A unique object from Harald Bluetooth’s time? By Sven Rosborn In autumn 2014, a historical ind was made of a somewhat more remarkable character than we would normally expect. The ind included a round gold plate of a diameter of roughly 4.5 cm and a weight of 25.23 g. It bears a Latin inscription on one side and a cross surrounded by an octagonal ridge on the other. It is primarily the inscription that has caused such a sensation, as it mentions Harald Gormsson, i.e. Harald Bluetooth, Denmark’s great Viking king, who died in the 980s. Naturally, much has been written about the sudden appearance of such a ind, a mix of enjoyment, facts and fantasies, not least in today’s modern world with the internet as a rapid messenger. Add to his, the pride of various nations about their own cultural heritage and what happens when an object may, on certain points, shed new light on this history. such great value that it should be considered in historical research. An old object can be assessed on three criteria: provenance, the degree of authenticity based on the object itself, and the historical context it represents. These three aspects will be therefore be addressed below. The object’s provenance In c. 1840, in the village of Wiejkowo, around three kilometres east of Wolin in north-western Poland, the ruins of the medieval church were demolished. During the foundations of the current church, a large number of objects are said to have been found. There is talk of a large number of Arabic silver coins, as well as other items characterised as “scrap”. The area around the church belonged to the old German family, von Ploetz. This family was obviously not interested in the ind, but the local priest was. A hundred years later, the World War was in its inal stages. Many villagers wanted to lee from the Russian zone across to the Allied zone. The priest at that time therefore sold objects in order to be able to fund this escape. The ind in question ended up in the possession of the present owner’s grandfather. The rest of the ind went to other buyers. In 1986, the family and the object came to Sweden, where they settled in Malmö. The object involves a subject, namely the Viking king Harald Bluetooth, who has long been the subject of much research and interest. Not least, this applies to the problems regarding the large Viking monument in Jelling in Central Jutland. Here, there are two huge mounds, the remains of one or two large stone ships, an early church, a remarkable chamber tomb and two historical rune stones. This is Denmark’s largest national monument, where Harald and his father Gorm played the lead roles in the almost half a millennia-old discussion that has arisen about the historical signiicance of the site. Modern-day excavations have furthermore shown traces of extensive constructions no longer in existence. As a result of all this, there have been numerous publications over the years about both Jelling and Harald Bluetooth. Some Danish and Swedish coin experts think that the object is a forgery from the 1700’s but they have not seen it themselves and have not made any investigation. This statement, however, is based on a Polish numismatists who completely misunderstood the situation. He has not seen the object himself. Instead, he creates a completely improbable story: The current owner of the gold object contacted the author personally in November 2014 in an attempt to obtain more historical facts. It was a truly exciting yet informal meeting. Naturally, extensive scientiic analysis of such an object is required in order to conirm its credibility. Unfortunately, the ind is classed as an archaeological “stray ind”, i.e. there is no conclusive evidence of it having been found in situ and in a scientiically veriiable context. Yet the history of the object, as well as its own evidence, is of ”The ”von Plöt” is for 99% the town of Ploty, which was a residence of very rich noble family ”von der Osten” [btw - relatives to Swedish royal Vasa family]. In 18th and 19th c. they had a very big library (some parts are still there) and one of the biggest collection of art, coins and other antiquities in Pomerania. The von der Osten Family Figure 1. Diagram showing the amount of literature published through the ages in terms of Harald Bluetooth and Jelling complex. Analysis: Sven Rosborn, see Note 20th 1 began to study history at school that interest in the box of inds was awakened. She took out the box and began to polish the object, revealing the shiny metal. The daughter took it to school, where the teacher realised the object’s worth and aroused the family’s interest. The owner contacted various museums, but as they did not have anything to compare it with and were not experts in the period in question, they were unable to provide a detailed answer to the question of what it might be. He also contacted Polish archaeologists, but again no answer could be given. Furthermore, he contacted the Swedish Royal Coin Cabinet but has yet to receive an oficial reply. By now, quite a lot had been written about it online, giving rise to major debate, and many people felt that it was all a question of a counterfeit gold object. The owner’s father is then said to have given up and suggested that the object be sold and melted down to avoid more publicity. Faced with this prospect, someone in Stockholm took up the subject, bringing the debate back to a serious level, and sought the opinion of a Dutch numismatist. He was convinced that the object was historically correct.2 It was shortly after this that the author of this article became aware of the case through ”Arkeologiforum.se”, and also became involved in it after talking with the person in Stockholm over the telephone. Based on the discus- Figure 2. Map of the Wolin area. The arrow marks the place where the