Belarusians brought the "Cross of Queen Sophia" from Copenhagen. Historians call it 4000 euro costume jewelry

On August 22, the "first Belarusian pirate fleet" arrived in Copenhagen with a golden replica of Dagmar's Cross — a medieval artifact that the expedition participants associate with Sophia of Minsk, a 12th-century princess and Queen of Denmark.

Near the famous Little Mermaid, Belarusians staged a theatrical sword fight, then boarded boats and set off along the Danish capital's harbor. A concert and a ceremony for transferring the replica took place on the Royal Square, after which it was presented at the National Museum of Denmark, where the original is kept. The journey concluded with a visit to the church in Ringsted — Sophia's burial place.

No one, of course, intended to steal the museum relic: the action was ironically called "pirate." Belarusians brought a modern replica to Copenhagen, which Georgian jeweler Ilia Chakvetadze made for almost four thousand euros. In the future, the replica is planned to be transferred to the Museum of Free Belarus in Warsaw.

The participants themselves called their mission not the literal return of a museum artifact, but "the return of the figure of Sophia of Minsk to historical memory." However, even before the "fleet" landed, historians began to criticize the idea. Was it really Sophia's cross? Can this action be called "the return of a national sanctuary"? And are historical myths born during vivid media events?

We talked about this with historian Ales Pashkevich and director of the Belarusian Institute of Public History Aliaksei Lastouski. Both acknowledge: the version about the cross's connection to Sophia is open for discussion, and the initiative itself doesn't particularly harm anyone. But they see its prospects differently.

Павялічыць

What is known for certain in this story

The National Museum of Denmark houses a small golden relic cross adorned with cloisonné enamel. In Denmark, it is known as Dagmar's Cross — named after the Bohemian princess Marketa Přemyslovna, who became Danish Queen Dagmar after marrying King Valdemar II.

The cross was found in the 17th century in St. Bendt's Church in Ringsted, where the royal necropolis is located. The relic was transferred to the Royal Kunstkammer, believing it might have belonged to Dagmar. However, no reliable record of which specific grave the artifact originated from has been preserved.

The National Museum of Denmark itself describes the object as a Byzantine golden cross with enamel. Its dating remains debatable: researchers attribute it to the period from the 11th century to approximately 1200. The museum also cautiously notes that in the 17th century, it was only presumed that the cross belonged to Queen Dagmar.

Aliaksei Lastouski points out: this is not a case where one unequivocal version suddenly collided with the imagination of enthusiasts. Science does not precisely know the place of the cross's creation, all its owners, or even in whose grave it was found.

— The cross itself clearly belongs to the Byzantine tradition. Most likely, it was made in Byzantium itself, possibly in Constantinople. This is a very high-quality work that required a highly developed jewelry workshop. But we cannot say exactly where it was created, — explains the historian. — We also do not have a precise record of its discovery. In the 17th century, during work in the royal necropolis, several graves were disturbed. Therefore, it is entirely possible that objects got mixed up and the cross from one burial ended up in another.

It is this uncertainty that left room for another version.

Павялічыць

How Dagmar's Cross became "Sophia's Cross"

In 1978, Danish medievalist and former head of the National Museum, Fritze Lindahl, put forward a hypothesis: the cross could have been brought to Denmark by Sophia of Minsk.

Sophia, also known as of Polotsk, came from a princely family and in 1157 married Valdemar I the Great. She became Queen of Denmark and mother of two future Danish kings. According to Lindahl's version, Sophia could have brought the relic with her and later passed it to her daughter Rikissa. Rikissa's burial was located near Dagmar's grave and was damaged during ancient works in the necropolis.

In 2021, Lizaveta Dubinka-Hushcha returned to this hypothesis. In an article for the peer-reviewed Journal of Belarusian Studies, she compared Dagmar's Cross with the Cross of Euphrosyne of Polotsk. The researcher noted similarities in shape, enamel colors, and some artistic details, and even suggested that the crosses might have been made by the same master.

