Huns, it would have transformed into a really mature state. But due to tragic events of 375—376 AD the polyethnic Ermanaric’s regnum remained somewhere at the edge of civilization and the earliest stage of statehood. But memory about that was preserved for centuries in early medieval Germanic sagas praising the image of tyrannical king Ermanaric/Heiðrek/Jormunrekk.

Макет и оформление Ю.В. Балабанов

Издательский редактор И.В. Румянцева

Корректор Н.С. Головин

Предложения и вопросы можно присылать на электронный адрес серии: medieval.books@mail.com

Подписано в печать 18.08.2018

Формат 70x100/16. Заказ № 287.

Тираж 500 экз.

29,0 п.л. 33,5 уч.-изд. л.

Отпечатано в Акционерном обществе «Т8 Издательские Технологии»

109316 Москва, Волгоградский проспект, дом 42, корпус 5 Тел.: 8 (495) 221-89-80

По издательским вопросам обращаться: «Центр гуманитарных инициатив»

e-mail: unikniga@yandex.ru. Руководитель центра П.В. Соснов