gold plate was found. were well educated and I have no doubts that they could order such thing. I was quite popular in 18-19th c. to prepare such ”antiquities”. ”Von Plöt” does not refer to a place, the city Płoty located ifty kilometers from Wiejkowo. Instead it´s about a local noble family named von Ploetz, the owner of Wiejkowo. When the ind was bought by the current owner’s grandfather it was found together with other items in two cofins with von Ploetz painted mark of nobility and with the text ”Gross Weckow”, ie Wiejkowo in Polish. These cofins were since then a long time belonging to the family.1 Today, the ind consists of ive objects: a silver coin from Otto I’s reign, a probable bracelet in bronze with a dash decoration covering the surface, a fragment of another bronze bracelet, a small stamped piece of gold and the gold object itself. The Polish numismatists believe that: Figure 3. The Church in Wiejkowo. Photo: Radosław Drożdżewski, Wikipedia. sion taking place on various forums, it became evident that there was both a lack of archaeological knowledge, and a lack of a deeper acquaintance with the Viking Age history of the late 900s. Having met the owner and seen the object, the author wrote about the ind on Facebook. A newspaper asked to do an article on it, with several other newspapers subsequently following suit. Even the mass media in Poland drew attention to the ind. According to reports, antiquarian authorities were now also interested in the site of the ind. ”A new factor are the bronze bracelets, which in my opinion are not Scandinavian or even Pomeranian - they look more like specimens typical for East Baltic (Lithuania, Latvia). This shows that all those objects found by Sielski Family are not from one ind, they are just a part of a collection.” This is wrong. You ind many of these bronze bracelets from the Scandinavian Viking Age. The existing part of the ind today was probably not considered to be of any worth because the gold objects were so dirty and discoloured that it was not possible to see what metal it was, nor therefore its value. Everything was kept in a small box, together with a collection of buttons and other bits and pieces, which was left to the current owner by his grandmother. It was only after the owner’s daughter The ind will, according to the local priest, have been discovered in the ruins of a medieval church and, in view of the fact that the ruins had been demolished and the building of a new church commenced, there is strong 2 quite unlike usual stray inds. Normally, at the excavations of medieval churches, one would expect to ind scattered coins that were once currency, and which have possibly been lost for centuries after sinking down between the gaps in the wooden loor. Such inds are of a completely different nature to the coins allegedly found in the church ruins. These must, in fact, have been part of a closed ind, placed here on a certain occasion. The fact that it is a large collection of Arabic coins sets the latest time limit for the ind to the late Viking Age. Of course, whether or not these coins had anything to do with the gold object, we do not know, although it seems likely. However, what the presence of these Arabic coins does tell us is that the church, or rather its wooden predecessor, existed on the site during the late Viking Age. A fairly important factor in assessing the authenticity of the ind. The fact that, in the preserved part of the ind, there is also a coin from Otto I’s reign, d. 973, reinforces the veracity of the circumstances surrounding the ind. If the gold object were counterfeit, it would seem strange to have put this “unique” object with a common silver coin. The owner also has other objects that the author believes may date back to the Viking Age and which may come from the same place. As these objects are only fragments of decorated bracelets in bronze, this reinforces the idea that they were part of the “scrap” that came into his grandfather’s possession after the Arabic coins were sold. The degree of demonstrable authenticity of the object itself Authenticity, in the case of relatively simple metal objects such as this, is almost impossible to assess. Three factors are however important to note. Firstly, the result of the metal analysis that the owner paid for himself. This was carried out by KarAna Ädelmetall in Helsingborg. The company is one of the largest in southern Sweden to work speciically with the analysis of the composition of gold objects and thus the value of the metal. It therefore has extensive experience of the alloys and impurities found, even in older gold objects. X-ray analyses were performed on ive points on the object; three on the front and two on the back.3 The following values were obtained: Figure 4-6. The two bracelets made of bronze, probably found simultaneously with gold plate Au (gold) Ag (silver) Fe (iron) Cu (copper) Zn (zinc) Pb (lead) reason to suspect that the object lay in a tomb. If the site of the ind is legitimate – and there is no real reason to distrust this because the information comes from the owner’s grandfather who knew the local area well – there is really no other reasonable explanation other than that this is an earth ind from the site of the church. How-ever, the object has to be considered an archaeological stray ind. As such, the vital preconditions for the archaeologist to assess the ind in its closer context on the basis of archaeological methods are lacking. The alleged discovery at the same time of a large quantity of Arabic silver coins shows, however, that this was a ind or a ind complex Pr 1 Pr 2 Pr 3 91.84 91.55 91.75 3.60 3.64 3.65 0.135 0.153 -4.37 4.65 4.51 ------- Pr 4 91.09 3.67 0.146 4.55 0.440 0.113 Pr 5 91.83 3.68 0.114 4.33 --- The tests show a metal with numerous impurities. The