The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious:

whence and wherefore?

JONATHAN SHEPAKD

The arrival of foreign emissaries bearing gifts o r tribute features fairly

often in narrative records of the deeds of ninth-century Carolingian
rulers. Such public payments of respects could be represented as marks
of submission or, in the case of envoys from established and manifestly
important potentates, as denoting their recognition of the rulers fame
and comparability of status with themselves. So the account in the
Annales Bertinzani (henceforward AB) s.a. 839 of Louis the Pious recep-
tion of envoys from the eastern emperor Theophilus is not in itself
remarkable. The ABs entry for this year also reports the arrival of
envoys from King Aethelwulf of Wessex. These envoys recounted the
vision of a certain priest: he had been warned that unless the people of
Christ did penance for their vices and mended their ways, then all of a
sudden pagan men will lay waste with fire and sword most of the people
and land of the Christians. The ABs exposition of the vision is based
on the West Saxons account, presumably a written one delivered by
Aethelwulfs envoys.
The ABs account of the Byzantine embassy follows directly after the
vision, and amounts to a companion-piece. The honorific nature of the
occasion is underlined: the envoys, Metropolitan Theodosius of Chalce-
don and the protospatharios Theophanes, brought gifts worthy for an
emperor, and a letter, and were received with due ceremony at Ingel-
heim on 18 May 839. Their business was to confirm a treaty of peace
and perpetual friendship between the two emperors and to congratulate
Louis for the victories which he had supposedly won over foreign
peoples. Louis and his subjects were enjoined to render thanks to the
Giver of all victories. The envoys may well have been expounding the

Annales Bertiniani [henceforward A R ] , s.a. 839, F. Grat, J. Vielliard and S. Clernencet (ed.)
(Paris, 1964), pp. 28-30. My translation from this work draws on, but is not wholly identical
to, that of J.L. Nelson, The Annals ofSt-Bertin (Manchester, 1991),pp. 42-3.
A B s.a. 839, p. 3 0 ; trans. Nelson, p. 44. The rank of Theophanes should probably be
rendered as protospatharios, pace the extant text of the Annales; see T. Lounghis, [Les]
ambassades [byzantines en Occident depuis la fondataon des Ptats barbares jusqu aux Croi-
sades (407-1096)](Athens, 1980), p. 167, n. 2 .

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 ( I ) 41-60

0 Longrnan Group Limited 0963-9462/95/04104041/$o3.j0
42 Jonathan Shepard

contents of their emperors letter.) In any case, the immediately sub-

sequent passage in the AB refers to this letter again, in connection with
an unspecified number of persons whom Theophilus had sent with his
envoys party. These were certain men who said that they, that is, their
people (gentem)were called Rhos; their king, known as the chaganus,
had despatched them to him (Theophilus) for the sake of friendship, so
they claimed. Theophilus requested through the forementioned letter
that Louis should grant them assistance to travel home through his
realm; he was unwilling to let the Rhos return by the same route as their
outward journey, for it had been through barbarous and most savage
peoples of exceedingly great ferocity who might imperil them.4
Emperor Louis, however, did not let matters rest at that. H e investigated
more diligently why they had come, and discovered that the Rhos
belonged to the people of the Swedes. Thinking that they were spies of
that realm [Byzantium] and of ours, rather than seekers after friendship,
he detained them for further questioning until the true reasons for their
journey could be ascertained. Louis at once notified the eastern emperor
of his action, emphasizing that they would be given safe-conduct to
travel back to their patria, if they were found to be acting in good faith;
but if not, they would be sent together with Louis own envoys back to
Byzantium, where Theophilus could deal with them as he saw fit.
It is probably no accident that Louis investigation of the Rhos is
narrated immediately after the report of the vision of the pious English
priest. The author of this entry in the AB may well have been implying
that the emperor was protecting all his subjects. Louis alertness to
espionage was all the more meritorious in the light of King Aethelwulfs
message: for who was more likely than the Northmen suddenly to lay
waste with fire and sword most of Christian Europe? In other words,
Louis, for all the distraction which the manoeuvrings of his sons had
occasioned, still looked to his subjects security and showed himself
capable of taking practical steps to that end, besides attempting to ward
off a pagan attack through the general improvement of his peoples
morals and piety. But while the author or senior editor of the entry for
839 was well-disposed towards the emperor, he was conscientious on
points of fact, and he most probably had some sort of access to the
correspondence between Theophilus and Louis. That he saw the Byzan-
tine imperial letter, or a written translation or summary, is suggested by
the degree of precision attempted in his convoluted summary of Theo-

For another probable instance of a Byzantine ambassador to the west expounding the
contents of the letter he bore, see M. de Waha, La lettre dAlexis I Cornnkne i Robert I le
Frison, Byzantion 47 (1977). pp. 122-3.
AB s.a. 839, pp. 30-1; trans. Nelson, p. 44.
AB s.a. 839, p. 31; trans. Nelson, p. 44.

Early Medieval Europe 199s 4 ( I )

 The Rhos p e s t s of Louis the Pious: whence and wherefore? 43

philus message. It is also suggested by the form which the AB give to the
name of the suspect strangers, Rhos. This represents a transcription of
one of the Greek names for this people, the rh transliterating the Greek
letter rho. It seems likely that this form derives from the written word,
and thus directly o r indirectly from Theophilus letter, rather than from
a transcript of the spoken word.6 Access to such an important docu-
ment, o r documents, would have been feasible for, as J.L. Nelson
observed, the annals for 836 to 839 are impressive in their fullness. The
focus on the palace is clearer than ever: only there could much of the
information entered in the AB have been amassed.
What the AB do not divulge is the subsequent fortunes of Louis
guests - whether they were assisted on their way back to their patria
(homeland) or were sent back as suspected explorutores to Byzantium.
N o r d o the AB, viewed in isolation, reveal whether there was more to
Theophilus dimurche than the author of the ABs entry recounts, or
cares to recount. Byzantine professions of amity combined with displays
of their ties with members of other potentially formidable peoples could
carry more than a hint of intimidation.
Of these two questions, that of the significance of Theophilus
dimarche can be answered with some confidence. It has not always been
studied in the round and, since it may have some bearing on the other
question, a glance at events preceding the embassy is appropriate. The
Byzantine empire was undergoing humiliation and (in the case of Crete)
territorial loss, at the hands of Moslem adventurers in the Mediterranean,
while the Abbasid caliphate had recently shown its ability still to strike
deep inside Byzantine Asia Minor on a massive scale. In August 838, the
major base of Amorium had been sacked, and many soldiers had been
killed or captured by the Arabs. So Theophilus could not easily spare the
land forces or all the ships needed to repulse the Moslems in the west.
There, Arab marauders had seized parts of Sicily and were beginning
seriously to menace the coastline of Calabria and Apulia. To seek allies
o r potential proxies in the central and western Mediterranean was an
obvious countermeasure.
The embassy which came to Ingelheim to confirm a treaty of peace
and perpetual friendship with Louis the Pious in the spring of 839

G. Schramm, Gentem suam Rhos vocari dicebant, in U. Haustein, G.W. Strobe1 and G.
Wagner (eds) Ostmitteleuropa. Berichte und Forschungen (Stuttgart, 198 I), p, L.
Nelson, introduction to trans. p. 7.
J. Shepard, Aspects of Byzantine Attitudes and Policy towards the West in thc Tenth and
Eleventh Centuries, in J.D. Howard-Johnston (ed.) Byzantium and the West c. 850-c. 1200
(Amsterdam, 1988), p. 8 3 .

