Passions around the "Cross of Queen Sophia" do not subside. Sergei Ablameika defended it, and Krytsuk analyzed the primary sources

As we reported earlier, a group of Belarusians manufactured and brought to Denmark a golden copy of Dagmar's Cross — a medieval artifact that the expedition participants associate with Sophia of Minsk, a Belarusian princess of the 12th century who became Queen of Denmark. Among the main messages is to popularize unknown pages of our history, to show that Belarusian lands were already included in the European political and cultural space in the Middle Ages.

A number of professional Belarusian historians and researchers, in particular, Aliaksandr Pashkevich and Aliaksei Lastouski on the pages of Nasha Niva, skeptically assessed the creation of the cross replica, calling it the creation of an artificial myth on shaky grounds. But Doctor of Historical Sciences and Radio Svaboda journalist Sergei Ablameika came out in defense of the initiative.

On his Facebook page, Ablameika expressed surprise at the reaction of colleagues who repeat the thesis "not proven," and stated that the version of the cross belonging to the Belarusian princess is based on authoritative European research.

"And who creates myths? The public? No. It turns out that these are professional Danish historians. In particular, the Danish medievalist, director of the National Museum of Denmark, Frice Lindahl, who back in 1978 put forward the hypothesis that the cross could have come from the burial of Sophia of Minsk's daughter — Rikissa — damaged in the 17th century," wrote Ablameika.

He further noted that the Danish scientific hypothesis from 50 years ago seems the most probable, as it is unclear where else an Eastern Christian cross could have appeared in the burial vault of Danish kings. He called the reaction of Belarusian researchers "a friendly-negative Belarusian scientific chorus," jesting that, apparently, Belarusian historians are more qualified and more professional than "some Danish professors."

Павялічыць

Павялічыць

What Frice Lindahl actually wrote

Ablameika and other defenders of the cross were answered by historian Roman Krytsuk, who decided to refer directly to Frice Lindahl's original article "Dagmarkorset — endnu engang" ("Dagmar's Cross — once again"), published in the journal Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark in 1978. All issues of the publication are digitized and available in open access on the website of the National Museum of Denmark.

Having analyzed the text, Krytsuk noted that Ablameika and others, apparently, did not read the article itself, but used its distorted retelling.

The Danish researcher did not claim that the "Minsk hypothesis" is the only or most probable one. In her work, based on X-ray studies and analysis of European collections, Lindahl consistently addresses two groups of questions: to whom the cross belonged at the time of burial and how the Byzantine artifact actually made its way to Denmark.

Павялічыць

As for whose tomb the cross was removed from in the 17th century, the researcher considers two versions:

• From the tomb of Queen Dagmar (Markéta Přemyslovna).
• From the damaged tomb of Queen Rikissa of Denmark, Sophia's daughter.

Regarding how the Byzantine enkolpion physically reached Scandinavia, Lindahl provides four equally valid hypotheses:

1. The cross came to Denmark as a diplomatic gift from Byzantine emperors to Russian princes, and then passed to Queen Sophia.
2. The cross was a direct diplomatic gift from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos to the Danish King Eric I the Good around 1103. A similar fact is recorded in chronicles.
3. The cross was brought by Queen Dagmar from Bohemia. This version is based solely on folk tradition.
4. Damage to the artifact may indicate that it became a war trophy during the Fourth Crusade in 1204, when crusaders plundered Constantinople, after which it somehow made its way to Denmark.

Thus, the version about the relic's connection with Belarus through Sophia is only one of several possible hypotheses considered by Danish science half a century ago.

Павялічыць

"I would advise Belarusian historians and specialists in 19th-20th century history to stop deliberating on topics in which you not only do not understand, but also have not even familiarized yourselves with the primary sources," Krytsuk quipped.

A separate point of criticism was the categorical naming of Queen Sophia as "of Minsk." Researchers point out that her origin is also a debatable question in science.

Only Sophia's mother, Rikissa of Poland, daughter of the Polish King Bolesław III and the Swabian princess Salomea of Berg, is precisely known. The version that Sophia's father was the Minsk prince Volodar Glebovich is only one of the historical hypotheses.

Павялічыць

There is another, no less substantiated scientific version: Sophia's father could have been Prince Vladimir Vsevolodovich of Novgorod.

"This automatically excludes her as a figure somehow connected with the history of Belarus," notes Krytsuk, referring to the works of Halén, Baumgarten, Pashuto, and Kotlyarchuk. Frice Lindahl also considered both options in her 1978 article.

Why historians react so sharply

The dispute around the artifact has exposed a deeper problem: the boundaries of what is permissible in public history and responsibility for the creation of national myths.

Historian Aliaksandr Parshankou reminds that the history of the cross remains obscure, and its exact place of creation and the owner's name are unconfirmed.

"We are witnessing an attempt to pass off as a 'national shrine of Belarusians' something that it never was and should not be," writes Parshankou.

— The logical order of actions should be completely different: first — thorough scientific research, then — publication of results, their open discussion in the professional community, and only after that — popularization and loud statements.

In fact, such actions demean professional historians and consciously mislead the public."

Archaeologist and historian Mikalai Plavinsky expressed himself even more sharply. According to him, such myths cause direct harm to national identity, giving reasons for competitors and propagandists to treat all Belarusian history as "nonsense."

"The organizers of such events are trying to destroy the very foundations of national consciousness. And they do this quite consciously, because a large number of 'boring' professional historians have been telling them this for more than a year," Krytsuk quotes Plavinsky. — But an even bigger problem emerges.

These detractors have a fairly broad and monolithic front of support from journalists and influencers who try in every possible way to whitewash this specific act and other similar ones. Personally, if I didn't already not care, I would be scared."

• 8
• 0
• 0
• 0
• 1
• 1
• 0
• 0