presence of lead is particularly surprising. If the object were of a more recent date, these impurities should not be present. After this study some expressed opinion of the absence of adequate scientiic basis. Professor Leif Johansson at the Department of Geology at Lund University have therefore made a special study. The result is reported at the end 3 Figure 7. The gold object with the Latin text. The words are separated with small cross symbols. of this article. It conirms earlier analysis results. Now we have taken ten samples of different points. The gold content varies widely from 83.3% - 92.8%. Such variety is highly unusual in one and the same object if it would be a later copy. is thus so unique that there are no reference materials. To conclude on the basis of this that it is therefore counterfeit is, of course, completely wrong. Archaeology knows only a fraction of the objects and forms of objects that once existed. It should actually be the other way around. For a forger to have gone to all the trouble that this would have entailed, it would have made more sense to make an A metal expert at Lund archaeological institution has also noted that the gold during casting has not been suficiently heated. Traces of waves in a part of the gold surface shows this. Overall, this indicates that in the production of the object they have molten gold of different qualities, and that the heat was not high enough to make the metal more homogeneous. This indicates a relatively primitive crafts. The second factor in determining the possible historical authenticity is the question of the function the object. Prior to actually viewing the object, and unaware of its size, the author wondered whether it might be a Charon’s obol. On seeing it, however, this theory was rejected due to its size. The possibility of it being a coin is also completely ruled out. Coins at this time were struck out of thin silver plate. Gold coins did not exist. The coins of that day were also very small. This gold object is large and of considerable weight. It is not struck but cast, and it must be assumed that only one or very few specimens were made. If it is genuine, the object thus has a very special relationship to the person it is intended to give prominence to. Several people who have seen the object, and who are well acquainted with numismatics, for example, say that they have never seen anything like this before. The object Figure 8. Detail of the gold object. 4 Figure 9. The reverse of the gold object. fairly coarsely executed. We can only speculate about the reason for framing the cross with an octagonal frame and not a circle. There are four dots around the cross. Similar dot markings are common on coins, even on coins from the late 900s. The Polish numismatists as referred to above who mean that the gold ind is a forgery, however, argue that: object that did not cause people to question its authenticity due to its originality and its function. What, then, could its function have been? As the object is to be viewed from both sides, it cannot have been an ornamentation attached to a base. The idea that it could be a necklace has also been put forward. This is not very likely. As the object has been cast, a loop or a hole would have been made when it was cast. This was not done. What’s more, the inscription on one side of the plate covers the surface of the object completely, so there would not have been room for a hole. Another suggestion is that it might have been a memento, a gift given at a solemn occasion. Two such occasions have been discussed: Harald’s baptism and Harald’s marriage. Something that goes against these theories is the fact that the decoration on the back of the object is relatively coarsely executed, with no apparent inishing. So this is deinitely not a royal gift. The inscription on the object does not refer to the prevailing political situation at the time of the baptism or the marriage, both of which must have taken place in the 960s. This will be clariied later in the article. ”The cross on the reverse has some parallels on coins, but not from the 10th century but one very popular small German (Swabia - Halle) coins from the 13th c.” Some examples of how wrong this statement is are shown in Fig. 10, with some coins found in 2008 in Hellerö, Tjust, Sweden. 53 silver coins were found here, from the 1030s. The ind includes a coin belonging to a relatively limited coinage, which is a restrike of German coins from Bavaria. Such coins are mainly found in Bohemia and Poland in the late 900s.4 The coin design bears many similarities with the cross section of the gold plate and its dotted ornamentation. The four dots could possibly symbolise the four evangelists, whose symbols in the Middle Ages had strong associations with the Christ symbolism of the cross. If we now turn our interest to the front of the object, we can read the following: The third factor, which the object itself testiies to, is what the inscription on the front, written in Latin, and the ornamentation on the back can reveal. On the back of the object, there is an octagonal ridge, which runs around the edge of the object. In its centre, there is a simple cross. In the four ields surrounding the cross, there are round markings. The design on this side of the object is 5 +ARALD CVRMSVN REX AD TAN ER+SCON+J VMN+CIV ALDIN+ Translated, it reads: ”King Harald ordered these monuments made in memory of Gorm, his father, and in memory of Thyra, his mother; that Harald who won for himself all of Denmark and Norway and made the Danes Christian.” 