Early Medieval ENrope 1991 4 ( I )

44 Jonathan Shepard

belongs to a series of Byzantine diplomatic dimarches launched at that

time. Some months later, in autumn 839, a Byzantine embassy arrived at
the Ummayad court in Spain, bearing a letter from Theophilus. The
emperor proposed a treaty of friendship and urged the caliph, Abd
ar-Rahman, to attack the Abbasids and restore the Ummayads sway,
apparently even in the Middle East. Theophilus also raised the issue of
joint-action against the Moslem conquerors of Crete (who had origi-
nated from Spain); and he pointed out that the Aghlabid emirs of Ifrikiya
were virtually independent of the Abbasids, and on bad terms with
them.9 The Aghlabids, based in Kairouan in north Africa, had played a
leading role in the initial seizure of strongpoints in Byzantine Sicily, and
publicized their support for the holy war. They had built a ribut, or
fortified monastery, in the port of Susa for the maintenance and train-
ing of holy warriors before embarcation for the jihud in Sicily. Theo-
philus was most probably hoping to incite Abd ar-Rahman to attack the
Aghlabids with his fleet, signalling that he regarded Abd ar-Rahmans
authority in north Africa as legitimate and stressing the Aghlabids dip-
lomatic isolation. An Ummayad attack on the Aghlabids would have
diverted the latter from supporting further assaults in Sicily and mount-
ing razzias on the Italian mainland.
Soon afterwards, in, probably, early 840, the patrikios Theodosius
Babutzicus undertook a mission to Venice on behalf of Theophilus. The
likelihood that he was a relation by marriage of the emperors wife,
Theodora, suggests the importance of the mission. H e invested the
Doge, Pietro Tradonico, with the title of sputharios. There are no
grounds for doubting that the prime aim of his embassy is as indicated by
John the Deacons Chronicle: Theodosius Babutzicus, entreating
(effZagituns), urged the Doge to agree to an expedition to drive out the
Saracens. Babutzicus blandishments were successful, in so far as a
Venetian fleet consisting, reportedly, of sixty warships sailed the length
of the peninsula to Taranto, which had recently been seized and occu-
pied by the Moslems. The Venetians were, however, heavily defeated

A.A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, I (Brussels, 1935). pp. 185-6; E. Levi-ProvenGal, [Un]
echange dambassades [entre Cordoue et Byzance au IX sikcle], Byzantion I Z (1937). pp. 1,
8-9, 20-3; idem, [Histoire de I]Espagne rnusulrnane, I (Paris-Leiden, 1950). pp. 251-2; F.
Roldan, P. Diiz and E. Diiz, Bizancio y al-Andalus [embajadas y relaciones], Etytheia 9
(1988), pp. 270-1. O n the chronicle of ibn Hayyan which incorporates Abd ar-Rahmans
reply to Theophilus letter: The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 111 (London-Leiden, 1971).p. 789.
lo John the Deacon, Chronicon [Venetum], MGH SS, VII, 17; Andreas Dandolo, Chronica [per
extensa descripta] in G . Carducci, V. Fiorini and P. Fedele (eds) Rerum ftalicarum Smiptores,
X11.1, p. 150. O n Theodosius Babutzicus link by marriage with Empress Theodora, see W.
Treadgold, The Byzantine Revival780-842 (Stanford, ry88), p. 309; n. 425 on p. 446.

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 ( I )

 The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious: whence and wherefore? 45

there by a Moslem host. It is probable that the Venetian expedition

was intended by the Byzantine government to liaise in some way with a
fleet sent out from Constantinople. But that fleet, too, was worsted by
the Moslems, seemingly off the coast of Calabria. It is said to have beaten
a retreat back to the imperial capital.
The Byzantine governments hopes of military collaboration with
western powers were not dashed by these setbacks. Rather, Emperor
Theophilus seems to have become the more determined to try and dis-
lodge the Moslems from their newly won Sicilian bases. From these
ports most of the incursions onto the Italian mainland were launched and
they may well have harboured the Saracen mercenaries who entered the
service of the rulers of Naples in the mid-83os.3 Theophilus had also to
reckon with a new balance of power within the Carolingian family. H e
was, presumably, soon made aware that Lothar had succeeded to the
imperial title of Louis the Pious, and that Lothars eldest son, Louis, was
installed at Pavia as rex Langobardorgm. Sometime in or after May 841, a
Byzantine embassy set off for the west, having Lothars court as its
ultimate destination. It bore a letter, which is almost certainly identifi-
able with the Papyrus of St Denis. There survives only about half of this
papyrus, once sumptuous and three or more metres long, and its text can
be reconstructed only partially, with a good deal of surmise. But it is
clear that a Byzantine emperor was proposing an expedition in which the
unnamed addressees son, our beloved son in Christ, the king, would
play the leading role. Neither the son nor the common enemies are
named, but it has plausibly been proposed that the former was Louis and
the latter the Saracens, the addressee being Lothar.4 The addressee is
urged, in his capacity as father and guardian (epitropos), to issue the
orders for the expedition to the king; Louis I1 was then about seventeen
years old. The expedition is clearly envisaged as being on a grand scale,

John the Deacon, Chronicon, p. 17; Dandolo, Chronicu, p. 130;Vasiliev, Byzance et les
Arabes, p. 182.
ibn al-Atir, trans. in Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, p. 362. This debacle is dated by al-Atir to
2 2 5 A.H. ( 1 2 November 839-30 October 840). It is not clear whether it preceded or followed
the Venetians defeat at Taranto; at any rate al-Atir seems to be recounting a separate
engagement from the one at Taranto.
i Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, pp. 179, 1 8 2 ; P. Teofilatto, La politica del Teofilatto contro i
Saraceni in Italia, Studi Meridionali 1 2 (1980), p. 186; B.M. Kreutz, Before the Normans.
Southern Italy in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries (Philadelphia, 1991),p. 2 0 ; n. 1 2 on p. 167.
4 F. Dolger, rDer] Pariser Papyrus [von St. Denis als altestes Kreuzzugsdokument, repr. in
Dolgers Byzantinische Diplomatik] (Ettal, 1956), pp. 206-12 (text and interpretation); W.
Ohnsorge, [Das] Kaiserbundnis [von 842-844 gegen die Sarazenen, repr. in Ohnsorges
Abendlund und Byzanz (Darmstadt, 1958)], p. 136 (revised text), pp. 145-8 (identification of
persons mentioned by text). See also Lounghis, Ambassades, pp. 170-1 (text), 171, n. I , p.
172(interpretation).