Aliaksei Lastouski believes that such a version can be discussed. However, it consists of several sequential assumptions, each of which lacks final confirmation:

— The cross could have been passed down in the family. Sophia indeed came from lands Christianized in the Eastern, Byzantine tradition. Therefore, she appears to be a possible channel through which such an artifact could have entered Denmark. But it must be understood that this is only a hypothesis. It can be discussed, attempts can be made to find confirmations. But it will never reach a state where we can definitively say: "This was Sophia's cross." There are simply no corresponding sources that would confirm this. And since the artifact's origin is vague, other hypotheses of similar value can also be put forward.

"Without its own history, a replica of the cross is worthless"

While Lastouski separates a possible scientific hypothesis from an overly bold public interpretation, Ales Pashkevich questions the cultural prospects of the new replica itself:

— I don't really understand why all this. This story doesn't lend itself to creating a national myth, as Sophia of Minsk is an unknown figure to most Belarusians; she needs a long explanation. They recalled the cross, made a copy — but why? It's just an expensive item for four thousand euros. Any wealthy person can order similar costume jewelry. Myths are not created this way, — says the historian.

Павялічыць

For Ales Pashkevich, the value of a particular object is determined by the history it has experienced with society and the emotions it evokes. 

In this context, he suggests comparing the new replica with copies of the Cross of Euphrosyne of Polotsk. They are also not originals, but they hold much greater significance for Belarusians. The matter is not only in Euphrosyne's own fame. The cross, created in 1161, disappeared during World War II, and its fate is still unknown. Around its loss, a mystery arose, a hope for its return, and a conviction that the cross's disappearance symbolizes the tragic fate of Belarusian heritage.

— Euphrosyne's Cross might not have become so popular if it hadn't disappeared. An aura arose around it: it was taken away, hidden, we don't know where it is. This created a mystery and a feeling that it is important for Belarusians to get it back, — reflects Ales Pashkevich. — Therefore, the copy already embodies something: the light of the true cross's history, its fate, and its mystery falls upon it.

With Dagmar's Cross, there is no such history in Belarusian culture:

— It is kept in Copenhagen. It lies in the museum, no one is hiding it. If someone bought the ancient artifact itself at an auction, it would already have value simply because we would have a genuine thousand-year-old item before us. But when we produce a copy of an object that has not lived any history in the Belarusian consciousness, a mere declaration does not give it weight. This cross has no experience lived by Belarusians. It did not participate in any historical events. Without its own history, its copy is worthless as a historical artifact. It remains costume jewelry, — he summarizes.

"If people like this buzz, then it also has a right to exist"

Aliaksei Lastouski assesses the expedition more softly. In his opinion, not everything that revolves around history must conform to the format of an academic conference. Public history can be a game, an adventure, and even an entertaining attraction:

— This is undoubtedly a media event aimed at attracting as much attention as possible. An idea expressed by researchers is taken and transformed into an entertaining adventure designed for media promotion. I myself am a bit conservative in this sense, but if people like this buzz, then it also has a right to exist. It's good when history is studied in offices, but it must resonate in people's hearts.

Павялічыць

Lastouski sees the problem in the statements that begin to accompany the action:

— The project is based on a very shaky version. To speak of this cross's status as a national sanctuary of Belarusians is a clear exaggeration and distortion. Its connection with Belarus and Sophia is not proven. And for something to become a national symbol, it must live a long history in people's consciousness. It's not enough to simply make an ambitious statement and call it a sanctuary.

Павялічыць

Can national myths and symbols be created artificially

Behind the story of the cross lies a broader question: can society consciously create a new myth for itself?

Ales Pashkevich doubts that viable national myths can generally be successfully constructed artificially according to a preconceived plan. This requires not only an object and an information campaign, but also public demand, emotional drive, and an appropriate historical moment.