5 When you format the inscription of the object, Harald’s name is shortened and written as ARALD. If the object is counterfeit, the name should have been written out in full as obviously the correct spelling of the king’s name would have been known. This may be an indication of the object’s authenticity. Was the object perhaps made by a French-speaking person? Could it be that the engraving was done by a French person? In French, the ’h’ is omitted in pronunciation. Figure 10. Some of the coins from Helleröfyndet from the 1030s. The two pictures on the left shows a coin from Otto III 983-996. To the right a coin from Bohemia / Poland from the late 900’s. The following is a likely translation: HARALD GORMSON KING OF DANES, SKÅNE (Scania), JUMNE, TOWN ALDINBURG A forger, if there was one, would have had to have been very well-acquainted with King Harald’s family relations. The object bears the name of the town Aldinburg, showing a desire to connect the town with the famous Harald Gormsson in one way or another. Harald’s father-in-law Mistivoj was ruler of the Oldenburg area. If the intention of including this place name was that a forger wanted to link a chain: “Oldenburg - Mistivoj – Harold’s wife – Harald”, it indicates an in-depth knowledge of Nordic affairs during the 900s. Harald married Mistivoj’s daughter Tova, Jumne is known today as Wolin, and town Aldinburg refers to Oldenburg in Holstein. The mention of Aldinburg on the object is at irst sight somewhat dificult to interpret. Harald Bluetooth’s father-in-law Mistivoj was certainly the ruler of the area where, among other things, the Bishopric of Oldenburg was founded in 968, but why mention this on the object, which is about Harald Bluetooth? This is just one of several questions raised by the inscription. In both newer and older printed literature, King Harald is commonly known as Harald Bluetooth. His correct name was Harald, Gorm’s son (Gormsson). If the object were a recent counterfeit, it is more likely that the forger would have used the name Bluetooth. The fact that this is not the case shows that the forger – if there was one – was well acquainted with the detailed history of the King. The forger must also have had an academic background as, among other things, he uses an expression that occurs in Denmark right at the end of the Viking Age when writing the word for Danes. The oldest spelling “TANER” is for example found on some rune stones from this time (”tanmarka”/”tanmaurk”), two of which were erected by Harald’s father, Gorm, and Harald himself; both stones are found at the royal seat in Jelling in Jutland. On Gorm’s rune stone, it reads: : kurmR : kunukR : : k(a)(r)þi : kubl : þusi : : a(f)(t) : þurui : kunu ÷ sina ÷ tanmarkaR ÷ but ÷ Translated, it reads: ”King Gorm made these monuments in memory of Thyra his wife, Denmark’s salvation.” On Harald’s rune stone, it reads: : haraltr : kunukR : baþ : kaurua kubl : þausi : aft : kurm faþur sin auk aft : þourui : muþur : sina : sa haraltr (:) ias : soR * uan * tanmaurk ala * auk nuruiak (*) auk t(a)ni (k)(a)(r)(þ)(i) kristno Figure 11. The rune stone from the Sönder Vissing that tells us about Harald Bluetooth’s wife and his father in law. 6 and with her had his son and heir, Sweyn Forkbeard. However, the information about Harald’s named wife and her kinship with Mistivoj is only mentioned on a rune stone in Sönder Vissing in Jutland. This rune stone was irst discovered in 1836. The inscription reads: “ALDEN” and then changes to “OLDEN”. However, another factor can greatly complicate the interpretation of the gold object as counterfeit. The concept CIV+ALDIN could seem peculiar in view of the location determinations made in the inscription. Here, Denmark is referred to indirectly in the form “Danes”, as well as Skåne (Scania), Jumne and Oldenburg. Why should Oldenburg be linked to Harald Bluetooth, where Harald’s father-in-law was ruler? However, it should probably not be interpreted from the inscription that Harald was also the ruler of Oldenburg, which, of course, no preserved sources even suggest. It is the word “CIV” (civitas), which may be the key to solving the mystery. Tore Nyberg, former lecturer at Odense University, has studied Adam of Bremen’s works from c. 1070 in depth. In the new swedish edition of Adam’s manuscript published in 1984, he has commented on Adam’s text in a lengthy article, in which he takes up the language use where the word “civitas” occurs. “Tovi [or Tova], Mistivoj’s daughter, wife of Harald the Good, Gorm’s son, had this memorial made for her mother”. Not until three years after the discovery, in 1839, was it made public by P.G Thorsen. However, he ignores the question of Tove and Mistivoj, mentioning only that the famous Harald should be Harald Bluetooth.6 Even though the publication came out just before the ind was made in Poland, it seems quite unlikely that anyone in Poland, probably outside academic circles, would have performed their own analysis of the rune stone, established the link between Harald and Mistivoj as Oldenburg’s ruler, and then gone to the trouble of using this in a forgery, which, only by means of an abbreviated town name, suggests the relationship with Mistivoj. That they would then have invested a fortune in having a gold object made and then laid it in rural district church completely unconnected to Harald is far-fetched. To then not reveal the gold object also seems very strange, especially as a very large ind of Arabic silver coins was also discovered at the same time. So the counterfeit theory does not hold much water. “Civitas” is clearly a name for an urban community, but there are different contexts in which the word is used, contexts which refer to different things. Tore Nyberg writes: “Another important meaning of the word civitas has been clariied by recent local history research. During a given epoch from Charlemagne’s time until the 1100s, civitas did not mean ‘city’ but ‘diocese/bishopric’. The word denoted the inner section of a walled urban settlement, with the cathedral, the bishop’s palace, the canons’ residences and housing for people directly in the priests’ service. Within this area, the so-called immunity, there were special laws and privileges for the church and those living in the area. It should also be mentioned that a forger would, in addition, have had to possess an in-depth knowledge of Oldenburg’s early history. The place name on the object is written as “ALDIN”, which is the much older, Viking Age and early medieval form of “OLDEN”. Furthermore, “ALDIN” appears only to have been used during the 900s and 1000s. When, for example, Helmold wrote his chronicle “Chronica Slavorum” in the mid-1100s, it is spelled Several times, where Adam refers to Bremen as a civitas, there is reason to interpret this as a designation for the Figure 12. Detail of the text where the words JVMN CIV ALDIN is selected. 