Eariy Medieval Errope 19914 (1)

46 Jonathan Shepard

involving all the western forces as auxiliaries to the eastern emperor,

according to one reconstruction of the letters text. 5
The renewal of Gods glory and the permanent strengthening of
friendship between the eastern emperor and the king feature among the
general aspirations mentioned in the letter. The stated objectives of the
Byzantine embassy at Ingelheim in 839 were very similar, and there is
every reason to suppose that the Papyrus of St Denis was brought to the
west by a subsequent embassy, in 841-42:this embassy was, according
to Byzantine chronicles, charged with raising massive forces from the
Franks to fight against the Saracens. The location of the projected ex-
peditions targets is designated only in somewhat vague terms by the
tenth- and eleventh-century chronicles: the assault was to be against
Libya or the Saracen regions between Libya and Asia (sic).16 But that
there was a basic continuity of purpose between the Byzantine initiatives
towards the west at this time is suggested by the fact that the leader of
this embassy was none other than Theodosius Babutzicus, recently the
long-stay guest of Doge Pietro Tradonico. Presumably the eastern
emperors choice fell on him at least partly because of his recent accom-
plishment in inducing the Venetians to mount an expedition against the
Saracens: Theophilus probably hoped that Babutzicus could manage a
similar diplomatic and organizational feat with the Franks, impelling an
army under the command of Louis I1 and the ultimate direction of
Lothar down to southern Italy and then, with Byzantine or others naval
aid, onto Sicily.
Theodosius Babutzicus embassy seems to have proceeded slowly,
perhaps because of the threat from Moslem marauders in the northern
Adriatic in 841, but possibly also because of business to transact in
northern Italy. By the time it reached Lothars court in Trier in the late
spring or early summer of 842,Theophilus was dead. Babutzicus himself
died while in the west, and the embassy achieved nothing more tangible
than the betrothal of Louis I1 to the late emperors daughter. But the fact
that Theophilus should have promised one of his daughters as a bride

I Dolgers reading (Pariser Papyrus, p. 206, and note b)), as against Ohnsorges hesitancy as
to a possible reading at this point (Kaiserbiindnis, p. 1 3 7 and note c)).
l6 John Scylitzes, Synopsis Historiarum, H. Thurn (ed.) (Berlin-New York, 1973). p. 79; Joseph
Genesius, Regum Libri Qwattwor, A. Lesmiiller-Werner and H. Thurn (eds) (Berlin-New
York, 1978), p. lo. The St Denis Papyrus assigns a key role in the projected campaign to the
king of Italy and proclaims a just restoration to the borders of the Christians, together
with the destruction of the common enemies: Dolger, Pariser Papyrus, p. 207; Ohnsorge,
Kaiserbiindnis, p. 136; Lounghis, Arnbassades, p. 171. This implies operations in Italy o r
Sicily and is compatible with Scylitzes and Genesius allusions to Libya, in that a diversion-
ary naval raid o n the Aghlabids could also have been envisaged. Their version is therefore
preferable to that of Theophanes Continuatus, which represents Theophilus as summoning
the Frankish hosts to serve him in the east: Theophanes Continuatus, I. Bekker (ed) (Bonn,
1 8 3 O P. 135.

Early Medieval Europe 1 9 9 ~4 ( I )

 The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious: whence and wherefore? 47

for Louis is a clear indication of his urgent need of Frankish military co-
operation. Such a proposal to a western ruling house had few prece-
dents at that time.I8
This train of events allows us to conclude with reasonable confidence
that already in 839 the Byzantine embassy to Louis the Pious was seek-
ing friendly relations, even an active alliance. And it raises the possibility
that the Byzantines envisaged for their Rhos protigis some role in the
alliance. But it leaves the question of their subsequent journeyings
unanswered. No other literary source mentions the episode. And that, in
turn, has left unclear the location and nature of their p a t ~ i a .The first
almost unequivocably datable mention of the Rhos in Byzantine literary
sources comes from the 860s and neither that source nor any other
Byzantine work of the ninth or early tenth centuries specifies the locale
of the Rhos, beyond the fact that it lay far to the north.9 Those few
early sources mentioning, or alluding to, the Rhos are no more forth-
coming as to their ethnic or linguistic characteristics. Such opaqueness in
the Byzantine sources, as against the ABs statement s.a. 839 that they
were Swedes, has fostered an immense bibliography, and reinterpre-
tations of the statement have been legion. Controversy has raged as to
whether the people known to the AB as Rhos were an eastern offshoot of
the Scandinavians, essentially classifiable as Swedes, or whether the Rhos
were predominantly Slavs, in whose employ there might have been Scan-
dinavian emissaries such as those brought to Ingelheim in 8 3 9 . O The

l7 Continuatio Constantinopolitana (ad Chronica Bedana), MGH AA, XIII, 343; AB s.a. 843,
853, pp. 42, 68; trans. Nelson, pp. 54, 78; Dolger, Pariser Papyrus, pp. 2 1 1-12; Lounghis,
Ambassades, p. 172; P. Grierson, The Carolingian Empire in the Eyes of Byzantium,
Settimane di Studio del Centro Italian0 di Studi sullhlto Medioevo, Spoleto, 2 7 . 2 (198 I), p.
903 and n. 31.
R. Macrides, Dynastic Marriages and Political Kinship, in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds)
Byzantine Diplomacy (Aldershot, 1992), p. 268, n. 26.
Hoi Rhos are first mentioned in the titles of Photius two sermons delivered at the time of
their first attack on Constantinople: Photius, Homilies, trans. and commentary by C . Mango
(Cambridge, Mass., 1958), pp. 82, 95; see p. 88, n. 41. The fact that, even for this well-
attested event, our only precise date (18 June 860) comes from a later western chronicle is
noted by A. Kazhdan. H e raises the possibility that the attack may have occurred some years
later: Joseph the Hymnographer and the First Russian Attack on Constantinople, Festsch-
rzftfor Nina Garsoian (forthcoming).
Lo The vast bibliography on the subject may be approached by way of, e.g., A.V. Riasanovsky,

The Embassy of 8 3 8 Revisited, jabrbiicberfiir Gescbichte Osteuropas 10 (1962), pp. 1-12;

De Administrando Imperio: 11, Commentary, R.J.H. Jenkins (ed.) (London, 1962), pp. 20-3
(D. Obolensky); K.R. Schmidt, The Varangian Problem: a brief History of the Contro-
versy, Varangian Problems (Scando-Slavica Suppkmentwm I) (Copenhagen-Munksgaard,
1970), pp. 7-20; H. Ahrweiler, Les relations entre les byzantins et les r u s e s au IX sii.de,,
Bulletin dinformation et de coordination 5 (Association internationale des Ctudes byzantines,
1971), pp. 47-9; K.-0. Falk, Einige Bernerkungen zurn Namen Rusi, in R. Zeitler (ed.) Les
pdys du nard et Byzance (Scandinavie et Byzance). Acres du colloque dUpsal. 20-22 avril
1979 (Uppsala, 1981), pp. 147-59; Schrarnm, Gentem warn Rhos vocari dicebant, pp. I-
10; idem, Die Herkunft des Namens Rus: Kritik des Forschungsstandes, Forschungen zur

Early Medieval Europe iyyj 4 ( I )

48 Jonathan Shepard

debate has obvious implications for the origins of Russia, and it is

perhaps inextinguishable. Nonetheless, it is worth considering a few
items of non-literary evidence which may shed light on the Rhos emis-
saries and their homewards run.
These items consist of seven Byzantine coins and a Byzantine seal. The
coins, five copper folles, a half-follis and a silver miliaresion, were all
issued by Theophilus and they were found in four different places:
Hedeby; Birka; Styrnas in Angermanland (northern Sweden); and Gor-
odishche, a settlement near Lake Ilmen (see map, Figure I ) . Thefollis at
Hedeby was found by itself, east of the land road in the Oldenburg (the
central part of the settlement), according to its discoverer, E. Nobbe.
Nobbe published the coin, with a line-drawing, but the coin does not
seem to have attracted close attention since its publication. Judging by
the line-drawing, the reverse of the coin, bearing a four-line legend, is in
good condition, the face considerably less so. It seems to belong to Class
3 of the folles of Theophilus, in the classification of P. Grierson. The
dating of coins in this Class cannot be regarded as wholly certain: while
they are thought to have been issued between 830/1 and 842, the striking
of the Class may conceivably have continued for some years after 842,
reaching into the reign of Theophilus son and heir, Michael I11 (842-
67). In any case, the publisher of our example from Hedeby empha-
sized the highly unusual nature of the find of a Byzantine copper coin at
Hedeby. The only other example from Hedeby known to him was a
f o l h of the last years of Basil 1s reign.3