— I don't think myths are created like this: saying, for instance, a myth should be made around this, but not around that. When something takes hold, it happens more naturally. At a certain moment, an image might "click" or it might not. Much depends on the needs of the time. When a myth begins to be artificially created, it often leads to nothing.

Ales Pashkevich names the Dvůr Králové Manuscript in the Czech Republic as a classic example. In the 19th century, it was presented as a monument of ancient Czech literature, but it was later discovered to be a forgery. Nevertheless, the manuscript managed to play its role during the period of national revival: society needed proof of the antiquity and cultural grandeur of the Czechs.

In Belarusian history, a similar function, according to Ales Pashkevich, was partly fulfilled by the books of Mikola Yermalovich:

— In the late 1980s, there was almost nothing similar in Belarusian. People, especially the intelligentsia, needed inspiring works that allowed them to be proud of their own, Belarusian, not Soviet, past. Yermalovich dismantled some myths and simultaneously created others — for example, about the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as an exclusively Belarusian state. Later, academic science did not confirm much of it. But at that moment, the books responded to a real public need and therefore worked.

Today, the historian believes, the information field is no longer empty. There is historiography, professional researchers, and opportunities to quickly verify a prominent version. It will no longer be possible to repeat the situation of the late 1980s.

"We don't need to prove that we are Europeans"

One of the main messages of the expedition is to show that Belarusian lands were already included in the European political and cultural space in the Middle Ages. Sophia became Queen of Denmark, and her children — part of several European dynasties.

Ales Pashkevich is not convinced by such an argument:

— Our entire history is a European context. The history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is European. Our magnates studied in Europe, maintained ties with European courts, European culture and ideas came here. We don't need to prove again that we are Europeans through an ancient princess who was married off a thousand years ago. 

Aliaksei Lastouski views the search for European connections differently. He links it to the current situation of Belarusians, scattered across different countries after a large wave of emigration:

— There is an obvious paradox here. On the one hand, people are looking for their roots, their heritage, what was forgotten or lost. On the other — Belarusians are now scattered all over the world. Such a situation naturally forces them to look for something Belarusian outside Belarus. And suddenly it turns out that our traces can be found in Copenhagen, Ringsted, in Danish dynastic history.

Did the action bring benefits

Aliaksei Lastouski believes that the initiative has already brought clear benefits: people who previously knew nothing about Sophia of Minsk, Dagmar's Cross, and the medieval connections between the Polotsk land and Scandinavia have started talking about them:

— The discussion about the relations between Denmark and the lands of Polotsk and Minsk has revived. Genealogical and international connections of that time are poorly researched and known to a narrow circle of people. Now they are being discussed — and this is useful, — he says. — The worst thing is when the past is uninteresting to us and perceived as a distant land. When films are made, tourist attractions are created, or such actions are held around history, it always causes controversy. But through controversy, we learn something new about ourselves and formulate our own positions.

Павялічыць

In his opinion, even an unproven version will not cause great harm if it is publicly called a hypothesis:

— The cross will not disappear or be stolen by pirates. People raised money, made a replica, got an opportunity for an adventure. But at the same time, they began to discuss the circumstances of the cross's discovery, its origin, and their own roots. Therefore, there is also a positive aspect to this story.

Ales Pashkevich does not believe that the replica will become a significant Belarusian symbol, but acknowledges the value of self-organization:

— I am skeptical about the prospect of this image taking hold. But people did everything themselves: they didn't wait for anyone, didn't shift responsibility to anyone, didn't demand anything. If they have the resources, enthusiasm, and desire, this can only be welcomed. 

However, after the trip to Copenhagen, the replica of the cross acquired its own biography. It became an artifact of Belarusian emigration, a public action, and a great debate about whether a national myth can be created in a jewelry workshop. For now, the most accurate definition of this object depends on who is looking at it. 

Павялічыць

• 20
• 0
• 4
• 4
• 1
• 0
• 0
• 3