7 inner part of the archdiocese ... Another way of using the word civitas is in the lists, the so-called provincial, where all dioceses are listed. From Late Antiquity’s Christianity, the church inherited the idea that each diocese corresponded in principle to a particular tribe’s settlement area. In some listings, the diocese is therefore described with the tribe’s name, followed by the capital where the bishop resided. This capital is then referred to as civitas. So it was a habitual in the circles that used such lists that as soon as a tribe was presented by name, the ‘largest town’, ‘centre’ or ‘settlement’ should also be mentioned. It was usually the same as its diocese or bishopric.” 7 cated his life to God, a bishop named Poppo, refuted this claim. He said there was only one true God and Father and His only Son, our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, whereas the idols were demons and not gods. King Harald, who is said to have been eager to listen but tardy in speaking, asked him if he was willing to prove his faith, to which Poppo replied yes without hesitation. The king therefore put the cleric under guard until the next day. When it was morning, he had a large piece of iron heated and commanded the cleric to carry it for the sake of his faith. The confessor of Christ seized the iron without hesitation and carried it for as long as the king wanted, then showed his hand, which was unharmed, and thus convinced everyone of the truth of the Catholic faith. The king therefore converted and decided to honour only Christ as a God and commanded the people he ruled to reject the idols. He then showed the priests and the servants of God great honour.” With the language use that was current at the time of Harald’s life, the inscription CIV + ALDIN should thus be linked with the previous town name. The translation would then be “Jumne in the bishopric Aldinburg”. Jumne was after all, according to Adam of Bremen, the place of King Harald’s death, so the object’s closing inscription should thus, from a Christian point of view, pinpoint where Jumne was located. But Tore Nyberg also said in 1984 that such a clariication of older formulation belonged to more recent urban historical research. This could not therefore have been known in connection with an older forgery. However, the author completely rules out the idea of any forgery having been made in modern times as the object came into the possession of the current family in 1946. Widukind’s chronicle with the baptism section was completed in c. 967 but it was later supplemented up to 973. The baptism must therefore have taken place between c. 963 and c. 967. Thietmar of Merseburg (975-1018) does not tell us much about Harald himself, but when it comes to his baptism, he has a story that reads: “The priest Poppo renewed the Christian faith among the Danes, who were ruled by Harald. Admonishing both king and people for abandoning the religion of their predecessors and turning to other gods and demons, he afirmed that there was one God in three persons. The king asked if he The historical context The authenticity of the ind also depends, of course, on the basis of the historical reality that it relects. In which known context could it have been? When, in autumn 2014, the object suddenly became the topic of online debate, there were two special events in Harald’s life that were thought to it in: his baptism and his marriage to Tova. Below, however, the author will demonstrate that neither of these theories agrees with the historical/archaeological context concerning Harald’s life. First, we need to clarify when the baptism and the marriage took place. Harald’s baptism One of the oldest and more or less contemporary sources, which tells how King Harald Bluetooth was baptised, is the chronicle written by the monk Widukind of Corvey in northern Germany. Widukind, who died after 973, wrote The Deeds of the Saxons (Res Gestae Saxonicae) and here, Harald makes an appearance in the story in c. 963. At this time, the Saxon magnate Wichman initiated a rebellion against Emperor Otto I and then tried to recruit the Danish king as an ally. In this context, the story of Harald’s baptism is told in the third book, verse 65 of the chronicle: “The Danes were, from ancient times, Christian, but nonetheless worshipped heathen idols. Once, at a banquet at which the king was present, a dispute arose about the worshipping of the gods. The Danes asserted that Christ was probably a God, but that there were also other gods, which were bigger than him because they let people see far greater miracles than Christ. A cleric who had dedi- Figure 13. This gilded plate from Tamdrups church from the 1100s shows a scene from Harold’s baptism. 