Osteuropaischen Geschichte 30 (1982),pp. 7-49; idem, Sechs waragische Probleme, Jahr-

biicher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 34 (1986), pp. 366-7; Constantine VII, O b upravlenzi
imperiei: tekst, perevod, kommentarii, G.G. Litavrin and A.P. Novoseltsev (eds) (Moscow,
1989), pp. 293-307; A.A. Gorsky, Problema proiskhozhdeniia nazvaniia Rus [v sovremen-
noi sovetskoi istoriografii], Istoriia S.S.S.R. (1989), no. 3, pp. 131-7;E.A. Melnikova and
V.J. Petrukhin, The Origin and Evolution of the Name Rus. The Scandinavians in Eastern
European Ethno-Political Processes before the I rth Century, Tor 23 (~ggo-gr),pp. 203-34;
K. Heller, Die Normannen in Osteuropa (Giessener Abhandlungen zur Agrar- und Wirts-
chaftsforschung des europGschen Ostens 195) (Berlin, 1993). pp. 35.4 1-2.
E. Nobbe, Miinzfunde [vom Stadtplatz Haithabu 1905-3I], in Festschrift zur Hunderqahr-
feier des Museums vorgeschichtlicher Altertiimer in Kiel (Neumiinster, I 936), p. 13.5 ; p.
I 33: 16 (line-drawing). This illustration is reprinted, with altered enumeration of the pieces,
in H. Jankuhn, Haithabu, Ein Handelsplatz der Wikingerzeit (Neumiinster, 1976), Abb.
54:15, p. 223. The find did not escape the notice of T.J. Arne: see below, n. 26.
P. Grierson, [Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the] Dumbarton Oaks Collection, [Leo 111
to Nicephorus 111 (717-ro8r)l 111.1 (Washington, D.C., 1973). pp. 413-15 , 435-8. Judging
by Nobbes line-drawing (Miinzfunde, p. 133), our Hedeby example could be bracketed
either with Griersons Group (c), in that the emperors loros does not appear to have a
hanging end, o r with Group (d), in that the labarum does not have streamers hanging from it:
Grierson, Dumbarton Oaks Collection, pp. 413,435 (note), pp. 437-8; Plate XXV: ry.c.2,
15.c.3. iS.d.2, r5.d.3, ry.d.5. However, such reliance on a line-drawing and the worn o r
corroded state of the face dictates caution. What is reasonably clear is that this example
belongs to Class 3 of Theophilusfolles.
3 Nobbe, Miinzfunde, p. 135.

Early Medieval Europe 1991 4 (I)

 The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious: whence and wherefore? 49

I
Figure I . Map of Europe c. 840 showing find locations of coins and
seal of Theophilus.

Early Medieval Elrrope 1995 4 ( I )

50 Jonathan Shepard

Some 750 kilometres north-east of Hedeby, at Birka, there have been

found a miliaresion of Theophilus and two folles of the same emperor.
The miliaresion is well-preserved and the published photograph makes it
possible to classify the piece as belonging to Griersons Class IV of
Theophilus miliaresia.4 Coins of this Class are most probably datable
to c. 838-40.5 O u r Birka example formed part of a de luxe necklace,
whose other components were mostly silver pendants and beads of glass,
rock-crystal and cornelian. The necklace was one of several de luxe
ornaments found in an inhumation grave. The burial was considered by
T.J. Arne to date from c. 850,perhaps somewhat earlier. If this were the
case, the silver coin would have been brought to Sweden, pierced and
attached to a necklace and subsequently interred with (presumably) its
owner, within a decade of being struck. However, more recent scholars
prefer to ascribe the goods in this grave to the younger Birka level; the
grave has, partly from the typology of its pair of bronze tortoiseshell
brooches, been tentatively assigned to an early phase of this younger
Thus modern scholarship points towards a date somewhat later
than the mid-ninth century for the grave. Even so, an absolute chrono-
logy for the Birka levels has yet to be worked out, and the younger and
older levels may well have overlapped. Moreover, the milzuresion seems
to have undergone very little wear, and this suggests that it may have
been demonetized beyond Byzantiums borders, if not actually buried,
quite soon after being issued. The deceased was female and of some
substance, judging by her tortoiseshell brooches and by the various
ornaments wholly or partly of silver found among the grave-goods.
Besides this miliaresion, two folles of Theophilus have been found at
Birka. Each belonged (like the Hedeby example), to Griersons Class 3
of Theophilusfolles. At least one, and probably also the other, of these
coins was excavated in the Black Earth area; unfortunately the circum-
stances of the finds were not recorded fully at the time of their discovery

24 H . Arbman, [Die] Gruber, [Birka], I (Uppsala, 1943), p. 2 1 1 ; photograph of our example:

tbid., Tafeln (Uppsala, 1940), Tafel 140:i3 ; see Grierson, Dumbarton Oaks Collection, pp.
416,432; p!ate XXIII: I 1.1; 11.2; E. Wisihn, Myntfyndfrzn Uppfand (Sveriges Mynthistoria
Landskapsinventeringen 4) (Stockholm, 1989), no. 4, p. 24; I. Hammarberg, B. Malmer and
T. Zachrisson, Byzantine Coins [found in Sweden. Commentationes de Nummis Saeculorum
IX-XI in Suecia repertis. Nova Series] 2 (Stockholm-London, 1989). pp. 26, 62.
25 Grierson, Dumbarton Oaks Collection, p. 408; see also p. 432. The position of this Class in
the sequence of milkresk is not absolutely certain, but the context in which our example
occurs is quite consistent with Griersons preference: ibid., p. 416.
26 T.J. Arne, Birkagraven nr 632 [och Kejsar Theophilos mynt], Fornvunnen 41 (1946), p.
216; Birka. [Untersucbungen und Studien], 11.1, Systematische Analysen der Gruberfunde, G.
Arwidsson (ed.) (Stockholm, 1984), pp. 47, 5 1 , 57, 222, 224, 226, 228, 275; ibid., 11.3
(Stockholm, 19891, pp. 15-16, 158. For a photograph of the reconstituted necklace, see
Arbman, Griber, Tafel I 19, where our mifkresron is designated as (a). It should, however, be
noted that doubts about this reconstruction have been raised by G . Arwidsson in Birka, 11.3,
p. 47. For a catalogue of the grave goods: Arbman, Gruber, pp. 2 1 0 - 1 3 .

Eurly Medieval Europe 199>4 ( I )

 The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious: whence and wherefore? 51

in the later nineteenth century.26aIt is nonetheless striking that copper

coins in addition to a miliaresion of Theophilus should have been found
in the same place, whereas no other exclusively ninth-century emperors
folles have been found anywhere else in Sweden. If these examples of the
predominant class of follis of the 830s were brought by the same person
or party of persons that brought the milimesion datable to c.838-40,
they arrived no earlier than c. 838, but not necessarily any later.
Two more copper coins of Theophilus have been unearthed approxi-
mately 400 kilometres to the north of Birka, at Sty mas in Angermanland.
O n e is afollzs of Theophilus, of the same Class and dating as the two
examples from Birka, although belonging to a slightly different variant of
this Class. It was both pierced and fitted with a bracket for use as a
pendant. The other coin has been classified as a half-follis, datable to 8 3 0 l
1-842, and it, too, was used as a pendant. The two coins were found in a
rich female burial.6b These coins, like the Birka rniliuresion, formed part
of a necklace which also consisted of beads of cornelian, rock-crystal and
glass. If the use of copper coins as pendants and the lack of silver objects
reflect the limited means of even a wealthy woman in outlying Styrnas,
the small, low-value, half-follis suggests, in itself, the passage through the
Baltic region of some visitor from lands where such small change circu-
lated; for it could hardly have been an object of barter. And the approxi-
mate coincidence of the issue date of the half-follzs and the other coins
discussed above with the attempt of the Rhos envoys to return to their
northern homeland is undeniable.
O u r seventh coin of Theophilus was found approximately 800 kilo-
metres east of Birka, during excavations at Gorodishche. The major
settlement, standing on raised ground beside the river Volkhov just
below its point of outflow from Lake Ilmen, has only undergone
systematic investigation from the 1970s onwards, but already a cogent
case has been presented for identifying it with the Holmgar&-of Old
Norse sagas, and for regarding it as the precursor of Novgorod, which
later arose two kilometres downstream along the Volkhov. Numerous
structures have been excavated in the central part of the settlement. They

161
Btrka, 11.3, p. 141;Wiskhn, Myntfynd f G n Uppland, no. 4, p. 28; no. 27, p. 36;Hamrnar-
berg, Malrner and Zachrisson, Byzantine Coins, pp. 26, 6 2 ;Plate I:12, 13.
26bB. Malrner and I. Wisihn, MynrJyndfranAngermanland (Sveriges Mynthistoria Landskap-
sinventeringen 2 ) (Stockholm, 1983),no. 65,p. 38; Hammarberg, Malmer and Zachrisson,
Byzantine Coins, pp. 26, 84; Plate I : 11, 14;see Grierson, Dumbarton Oaks Collection, p p .
415,438-9.
E. Miihle, [Die] studtiscben Handelszentren [der nordwestlzcben Rus] (Stuttgart, 1991),pp.
86-7; see E.N. Nosov, [Novgorodskoe (Riurikovo)] Gorodishche (Leningrad, rggo), p p .
183-4; idem, Ryurik Gorodishche [and the Settlements to the North of Lake Ilmen], in
M.A. Brisbane (ed.) The Archaeology of Novgorod, Russia. Recent Results from tbe Town
and its Hinterland (Lincoln, 199z),pp. 59-60.

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 ( I )

52 Jonathan Shepard

were, for the most part, small and they seem to have acted as stores,
sheds or workshops. In one of these structures was found what has been
described as a bronze coin - presumably in fact a foflis - belonging to
Theophilus, together with thirty-eight fragments of hand-modelled pot-
tery.* Little of this structure is traceable because it was built over by
another small complex; the latter contained seven fragments of hand-
modelled pottery and fourteen of early wheel-turned ware. This ratio
seems to suggest a date of the first half of the tenth century for the
complex, whereas the lack of any wheel-turned pottery among a large
quantity of fragments in the earlier structure suggests strongly that it had
ceased to exist by the end of the ninth century.9 In other words, the
foflis of Theophilus reached its resting place in the citadel of Gor-
odishche before that time, perhaps soon after it was struck.
Gorodishche, enjoying the strong natural defences of an elevated
island site, held the key to control of the most important waterway
between the Russian interior and Lake Ladoga and the Baltic, and it
eventually became quite densely populated (see map, Figure I ) . The
earliest archaeological evidence which is reasonably firmly datable comes
from the later ninth century, but the site has yet to be fully investigated
and E. NOSOV, the archaeologist in charge of the recent excavations,
allows for the serious possibility that strata dating from before the mid-
ninth century may be found on the hill where the citadel st00d.3~These
considerations give some grounds for supposing that Gorodishche-
H6lmgarar may be associated with the island (jaziru) amidst bogs
which Arabic geographers from the late ninth century onwards report as
being the abode of the people whom they call the Rus. O n this island
there resided the ruler of the Rus, according to the earliest extant pur-
veyor of the information, ibn Rusta: he bore the title of khaqun.3 It is
true that the island is said to be three days journey in extent, and ibn
Rustas notions of the location of the Riis are far from clear-cut. But
there is a very suggestive concordance between his impression of the
island-like nature of the Riis habitat and the name of their pre-eminent
settlement, in that H6lmgarar means, in Old Norse, island compound.

* Nosov, Gorodishche, pp. 1 0 1 , 1 0 8 - 1 0 ;idem, Ryurik Gorodishche, pp. 33,35,45-6; Muhle,

Stadtischen Handelszentren, p. 82.
9 Nosov, Gorodishche, p. 149; idem, Ryurik Gorodishche, pp. 3 5-6. Miihle (Striiitischen
Hundelszentren, p. 80) posits a slightly later terminus post quem non for closed complexes
containing only hand-modelled pottery.
30 Nosov, Gorodishche, p. I 50; idem, Ryurik Gorodishche, pp. 36-7, 39.
ibn Rusta, Kitab al-Alaq an Najka, trans. G . Wiet, Lesatoursprictewx (Cairo, 1955), p. 163;
T. Lewicki (ed. with Polish trans.), trbdka arabskie do dziejow slowialiszczyzny, 11. I (Wroc-
law-Warsaw-Cracow-Gdansk, 1977). pp. 38-41.

Early Medieval Europe 1991 4 ( I )

 The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious: whence and wherefnre? 53

And whether or not this coincidence is regarded as conclusive, the nodal

position of Gorodishche and the configuration of other nearby settle-
ments makes it a very strong candidate for the role of residence of ibn
Rustas khaqan.3 It could, on this ground alone, reasonably be sup-
posed to have been the residence of the chaganus whose envoys visited
Louis the Pious in the spring of 839.
It may seem rash to posit a connexion between the finds of the seven
Byzantine coins, the nodal position of Gorodishche, and the Rhos em-
bassy. But one must emphasize the rarity of finds of Byzantine copper
coins of any period in the north, whether at Hedeby or in the Baltic
region in general. Finds of miliaresia are commoner, but these are mostly
issues from the mid-tenth century o r later; those of Basil I1 and Constan-
tine VIII (976-102 j ) are especially common.33 Such few ninth-century
Byzantine examples as are known tend to occur in hoards of the tenth
century or later, for example a miliaresion of Basil I and Constantine
found in the Haffinds I1 hoard on Gotland.34 Even allowing for the
possibility that a number of unidentified Byzantine coins listed in the
Corpus of Swedish coin finds belong to the ninth century, this would
scarcely detract from the great unusualness of this configuration of finds
of copper coins of Theophilus. For such low-denomination coins are
most unlikely to have been used as currency in commercial transactions.
Neither are they likely to have been regarded as objects of inherent value
or as normally having much aesthetic appeal. Of the Swedish examples,
only thefolles from Styrnas had been fitted with a bracket. The condition
of the example from Gorodishche is not yet clear, but as we have seen, it
was found in an archaeological context probably dating from before the

Nosov, Gorodishche, pp. 150, 175-83; idem, Ryurik Gorodishche, pp. I I , 13, 15-24, 37.
Fuller discussion in S. Franklin and J. Shepard, Kiewan Rus (forthcoming).
j C. Morrisson, Le rBle des Varanges dans la transmission de la monnaie byzantine en