8 wished to prove what he said with burning iron and he responded that he would be happy to do this. On the following day, he carried a very heavy piece of iron, which had been blessed, to a place determined by the king. Without fear, he held up his uninjured hand. The king was made very happy by this miracle and, along with all of his people, humbly submitted himself to the yoke of Christ. Until the end of his life, in the manner of faithful, Harald remained obedient to the divine precepts. When the emperor heard this, he summoned the venerable man Poppo, asked if he was a ighter for Christ, and made him a bishop.” 8 “When he withdrew, he met Harold at Schleswig and a battle ensued. Both parties fought valiantly, but the Saxons won victory and, defeated, the Danes withdrew to their ships. Finally, the situation was ripe for peace talks. Harald bowed to Otto, and having received his kingdom from him, he promised to adopt Christianity in Denmark. Shortly after both Harald himself, his wife Gunhild and his little son were baptised, for whom our king was godfather and gave the name Sven Otto.” 10 Adam’s stories contain a number of provable errors. One such error is the name of Harald’s wife, but the date of the baptism speciied must also be wrong, at least if one is to judge the situation from the other two sources, which are almost from the time of the baptism itself. Thietmar’s story is so similar to Widukind’s that one suspects that he made use of it. However, Widukin does not mention that Poppo was appointed bishop by the emperor after the incident. Harald’s marriage Adam obviously had no information about who Harald’s wife was. He himself states Gunhild. Gunhild is, according to Adam who mentions her twice, supposed to have been Harald’s wife, at least from his baptism until after his death. This does not tally with the information provided by the rune stone from Sönder Vissing in Jutland, mentioned above. As this rune stone must date back to the late 900s, it carries greater weight under critical scrutiny than Adam’s later story. Thietmar’s story is divided into many small chapters. The baptism story is to be found in chapter 14. Immediately before this, in chapter 13, he tells how Emperor Otto I plans to travel to Rome but is forced into war against Berengar, invades his country and defeats him. After two years, Berengar and his family are taken captive. Only then, does Otto I travel to Rome, where he meets the Pope. According to Thietmar, this was in 961. Right after the story of Harald’s baptism, Thietmar continues in chapter 14 to tell about how Emperor Otto’s son Otto is proclaimed emperor of Rome on 25 December 967. As Thietmar arranged events in his chronicle in chronological order, Harald’s baptism must have taken place sometime between 961 and 967. Lis Jacobsen and Erik Moltke write in their book “Danmarks runeinskrifter” (Denmark’s runic inscriptions) in 1942: “Sønder Vissing-st. 1 is considered a ‘historical’ inscription, as the Harald the Good mentioned can in all likelihood be assumed to be Gorm the Old’s son Harald; sure enough, we do not know from elsewhere that he was nicknamed the Good, or that his wife was called Tove and was the daughter of the Wendian king Mistivoj. However, written sources for this time are so inadequate and erroneous that a deviating authentic testimony is not surprising.” 11 These two famous sources are those closest to the event. When Adam of Bremen wrote his book in the 1060s, he personally interviewed King Sven Estridsen, whose great-grandfather was Harald Bluetooth, and he talks of a Bishop Poppo who carried the hot iron. Adam and/or Sven have however misunderstood the situation and confuse the event with a later occasion. It is not, therefore, Harald who is converted but Erik, who took over power in Denmark once Harald was dead and Harold’s son Sweyn Forkbeard was in exile. Adam writes: The rune stone therefore provides us with extremely signiicant facts from that time, partly about his wife’s name, and partly about the alliance with the powerful Obrodite ruler Mistivoj established by Harald through marriage. If one is to believe Adam in the question of when the marriage took place, he tells us indirectly by referring to the couple’s irst-born son Sweyn Forkbeard as “his little son” in 974. The marriage must therefore have taken place in the 960s. “Erik, he said (Sven Estridsen author’s note.), became ruler of two kingdoms, the Danes and the Svears. Even he was a heathen and very hostile towards the Christians. As an envoy from the emperor and from the bishop of Hamburg, a certain Poppo is said to have come, a pious and wise man, who at the time was ordained for Schleswig ... It is said that, in order to prove the power of Christianity, and as the savage people demanded a sign, he instantly seized a red-hot iron by his hand and remained unharmed before everyone’s eyes ...” 9 Harald’s conquest of Skåne (Scania) On the gold plate, it is written that Harald was king of the Danes, but the word for Skåne also appears. The wording SCON is an abbreviation of the German ”Schonen”, not the Scandinavian spelling. The fact that Skåne is placed with the rest of Denmark in the inscription is in itself an interesting piece of information; a hint that Skåne, at the end of the Viking Age at any rate, may have had a different political position to the rest of the area ruled over the Danes. What is interesting in respect of the gold plate’s There is a big question mark over whether this Poppo is the same Poppo who, according to the two previous chroniclers, is said to have baptised Harald. Perhaps there were two of the same name, or perhaps Sven Estridsen or Adam misunderstood everything? Adam’s story about Harold’s baptism is related to Emperor Otto II’s attack in Jutland in 974: 9 date of origin is, however, at what point Skåne could have come under Harald’s rule. Two things provide certain clues where this is concerned. Otto I died in 973. After this, Harald went to war with his son Otto II. In 974, battles took place at the