Scandinavie, in R. Zeitler (ed.) Les pays du nord et Byzance (Scandinavie et Byzance). Actes
du collogue dllpsal. 20-22 avril 1979 (Uppsala, 1981), p, 136; Hammarberg, Malmer and
Zachrisson, Byzantine Coins, pp. 9, 14, 107.
j 4 Corpus Nummorum Saeculorum IX-XI qui in Suecia reperti sunt, B. Malmer (ed.), I .
Gotland, 2. Bal-Buttle (Stockholm, 1977), no. 1439, p. 205. However, one should note a
miliaresion of Michael 111, Theodora and Thecla (842-56) found in a Birka grave also
containing a denarius of Charles the Bald: Arbman, Gruber, p. 1 7 8 ; see Birrka, 11.3, p. 139;
Hammarberg, Malmer and Zachrisson, Byzantine Coins, pp. 27, 61-2. A location some-
where in the north-eastern part of the Frankish lands is proposed for the formation of the
coin complex (including a gold solidus of Michael 111) of a hoard at H o n , Norway; the hoard
was probably deposited before A D 875 : K. Skaare, Die karolingischen Miinzfunde in
Skandinavien und der Schatzfund von Hon, Hamburger Beitruge zur Numismatik 20
(1966), pp. 404-8; idem,Der Schatzfund von H o n und seine Miinzen, Commentationes
Numcsmaticae. Festgabe fur Gert und Vera Hatz zum 4. Januar 1988 dargebracht (Ham-
burg, 1988), pp. 58-60. For these two references (and a photocopy of the lattermost), I am
very grateful to D r Ctcile Morrisson.

Early Medieval Ewope 1995 4 ( I )

s4 Jonathan Shepard

end of the ninth century.31 These considerations alone could point to

the coins having been brought to the Baltic world on a single occasion,
and virtually by chance, by a traveller or travellers coming more o r less
directly from the Byzantine world. In other words, they are unlikely to
have changed hands many times on their way to the north, as currency o r
gifts. To the question of who such travellers might be, the A B offer an
answer: the coins could have been brought by the Rhos emissaries
as minor curiosities o r simply as loose change in their purses. So, too,
with the miliaresion of Theophilus which had, according to Arne, been
demonetized and buried in a grave at Birka by c. 850, and which more
recent scholarship assigns to the younger Birka le~e1.3~ The distribu-
tion pattern of most of these finds of Theophilus coins could register the
successive ports of call of the emissaries - bound for the Baltic from
Ingelheim by way of Hedeby, and later putting in at Birka, the seat of a
Swedish rex. Around the year 830 Louis the Pious had sent Ansgar there
as a missionary, in response to a request for preachers from Swedish
emissaries, and a mission under Bishop Gauzbert was still working in
Sweden at the end of the decade.37 As for the twofolles belonging to the
necklace excavated at Styrnas, the necklace could well have been assem-
bled at Birka. There, too, a necklace consisting of glass and cornelian
beads and a coin of Theophilus was deposited in a rich female grave.
From central Sweden there ran, in the mid-ninth century, a well-tried
route to Staraia Ladoga, where the river Volkhov led to Gorodishche. As
we have noted, this settlement, too, seems to have been of pre-eminent
political significance.
That there might be a link between the Birka miliaresion and the Rhos
visitors to Ingelheim was considered possible by Arne already in 1946,
and he drew attention both to the rarity of this find and to the Hedeby
follis of Theophilus. But he was writing before the folles at Birka and
Styrnas came to light, and also before the unearthing of the follis at
Gorodishche. And he assumed that the chaganus employing the emissar-
ies was based at Birka, rather than further east. Moreover, he gave
equally serious consideration to another route by which the miliaresion

$ Nosov, Gorodishche, p. 149. See above, n. 29.

j6 Arne, Birkagraven nr 632, p. 216; Birku, 11.1, pp. 47, 5 I , 57. Abovc, n. 26.
j 7 Rimbert, Vita Ansgarzi, W. Trillmich and R. Buchner (eds and trans.), Quellen des 9 . und I I .

Juhrhunderts zur Geschichte der Hamburgischen Kirche und des Reiches (Darmstadt, 1961),
pp. 38-40; 41, n. 56; 48-50; see I. Wood, Christians and Pagans [in Ninth-Century Scandi-
navia], in B. Sawyer, P. Sawyer and I. Wood (eds) The Christiunization of Scandinuviu
(Alingsis, 1987), pp. 39, 46; K. Hauck, Der Missionsauftrag Christi und das Kaiserturn
Ludwigs des Frommen, in P. Godman and R. Collins (eds) Churlemagnes Heir. N e w
Perspectives on the Reign of Louis the Pious (814-840), (Oxford, 1990). pp. 275, 295.

Early Medieval Europe 1991 4 ( I )

 The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious: whence and wherefore? 55

might have reached Birka, via Kha~aria.3~ It seems to me that the pattern
of evidence points towards the Rhos of 839 as the bearers of these coins
rather more clearly than it did in Arnes day. For there is one further
item of evidence which seems to be consistent with, even while it compli-
cates, our proposition. This is a Byzantine lead seal, excavated in 1966 in
the lower settlement strata of Hedeby.39
The seal belonged to a certain Theodosius patrikios, basilikos protos-
patharios and chartoularios of the vestzarion. The publisher of the seal,
the late V. Laurent, judged the seal to have been struck between 820 and
860, and he stressed the resemblance of its lettering to that on the gold
coins of Theophilus.4 H e also drew attention to the mission to the west
of the patrikios Theodosius in quest of aid, summarizing the grounds for
identifying him with the proprietor of the seal thus: the same name, the
same very high court-title (patrikios),the same dating, above all the need
to build up the reserves of the imperial vestiarion. By reserves Laurent
had in mind material such as half-finished iron, which could be used for
making weapons. He suggested that Theodosius the chartoularios or one
of his officials might have concluded at Hedeby a treaty concerning the
supply of raw materials to the Byzantine armed forces. Laurent pre-
sented his case as a hypothesis, in default of another plausible ex-
planation.4 He did not cite the original sources mentioning the western
missions of Theodosius, or note that those sources specify his family
name as Babutzicus. Laurents identification of Theodosius as the issuer
of the seal was noted by J. Ferluga, who offered cautious endorsement.
Ferluga observed, laconically yet rather opaquely, that Theodosiuss first
journey to the west would have coincided with the celebrated embassy
bringing the Rhos to Ingelheim. H e forebore from further comment,
save for the tentative suggestion that the Hedeby seal find might reflect a
somewhat greater interest of the Byzantine government in new markets
and new lands.@

38 Arne, Birkagraven nr 632, pp. 216-24.

3y V. Laurent, [Ein byzantinisches] Bleisiegel [aus Haithabu], Haithabu I Z (1978).p. 36; see
idem, [Le] corpus des sceaux [de 1Empire byzantin, 11, L hdministration centrule] (Paris,
1981), no. 695, pp. 359-60 (dating the Hedeby find to the second quarter of the ninth
century).
e Laurent, Bleisiegel, pp. 36-7. The reference which Laurent makes to a solidus of Theophilus
allegedly found at Hedeby is false: the cired page of Jankuhn (Hazthabu, 1963 ed., p. 2 2 3 )
comprises a series of line drawings, one of which is that of thefollis of Theophilus discussed
above; the drawing derives from Nobbe, Miinzfunde, p. 133. See above, n. 21.
4 Laurent, Bleisiegel, p. 39.
4 J. Ferluga, Der byzantinische Handel nach dem Norden im 9. und 10. Jahrhundert, Unter-
suchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und fruhgeschichthchen Zeit in Mittel- und
Nordeuropa, 4, Der Handel der Karolinger- und Wikzngerzezt,Abhandlungen der Akademie
der Wissenschaften in Gottingen, philo1.-historische Klasse, 3 Folge, I 56 (1987), p. 642.

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 ( I )

56 Jonathan Shepard

To attribute any economic significance to the seal found at Hedeby is

implausible, and a sharper distinction needs to be drawn between Theo-
dosius Babutzicus, first attested on a mission to Venice in 840, and
Metropolitan Theodosius of Chalcedon, one of the Byzantine envoys
who conducted the Rhos to Louis the Pious court in May 839.43But the
identification of Babutzicus as the issuer of the seal can be reinforced by
consideration of the configuration of circumstances which Laurents
posthumous publication touched on but did not fully explore. As we
have seen, the prime aim of the patrikios Theodosius first recorded
mission to the west was to induce the Venetians to raise a fleet against the
Moslem marauders, and it took place soon after the Byzantines apparent
attempt to incite the Ummayad caliph to send his fleet against the Aghla-
bids. It is a striking coincidence that the approximately contemporan-
eous seal of a high-ranking official bearing the same name as Theodosius
and with responsibilities for naval stores should be found in western
Europe. Diverse and mutable as the functions of the public vestiarion
were, a list of the preparations for the 949 expedition to Crete indicates
that the vestiarion was the chief depository of naval stores and ordnance
such as nails, sheets, sails, pitch, balistae and missiles.44 The office
(sekreton) of the vestiarion also disposed of money and other valuables.
But its naval scope is clearly shown by the listing of the official in charge
of Constantinoples naval arsenal among the chartoularios subordinates
in a treatise on court-precedence of 899.4F The chartoularios of the
vestiarion would probably have been knowledgeable in matters of naval
supply and the fitting out of vessels for military operations in 840, as in
949. In this period an array of sixty boats purpose-built for war is
extremely unlikely to have been ready to hand in Venice, while Theodo-
sius is said to have wanted action to be taken quickly (velociter) against
the Saracen raide1-s.4~It is also reported that he stayed in Venice for a

43 Such a distinction is drawn by Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, 178, n. 2 ; Dolger, Pariser
Papyrus, p. 210 and n. 9;Ohnsorge, Kaiserbiindnis, p. 1 5 3 ; Lounghis, Ambassades, pp.
167-9,472-3; D.M. Nicol, Byzuntium and Venice (Cambridge, 1988). p. 27 and n. z. See
above, p. 41.
44 Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, De Cuerimonits, 1.1. Rciske (ed.), I (Bonn, 1829), pp.
672-3, 676-7; J. Ebersolt, Sur les fonctions et les dignitis du Vestiarium byzantin, Etudes
sur lhistoire et sur lurt de Byzance. Melanges Charles Diehl, I (Paris, 1930), p. 84; R.
Guilland, Contribution i Ihisroire administrative de Iempire byzantin: le chartulaire er le
grand chartulaire, Revue des etudes sud-est europeennes 9 (1971), pp. 41f-16; N.Oikono-
mides, [Les] listes [de prtseance byzantins des I X et X siPcles] (Paris, 197r),p. 316;Laurent,
Corpus des sceaux, p. 3 5 3 ; Constantine Porphyrogenitus, Three Treatises on Imperial Milit-
a q Expeditions,
~ J.F. Haldon (ed. and trans.) (Vienna, 1990),pp. 191-2, 199(commentary).
45 exurtisres: Oikonomides, Listes, pp. 120-1, 3 16.
46 Dandolo, Chronicu, p. I 50.

Early Medieval Europe 1991 4 ( I )

 The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious: whence and wherefore? 57

whole year.47 A prolonged stay would suggest some role for Theodo-
sius besides the bestowal of the Doges court-title or the entreating of
the Venetians to go to war. John the Deacon implies that he was engaged
in the latter activity, yet he also asserts that the Doge willingly agreed to
Theodosius request, and set about making ready the ships with all
haste (omni sub festinatione). There is thus an element of inconsistency
in Johns account, in that his depiction of Theodosius pleading jars with
his (albeit vague and perhaps formulaic) claim that Doge Pietro complied
willingly with the request. The picture of entreating may represent the
Venetian chroniclers own attempt at explaining why Theodosius stayed
on in Venice for so long. It is at this point that the identification of the
patrikios Theodosius with Theodosius, chartoularios of the vestiarion,
seems to shed light on the length of stay, rather than constituting an
exercise in special pleading. For if in fact the long-stay visitor to Venice
was the chartoularzos in charge of Byzantiums naval stores and ord-
nance, he was well qualified to provide advice on the rigging-out of
ordinary vessels or the building of any new ones; he could also have
brought the means for carrying this out, in the form of equipment or
money. Moreover, John the Deacon seems to indicate that some time
during Doge Pietro Tradonicos term of office (836-64) were built two
warships . . . the like of which had never been in Venice before. John
states that in the Greek language they are called zulandriue, i.e. chelun-
did (plural), a term for a Byzantine warship.4 This could have been a
product, direct or indirect, of Theodosius stay.
If the seal found at Hedeby belonged to Theodosius Babutzicus, it
may register some militaro-diplomatic demarche of the sort which he
performed in Venice and which led him to Emperor Lothars court a
couple of years later.49 The precise date when the document attached to
our seal reached Hedeby is undetermined; so, too, is the identity of its

47 integroque anno:John the Deacon, Chronicon, p. 17. Ohnsorge (Kaiserbiindnis, pp. rr3-4)
claims for Theodosius a stay from May 840 to May 841 on the strength of Johns mention in
the immediately preceding sentence of an eclipse in the month of May; this eclipse has been
dated to 5 May 840. It is questionable whether so specific a chronology can be built on the
sequence of information offered by John. His material is not tabulated into year-entries: he
was collating material, much of it evidently lacking any year-date, from various sources. See
L. Capo, Rassegna di studi sulla cronachistica veneziana, Bulletino dell Istitrrto Stonco
Italian0 86 (1976-77), pp. 389-90. Johns statement, after mentioning the eclipse, that hac
denique tempestate Theodosius came t o Venice should probably be taken as evidence that
Theodosius was in Venice around the time of the eclipse rather than that he necessarily
arrived after it. His statement that Theodosius stayed a whole year could likewise represent
an approximation.
48 John the Deacon (Chronicon, p. 1 8 ) states that the ships were built by the forementioned
Doges; Pietro Tradonico is the last Doge to have been mentioned by name, and he was Doge
during the period in question, the 840s. chelandion (pl. chelandia) was in the ninth and tenth
centuries a general term for warships: H. Ahrweiler, Byzance et la rner (Paris, 1966), pp. 41 I-
3.
49 Above, pp. 44-6.