Danish border with Germany. The battles are documented in both Nordic and German sources. Haakon Jarl of Norway came to Harald’s aid and played a crucial role in the battle against the Germans.12 After the battles, Haakon sailed home with his large leet, and on his way home, he sailed through the Öresund, burning both sides of the strait. If Skåne and Zealand were both under Harald Bluetooth’s rule at this time, this aggressive act would have been strange to say the least. This indicates therefore that these areas did not yet belong to Harold at this time. Harold built the so-called “ring fortresses”; circular fortiications in the form of dykes and palisades, and inside them, strictly symmetrically-constructed barrack areas. Traces of these fortresses can be found in large numbers around Denmark. The biggest is situated by Limfjorden in northern Jutland. The magnitude is such that this has to have been a site for Harald’s war leet; probably the leet he had at his disposal when he conquered the whole or parts of Norway. One of these ring fortresses is located near Slagelse in West Zealand. Timber found shows that work was carried out on this fortiication in 978. It was therefore most likely built during the latter half of the 970s. Frank Birkebæk puts the construction date as late as 980.13 As the fortresses had only been standing for a very short time, one can dare to assume that they were Harald’s garrison forts in his conquered territories. The conquest of Eastern Denmark would not have occurred until after the war in 974, and after the ensuing peace with the Germans.14 scenario is that, out here at the entrance to Foteviken, the construction of a ring fortress and a wooden barrier were commenced, but that this work was stopped. When the work on the stone barrier was later resumed, the idea of a building a ring fortress was abandoned completely. The reason for stopping construction may have had something to do with Harald’s death.16 Taking all this information into consideration, it suggests that Harald ruled Skåne towards the end of his life, which the gold plate says. Norway, on the other hand, is not mentioned on the plate. This has been taken by some as evidence that the gold plate must have been made as early as the 960s, before Harald conquered Norway. But that need not necessarily be the case. When, backed by a strong leet, Harald made himself king over parts of Norway, at least in the Viken area, i.e. Oslo Fjord, he helped Haakon Jarl in his ight for a position of power in Norway. The two formed an alliance. Haakon came to Harald’s help with a strong army in 974. If one is to believe later sources, hostility later developed between them. Towards the end of his life, Harald lost his rulership of Norway. Harald’s death In the last few years of his life, Harald came into conlict with his son Sweyn Forkbeard. During a battle, he was badly wounded and was taken by his soldiers to Jumne, now Wollin. In the 1060s, Adam of Bremen wrote the following about the event: “In this miserable war, which was more mischievous than a civil war, Harald and his followers were defeated. He In Skåne, two Viking ring fortress have been excavated, one in the town of Trelleborg and the other at Borgeby, north-west of Lund. It is likely that there was also a ring fortress in Helsingborg and one in the town of Lund.15 In 2009, Professor Klavs Randsborg and the author performed a small excavation on the Lilla Hammar isthmus in south-west Skåne. The beginnings of quarter ring dyke were documented out on the Lilla Hammar isthmus, next to the more than three hundred-metre long underwater stone barrier, which is found here out in the bay of Foteviken. The construction of this ring dyke was apparently brought to a halt; only the construction of the northeastern quarter between the two probable ports has been started. The stone barrier in Foteviken was added during two periods. The younger period has been dated from a sunken ship dendrodated to 1023. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the barrier was built in the mid-1000s. However, this construction phase was preceded by a simple wood and stone barrier. Unfortunately, only one dendrochronological analysis has been performed on the wood from this Figure 14. Possible Viking ring fortress from Harald Bluebarrier, an analysis which indicates the 980s. One possible tooth time. See Sven Rosborn: cit 2004. 10 then easily have been worshipped as a saint, which would not have made things easy for his opponent Sweyn Forkbeard.18 Conclusion In view of the above, it is unreasonable to date the gold plate to the 960s, the decade when Harald was both baptised and married. Not the least, the mention of the city of Jumne makes this impossible. Harald is unlikely to have ruled over this city, not in the 960s in any case. If it is genuine, the plate is, with a likelihood bordering on certainty, from the end of his life, most likely in connection with his death. Figure 15. The memorial plaque of Archbishop Unni, who died in the year 936, found in his grave in Bremen Cathedral. himself was wounded and led from the battle, boarded a ship and escaped to a place in the Slavs country, called Jumne. Contrary to his expectations, as the Slavs were pagans, he was kindly received by them, but after a few days he became increasingly weakened by his wounds and passed away, professing Christ. His body was sent by his troops back to the motherland and buried in the church in Roskilde, which he himself had had built in honour of the Holy Trinity.” 