Early Medieval Europe 1995 4 ( I )

58 Jonathan Shepard

intended addressee. This could have been the Danish king, Horic, whose
relations with Louis the Pious were largely co-operative in the later years
of Louis reign. Horics stance towards Louis heirs, too, was at least
overtly amicable and respectful. But it could equally well have been some
other potentate, who perhaps never received the message intended for
him. O n e cannot totally exclude the possibility that a sealed document
issued by Theodosius in Constantinople was brought to Hedeby by the
Rhos emissaries, after they had been commended to Louis the Pious in
May 839. In that case, the seal would have arrived at the same time as the
various coins discussed above. But it is more probable that the seal was
issued by Theodosius after he himself had arrived in the west, and was
thus better placed to gain up-to-date information about the Scandinavian
world and to act upon it. A message issued from Constantinople to a
Nordic potentate would be more likely to bear the emperors name and
seal than those of one of his officials; for a chartoularios of the vestiarion,
senior as he was, could not have expected to command as much attention
far afield, particularly if diplomatic links between Byzantium and the
Scandinavian world were only just being forged.
If Theodosius Babutzicus issued our seal while in the west, the ques-
tion arises as to whether he did so during his first or his second visit
there. Either occasion is possible. If Emperor Theophilus was in 839
courting the Ummayad caliph in the hope of inducing him to attack the
Aghlabids, he could also have been envisaging a raid on the central
Mediterranean Moslems from another, far remoter, quarter. But there is
something to be said for regarding Theodosius second visit to the west
as the likelier occasion of the issue of our seal. For then he headed north
of the Alps to visit Lothar, in fulfilment of Theophilus instructions to
request noble and well-stocked armies from the west.>The launching
of a Scandinavian raid on Moslem Sicily or Ifrikiya at that time might
perhaps have seemed an apt diversionary measure. Moreover if, as has
been proposed above, the Rhos emissaries received from Louis safe
conduct to Hedeby and travelled on across the Baltic to their chaganus,
and if this became known to Theodosius Babutzicus, he might even have
envisaged some sort of collaboration between a Frankish land army and a
fleet sent by some Nordic potentate or potentates. At any rate, Babutzi-
cus naval expertise would have been of potential application on his
second visit to the west, as well as his first one.
Such a conception of Franco-Scandinavian liaison would have been
far-fetched and impracticable, but not inconceivable. King Horic was a

yo Wood, Christians and Pagans, pp. 45-6, 48; J. Haywood, Dark Age Naval Power. A Re-
assessment of Frankish and Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Actiwity (London, 1991).pp. I 29-30, I 3 5 .
I Theophanes Continuatus, Bekker (ed.), p. 1 3 5 ; see also Genesius, p. 50; above, n. 16.

Early Medieval Europe 1991 4 ( I )

 The Rhos guests of Louis the Pious: whence and wherefore? 59

possible fleet-provider, and in 841 Lothar granted Walcheren and its

district to the chief of a Danish war-fleet, Harald, with whom he had had
associations for some time. And the Byzantines could have inferred
from the Rhos emissaries reports that access to the Mediterranean from
the Ocean was easier than was in fact the case. Long-range diplomatic
exchanges were, after all, occurring around that time, and Viking raids
far to the south were soon to prove to be feasible. In 839-40 an embassy
from the Cordoban caliphate visited Constantinople, in response to the
forementioned Byzantine embassy. O n e of the Ummayad envoys was
the poet al-Ghazal, and we possess a stylized and partly fabulous
account of his stay on the Bosphorus.3 A few years later, in 844, Seville
was attacked by the Mad@ who are called the Rus. . . . The latter took
captives and gave up the city to plundering, fire and slaughter.4 The
author of these words, al-Yakubi, wrote in the late ninth century and he
seems to have been well-informed about the political geography of
Spain. The Viking despoilers of Seville had come from a base in the
mouth of the Loire rather than straight from Scandinavia, while al-
Yakubis designation of them as R k merely indicates that they were
Northmen, and not necessarily that they hailed from Sweden or east of
the Baltic. Equally, there is no reason to suppose that their depredations
were instigated by Theodosius Babutzicus or any other Byzantine emiss-
ary. Byzantium had, after all, recently been trying to court the
Ummayads as potential allies against the Aghlabid emirs of Ifrikiya and
the Moslem occupiers of Crete. Even so, this demonstration of a Scandi-
navian war-fleets ability to operate far from home waters may have
enacted what Byzantine strategic thought or wishful thinking had
already begun to envisage.
There is, then, no compelling reason to associate the seal of the patrik-
20s Theodosius directly with the Byzantine embassy which escorted the
Rhos to Ingelheim in 839. But if, as seems overwhelmingly probable,
the identification of this official with Theodosius Babutzicus holds good,
the Rhos embassy belongs to a bout of Byzantine diplomatic activity

I AR s.a. 841, p. 39;Nelson (trans.), p. 5 1 ; above, n. jo.

$3 Levi-Provenqal, Echange dambassades, pp. 10-14; idem, Espagne musulmane, I, p. 2 5 3 ;
Roldan, Diiz and Diaz, Bizancio y al-Andalus, p. 271 (above, n. 9 ) .
14 . . . les Madjus quon appelle les Rus, al-Yakubi, Lespays, G . Wiet (trans.) (Cairo, 1937),
pp. 218-19 and n. 9. Whether al-Yakubis source used the term Ris o r whether he himself
made the identification of the pagans (Madifis) with the Kus known to him from Middle
Eastern sources o r personal observation is unclear: A . Melvinger, Les premzsres incursions
des Vikings en Occident dapres les sources arabes (Uppsala, 1915), pp. 44,48-9, 64-f, 81-4;
V. Minorsky, Kuda ezdili drevnie Rusy? in A.S. Tveritinova (ed.) Vostochnye istochniki po
istorii narodov iugo-vostochnoi i tsentrulnoi Evrope (Moscow, I 964), pp. LO, 24-6; The
Encyclopaediu of Islam, V (Leidcn, 1986), p. I i 18. A n attempt to explain away al-Yakubis
description of the raiders of 844 as R ~ i swas made by Gorsky, Problenia proiskhozhdeniia
nazvaniiaRus, p. 137, n. 40.(Above, n. 2 0 . )

Early Mraheval Europe 1 9 ~41( I )

60 Jonathan Shepard

which was as wide-ranging and ingenious as it was intensive. The

demarches were a mark of desperation as much as of Byzantine diploma-
tic enterprise, and only the mission to the nominally dependent ruler of
Venice bore tangible fruit, namely the Venetians expedition to Taranto.
At any rate, the despatch of a document bearing Theodosius seal to
somewhere in the Baltic world could well have been a by-product of the
visit of the Rhos embassy to Byzantium. To that extent, the seal found at
Hedeby serves to corroborate our reconstruction of the Rhos return
journey based on the coin finds and other archaeological evidence. It is,
of course, possible that the copper follis found at Hedeby was carried
there by the same messenger that brought the document with Theodo-
sius seal. But this contingency - which presupposes that Theodosius
took afollis-bearing courier with him to the west - would not necessarily
account for the coin finds at Birka, Styrnas and Gorodishche. And the
serious possibility that Theodosius seal represents some sort of follow-
up to other recent diplomatic contacts may shed new light on the cele-
brated embassy of 839. For the Byzantine governments solicitousness
for the Rhos emissaries safe return would be all the more understand-
able if it envisaged some sort of naval role for Northmen in the west,
rather than regarding them exclusively as a threat to its Black Sea
approaches. Such hopes of collaboration with some fleet-commander of
the Baltic region were of course vain, fostered perhaps not only by faulty
geography but also by orderly and co-operative deportment on the part
of the envoys from the Rhos chaganus. But at least the Byzantines
supposition that the emissaries might make their way back to their
homeland via Francia was well-founded, if the coin-finds from
Hedeby, Birka, Styrnas and Gorodishche really can be connected with
them, and if they really do offer inklings as to the Rhos route.

Faculty of History
University of Cambridge

Early Medieval Europe 1991 4 ( I )