17 Unfortunately, Adam is the only one to tell of Harald’s inal days. And the credibility of Adam has long been the subject of much contention among historians. The section about Harold’s body being transported to Roskilde has been such a topic of discussion. Niels Lund believes, for example, that it is odd that Sweyn Forkbeard would have allowed his father´s soldiers to bring his body back to Denmark immediately after his father´s death. He could If one is to believe Adam of Bremen, the only existing source, the king died in Jumne. However, he could not be buried in the city as this was a meeting place for long distance traders with different religious beliefs, but the Christians did not actively practice their religion there. Adam described Jumne as it was during his time, i.e. almost a century after Harold’s death: “It is certainly the greatest of all the communities that Europe holds, and it is inhabited by Slavs, together with other peoples, Greeks and barbarians. Saxons have also been granted permission to settle there on equal terms, as long as they refrain from talking about the fact that they are Christians while they are there.” 19 If conditions were similar at the time of Harold’s arrival in Jumne in c. 986, there would not have been a church in the city. However, as the king was a Christian, it was necessary to bury him in a church, such as the wooden church in Wiejkowo, just outside the city. According to Christian faith, the funeral should take place not too long after the time of death. In this case, it cannot be ruled out that the gold plate was made to show who is in the grave. Such inscription plates are found in graves from time to time, but not in gold. For example, in Bishop Lederich’s grave in Bremen Cathedral from 845, there was a lead plate engraved with informational text. Likewise, a similar plate was found in Bishop Unni’s grave from 936 in the same church. In Valdemar the Great’s grave from 1182, there was a similar plaque. This article has attempted to highlight information that may shed light on the newly discovered gold object. At no point has it been demonstrated that the information now available from both the older and younger facts would support the idea of the object being a counterfeit. However, it is a troublesome situation that the object must be considered an archaeological stray ind. In the absence of an incontrovertible and reliable account of when the ind was unearthed, there will always be uncertainty about its authenticity, even though there is much to indicate that we are dealing with a unique ind, which also possibly designates the site of Harald Bluetooth’s grave. Figure 16. The memorial plaque of the Danish king Valdemar the Great, who died in the year 1182, found in his grave in Ringsted church. 11 NOTES 1. The information about the circumstances surrounding the ind is from the present owner of the object, Tomas Sielski. The quotations from the Polish numismatists are from an email reply he has written. 2. Pontus Weman Tell is a lawyer interested in history, who has become heavily involved in the issue. 3. The examination was conducted in November 2004. 4. Veronica Palm & Nicholas Nilsson & Kenneth Jonsson: Hellerö – ytterligare en silverskatt från Tjust. Myntstudier nr 2008:3 (coin studies). 5. Lis Jacobsen & Erik Moltke: Danmarks runeinskrifter. Textvolym (text volume). Copenhagen 1942. 6. P.G. Thorsen: Beskrivelse og Forklaring af den söndervissingske Runesten. Copenhagen 1839. 7. Tore Nyberg: Stad, skrift och stift. Några historiska inledningsfrågor. Adam av Bremen. Stockholm 1984. 8. Ottonian Germany. The Chronicon of Thietmar af Merseburg. Translated and annotated by David A. Warner. 2001. 9. Adam of Bremen, second book, chapter 35. 10. Adam of Bremen, second book, chapter 3. 11. Lis Jacobsen & Erik Moltke: Danmarks runeinskrifter. Text. Copenhagen 1942, column 94. 12. Sture Bolin: Danmark och Tyskland under Harald Gormsson. Scania. Historical research journal. 1931. 13. Frank Birkebæk: Fra handelsplads til metropol 9501080. Roskilde bys historie. Viborg 1992. 14. Sven Rosborn: Vikingarna. Den skånska historien. Malmö 2004. Academia.edu 2004. 15. Sven Rosborn: anförda arbete 2004. 16. Sven Rosborn: Vikingatiden på Lilla Hammars näs, Vellinge kommun. Academia.edu 2010 and Sven Rosborn: Rapport över utgrävning i Lilla Hammars bygata, Stora Hammars socken år 2014. Länsstyrelsen i Skåne. Acamedia.edu 2014. 17. Adam of Bremen, second book, chapters 27-28. 18. Niels Lund: Harald Blåtands død. Skjern 1998. 19. Adam of Bremen, second book, chapter 22. 20. Sven Rosborn: Jelling - ett danskt riksmonument med många frågetecken. Academia.edu 2010. Results of the analysis of gold plate Semikvantitativa EDX-analyser av guldföremål. Utfört den 18 juni 2015. All data är i vikt-% och normaliserad till 100% Utfört av Leif Johansson, Geologiska institutionen, Lunds Universitet Ag 3.4 2.9 3.6 3.0 3.5 3.1 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.0 Au 83.3 73.2 88.8 75.0 92.9 82.5 88.3 78.2 92.8 82.4 Analyser utan syre normaliserade till 100% analyspunkt Cu Ag Au "korssidan" 13.4 3.4 83.3 yta på bokstav 7.6 3.6 88.8 Bottenyta 3.6 3.5 92.9 Stor yta 7.5 4.2 88.3 Ren yta 3.8 3.4 92.8 Analyser med syre , normaliserade till 100 % analyspunkt Cu Ag Au "korssidan" 11.7 2.9 73.2 yta på bokstav 6.4 3.0 75.0 Bottenyta 3.2 3.1 82.5 Stor yta 6.6 3.7 78.2 Ren yta 3.4 3.0 82.4 O OBS: analyserna är gjorda på ej rengjorda ytor som kan ha beläggningar och vara oxiderade. Detta kan möjligen förklara de syrehalter som uppmättes. Analysmetoden 12.1 ger en punktanalys med en diameter < 5 mikrometer och analysdjupet är ett fåtal mikrometer. Varken tenn eller bly detekterades 11.0 Plottar från analyser utan syre 11.1 Au-Ag 11.5 11.1 Au % Cu 13.4 11.7 7.6 6.4 3.6 3.2 7.5 6.6 3.8 3.4 O 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Ag % Au-Cu O 12.1 11.0 11.1 11.5 11.1 Au % analyspunkt "korssidan" "korssidan" yta på bokstav yta på bokstav Bottenyta Bottenyta Stor yta Stor yta Ren yta Ren yta 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 Au 0.0 5.0 10.0 CU % 12 15.0